Stanley Kubrick's letter to projectionists on "Barry Lyndon" (with update)

I admit that my comportment during the recent online debate concerning the aspect ratio of Stanley Kubrick's 1975 Barry Lyndon and its new Blu-ray version was not always entirely pleasant or reasonable, or that it yielded entirely reliable findings. This is the sort of thing that can happen when one allows one's (entirely understandable, I'd say) desire to tweak Jeff Wells to override concerns of etiquette and/or common sense. I did try to employ due diligence in my research and turned up some documentation supporting a 1.77 or so aspect ratio, and I did ask for other citations that would demonstrate otherwise.

And now I have a document that should clear up quite a bit with respect to Kubrick's desires and intentions: a letter to projectionists signed by Kubrick. It came to me through the courtesy and kindness of screenwriter and critic Jay Cocks, who writes: "I knew Stanley pretty well for a while, but at the time of the Time Barry Lyndon cover I was in LA beginning preliminary work on Gangs of New York. So I had no hand in the Time  cover, but still managed to let Stanley know how great I thought the movie was. He replied with his usual gracious, funny note and enclosed this letter, because he thought I'd be interested. Bet you will be too."

Indeed. I thank Mr. Cocks. And I reproduce the letter below. 

 

I shared this document with a representative of Warner Home Video, who responded, "We stand firmly that we are 100% in compliance with Mr. Kubrick's wishes and edict" and that "the letter from Kubrick to projectionists was the reference for our 1.78 aspect ratio call."

UPDATE: Playing Hardcastle to my McCormick, Jeff Wells tracks down Kubrick aide de camp Leon Vitali and receives a detailed response that's well worth reading; check it out here. Nice work, Jeff. 

Comments

[lazarus]

James, in one way, you're right. There should be some perspective. However, Kubrick is one of cinema's most precise and specific filmmakers when it comes to this kind of thing, and so his personal wishes are something that a studio in business with him for 30 years should have honored. Your phrasing of his "recommended" ratio is incorrect; he didn't RECOMMEND 1.75, but appeared willing to tolerate it w/r/t this film.

And I say this as someone who is far from an SK worshipper, or even a huge fan of the film in question.

[John M]

By "presence" I meant "preference." Even if The Ghost of Stanley Kubrick haunts hallways everywhere.

[John M]

I just now processed the tidbit above that Cocks was doing preliminary work on GANGS OF NEW YORK at the time of BARRY LYNDON's release.

That there's some gestation.

[The Chevalier]

The Barry Lyndon disk is gorgeous. No, it's not 1.66. But yes, it's gorgeous.

Now, if all this anger could please be directed toward the colorist with diarrhea in his eyes who transferred the LionsGate Blu-ray of Ran, maybe we could get some place on that disk.

[lazarus]

I noticed that too, John. But am I the only one who doesn't think this project would have been better had Marty made it in the late 70's? Sure, the screenplay might have been more focused, but Marty's compositional skills were not sophisticated enough at that point IMO to tackle the scope of his project, and no way even a young De Niro tops DDL's Bill the Butcher.

Who knows, it could have been been Heaven's Gate before Heaven's Gate.

[The Siren]

As a film-history artifact, I do love that letter. The changeover dots being 1 ft 9 frames off. This is the aspect ratio. Here's the amount of light we want on the screen (hasn't Roger Ebert spent years complaining about theater owners who save money by dialing down light, even before the whole 3D projection issue? Kubrick would have had a cow). What to play before the movie, during the intermission and after the movie in the theater.

When I saw this on TV sometime in the 1980s I did not worship it the way I did when I saw it at Film Forum during its re-release a while back. All movies gain from being shown in as close to the original circs as possible, but with Barry Lyndon, for me, it was the difference between rather detached admiration and walking out of the theater swearing I'd just seen a masterpiece. It does seem to me that a man who would write a memo this precise deserves, at a minimum, to have his Blu-Ray in 1:66. Is there any logical reason, financial or otherwise, that Warner wouldn't have gone by his wishes--if they knew what they were? I'm mystified.

[Dwigt]

It's a very established fact that Stanley Kubrick suffered early on from arthritis on his right forefinger. Which means that, when he typed, he had difficulties reaching the "7" key on the keyboard with the finger. He often used his left forefinger to reach the key but he sometimes hit the wrong key, the "6".

It's quite plausible that he actually meant "1/1:77". He didn't correct the typo, as he didn't like liquid paper and he was fed up because that was already the 114th draft he had typed.

Warner and Vitali don't have the same issue and they're apparently busy flexing their middle finger to the audience.

[John M]

Lazarus, best case scenario is Scorsese making it every decade, so we can track his progression.

This is maybe not feasible from a financing standpoint.

[Dave]

1 - 1:66. Isn't that the Golden Ratio?

[Michael Schlesinger]

Very few first-run (i.e., non-art) houses back then could project 1.66. Hell, when I reissued CITIZEN KANE in 1991, we got a ton of complaints that chain theatres were running it 1.85 despite our explicit instructions to run it 1.33. A friend in Cincinnati complained at her local Loew's, and was snottily told that "these old movies can't project properly on our state-of-the-art equipment." Which pissed her off even more; she was given a refund.

[Jeff McMahon]

If/when WHV puts out another version of Barry Lyndon, they should restore the original '70s Warner logo at the beginning of the film instead of the current one that's there now. That bugs me way more than the aspect ratio business.

[kelly]

Awsome post, keep up the good work, I 'll come back for more..!

[Conrad]

It is a big deal. The BluRay composition looks crap. 1.66 looks much better. I instinctively realized this even before I knew anything about this whole aspect ratio fiasco. People defending Warner have no right watching the film. They're clueless.

[lex]

It's not like they cropped out something important, like Dakota Fanning's toes or something. Also not like Barry Lyndon is The Shining or Clockwork Orange or something hard-R with violence and nudity that's cool. I love BL just fine, but FACE THE FACTS: It's the ONE costume movie, EVER, that guys are okay with it, just because it's the director of 2001 and Strangelove and FMJ.

But yeah: It's a 1/19th of an inch sliver of Maria Schneider's big stupid hat. And I'm sure they didn't mess with O'Neal bring-down-the-house delivery of the line "At the pleasuuuuure... of FINDIN' it!"

[Conrad]

Get lost with your apathy Lex. It is a big deal to people who care about the film. It's like cropping the Mona Lisa or pissing on Cezanne.

[lex]

You mean like how when they transfer ANY MOVIE to DVD or Blu they're taking film and digitizing it into a malleable file in an entirely different medium that then tweak and re-color and telecine and shade to have the smooth look of a brand-new high-tech digital movie instead of what it actually looked like as projected in a theater?

YEP YEP.

[JBS]

Incidentally, I think a crime at least as large as the aspect ratio one (which, while not ideal, apparently stumbles somewhat close to SK's worst-case scenario), is that the Warner Bros. logo in the opening credits has been altered. The original credits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8D4c0hLkZk} have the Handel coordinated with the old Warners animated logo. The Blu-Ray presentation just sticks an unmoving white version of the current logo over a black screen. It seems like a silly thing, but the impact of the music is lessened by its divorce from the logo.

[That Fuzzy Bastard]

@ The Siren: I think re-watching is also a factor. All great movies benefit from re-watching, of course (Altman once said that you couldn't really watch a movie the first time, because you're too busy following the plot to really pay attention to the filmmaking). But more than any other Kubrick film, BARRY LYNDON is all about its structure---the whole isn't just greater than the sum of its parts, the parts are deliberately flattened in order to better fit the whole. The very first time I saw it, my immediate thought was "I need to see that again", not because I loved it, but because it was so clearly a film about its structure (much like, arguably, CLOCKWORK).

[Gordon Cameron]

>You mean like how when they transfer ANY MOVIE to DVD or Blu they're taking film and digitizing it into a malleable file in an entirely different medium that then tweak and re-color and telecine and shade to have the smooth look of a brand-new high-tech digital movie instead of what it actually looked like as projected in a theater?

I think the idea is actually to approximate what it looked like as projected in a theater under ideal conditions. The fact that digitization is one of the circuitous avenues en route to that goal is a matter of means, not ends, and therefore beside the point.

YEP YEP.

[lazarus]

I love how the supposedly more-intelligent-than-most-blog-commenters around here are still feeding the troll.

Really?

[lex]

Lazarus, the day you post anything interesting on ANY blog will be the first, as opposed to your usual petty sniping and shit-talking.

I'd also LOVE to know how I'm a TROLL, which suggests some dude going by "titsfan69" telling everyone they're assholes, instead of the brilliant and incisive comedy and commentary I bring across the movie blogosphere that have made me a BELOVED FAVORITE of many esteemed and prominent critics.

Real sorry you don't have dudes hooking you up for screenings and offering to give you airspace, but at the very least the LEXMAN is the most important voice on ALL OF CINEMA, not a "troll."

Dork.

[Glenn Kenny]

Um, fellas.

At the risk of sounding like Otter defending Bluto, I have to say that as long as Lex is on topic, he's not a troll, whatever his eccentric ideas. Films as diverse as "Raging Bull" and "There's Always Tomorrow" offer eloquent contradiction to his willful declaration that 1.85 is a "hacktacular" format, or whatever it is he called it. As puling lefty Richard Goldstein once said of Howard Stern, let him bray. And/or fight back with evidence!

However. Getting into fights over who's a troll or not does get distracting. So may I suggest that Lex stay on topic, and that those who want to take issue with his positions do same, and that those who want to ignore this subset of comments just...ignore them. There's plenty else to talk about. Thanks!

I sleep now, as the lost skeleton said. Y'all behave but remember, have fun!

[Jordan Orlando]

The Warner logo has been altered on the Blu-Rays for Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and The Shining.

Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon both have music and opening titles integrated with the old animated WB logo. The rhythm is thrown off in both cases, since the animated logo is replaced by a static screen (black or red). A contemporary WB logo card (not the older one with the cloud background) is on Barry Lyndon; the "clouds" WB logo (or, an obvious, grainy digital freezeframe thereof) is on The Shining and Clockwork Orange.

It's extremely annoying that studios do this. I especially miss the minimalist United Artist logo that's supposed to be on the front of Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hair and a bunch of others. The replacement logo is garish and has music and completely throws off the mood of those openings.

[The Chevalier]

You guys, the signature on that Barry Lyndon letter is NOT Stanley Kubrick's signature: http://www.amazon.com/Stanley-Kubrick-Archives-Alison-Castle/dp/3822822841

[christian]

Wells is a braying asshole and Vitali showed him a lot more respect by even responding to his hysteria.

And a troll jumps into threads to shout the same shit over and over, insult folks repeatedly then cry "who me?" when called out.

[lex]

Wells is a great guy.

[Dwigt]

Leon Vitali's response left me flabbergasted. I've lost all respect for the guy. Wells is right when he mentions the contradictions within the response or between the response and the Kubrick letter (or every contemporary evidence). And Vitali doesn't even address the fact that there was no such thing as a theatrical presentation in 1.77:1 before the 90s. If "pragmatist" Kubrick truly wanted a 1.77:1 why couldn't he have settled for the existing 1.75:1 aspect ratio?

I can see two distinct possibilities. Either Vitali is flat out lying and tries to save face due to his mistake or it's a Freudian faulty act, a subconsciously deliberate mistake, a parapraxis. The guy mentions he was fed up with Kubrick's requests for the Barry Lyndon aspect ratio, that it was a "mantra" regarding the film. Couldn't be the "1.77:1" stuff a way to get a subconscious revenge on decades of harassment? Would it be really a shock that somebody working for 25 years with Kubrick went a little funny in the head?

[Oliver_C]

LexG: "Wells is a great guy."

To quote from Kurosawa's 'Hidden Fortress' -- admittedly a fine example of widescreen mastery (but not automatically superior to, say, 'Seven Samurai' sorely because of that) -- "A shitworm doesn't know it's in shit."

[David]

Did anyone notice ? There's no intermission on the Blu-ray. Kubrick clearly states here the film had an intermission.

In addition to being mutilated on all sides (if you take into account the overscan of most TV, people are basically looking at a 1.85 cropped frame on their TVs), which could have been rectified by simply framing the Blu-ray in 1.66:1, (thus having people at home basically looking at a 1.75 frame, taking into account overscans), the film should have been presented on 2 discs, with intermission, for maximum bitrate quality and respect of the theatrical presentation.

After all, 2001 DO have the prologue with black screen included... If I remember correctly ?

[That Fuzzy Bastard]

Hmmmm---now David's raising a fun question... How many DVDs or BluRays include the old intermission cards?
Heck, maybe those better acquainted with pre-mid-80s-projection could tell me: Were intermission cards supplied by the studio, or the theater? Would the filmmaker have any say over their look?