The Shining... Why full frame?

D

DannyDarko

Active member
Can anyone tell me why the DVD release of the Shining displays the full frame negative as opposed to a matted 1.85:1 ratio? From what I can tell, it was released in theatres as Academy Aperature 1.85:1, but the back of the DVD box says it's intended ratio is a full frame 1.33:1 (1.37:1, if you want to get technical). Was Kubrick going for a more "traditional" movie experience, before "widescreen" was all the rage? (Like with Casablanca or Citizen Kane). Well, in either case, it's ironic that this is one movie they can show on TV without having to "modify" (besides the copious re-editing, desaturation of the blood, removal of scenes and overdubbing of swear words, of course).
 
the reason why is because during the VHS and Laserdisc age, Kubrick insisted his films be shown open matte on home video. this old agreement was never revised and remains in place in the dvd age. this has lead to confusion over what aspect ratio the films were composed for. The Shining, we know was composed for 1.85:1 thanks to the release of this book:

xl_kubrick.jpg


The Stanley Kubrick Archives cleared up the confusion in Mr. Kubrick's own words and writing.

Inside, there is a photo of a SK drawing of potential shots for The Shining - he made it for his DP's second unit crew for outdoor shots. It clearly states in SK's own handwritten note that all shots should be COMPOSED for 1.85:1, while being protected for 1.33:1.
 
Well on the Stephen King 3 box set, that has The Shining in it of course, it say's it is presented in Full Screen as Stanely Kubrick had intended it to be shown. In a disclaimer type deal on the back of the DVD.

P.S. If you haven't watched this, do it haha you will enjoy. The website down there that is...

http://www.angryalien.com/0504/shiningbunnies.html
 
As long as we're talking Kubrick, anyone notice that in the theatres the scenes at the party in the beginning had this hazy, slightly overexposed look, with the walls blowing out, but on the video transfer it looked like the exposure had been normalized. I always wondered if the blown out look was intentional, but with Kubrick not being around to supervise the video transfer, it got bungled in the telecine, some technician thinking the overexposure was a mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top