Pages

07 August, 2006

RATIO MATTERS



Curious that the Blue Underground DVD of KISS ME MONSTER is not promoted as being in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1. Instead, it is listed as a 1.66:1 presentation, which it clearly is not if we compare screen captures of it and its companion film, TWO UNDERCOVER ANGELS, which IS presented at 1.66:1 or thereabouts. (My guess is 1.78:1, as it's an anamorphic presentation.)

KISS ME MONSTER (click on photo to see full version):



TWO UNDERCOVER ANGELS (click on photo to see full version):



Note also the Spanish poster for KISS ME MONSTER, pictured on top under the original Spanish title, BESAME MONSTRUO, indicates a "Cinemascope" presentation, though clearly the film was not a true CinemaScope film. The film database of the Spanish Ministry of Culture states that both of these "Red Lips" films were "panoramico," which usually indicates a 1.85:1 ratio. As both films were shot back-to-back, it is almost certain that aspect ratio of both films should be the same.
______________________________________
ROBERT MONELL: Very interesting! Note that the guest at the fashion show on the far right is partially cut off by the framing, indicating that there is some side image missing, as no professional DP would frame a shot bisecting a figure with the edge of the frame. That entire set-up looks slightly unbalanced to me. I actally think there is a strong possibity that these two features, which share the same casts and sets, were shot simulataneously, a practice Franco learned on the mid 1950's COYOTE films. Those JR Marchent features were also shot with the same casts and sets with Franco directing some scenes and Marchent directing others to save time and money. The footage was later split into two features. Adrian Hoven, the producer and a director was the star, and he could have actually directed some scenes to help out. Later, Hoven or someone added footage not directed by Franco to the English language version of BESAME MONSTRUO, which is the version on the BU disc. I have also read reports that KISS ME MONSTER was improvised on the set of TWO UNDERCOVER ANGELS which was already in production, so that would make them overlapping shoots at least. If you look at the scenes in both films in the Red Lips' Pop Art style bedroom you will notice that the exact same camera set ups were used in both films also indicating that they were shot simultaneously. Franco, of course, became notorious during the 1970s for shooting two films for the price of one in order to save the costs of paying actors and technicians for two films when he could pay them once. He kept the secret by just slightly adjusting wardrobe and blocking for the second project takes which he told everyone were retakes or alternate takes for the film they were making. Paul Muller caught on and complained about it to me when I interviewed him and producer Erwin Dietrich also has said Franco secretly filmed a second feature at his expense during the production of BARBED WIRE DOLLS (1975). Franco continued this practice through the 1980s. Ethical concerns aside, it certainly saves much time and money. BTW, those two WIP films he shot simultaneously in 1975 were in two different ratios, I believe. In this case I wouldn't be surprised if these were both lensed in 1.85:1 or even 1.78:1, but TWO UNDERCOVER ANGELS may have been RELEASED in 1.66:1 for one reason or another. The Spanish version I have on tape is letterboxed at approx. 1.55:1 to add to the mystery.

Sometimes a film is shot in one ratio and then printed/released in another. It's hard for me to tell from the screengrab if ...MONSTER is indeed a 1.85:1 or a 1.78:1 transfer as I'm not expert at measuring by eye. They may have been released in Spain at the wider ratio and in 1.66:1 elsewhere, but that would seem odd for such low budget productions. These were shot right after SUCCUBUS, which was 1.66:1 so I assumed they were all lensed that way. Thanks again for this fascinating comparison.

2 comments:

  1. Robert writes: "Note that the guest at the fashion show on the far right is partially cut off by the framing, indicating that there is some side image missing, as no professional DP would frame a shot bisecting a figure with the edge of the frame. That entire set-up looks slightly unbalanced to me."

    I must take issue with you here, Bob. This framing is valid and that bisected onlooker can be explained a couple of different ways: 1) the DP was physically unable to recede further from the action with his camera, which caused the crowding; or 2) because the DP bisected the person at the edge of frame deliberately to trick the viewer into imagining that the crowd extended beyond the frame. To keep this fellow entirely in frame would be to limit the number of people in attendance, but cropping him teases the eye into imagining more. This is the sort of trompe l'oeuil that one sometimes finds in Bava's photography. So I have to argue your point; in fact, I find this frame almost uncommonly well composed for a Franco picture, even one from this period. It looks like it could have come from HATCHET FOR THE HONEYMOON.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your input, Tim. It IS a strikingly framed opening shot in terms of the angle and opening out a probably small interior set. I would guess that your second option would be the reason. I have to revisit my old Spanish video to see if this figure is fully in frame, but that's framed at even less than 1.66:1.

    ReplyDelete