Cropped “Redux”?
Dear Gary: I’m anxious to read about the DVD of Apocalypse Now Redux, which has not as of this date been reviewed. The aspect ratio looks like 2.00:1, and not 2.39:1 as listed by Widescreen Review. I saw the film in its first release in 70mm in Hollywood, and in 35mm on a Cinerama screen in San Diego a bit later. It was wider in both instances than on the new DVD. I suspect the ratio on the DVD is from a 65mm negative or print, and the theatrical version is a cropped frame, top and bottom, of the camera image. I hope to read the answer soon. Francis Ford Coppola has always been a presentation purist, so there must be some logic to this.
Donald Archer
Staff Writer and Research Editor Michael Coate Comments:
Our review of the new Apocalypse Now Redux appeared in Issue 56, January 2002, and is also posted on www.WidescreenReview.com. Regarding the technical points you raised in your letter: You are correct; the aspect ratio of the Apocalypse Now Redux DVD is narrower than that of the film’s 35mm and 70mm theatrical prints. The DVD is 2.00:1... however, so was the earlier DVD version...as was the earlier LaserDisc release. You see, the film’s cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, has indicated he has a preference for a 2.00:1 aspect ratio. He likes this ratio so much that a few years ago he developed a new film format to accommodate it: Univisium (which we’ve detailed in the magazine before —do a “Principal Photography” search in our DVD Movie Guide™ database for the Univisium titles). Now, of course, Apocalypse Now wasn’t shot in Univisium, but Storaro made a decision to have it transferred to LaserDisc at 2.00:1 about 10 years ago, and has maintained that preference ever since. Our database’s identification of the movie’s theatrical aspect ratio being 2.39:1 is correct, as it pertains to the film’s original photography and 35mm projection format, not the DVD’s ratio (the DVD aspect ratio is a separate field in our database). The majority of the movie’s initial “reserved seat” engagements back in 1979 were 70mm blow-up prints, which were meant to be projected in a 2.20:1 ratio (and would project slightly less imagery than the 35mm scope prints, but not a substantial amount to make a fuss over). The 35mm prints were in the slightly wider scope format. The DVD—and all previous video versions of Apocalypse Now—were transferred from 35mm elements, not from 65mm. There isn’t any point in transferring from 65mm, unless the program material was actually originated in the larger gauge (and even then some filmmakers and transfer houses prefer using 35mm reductions for a variety of cost and/or technical reasons). The cropping on the Redux DVD is in the horizontal plane, rather than in the vertical plane. The controversy over the 2.00:1 framing stems from doubts among film enthusiasts that the film was actually composed for a 2.00:1 crop when it was originally shot. Many believe Storaro’s decision to have the early 90s LaserDisc version transferred at 2.00:1 was largely based on a technical and artistic compromise between standard TV’s 4:3 (1.33:1) aspect ratio and reduced image resolution when letterboxing widescreen material. Some feel that for him to turn around and now present the film closer to 2.39:1 might be interpreted as the equivalent to admitting an error in judgment had been made. (And to complicate matters, not all of his scope films have been presented at 2.00:1 on DVD, either. The Last Emperor, for instance—which was produced eight years after Apocalypse —is in a 2.35:1 ratio on DVD. Tucker, however, is in 2.00:1.) Now having stated that, many people do believe the film “plays” fine in 2.00:1 (and in the 70mm framing too), though a comparison between the LaserDisc, earlier DVD and the Redux DVD reveals certain shots have been reframed somewhat. Essentially, a minor form of “pan-and-scan” within the widescreen presentation has been performed. Should Apocalypse Now be presented on DVD at 2.39:1, 2.35:1, 2.20:1 or 2.00:1 [1.78:1, or 1.33:1—Editor]? The real question, I feel, is to ask if the question should be answered by the filmmaker or by the consumer.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com