oh artistic intent, where would we be without you? we’d certainly have fewer arguments discussions brewed amongst the fanboy cine/audio-phile crowds, that’s for sure. when it comes to long-standing debates in the film and music worlds, non-wages larger than The Beatles catalog in mono vs. stereo, and Kubrick’s final five films in 1.85:1 vs. 1.33:1 aspect ratios.
The Beatles are to Kubrick as sound fidelity is to image composition.
both are tough battles, but i’m here to go on the record about something that is, for once and for all, a clear cut case:
The Beatles in mono is clearly not debate-able in the same way that aspect ratio is in regards to Kubrick’s famous final five.
what the hell am i talking about?
for those of you who are confused, here are the Cliffs Notes.
The Beatles
the fab four’s famous catalog came to fruition in a rather speedy seven years, releasing a total of 13 studio albums between the years of 1963-1970. over the course of the band’s recording career, a shift in technology crept up on the band. you see, although stereo was technically available, most music consumers only had mono equipment at there disposal — mass adoption hadn’t taken hold yet. so, rightfully, the band and their primary sound engineer (George Martin) focused their attention on the mono mixes of their albums. this resulted in a greater attention to detail, added refinement, and more time spent in mixing sessions for the members of the band.
you see, The Beatles actually spent time overseeing the mono mixes, making sure that their ultimate vision was realized. however, when the mono mixes were locked, the band left the stereo version to the engineers to realize. for reasons perhaps too technical to go into, some of the stereo versions required the use of forced panning techniques to achieve a “fake stereo” effect (see earlier releases like Please Please Me and A Hard Day’s Night) where others required the use of completely different takes altogether, resulting in entirely different versions of songs produced for the stereo mixes. some of the changes were more subtle — a more subdued sound, de-emphasized vocals/instrumentation, or completely omitted effects (see: Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds on mono vs. stereo — the phasing effect is nearly totally absent in the stereo version).
before veering off into a far too technical analysis (too late?), i’ll attempt to keep this focused. the discrepancies that arose between the mono and stereo versions of The Beatles albums were a direct result of the intended method of consumption. stereo was an afterthought due to lack of mass adoption at the time, but the band changed this as the public made the shift to stereo. later in the band’s career, their technical experimentation with sound led them closer to stereo-centric recordings, and by the time Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, and Let It Be were recorded, the band was entirely focused on stereo for their preferred method of output.
bottom line: the band focused on mono because the masses were going to be widely consuming these albums on mono systems, and thus the final mono product is much more rich and satisfying to the ear, even in the age of 5.1 7.1 digital surround sound systems.
Kubrick’s intent, framed
“But Kubrick wanted people to view his films in 1.33:1, that’s why he shot them with the full frame in mind.”
no. you’re wrong. sorry.
this argument has raged on for decades, and while most of the discussion has centered around the DVD releases of Kubrick’s canon it really began with 2001: A Space Odyssey and, of all things, television. you see, when Kubrick was crafting his masterpieces the intended method of exhibition was still the theater. those of you familiar with the history of television know that it, in many ways, beget the modern theatrical aspect ratio. theater exhibition houses needed a new way to lure audiences to leave their couches and head into the cinemas, so thus cinemascope was born. widescreen! something you can’t get at home! behold, the future is now!
when 2001: A Space Odyssey was first aired on television, the 65mm print was transferred to a 1.33:1 pan-and-scan (ugh!) to fit the screen. so to prevent this mess from ever occurring again, Kubrick instructed:
“THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1.85-1. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1.33-1 area.”
(taken from a storyboard from The Shining — Castle, Alison (2005), The Stanley Kubrick Archives, Taschen)
additionally, he required (contractually) that all home video versions of his film adhere to the 1.33:1 transfers. but, this wasn’t to keep the masses from seeing his 1.85:1 compositions. in fact, it was quite the contrary. he was actually protecting his work from pan-and-scan. Kubrick’s mind was very much focused on the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, he simply chose to preserve the 1.33:1 framing for televised exhibition knowing that viewers did not have television sets capable of reasonably displaying his desired aspect ratio. of course, these days you’d be hard-pressed to find someone without a 16:9 set, and while not exactly the 1.85:1 that Stanley sought, it is still much closer to his intent. despite this, Warner Brothers execs (and others who are obviously insane) insist that Kubrick’s wishes be upheld, and that releases remain in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio.
bottom line: Kubrick protected his vision by retrofitting his prints for 1.33:1 transfers, but that’s not to say that he preferred the archaic aspect ratio. his intent was always focused on the theatrical exhibition, so maintaining DVD and Blu-ray transfers that respect 1.33:1 is ridiculous.
It’s a subtle distinction…
but a clear one. The Beatles adhered to technologically impaired mixes (mono) because that was the standard method of listening to music at the time. Kubrick intended his films to be screened in a theatrical aspect ratio, but didn’t want his work crippled on television sets. so, listening to The Beatles catalog in mono despite owning technology capable of stereo is akin to watching Kubrick films in 1.85:1 aspect ratio despite his wishes for home exhibition to adhere to 1.33:1 — both strike closer to the original artistic intent.
if you don’t believe me, fire up the mono version of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band and listen closely. swap out the mono version for the stereo version and let it sink in.
next, pop in the 1999 DVD release of The Shining and soak in the 1.33:1 framing. after Jack freezes, toss in the 2007 DVD release (stick with DVD to avoid obvious arguments about quality differences vs. Blu-ray — we’re talking framing here, not resolution) and tell me which one you prefer.