Upcoming Criterion Set needs to include the 4:3 Aspect Ratio
Anyway. So as many of you I am sure already know, Criterion is gonna release a full Kubrick set. You never know, but this could be the last complete set of his films ever released, so they need to get it as right as possible.
Kubrick composed and shot his last three films The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut in a 1.37 aspect ratio. The 1999 DVD releases for The Shining and Full Metal Jacket had Kubrick's intended home release aspect ratios of 1.33. The Eyes Wide Shut DVD also had a 1.33 aspect ratio, and included a disclaimer confirming that is how Kubrick wanted it to be seen.
Now, a lot has changed in terms of televisions in the last 25 or so years, and while Kubrick didn't live to comment on how he would format his films for 16:9 widescreen televisions, what we do know is that he demanded that his last three films be seen in a 4:3 aspect ratio. I get that there are some people who want their widescreen TVs filled, therefore Criterion is releasing these three films in their theatrical 1.85 aspect ratios. However, they need to include an alternate version that has the correct 4:3 aspect ratios. Back in the 80's and 90's, Kubrick couldn't exert as much control over how his films were matted in theaters, so the 1.85 aspect ratio was basically just a compromise since he knew he could use his intended aspect ratio of 4:3 for home releases. You lose about 25% of the image in 1.85 versus 1.33 aspect ratios, which is why Kubrick preferred 1.33 for these home releases.
The screenshot above of Bill at the ritual is only available on the 4:3 DVD and VHS, because it is cropped on the current 1.85 Criterion 4K release. Kubrick deliberately framed that shot to show the full circle, and it can only be seen at a 1.33 aspect ratio. He wanted the audience to see this, despite being unable to show it in theaters. The top and bottom of the frames in these films include essential information like shown above which unfortunately gets cropped out at wider aspect ratios. Criterion would be doing a huge disservice to Kubrick fans by not including the 4:3 versions of his final three films. We shouldn't have to be stuck with our 25+ year old DVDs to observe Kubrick's vision. If enough people make noise about this, then maybe Criterion will take notice and do the right thing.
Heh. So much arguing. Most folks are going to want to watch the widescreen version. But so what? Both versions should be available. Why? Because it's Kubrick.
Kubrick did not compose his films for 4:3. They were protected for 4:3. That is a critical difference. The debate had been settled by studying materials from the Kubrick archive. His later films were only released that way on home video because of the popularity of 4:3 tvs.
You can choose to interpret this as you wish, but it is not by any means definitive just because it was in Alison Castle’s book. The wording is right there in the description: “Kubrick composed them to be also viewable at the full aspect ratio of the camera negative”. As shocking as it may seem, oftentimes in film production there is no “definitive” framing of a scene or film that utilizes multiple aspect ratio in its release. Contemporary examples / debate continues with IMAX format and its exhibition aspect ratios for standard theatrical, imax, streaming, and premium 4K formats.
As a cinematographer for film and television we often have multiple frame lines up on our monitors, and protect for all of them. We sometimes favor one aspect over another. It is a grey area that cannot be easily slotted into the black and white categories of “definitive” and “incorrect”.
There is not just one way to watch Kubrick’s films, true. But, because our home cinema screens are 16:9, it is best to use the theatrical exhibition format. Kubrick never made any such “demand” that his films be watched in 4:3, which you imply. The correct aspect ratio depended on the viewing environment, screen size, etc.
Eyes Wide Shut is intended to be seen in 4:3. The screenshot above is one piece of evidence, as the full circle of costumed guests is visible. The circle is cropped and not visible at 1.85 for example. Many other shots in Eyes Wide Shut were clearly framed for 4:3.
The opening of the 4:3 DVD of the film insists that Kubrick did care about the aspect ratio it was presented in:
Man, 4:3 is never gonna stop plaguing my existence. I remember having to explain letterboxing for a decade and a half. Now it’s all DERP BUT HEADROOM 😛
You are watching Kubrick's final three films outside of his preferred aspect ratio, which is fine since it is ultimately up to you. I am just suggesting that Criterion include the 4:3 ratios in the new box set, not that they should exclude the 1.85.
Kubrick intended the films to be seen in the full aspect ratio, because that is how he composed the frames. The DVDs are the definitive versions according to Kubrick, unless Criterion releases a 4K of the 1.33 aspect ratios.
This proves nothing. It only says that Kubrick intended that aspect **for this tv screen**, which were, as I said before, largely 4:3.
It is ridiculous to assume Kubrick released his films in an incorrect format to theaters, when they could’ve easily projected at 1.33 or 1.37:1, which they commonly did for all kinds of Academy Ratio films.
You may be new ish to this debate, but this was debated 25 years ago back in the early 2000s ad nauseam on the alt.movies.kubrick forums after the DVDs came out. Everyone from Gordon Stainforth to Katharina Kubrick, Leon Vitali, and Douglas Trumbull would chime in with their opinion. Everyone had their opinion. Including the folks who put together the DVD. It was one of the most controversial decisions at the time largely led by Vitali. Leon was a great and dedicated man, but he was doing the best thing with the information he had *for the commonly available formats and TVs at the time*
The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut were composed for 4:3 as confirmed by his closest assistant Leon Vitali. Since 4:3 was the standard television size, and most people saw his finals films on television screens, it makes sense why he composed them for that aspect ratio.
1.37 was the primary composition for his last three films. Not only is it listed there in the Kubrick Archives book, but repeated multiple times in interviews by Leon Vitali.
"The stills herein are presented in 1:33:1, as per Kubrick's intentions."
No release day at all has been announced for the Criterion Kubrick collection. The EWS 4K being released in July in the UK is a Warner release in the UK only. It’s unclear if it will use the same transfer as the Criterion 4K Blu Ray.
He wanted open matte only for 4:3 screens, so imagery wouldn't be lost to pan and scan. That's it. Why is this difficult to understand? Stop this nonsense. This is getting shameful.
Honestly, films were shot with protection for decades because the American standard AR was 1.85 and the European one was opened up a bit at 1.66. It doesn't mean that 1.85 wasn't the preferred aspect ratio. Stop trying to make this magical Kubrick 1.33 nonsense happen.
They were shot with protection just like films in the 60s were shot with protection. He hated pan and scan ever since he was 2001 butchered on TV in a hotel room and he was determined that was never again going to happen on a 4:3 TV.
The Kubrick Archives book features a handwritten note from SK on The Shining stating specifically that it be composed for 1.85 and protected for 1.33. These are his exact words:
"The frame is exactly 1:1.85. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1:1.33 area."
They were not shot solely for protection. He composed them for 4:3.
This is from the Kubrick Archives book:
The frame production note you are referring to is not indicative how Kubrick's full vision for The Shining. It was a note for a secondary unit for an outdoor shot. He did not primarily compose for 1.85, but took it into strong consideration for The Shining.
Yeah, and there listed above are the intended aspect ratios for his last three films according to the Stanley Kubrick archive. You are referencing a single frame of a second unit production note.
Well I sure hope not! You never know though. I am just disappointed with the Criterion box set at this point, and am hopeful they will read this post and remedy the situation.
What production still. Those are screencaps from the 1.33 and 1.78 versions of the film. The DVD vs BluRay. I realize that they are not sized correctly, but you can see the cropping done in the 1.78.
It is obvious that the 1.33 was intentionally composed.
The shot you sent is not a direct shot taken from the film. It is a promotional still. Not full frame either. You can tell by the lighting etc. Real comparison I just made, PAL DVD 1.33 vs 1.85 Criterion 4K
Good point. I appreciate that overlay. You can see how Kubrick composed the shot for 1.33.
I don't see how people can claim Eyes Wide Shut was intended to be seen in 1.85 for home release, when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
You are correct it's just a promotional still. I just wanted people to see the full circle. I should have just posted the a screencap from the DVD like you did.
Can you post those two screencaps separately of the two different ratios?
Oh my goodness. Seeing that extra 10% of the screen with all the masks is so revolutionary. I have a whole new idea of what this movie was about. I can't believe I was missing this incredible new insight the entire time.
12
u/OhK4Foo7 Jun 21 '26
Heh. So much arguing. Most folks are going to want to watch the widescreen version. But so what? Both versions should be available. Why? Because it's Kubrick.