HE to Kino Video regarding upcomingTouch of Evil 4K Bluray (streeting on2.22.22): As you guys presumably recall, England’s Masters of Cinema / Eureka Video released two versions ofaTouch of Evil Bluray in two aspect ratios — 1.85 and 1.37 — roughly a decade ago.

A Kino Lorber spokesperson has confirmed that theirforthcoming 4K version will be formatted only in1.85.

In November 2011Eureka Video released aBluray ofOrson Welles‘Touch of Evil (1958) withfive different versions of the film.

We’re actually talking three versions of the film, two of which are presented in both 1.37 and 1.85 aspect ratios and one (the 1958 pre-release version) presented in 1.85 only. The 1998 reconstructed version, running112 minutes, that was put together byWalter Murch, Bob O’Neil andBill Varney, is presented in 1.37 and 1.85.

Two aspect ratios for both versions is so hardcore, so film-nerdy…your heart goes out to people with this much devotion.

But the orange jacket-cover backdrop is, for me, a problem. To advertise a revered classic film taking place in a Mexican border town and shot in the gritty environs of Venice, California, Eureka chose one of the most needlessly intense and eye-sore-ish colors in the spectrum? A color that says traffic cones and prison jump suits?

Posted on 10.16.09: The answer to theTouch of Evilaspect-ratio controversy contained in the release of the50th anniversary DVD is simple, and shame on those who would needlessly complicate it. All 1950s film that were captured with a protected aspect ratio of 1.37 to 1 shouldalways be mastered for DVD at that aspect ratio. Or at least at 1.66 to 1. I can’t over-emphasize how despicable I find 1.85 to 1 croppings of Eisenhower- and Kennedy-era films.

There is no aesthetic benefit at all — zero — to chopping the tops and bottoms off an image that was protected for 1.37 to 1. The reborn Gordon Gekko’s new slogan:Tall and boxy is good. Itharms no one to release a taller fuller image. The DVD distributors are simply looking to put out an image that fits within 16 x 9 aspect ratio of high-def plasma and LCD screens. They want everything to be “wide.”

Don’t believe so-called experts who claim that 1.85 was the projection norm in the ’50s — it wasn’t absolutely. It was 1.66 to 1 here and there, and 1.85 here and there; it was even 1.37 here and there. Why have so many ’50s and ’60s films been masked for laser disc and DVD at 1.66 to 1? For the hell of it? Remember the travesty ofShane, shot in 1.33 (or 13.7) to 1, and then projected in theatres at 1.66 to 1 to accomodate the then-new appetite for wider-screen imagery? The same kind of revisionist horseshit has been happening for years in the DVD market.

HE readerRobert Hunt contends that Hollywood historian Richard Maltby, writing in his book “Hollywood Cinema” (which I’ve read but have no copy of right now), argued that “1.85 wasn’t accepted as the standard aspect ratio by the SMPTE until 1960.”

Some Came Running‘sGlenn Kenny waswritten about this in a fashion that I find a little too laissez-faire. Here it is:

“The facts are these: DirectorOrson Welles and cinematographerRussell Metty shotTouch of Evil in the so-called ‘Academy ratio’ of 1.37:1. And…well, actually, as far as the universally accepted facts are concerned, that’s where they end.

“There is plenty of documentation attesting that it was Universal Studios policy, mid-1953 or so, to have all their releases theatrically projected at the wider 1.85:1 ratio, via a ‘hard matte’ (a plate with a rectangular opening placed in front of the projector’s lens), with the Academy ratio reserved for TV airings of films (1.37 fitting almost exactly correctly on old-style television screens).

“Kehr’s commenters include a great number of folks who have seenTouch of Evil screened theatrically at 1.37. Did the projectionist make an error? Is the documentation concerning Universal’s policy wrong? Did Welles and Metty compose for 1.37 without realizing that the film would be projected at 1.85?

“A lot of questions with no, apparently, definitive or cut-and-dried answers. What is sure is that the new Touch of Evil edition offers three versions of the film–the compromised but still absolutely classic theatrical release, a ‘preview’ edition that hews closer to Welles’ vision than the eventual theatrical release, and the ingenious, controversial 1998 ‘restored’ version put together by scholar/preservationistsRick Schmidlin andJonathan Rosenbaum — all in 1.85. FormerCahiers du Cinema criticNicolas Saada calls this a ‘disaster’ over at Dave’s site.

“A host of others, who are also discussing the decision over at the Criterion forum, point to the evidence apropos Universal’s policy. The Lafayette Theater’sPete Appruzzese, a man I defer to in all manners technical, says he’s runTouch of Evil in both 1.37 and 1.85 and that to his eye the 1.85 version is correct.Dave Kehrfeels the 1.85 version looks ‘tight.'”

Then again Kenny wrote the following withinKehr’s talkback section: “Let’s start a collection to raise enough money so that Craig and the MOC guys can convince Universal to license themTouch of Evil for a Blu-ray MOC release in 1.33. Put me down (seriously) for $500 in support.”

Here’s aGerman comparison site, copied fromDave Kehr’sTOE page.

There’s no earthly reason to believe or presume that Welles and Metty would have preferred thatTouch of Evil be seen by future generations in a 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio. Any idiot can look at the 1.37 version on tape and the new cropping and come to this conclusion. There is a word for the 1.85 cropping on thejust-out three-disc DVD set, and that word is “vandalism.”