Slicing of Barry Lyndon

email this story
read comments (39)
post a comment

Thanks to a 5.20 Criterion Forum posting by "Gregory", we have a few comparison shots showing the 1.66 aspect ratio on the DVD vs. the 1.78 aspect ratio on the Bluray. (The latter adds a sliver of information on the left and right sides.) You can shrug and ask "what's the biggie?" but this is corporate vandalism, pure and simple.

Sampling of Criterion Forum comments: (a) "Christ, the cropping destroys the composition...what happened, where was Leon Vitali?"; (b) "You know what I love about all of the endless Kubrick aspect-ratio controversies? That the films still look absolutely fine in just about every ratio they've tried"; (c) "For virtually any wrong presentation of a film, there are inevitably lots of people to whom it looks absolutely fine. What's the relevance of that? Can you give one good reason why they should go against Kubrick's established preference, rather than doing the same thing they did with the Lolita BD?"; (d) "Barry Lyndon [is] just about the only one of Kubrick's post-1960s films about which there's no doubt whatsoever -- the aspect ratio should unambiguously be 1.66:1."

Good Situation<< previous | next >>Doesn't Add Up

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 25, 2011 at 7:34 AM

comment #1

JLC says ...

It's no "Han shot first," but I guess it'll have to do.

Posted by JLC at May 25, 2011 8:13 AM

comment #2

Jeffrey Wells says ...

No, it's not a "Han shot first." It's a "Stanley shot it for 1.66 presentation and Warner Home Video said 'naah, fuck that...let's try 1.78 to 1.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at May 25, 2011 8:30 AM

comment #3

some_guy says ...

I still don't get this. If this is intended somehow as pan & scan for 16:9 tvs then why not include the films at both ratios? It's pretty unnecessary, as controversies go. I really wonder if WB & the Kubrick estate appraoch this like George Lucas, and will just sell a 1:66 version later.

Given Kubrick's supervision of 4:3 edits of his films, has it ocurred to anyone that the estate may feel he'd want the films to fit tv screens as well as possible? I just haven't seen that put forth before.

Posted by some_guy at May 25, 2011 8:45 AM

comment #4

The Fisch says ...

You know, I'm all for getting these things right, but in this instance, it doesn't look as if the different ratios make a whole lot of difference.

Posted by The Fisch at May 25, 2011 8:50 AM

comment #5

notmyrealusername says ...

Meh, if Robert Harris is happy with it, I'm usually happy with it.

"A note about aspect ratios. There has been discussion that Barry Lyndon was composed for projection at 1.66:1, and this is an interesting thought. The problem, even in 1975, would have been that few cinemas were equipped to project that aspect ratio unless specially set up. In a very general sense, much of the world was running spherical at 1.75:1, while here in the colonies we were running at 1.85:1. 1.66:1 was a specific setup for revival theatres equipped with the necessary aperture plates, optics and maskings.

My feeling has always been that I would be thrilled if Barry Lyndon were to be released on Blu-ray at the HD native aspect ratio of 1.78:1, and the incorrect technical information on the reverse of the packaging aside, that is precisely what has occurred."

Posted by notmyrealusername at May 25, 2011 8:50 AM

comment #6

JLC says ...

Well, since you put it that way...

Simple solution: don't buy it. Send WHV a letter telling them that you believe the Blu-ray should be presented in 1.66 and you will vote with your wallet until it is. You can't be ripped off if you don't spend the money. Problem solved.

Posted by JLC at May 25, 2011 8:52 AM

comment #7

actionlover says ...

The Fisch -
Heresy! Pack your things and leave her at once. What next, you'll want to colorize "Casablanca"?!

I for one am furious that in the truncated version you can no longer see the top of that one guy's foot.

Posted by actionlover at May 25, 2011 9:04 AM

comment #8

TL says ...

I'll be interested to see Glenn Kenny's interview with Leon V. Until then, I honestly can't see myself caring about an onion leaf missing at the top and bottom of the screen.

Posted by TL at May 25, 2011 9:50 AM

comment #9

DiscoNap says ...

It seems like they also cleaned up the picture a bit too much. The haze is completely gone which makes me think they just don't get the point of this movie. I don't even want to know what the balcony scene looks like now.

Posted by DiscoNap at May 25, 2011 10:32 AM

comment #10

LexG says ...

When I used to do standup, there was a comic-- can't remember his name-- who had some bit about "things I could never explain to a black guy." In some ways it was an early precursor to that whole meme about "white people problems." He would riff about how much he hated Carson Daly, what a tool Carson is, how he'd watch Carson on his then-new NBC show and just fume at the injustice of this guy getting a show. Then he'd see a couple of black dudes out and about talking about their problems over drinks, and tried to imagine explaining the concept of getting worked up over Carson fucking Daly to them. Like the black dudes would just go: "So... he's a guy on the television? And he bothers you? Well, why don't you just change the station?"

In much the same way, I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of trying to explain the INJUSTICE of "So... they cut off a 1/8th of an inch sliver from the frame of a movie you're watching on a television?" to ANYBODY but the staunchest AV geek. Trying to imagine having my Dad or my Robert Loggia-ass Korean War vet uncle visit and me popping Barry Lyndon then busting out a slide rule and a tape measure and exclaiming, "Don't you see??? They've slivered off 1/1000000000th of the FRAME! Can you BELIEVE THIS? Storm the gates!"

Jesus CHRIST, don't most people have some plant next to the tube or a stack of the books on the coffee table obstructing one infinitesimal sliver of screen anyway?

Seriously, next time any of you guys are on a first date, try bringing up The Barry Lyndon Massacre of 1.66 to 1.78 and see how that goes over.

How often are you gonna watch BARRY LYNDON anyway? I think it's a masterpiece and all, but compared to Clockwork, Shining, FMJ and EWS, it's like the one you break out like once every two decades and you're good.

Posted by LexG at May 25, 2011 11:41 AM

comment #11

TimDG says ...

"How often are you gonna watch BARRY LYNDON anyway?"
Exactly. I don't even own the Barry Lyndon DVD anymore for pretty much the same reason Jeff says he won't buy Tree Of Life. Who wants to spend that much time revisiting those assholes?

Posted by TimDG at May 25, 2011 12:34 PM

comment #12

bluefugue says ...

>Who wants to spend that much time revisiting those assholes?

That's why I don't seem to throw Raging Bull in the blu-ray player very often despite the often revelatory filmmaking within. A bit sad, really. Even Travis Bickle is a bundle of wit and articulation compared to Scorsese's Jake La Motta.

Posted by bluefugue at May 25, 2011 1:08 PM

comment #13

MrTribeca says ...

I guess if K-Stew got her bare feet cropped off in a DVD by an incorrect aspect ratio, Lex would be rooting out his pitchfork in a heartbeat.

Posted by MrTribeca at May 25, 2011 2:04 PM

comment #14

LexG says ...

Tribeca, ABSOLUTELY, but that is important information, and it'd have to be a heinously bad crop job. I am with you guys in theory on this, if we were talking about a 2.35:1 movie in 1.33, that would be unacceptable... But these very minimal, barely perceptible markings above are so negligible as to render this whole thread practically a SATIRE of DVD dweebs who really tape-measure this stuff that NO ONE would notice.

Posted by LexG at May 25, 2011 2:31 PM

comment #15

Scott Nye says ...

Look...in the end, either seeing the whole movie matters, or it doesn't. And no, I didn't cancel my preorder with Amazon after hearing this. Yes, there are degrees to which this sort of thing is acceptable (i.e. I would not buy Lyndon if it was shoved all the way down to 1.33:1, and I'll never even watch a 2.35:1 movie masked down to 1.85:1).

But here's the thing...no argument that says "eh, who cares" holds together AT ALL. If you don't care, fine. Like I said, either seeing the whole matters to you, or it doesn't. But there's no logical perspective here.

You can say, "if you don't like it, don't buy it," but if nobody buys the Blu-Ray, it's not going to send the message to WHV that they screwed the pooch. It's going to tell them that they were right, nobody wants the long-ass Kubrick movie that has no pop culture cache at all.

You can say Kubrick would have wanted his movies to fill the TV screen, and yeah, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that. So why would WHV release Clockwork and Lolita at 1.66:1? Hell, at that point, shouldn't 2001 be 1.78:1? It either applies across the board or not at all.

I, too, will take Leon Vitali's word into consideration when Kenny posts his interview with him, but we all know that Barry Lyndon was meant to look a certain way, and this ain't it.

Oh, and Lex, I wouldn't talk politics on a first date, but that don't mean it ain't important. As for my Lyndon rotation, I watch it once a year, easily. I could watch it once a month. I never get sick of Barry Lyndon.

Posted by Scott Nye at May 25, 2011 4:38 PM

comment #16

Scott Nye says ...

Oh, and DiscoNap - check out the DVD Beaver screencaps. It's cleaned up to be sure, but that haze is still very much a presence.

Posted by Scott Nye at May 25, 2011 4:41 PM

comment #17

Glenn Kenny says ...

Here's what Vitali had to say, and some further fruits of my researches: http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2011/05/leon-vitali-on-the-barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio-issue.html

Posted by Glenn Kenny at May 25, 2011 6:14 PM

comment #18

JLC says ...

"General RIpper". Nicely played, Glenn.

Posted by JLC at May 25, 2011 6:31 PM

comment #19

JD says ...

Good detective work, Glenn.

Posted by JD at May 25, 2011 7:05 PM

comment #20

cyanic says ...

Leon Vitali is a fucking asshole. He didn't come across well at all. He also doesn't mind that the video transfers for all of Kubrick's Warner titles continue to get darker with each new release.
I guess this shit doesn't matter since the man is dead and no one in charge is interested in keeping with the original aesthetics.

Posted by cyanic at May 25, 2011 7:44 PM

comment #21

Eloi Wrath says ...

Isn't it a bit weird that Leon Vitali oversees all the Kubrick transfers? Wasn't he just an actor? Would be a bit like Rob Schneider overseeing the transfer of some Dennis Dugan BluRay.

Posted by Eloi Wrath at May 25, 2011 8:09 PM

comment #22

cyanic says ...

Remember Eloi, he was there!

Posted by cyanic at May 25, 2011 8:17 PM

comment #23

C.C. Baxter says ...

Eloi,

No. Vitali became Kubrick's personal assistant. Among his duties was checking to make sure that screening venues of all the films met with Kubrick's satisfaction. He knew the tech aspects of the films completely and served as Kubrick's right-hand man for 20+ years.

Posted by C.C. Baxter at May 25, 2011 8:18 PM

comment #24

CitizenKaned4Life says ...

"Would be a bit like Rob Schneider overseeing the transfer of some Dennis Dugan BluRay."

WTF? I really hope you were doing your best D.Z. impression there...

Posted by CitizenKaned4Life at May 25, 2011 10:17 PM

comment #25

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Insufficient detective work, Glenn. Vitali needs to consider changing his meds. Bow to Bilge Ebiri's comments in response to Glenn's Vitali posting. Ebiri speaks and has researched the truth. Methinks Vitali rages and sputters too much.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at May 25, 2011 11:30 PM

comment #26

The Pope says ...

Sorry Jeff, you've been given words practically verbatim from a person who was Kubrick's personal assistant for over 20 years AND who has continued to work for the estate ever since Kubrick's death. Do you honestly think for one second that Mrs. Kubrick or Jan Harlan would permit anything that did not adhere to what Kubrick himself wanted in the first place.

Of course you do, Jeff. Because you are right, Leon Vitali is wrong, and the sun revolves because the earth is flat.

Posted by The Pope at May 26, 2011 12:40 AM

comment #27

BobbyLupo says ...

"Like I said, either seeing the whole matters to you, or it doesn't. But there's no logical perspective here."

Well, there is if you at it logically and say, yes, on principle this is a "butchering" of some sort (maybe, unless Vitali is right), but, if it is, it's the least butchered butchering in the history of film. less butchered than the DVD of 'Eyes Wide Shut' that we all owned or even the newest one [unless you have the region 3, which is rumored to have the original music intact], less butchered than the 1.85 Strangelove that most of us probably own. Let alone comparing it to actual hackjobs from the history of film.

So, with logical perspective, this is a pretty kosher butchering.

Posted by BobbyLupo at May 26, 2011 2:38 AM

comment #28

cyanic says ...

less butchered than the 1.85 Strangelove that most of us probably own

That DVD is 1.66!

Posted by cyanic at May 26, 2011 3:01 AM

comment #29

Glenn Kenny says ...

You want me to bow to Bilge's detective work, which leads him to conclude "The 1.78 AR may well be according to Kubrick's wishes. I'm willing to believe that."? Sure. I'll bow.

I'm not even going to address the "Vitali needs to change his meds" and "rages and sputters too much" jibes. Too funny, for obvious reasons. And by the way, I don't consider those compositions "ruined."

Just find me one reliable source in print (not "cyanic" saying that Vitali is an "asshole") that confirms the 1.66 idea. Just one. Then we can discuss. I've acknowledged that the standard def hewed to that line, and no, I do not know how that decision was made.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at May 26, 2011 3:20 AM

comment #30

Scott Nye says ...

"So, with logical perspective, this is a pretty kosher butchering."

Again, I can live with it. The disc is still coming my way Tuesday morning. But just because it's relatively minor on the scale of studios hacking away at great films doesn't make it right. I'm of the mind of fighting battles big and small for the films that matter. If it doesn't matter to you, that's cool, but I don't think you can mount a case that says it shouldn't matter to anyone.

Posted by Scott Nye at May 26, 2011 6:57 AM

comment #31

BobbyLupo says ...

"That DVD is 1.66!"

In the case of 'Strangelove', the best evidence would seem to suggest that 1.66 is "butchery" too.

Posted by BobbyLupo at May 26, 2011 9:00 AM

comment #32

BobbyLupo says ...

"I'm of the mind of fighting battles big and small for the films that matter."

If there's any way to actually fight that battle, be sure and let us all know. It seems as if, as you said, not-buying it doesn't send the message you want, and buying it obviously doesn't send the message that you want.

Posted by BobbyLupo at May 26, 2011 9:02 AM

comment #33

EC666 says ...

The way to fight the battle is to keep making noise and keep bombing Warner with complaints. Don't slip into passive acceptance.

Posted by EC666 at May 26, 2011 12:41 PM

comment #34

Scott Nye says ...

Yeah, that's just it - in the end, there isn't a lot we CAN do, and maybe "fight the battle" was the wrong way to put it. But I don't want to just sit around be say, "well, fine, they screwed with a movie I love. Whatever."

And, in the end, the Internet is largely a venue in which to exchange ideas and opinions. So...ta-da.

Posted by Scott Nye at May 26, 2011 12:49 PM

comment #35