All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
We live in a modern era of widescreen television and home movie theatre systems and the 4:3 version of The Shining is like reading a pocket book verson of The Fempiror Chronicals, I wouldn't read it, it wouldn't do it justice.
Maybe Stanley Kubrick was badly informed as to the development of DVD and television technology because his assumptions regarding 4:3 ratio was based upon older televisions being only able to best display using the 4:3 ratio and he made no provision or set aside any instructions for a widescreen version. This was a bad mistake and repeated with Full Metal Jacket..
When the original Stanley Kubrick DVD collection was rushed out and released the quality of the prints used were from the Laser Disc masters which contained imperfections, dust and specks and together with poor MPEG compression techniques produced a poor set of DVDs. The were outcries from loyal Kubrick fans who overloaded Warner Bros server with countless emails complaining the products was not doing justice to this director's work, So Warner Bros went back to the drawing board, found better prints of the movies, cleaned them up, used better Surround Sound and MPEG compression and re-released the Kubrick Collection as a boxset but in that boxset you will find both The Shining and Full Metal Jacket still in 4:3 ratio. Why you may ask? Because in their infinite wisdom, the argument goes is that Stanley Kubrick wanted those movies released on DVD using that aspect ratio. But Stanley Kubrick is dead and widescreen television is more widespread in people's homes these days and it would have been a good oportunity for Warner Bros to contact Kubrick's estate with the view of re-releasing both those titles in a more condusive widescreen format in which they was shot.
In the grand scheme of things there is always history to some knowledge and an outcome and there is an alternative solution to correct it but not everybody wants to correct a problem if they don't see it.
My argument on Kubrick's 4:3 choice is that when you watch the widescreen version of The Shining, you're watching the original movie with the top and bottom chopped off. This is equivalent to having a pan and scan version of a 1.85 or 1.66:1 movie. You aren't getting the director's vision, but the studio's. A widescreen version of a film usually gives you a broader view of the picture since pan and scan does the chopping, but a widescreen version of the Shining does the opposite, since there are no sides of the picture to add on. Demented as he was, you're getting less picture with the 1.85 widescreen Shining.
It's not that I don't see what you're talking about. It's that the wisdom behind releasing movies in widescreen doesn't apply to The Shining. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Kubrick actually shot The Shining in widescreen but truncated it himself to the 4:3 format. Maybe there are actually widescreen prints of this that were never released. What I have always heard, though, is that they were shot in 4:3 meaning the widescreen print is the pocketbook version instead of the normal other way around.
However, this seems to be a topic all of its own. A split appears to be in order.
I do not posses the time, energy, nor inclination for an exhaustive treatise by way of response, as you seem to feel that sheer volume somehow renders your comments unassailable.
The deal here is that Kubrick had this "thing" with shooting in 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 1.85:1 widescreen, even though that has been the norm since the 40's or 50's. Kevan says he prefers the widescreen version of the film because it is more conducive to not only the viewing audience but also the modern television sets. I argue that the 4:3 is better since that is how Kubrick shot it. This would mean that any 1.85:1 version would be the 4:3 version with the top and bottom of the screen chopped off. Kind of a sideways pan and scan.
My argument on Kubrick's 4:3 choice is that when you watch the widescreen version of The Shining, you're watching the original movie with the top and bottom chopped off. This is equivalent to having a pan and scan version of a 1.85 or 1.66:1 movie. You aren't getting the director's vision, but the studio's. A widescreen version of a film usually gives you a broader view of the picture since pan and scan does the chopping, but a widescreen version of the Shining does the opposite, since there are no sides of the picture to add on. Demented as he was, you're getting less picture with the 1.85 widescreen Shining.
It's not that I don't see what you're talking about. It's that the wisdom behind releasing movies in widescreen doesn't apply to The Shining. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Kubrick actually shot The Shining in widescreen but truncated it himself to the 4:3 format. Maybe there are actually widescreen prints of this that were never released. What I have always heard, though, is that they were shot in 4:3 meaning the widescreen print is the pocketbook version instead of the normal other way around.
Atually, 4:3 or 1:33:1 is refered to as Academy Ratio and was developed so movies shot would be condusive and fit on 4:3 television sets.
Widescreen Movies only came in existance in the 1960's.
Pan and Scan actully means exactly that, a video recording device, similar to an editing device, records a portion of a selected image. When panning and scanning a Widescreen movie, the operator invariably selects the middle portion of the frame, consequently the left and right portions of the widescreen frame are eliminated. It has been found that a large portion of the top and bottom of the image are lost also.
Get a piece of U.S. Letter sized paper and draw a square box in the middle about half the size of the U.S. Letter, this will give provide you with a reasonable representation of 4:3 and widescreen. The box in the middle is the 4:3 frame whereas the U.S. Letter is the Widescreen frame from which the 4:3 frame has been composed.
Check out this site for more detailed information and arguments which suggest why Widescreen is the correct way of viewing movies on DVD and Widescreen TV.
You'll find Kubrick didn't shoot THE SHINING in Academy Ratio, he simply took the decision to release the movie on video and DVD in 4:3 ratio because the saturation of 4:3 capable T.V. sets within the home. In addition, I have read somewhere, that Kubrick favoured 4:3 with some of his films because he didn't like pan and scan operators selecting the frames which go to make up the pan and scan 4:3 frames for his films so he supervised this himself. Far better to do this himself for TV releases than allow a monkey to do it. At least he had some control over The Shining and Full Metal Jacket.
But my argument still remains, Kubrick made his original decision to pan and scan The Shining and Full Metal Jacket was based on both an aesthetic principle due to the limitations of a pan and scan operator and a the same time because the viewing public out there, who owned V.H.S would be watching his films on a 4:3 TV anyways. Kubrick's DVD Boxset wasn't released until after his death in the late 90's and the revised boxset, with better prints, imprections removed, better MPEG compression used and improved audio restoration etc, was released after many loyal Kubrick fans complained. I've already stated these findings. They are available to read if you look on one of many Kubrick web sites out there. This leads to the crux of the matter, that Kubrick wasn't aware of the advantages and rapid changes being made with DVD and Widescreen TV and he therefore never made provisions for it. Because he never made provisions for it then it is assumed he wanted The Shining and Full Metal Jacket to be viewed in 4:3 ratio as there have been no notes, letters or correspendence left to suggest otherwise. But as they were originally shot using Panavision Widescreen then it makes sense to release his work which the master negatives are in Widescreen and then master them to DVD.
If I personally worked at Warner Bros as an exec, then I would have surely investigated this phenomenon and contacted Kubrick's estate with the view that now was the time to review his work with the view of correcting any previous mistakes and release his work as it should be seen, in Widescreen.
The only movies of Kubrick's which were not shot using Widescreen cameras and film stock was his work before 2001: A Space Odyssey and Clockwork Orange, everything that came before was shot either in 16mm or 35mm Academy Ratio, Everything that came after 2001: A Space Odyssey would have been shot in Widescreen.
The Shining and Full Metal Jacket could be re-mastered in Widescreen, this is how I've seen both flicks on the cinema. The reason why they have both been released in 4:3 or 1:33:1 was because of commercial and artistic considerations due to 4:3 TV sets being the main stay of sets within the audience marketplace. This has now changed and Kubrick's original decision doesn't apply now to those two movies..
This is related to my original argument, that's why I don't want to own or view the 4:3/1:33:1 versions. I prefer the Widescreen originals because I've seen them at a cinema in all their glory.
DVD, Widescreeen and surround sound never replaces the cinema experience but it can be a close approximation or simulation of that experience. The 4:3 versions are definatetly not in my opinion; if anything they are very poor relations.
Ok. If there exists a widescreen print of the Shining, then obviously, that would the superior choice. With this new information, your choice makes perfect sense. You should have just revealed all this to begin with, as my opinion was based on a different set of facts.
Here's a little bit of history people don't know about Kubrick and his production of Barry Lyndon.. It is linked to me in a very tenuous way.
In 1991 I shot a 10 minute short entitled SWEET LADY, based on the short story COOKIE LADY by Phillip K Dick. I shot this film over a week at a location in Dorset, England. It was in a small village called Witchhampton. The owner of the estate in which the little cottage and other village locations I shot was called Critchel Estates. The Critchels are members of the English Aristocracy, in other words, the father was a Lord. The son gave me permission to film on part of this massive estate, indeed, on the estate resided about ten farms, each run by tenant farmers. if you have ever seen a British Movie which is set in a small village then The Critchel Estate contained ten of these villages scattered around hundreds of thousands of acres of land. They were very wealthy.
I was required to sign documents and provide necessary insurance provision in case of accident or damage to property to Critchel Estates to the value of one million UK Pounds. The university where I was studying at the time provided insurance cover for exactly that amount funnily enough. When asked for this by the son, he said Stanley Kubrick had to pay one million pounds to have a priceless tapestry restored after the electricians burnt the tapestry during the filming of some scenes for Barry Lyndon.
Some scenes for Barry Lyndon, including the large country mansion, ornate gardens, interior gambling scenes in Europe, stables and country scenes were all shot on the Critichel Estate. You've probably seen the Critchel Mansion and other scenes in the Barry Lyndon film yourself. The magnificent splendor of the Family Mansion building and other stuff.
My point is this, Stanley Kubrick's production costs included a one million pound extra to repair a rare tapestry burned during filming and this occurred on exactly the same estate where I shot my 10 minute short when I was a student.
It's six degrees of separation, there is no real link apart from coincidence.
The information in this short tale not widely publicized is that large portions of Barry Lyndon were shot at The Critchel Estate in Whitchampton in Dorset, England; and the production costs were increased by an extra 1 million U.K. Pounds due to the Electricians setting fire to a rare family tapestry which was hanging on a wall in one of the rooms in which the production was filming
This is the first time this information about the Barry Lyndon movie and Kubrick has ever been publicly revealed. I was informed of this by Lord Critchel's son who has since probably inherited the family title upon his father's death
Pages: 1
Author
The Shining 4:3 vs. Widescreen
Logged
Locked Board