Having watched the DVD, it's clearly not, nor is it panned 'n scanned from a widescreen master; it appears to have been shot in the basic Academy ratio or whatever they used to call 1.33:1. Was there an alternate version of this, or has Maltin just been mis-remembering it because, as he says in the review, the trailer itself seems designed for the wide screen?
share[deleted]
When you look at the main titles of a movie made after 1953 and see a lot of extra space at the top and bottom, that's a clue that the film was intended to be shown widescreen (either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1) in theaters so equipped, or 1.37:1 in older movie houses and 1.33:1 on television. This is done by having the cinematographer compose the shots loosely, so the film could be shown in more than one format. To learn more, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte
The first film to use this method was "Shane", shot in late 1951 and released in 1953. This technique became very popular with the studios, because it gave a widescreen look at a lower cost than anamorphic processes like CinemaScope and Panavision. To learn more about Shane, check out this link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_(film)#Technical_details
The main titles on The Long, Long Trailer (1954) have lots of space at the top and bottom, and their's plenty of headroom in all the shots. The film would have been shown widescreen in most movie theaters and "open matte" on television, which gives a full-frame picture without that annoying "pan and scan" of the wider films shown on TV.
Thanks for the info. This is exactly what I suspected, that any "widescreen" version was essentially fake widescreen, and that the 1.33:1 version actually shows more of the image that registered on the film. Six o' one, half a dozen of the other when if comes to which version one prefers, I guess.
shareIn most instances, I would rather see more picture information, rather than less. For example, I hope Looney Tunes will forever be shown 1.37:1, rather than cropped to the 1.85:1 ratio.
On the other hand, PSYCHO looks better in 1.85:1.
It would be nice if viewers were given the option to crop these post-1952 "flat" films into whatever size they preferred 1.37:1, 1.66:1 or 1.85:1.
That being said, I'm a strong believer in the wider "Scope" films being shown in their screen intended format, as opposed to panning & scanning in fullscreen mode.
[deleted]
I run those "open matte" flat films made after 1952 on "zoom" on my wide-screen TV, which gives them an approximately a 1.75:1 aspect ratio, which is what many theatres used at the time. The composition seems perfect. However, if titles and heads are cut off, I revert to "normal", or 1.33 aspect ratio.
By the way, I first saw this movie around 1963 when it was reissued on a double bill with SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS, and it was in black and white. Several Technicolor MGM pictures were re-released in black and white around that time. I have no idea why.