"The Last Emperor"'s new dimensions

Everyone's so excited about today's Criterion release of Pierrot Le Fou (which I got into earlier in the month, here, here and here) that scant attention is being paid to the other big Criterion release, a four-disc version of Bertolucci's 1997 1987 The Last Emperor, a film some see as an intimate, peculiarly poetic epic, and others see as Bertolucci's first really big capitulation to middlebrow bourgeois taste.

I'm in the former camp myself. In any case, the controversy over this version is not content-related, but formal. The film is not presented here in its theatrical aspect ratio of between 2.35:1 and 2.20.1—this discrepancy being the difference between 35mm and 70mm presentations—but at a ratio of 2.0:1. As Criterion head Peter Becker explains on Criterion's blog, this is the express wish of the cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, and as far as Bertolucci's concerned, what Storaro says goes—this is both a director and cinematographer approved version, as Storaro supervised the transfer.

So what's the deal? It's not exactly new—for the Apocalypse Now DVD of a few years back, Storaro, again with the assent of that film's director Francis Ford Coppola, gave the film the 2.0 treatment. Back in 1998, Storaro came up with this idea for a universal film ratio—2.0, that is—that went hand-in-hand with a three-perforation-per-frame film format and specs that are more compatible with high-definition video than heretofore were possible. Wikipedia has a cogent and reliable-feeling account of the scheme here.

Ecumenicism's always great in theory; on the other hand, Esperanto. Still, this is Storaro we're talking about—his technical bonafides are untouchable, and his premises are far from outlandish. And as far as the look of this 2.0 Emperor, well, on the commentary Bertolucci mentions that the most important thing to him in a shot is the character's relation to his or her space; Storaro's frame preserves the integrity of these relations, to my eye at least, beautifully. And of course the whole damn package here is beautiful, as I'm sure does not surprise you.

Comments

[oakling]

There's just something I love about this sentence: "Ecumenicism's always great in theory; on the other hand, Esperanto." It's almost poetry.

[graig]

Don't mean to be a pest, but I don't think The Last Emperor came out in 1997.

[Peter Neski]

sorry Yes it looks Beautiful,but its
cropped scenes cut people in half at
times and that commentary apeared on
the English Pal version which even though is too yellow is better because
its 2.35:1.
"Bertolucci mentions that the most important thing to him in a shot is the character's relation to his or her space;"
well hes watching the pal
2.35:1 Transfer"
"Storaro's frame preserves the integrity of these relations'

This is also not true,this film
was't designed for 2.1 This is
pretty clear if you do a side by side
If Bertollucci wanted 30%(or 20) of the picture cropped off he would have
released it in theatres that way

[Glenn Kenny]

Graig, that was either a simple typo or I'm in deep denial about my age.

Peter, I'll look again, but I didn't see any sliced-in-half people here.

[Ryland Walker Knight]

I'll take it a step further, oakling: "Ecumenicism's always great in theory; on the other hand, Esperanto." got a big guffaw from me it's so perfect. I was just going to quote it and throw up an LOL or ROFLPIMP but since you beat me to the punch I have to leave this comment with its explanations.

In other words: Noice, GK.

[lazarus]

There's a longer review up on (or linked by) The House Next Door. One point made is that although Bertolucci claims he prefers the theatrical, shorter cut, most critics apparently are partial to the longer one. Is that true?

I had the benefit of seeing the longer cut on a huge screen in Paris about 5 years ago, and it was amazing. I can't imagine watching the shorter one again. If the strengths of the film are the design, the photography, and the compositions, why not have more of it?

When I heard the Criterion disc was coming out I felt like an idiot for hunting so long for a used copy of the Artisan release (which is the extended cut), but knowing that the image has been cropped it may turn out to be quite the collector's item.

I'm fully behind Storaro's idea of the 2:1 format, but I really don't like the idea of messing with the stuff that was shot earlier. Thank God the recent releases of Reds, The Conformist, and 1900 were free from that meddling.

[Aaron Aradillas]

Aren't Storaro's concerns about the viewing of 2:35.1 transfers on regular TV sets a little outdated in the age of widescreen, 16x9 anamorphic, Hi-Def monitors?

I mean, Kubrick didn't feel the need re-format 2001 for laserdisc. Something tells me Criterion should've involved critics and consummers in the discussion.

The man is capable being wrong. He DID choose to be the DP on Ishtar.

[lazarus]

He shot the last 3 films that Beatty directed himself, and I'm sure that's how he came to be involved with Ishtar, which fell in-between Reds and Dick Tracy, and was his project along with Elaine May.

It does not explain how he wound up working with Richard Donner on Ladyhawke, though.

[Glenn Kenny]

Two points: viewed today, the perenially underated "Ishtar" looks scarily prescient; and "Ladyhawke" is one of Donner's better pictures. Just sayin'.

[Trevor Banks]

I'll agree with you on Ishtar, but I just saw Ladyhawke for the first time about a year ago, and there is no viewing lens I know of to make it permissible. Let alone one of Donner's best. I'd love to hear your reasoning, though. Especially if you like Ishtar.

[Glenn Kenny]

Maybe I should have said "most distinctive" rather than "best." The picture itself is a ripe slice of cheese, but its visual attractions-green hills, castles, Michelle Pfeiffer's cheekbones-are pretty outstanding.

[John Passarini]

"Thank god the recent releases of Reds, 1900 and the Conformist were free of that meddling."

Sigh...No, Reds is reformatted too. But it's not nearly as distracting there as it is on this disc....Just go over to DVD Beaver and look at their image comparisons of this and the Artisan disc. It is SHOCKING in some cases. People really are being cut in half at the sides of the frames.

People have also complained about Apocalypse Now, but that's even less noticable then Reds, in my opinion...Emperor is the first time I've really noticed Storaro's strange mania for this format visibly affect the image. A number of people have pointed out that his ideas about home video seem at least ten years out of date (if not fifteen).

[Peter Neski]

"Apocalypse Now, but that's even less noticable t"

Are you kidding?,Thats the worst of
all storaro's crop jobs,did you see it in a theatre? It was a fantastic job
of Camera angels and design of the frame ,it still has the fantastic angels,and still has desent compostions
but before he cropped it ,it was one
of the best examples of widesreen design in the History of Film.
Now in its cropped version its just good,The Last Emperor at least is out
in 2.35:1 16x9 in pal.

[John Passarini]

IN MY OPINION. Do you know what that means?

Thank you for correcting me on the subject of "camera angels" and "desent compostions".

Clearly you are the last voice of authority regarding "widesreen."

[Peter Neski]

"MY OPINION. Do you know what that means? "
Yes I Do,and its my Opinion that ..

"People have also complained about Apocalypse Now, but that's even less noticable then Reds"

..is Crazy!!

[John Passarini]

Yes, well, it seems to be confirmed fact that you are an illiterate idiot.