Symptoms coming to Blu-Ray

[Mark C.]

Having had a spin through the new transfer, I can confirm that the image is certainly croppable to 1.66:1 and even 1.85:1, but it looks very tight indeed (especially at 1.85:1).

The last time I personally had to make a framing decision when supplied with a 4:3 master was for Russ Meyer's The Seven Minutes, which was a total no-brainer - I've never seen so much headroom in my life, and when reframed in widescreen the compositions looked properly dynamic in a way that they emphatically didn't in 4:3.

But with this, it's pretty much the other way round, and so I can absolutely see why the BFI and Mondo Macabro endorsed 4:3. And these people are not philistines - I suspect this would have been discussed in considerable detail during production and authoring.

Great Info, And welcome here MichaelB. Glad to see you.

[Fundi]

why is everyone wanting a widescreen version, when it has been stated by Mondo Macabro that the film is meant to be shown 4:3? I mean Mondo Macabro has never released a film in the wrong aspect ratio, and I don't think they will screw this one up either, I don't want a 1.66:1 version included when the film is meant to be shown 4:3, that's the same as back in the old days when VHS would show 1.85:1 movies in 4:3, I mean the purpose of a films aspect ratio is not to fill up our new nice 16X9 TV's, but to be shown in their correct aspect ratio, whether it's 1.66:1 or 4X3 or 1.85 or 2.35:1

[MichaelB]

Well, several very credible people at the BFI, Mondo Macabro and the Brussels Cinemathek have reached the same decision (having the option to frame it any way they wanted, thanks to having access to the OCN), and on the basis of what I've seen so far I can see why they did. To my eyes, the film simply looks more convincing in 1.33:1.

I don't imagine it was an easy decision, for the historical reasons you cite, but sometimes you just have to trust the evidence of your eyes.

[John Bernhard]

The film certainly wouldn't be ruined by going wide, but certain key scenes would be excessively tight.

Any chance of more info as to which scenes were deemed excessively tight?

You have to remember - most of the guys making films in the 70s grew up on films of the 30s and 40s, and that's certainly the case with Larraz. For a lot of them, widescreen was a commercial compromise.

No offence, but you can't be serious with this line of thinking. Maybe for working directors in the early 50's when widescreen came in, some may have felt that way.
But to suggest a director who began his career in 1970 had some deep connection to 1.33 composition is simply not credible.

[Jared A.]

Were there any discussions about including a 1.66:1 version as well?

Not that I know of. The disc is pretty stacked already. I don't think there would be room.

[bgart13]

Were there any discussions about including a 1.66:1 version as well?

[Jared A.]

Having had a spin through the new transfer, I can confirm that the image is certainly croppable to 1.66:1 and even 1.85:1, but it looks very tight indeed (especially at 1.85:1).

The last time I personally had to make a framing decision when supplied with a 4:3 master was for Russ Meyer's The Seven Minutes, which was a total no-brainer - I've never seen so much headroom in my life, and when reframed in widescreen the compositions looked properly dynamic in a way that they emphatically didn't in 4:3.

But with this, it's pretty much the other way round, and so I can absolutely see why the BFI and Mondo Macabro endorsed 4:3. And these people are not philistines - I suspect this would have been discussed in considerable detail during production and authoring.

The OGN was 4:3. There are indications that it was shot so that it could be shown in multiple aspect ratios if need be.

But as Michael points out above there is distinct visual information that would be compromised by matting to 1.85:1 or even 1.66:1. The film certainly wouldn't be ruined by going wide, but certain key scenes would be excessively tight.

You have to remember - most of the guys making films in the 70s grew up on films of the 30s and 40s, and that's certainly the case with Larraz. For a lot of them, widescreen was a commercial compromise.

Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. The disc will be out soon. I suspect much like our decision to go 4:3 on COUNTESS PERVERSE and HOW TO SEDUCE A VIRGIN, no one will say much about it after they take a look.

[MichaelB]

Having had a spin through the new transfer, I can confirm that the image is certainly croppable to 1.66:1 and even 1.85:1, but it looks very tight indeed (especially at 1.85:1).

The last time I personally had to make a framing decision when supplied with a 4:3 master was for Russ Meyer's The Seven Minutes, which was a total no-brainer - I've never seen so much headroom in my life, and when reframed in widescreen the compositions looked properly dynamic in a way that they emphatically didn't in 4:3.

But with this, it's pretty much the other way round, and so I can absolutely see why the BFI and Mondo Macabro endorsed 4:3. And these people are not philistines - I suspect this would have been discussed in considerable detail during production and authoring.

[bgart13]

I chatted with Jared, it'll be addressed, I think.

[Ignatius]

Nope - it's taken from the original negative. The decision to go with a 4:3 ratio is a bit baffling, it seems highly unlikely it would have been composed for that in the mid '70s. Hopefully they'll share their reasoning at some point.

[bgart13]

Why in the world is it 4:3? Seems an odd decision to make -- unless all they could find was a tv print?

[Tom Clark]

[Jared A.]

The 'Red Box' Ltd. Ed. of SYMPTOMS goes up for pre-order next Wednesday 03/30/16. http://mondomacabro.bigcartel.com/pr...imited-edition

Exclusive Extras:

*Larraz on Larraz! Bonus DVD featuring a two-hour long archival interview with Jose Ramon Larraz! - Conducted in the late 90s and used as the basis for the Larraz episode of UK TV show Eurotika! (included as an extra on the main disc), the majority of this career-spanning interview has never been seen before.

*Exclusive booklet featuring a brand new essay from Writer/Critic Samm Deighan! - Samm is the editor of the Satanic Pandemonium blog, co-host of the Daughters of Darkness podcast, and the assistant web editor for excellent horror magazine Diabolique. She has contributed to Fangoria, Paracinema, and the book Satanic Panic: Pop-Cultural Paranoia in the 1980s, and is currently writing a book about WWII and cult cinema.

*1000 numbered copies in the usual red case that you've all come to love, or at least tolerate.

[Lalala76]

That would indeed be grand but I was actually referring to the most common way of watching movies these days: digital sans the media. My disc rippers packed up and I don't want to spend $100 on a new 1 for tech that's borderline obsolete anyway.

I know buddy, just having a laugh. I knew what you were implying.

[Jared A.]

That would indeed be grand but I was actually referring to the most common way of watching movies these days: digital sans the media. My disc rippers packed up and I don't want to spend $100 on a new 1 for tech that's borderline obsolete anyway.

Ah, I see. We actually do have streaming rights (it isn't always included in licensing contracts) to SYMPTOMS. We just need to find a platform for it.