P.O. Box Tinto Brass (DVD) UPDATED

[Darrel_Griffin]

P.O. Box Tinto Brass (1995) - DVD


Italy - Ripley's Home Video


1. Region 0

2. AR is about 1.83:1 (whole picture is slightly windowboxed within 16:9 area)

3. soundtrack is: Italian Dolby Digital 2.0 mono

4. runtime is: 89:30 PAL (equivalent to 93:14)

5. Extras:

2008 Interview with Tinto Brass (15:16) in Italian with optional English subtitles (subtitles must be selected from disc menu)

(Notes:

a. This may well be the same interview as the one marked as "2003 Interview" (runtime 16:01) on the new Cult Epics DVD / Blu-ray releases, which I don't (yet) own. The runtime of 15:16 PAL is equivalent to 15:54, so quite similar. I got the 2008 date from the copyright at the end credits, but the interview may have been conducted at an earlier date.

b. Re: Subtitles: on my Panasonic player, the English subtitles for this extra could only be selected by selecting 'Inglese' in the disc's subtitle menu prior to selecting the extra. On a PC player, I was able to select "secondary" subtitles while the extra was playing - these were also in English, and I think essentially the same, but positioned at the top of the screen instead of at the bottom.)


Italian Theatrical Trailer (1:03)

(Note: this has no dialogue, just music, but onscreen text is Italian)


6. Notes: includes 4 page booklet of film notes (in Italian)


source: I own it

[Eric_Cotenas]

The interview was produced by Ripley’s but it is definitely copyrighted 2003 on the Blu-ray.

I believe the 2008 copyright on the back of the cover is just for artwork and design.

There are two Ripley’s editions with different back covers. The 2008 has a 1995 copyright for the production companies and a 2002 copyright for Ripley’s suggesting they intended to release it earlier. The 2016 dvd has a 2010 copyright for Cristina D’Osvaldo Home Video and a 2015 copyright to Viggo SrL whose logo appears at the head of the new 4K restoration.

[Darrel_Griffin]

Mine is the 2008 release, but I got the 2008 date from the end credits of the extra, not from the back of the case. Still, the interview might have been conducted at an earlier date, and given what you said, the Cult Epics interview is probably be the same one.

You didn't add the 4 page booklet (I admit I added this after editing my post, so you might not have spotted it).

[Eric_Cotenas]

The interview credits on the Blu say 2003.

[Darrel_Griffin]

I did pre-order the Cult Epics Blu-ray (although I've not yet had a confirmation of shipping, which is a bit worrying), but assuming it arrives ok, I can then compare the interviews to check if they are the same. It might be that they are essentially the same, but with different end credits.

[Eric_Cotenas]

It’s less about the film than his childhood in Venice, his youthful discovery of cinema and brothels, meeting Lotte Eisner at the Venice Film Festival, working under Henri Langlois at the Cinematheque Français, his philosophy of the difference between eroticism and pornography (quoted later in Monamour during his cameo), and his feelings about the critical response to his work.

[Darrel_Griffin]

I've just re-watched it, and yes it covers all the subjects you mentioned, so it's almost certainly the same interview.

[Eric_Cotenas]

And still, they got the aspect ratio wrong even in the 4K.

[Darrel_Griffin]

Do you mean for the main feature?

IMDb lists it as 1.85:1, although admittedly it is often wrong about these things.

I am not an expert on this subject, but my understanding is that movies are often shot such that any important things (e.g. actors' faces, props key to the plot) are kept within a 'safe' area well inside the edge of the frame. Then when the film is printed and/or when it is projected, different mattes can be applied to create a variety of aspect ratios, each of which include the 'safe' area. I have heard for example that it used to be quite common to have the same movie projected at 1.66:1 in Europe and 1.85:1 in the USA, and the negative as shot might be something more like 1.33:1. For such movies, it could be argued that there isn't a single OAR, as several are valid.

For P.O. Box Tinto Brass, it wasn't released until 1995, by which time perhaps the popular USA ratio of 1.85:1 was considered to be more standard than 1.66:1, but I am prepared to be corrected on this!

[Eric_Cotenas]

All of Brass’ other films from this period have been 1.66:1 (from Frivolous Lola onwards the end credits actually list the theatrical masking ratio of “1:1.66”), the exception being Monamour which was shot in HD to be matted to 1.85:1 from 1.78:1 (the end credits of which lost the masking as 1:1.85 (and one can see on some dvd transfers that the credits were 1.78:1 and the rest of the film then matted to 1.85:1). Close-ups look awkwardly framed at 1.78:1 and his long shots often clip more than the hairline at this ratio.

Filmexport who owns several of Brass’ films from the eighties onwards have a habit of cropping 1.66:1 titles to 1.78:1 for 16:9 including non-Brass titles which has continued over to HD (although Italian companies in general adapted to 16:9 awkwardly back in the late nineties with some straight crops to 1.78:1 and some odd combinations of cropping and stretching).

[Darrel_Griffin]

Yes I do remember seeing the AR listed in the end credits of at least one of his movies, which was memorable both for being written in reverse order to the standard way (1:1.66 instead of 1.66:1), and just for being mentioned at all, which I can't recall seeing on any movies by any other director.

I have just checked some of his movies on IMDb, and they also currently have 1.85:1 listed for the following:

All Ladies Do It (AKA Così fan tutte) (1992)

The Voyeur (AKA L'uomo che guarda) (1994)


although again, these might be erroneous.


As a more general point, in my experience, for a movie with both 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 ARs, usually the 1.66:1 version has more image overall, being the same width but with more height (and from your description it sounds like this is the case for P.O. Box Tinto Brass). But this isn't necessarily always the case - it is possible that some movies could have both versions being the same height, with the 1.85:1 version being wider, or even a situation in between where the 1.66:1 version is slightly taller AND the 1.85:1 version is slightly wider, with each having portions of image not included in the other. Certainly I have seen this with movies shot with both cinema and television in mind, where the 1.33:1 open matte version for TV has more image vertically, but less horizontally, than the 1.85:1 cinematic version.

It does also beg the question that if movies are bring cropped from 1.66:1, then at the very least why not make them 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1? There is no point having black bars top and bottom if there is available image to fill the gap!

[Eric_Cotenas]

ALL LADIES DO IT and THE VOYEUR should be 1.66:1. The 16:9 transfers look misframed (not that the 4:3 ones were much better since the usually just exposed the hard mattes). I wouldn't put much stock in what IMDb says about Italian productions, but even low budget films of the eighties and nineties where they sometimes list them as mono or stereo without regard to their actual mixes, and assuming that anything theatrical is at least 1.85:1. When I got WITCHERY/WITCHCRAFT for review, I noticed that IMDb had mixed up the listings for that film with the shot on video film WITCHRAFT and the sixties film of the same title (attributing the screenplay to the writer of the latter).

[Darrel_Griffin]

I know Witchcraft (1964) but I've never seen Witchery (1988). It did occur to me that perhaps the latter is in some sense a remake of the former, but judging by the 'Storyline' description on IMDb, they have little in common, so I doubt Harry Spalding should have a credit for Witchery (1988). He doesn't have any other writing credits listed from around that time.

Having said that, IMDb is a huge database, and they do seem to have a fairly good accuracy rate, given the amount of data held.

If you're sure they've made some errors, you could contact them with the details, although I expect it's likely to be a painfully slow process waiting for a response.

[Darrel_Griffin]

I have now received the Blu-ray, and can confirm that the interview on the R0 Italy - Ripley's Home Video DVD is the same as the one on the Blu-ray.

The only difference is the end credits are different - on the DVD there are fewer credits and they scroll more slowly, plus it has the 2008 date instead of 2003, but 2003 is presumably when the interview was recorded, if you want to add "2003" to the DVD entry.

The difference in runtime is explained by the different end credits plus PAL speedup on the DVD.