Symptoms coming to Blu-Ray

[Bogart]

No but that FAT-W label does a lot of bootlegs so i wouldnt expect good quality. at best it would be taken from a foreign DVD release if one exists? although equally it might also come from a VHS tape.

[Lorne Marshall]

Has anyone ordered this release of Larraz's STIGMA?

https://www.amazon.com/Stigma-Christ...eywords=stigma

[Tom Clark]

BFI is streaming Symptoms on their site: http://player.bfi.org.uk/film/watch-...ampaign=buffer

[slizwiz]

My copy is on it's way. I ordered mine from Deep Discount on eBay.

[SorrelPark]

My copy arrived on Monday -- 0111/1000. Will pop it in this weekend to check it out!

[Damin J. Toell]

Anybody who ordered the red box directly from MM got theirs yet?

I just got a shipping notice today.

[Keeth]

I just put my order in at DVD Pacific for Symptoms. Looking forward to it!

[Gary Banks]

Thanks Ben. Maybe tomorrow. :)

[bgart13]

Mine arrived yesterday, Gary! It was supposed to be here on Monday, but showed early.

[Gary Banks]

Anybody who ordered the red box directly from MM got theirs yet?

[enandalusiskhund]

There has been some debate regarding Kubrick's prefered AR. The reason he insisted in releasing his films 1.33:1 for home video, was, like bgart said, his fear of pan & scan. The films, except his early noirs were clearly shot for widescreen exhibition though. In the early home video releases you can see the shadow of the helicopter in the beautiful aerial tracking shot that opens The Shining for example, which was obviously not intended. Also there is the note from Kubrick that was included with , I think, the film prints of Barry Lyndon, with detailed exhibition instructions. He was very anal about this stuff.

[bgart13]

As far as I understand it, Kubrick preferred is movies shown open-matte for at-home viewing, so that there wasn't any pan and scan. If he intended for his movies to be shown open-matte theatrically, he never got his way (and always shot them for widescreen projection). Anyhow...

[Fundi]

everyone just enjoy the movie, many films after 1953 were shot in 1.33:1 aspect ration and meant to be seen that way, didn't Stanley Kubrick shoot his films to be shown preferably in 1.33:1? I mean lots of films were shot in that ratio, I know everyone wants their nice 16X9 TV to be filled up, but sometimes those damned filmmakers didn't do that for us lol

[MichaelB]

The producer of the BFI's Symptoms disc has issued an official statement about the aspect ratio and the claim that no cinemas in 1974 could screen it in Academy:

Most British cinemas would be able to screen Academy Ratio in the 1970s. 1.37:1 Academy Ratio was still adopted regularly in British Cinemas for archive feature films, 16mm features (Permissive for example), newsreels, Children's Film Foundation screenings and more... Projectionists were equipped with a variety of different aperture masks for different films: 1.37:1, 1.66:1 , 1.77:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 for Techniscope, and an anamorphic lens for 2.35:1 CinemaScope. Also, 1.37:1 was the dominant aspect ratio in Turkey and Greece, where Symptoms was sold. The film has been presented on our release in Academy Ratio with the approval of the film's editor Brian Smedley-Aston, who came in to the BFI to survey our master. Along with our partners on this release, Mondo Macabro, we also performed several tests with the film at different ratios. Even at 1.66:1, the film looked incorrectly framed at several points in the film.

[Tom Clark]

As someone who only knew Larraz from Vampyres and Black Candles, this is a revelation. Such beautiful photography.

Yeah even in the old bootlegs Larraz's compositional eye shines through, hence why more of his stuff needs good releases!