An Introduction to "Open Matte" Films

Recently I've joined a private torrent site specializing in rare and out of print films and TV shows. This has led to my stumbling down an entirely new rabbit hole of movie-nerd collecting: The "Open Matte Version".

What is an "Open Matte" film?

Open Matte Example
(Augmented from Wikipedia)

Shooting in an "Open Matte" is the process of achieving a different aspect ratio than the one you are shooting in by masking part of the full frame image with black bars.

One of the main reasons people collect "Open Matte" films is that they contain extra image information (generally at the top and bottom of screen) giving the viewer a bigger glimpse into the world. However, since the cinematographers job was to frame for Widescreen first and the Open Matte second (or sometimes not at all), this is generally NOT what they intended the viewers experience to be.

For the most part, viewing the Open Matte version does not make for a more aesthetically pleasing image on screen (at least not in the traditional sense). In fact, this added information sometimes disrupts the movie watching experience for the typical movie-goer. For example, where black bars were intended to be, the viewer may occasionally see a ladder on screen, a rope pulling a prop, or just an oddly composed frame with too much headroom for the actors.

So why would you collect something that effectively makes the movie harder to watch? Because if you are like me and have viewed your most-coveted films several hundred times, these are new, rare glimpses into some of your favorite on-screen moments. Due to both changes in cameras and distribution, I'm organizing these "Open Matte" films into two categories: The Pre-Digital and Post-Digital Revolution.

Pre-Digital Revolution

4x3 Matte Example

By the 1980's many movies were shot in widescreen on 35mm film despite the format's native size being a 4:3 square image. To accomplish this without the employ of expensive image-bending Anamorphic lenses, cinematographers would have guide-lines on their viewfinders and monitors showing them where the intended aspect ratio was in relation to what was fully being captured. Then in post-production (or sometimes exhibition), they would throw black boxes over-top of the image, blocking out the information that wasn't meant to be seen.

This was largely brought about by the rise of consumers watching movies via VHS and Cable TV. During this time, home viewers weren't open to having letterboxing "cover up part of their TV" and unfortunately, home distribution was exclusively catering to the 4:3 square format*. This effectively rendered widescreen obsolete after the movies initial run in the theatrical market (at least until the rise of Laser Discs). In order to force many films of the day into this TV friendly aspect ratio, production companies employed the use of "Pan and Scan" (a technique in which you crop the widescreen image and artificially move the camera's viewpoint).

Pan & Scan Example

Thankfully, for some movies, pan-and-scanning was avoided as it looked cheap and suffered image quality loss. To avoid their art being butchered, many cinematographers shot their films in widescreen while "protecting" for a 4:3 frame as well. By extracting the square image from the original 35mm frame, it contained additional information at the top and bottom of the screen. Most Open Matte 4:3 versions of pre-digitally shot movies often come from either broadcast, Laser Discs, early DVD's, or accidental release.  

*Explaining to the general public that widescreen is how the filmmakers intended the film to be viewed was generally lost on them while explaining the concept of "pan-and-scan"  has yet to be accomplished.

Post-Digital Revolution

16x9 Matte Example**

These days, most movies are made with digital cameras and are thus shot in the 16:9 widescreen format. However, to accomplish a more extreme widescreen image (without Anamorphic lenses), the same technique as mentioned before is performed. The monitors and viewfinders have aspect ratio guide-lines on them (or in the case of indie film, gaff tape is often put over the monitor) indicating where the intended image is located. This extra information comes in very useful in post production where the frame can be moved up or down in order to fix a potentially wrongly-framed shot. 

These "Open Matte 16x9's" are more rare and are generally released on accident or in some cases, broadcast because the home viewer still can't handle having boxes on their screen. Additionally, many of the films that fall under this category have been exported from the studio because the engineer who is outputting the film has forgotten to turn the black bars back on overtop of the image.

**Yes, Seven was shot on film, however it's an excellent example of a 16x9 Open Matte and this version was more than likely accidentally released on Blu Ray in Canada. .

Some Great Open Matte Examples:

Pee Wee's Big Adventure

• Pee Wee's Big Adventure: Legend has it that the guy who output the 4:3 VHS version of this film still gets shit for a few shots that blatantly showcase the special-effects in this movie. The best example can be seen HERE. In this shot, Pee Wee is pulling an endless chain and it's source was designed to be masked out. In this version, we clearly see where the chain is coming from.

• Evil Dead: For years, only a select few, original VHS copies contained the original, unmatted 4:3 aspect ratio. The reason that so many die-hard fans clamored for this version is because this film was NOT shot with the idea of a widescreen presentation. Furthermore, when they did put the "black bars" over top of the image, they gave zero thought about re-framing the shots and blindly pasted them over the entire movie. Thankfully, the last few editions of the film have in fact contained the original, unmatted version.

Evil Dead 2

• Evil Dead 2: I was only recently alerted to this. The 2001 "Tin Box" release of this film contained not just the original 16:9 version, but also contained the unmatted 4:3 version of this movie as it was shot. There's no goofs in this version that I've found yet, but this is a great, rare copy of the film and is totally worth giving a watch.

• Terminator 2: In the open matte version of this you can plainly see Arnold's pants when he's supposed to be naked.

• Buffy The Vampire Slayer- Season 1: This is rare because it is the pillar box mattes that have been removed. The show was obviously framed for 4:3, but Fox wanted to re-release it in 16:9 anyway. That means throughout the season there are errors abound. On the sides of the screens you can see ladders, lights, boom poles, and even the occasional person. Pretty damn hilarious.

One film I have seen with my own eyes that had an Open Matte but I have yet to find commercially is the 2011 film Drive. While I worked at S*** we received a copy of it for Australia and I personally failed it myself for having the wrong delivery specs. 

Other great examples of "Open Matte Versions" include: The Matrix, Seven (shown above), Back to The Future 2, The Shining (and almost every Kubrick movie), Planet Terror, and Stephen Kings IT. There are a TON more, but I don't want to get carried away. Feel free to add your own favorites in the comments below.

In Conclusion:

He didn't actually say this...
but it was implied.

If I was a professional cinematographer and I saw an unauthorized version of a film I'd shot, I'll admit, I'd be pretty pissed off. And in the 80's and 90's I'm sure a lot of them were. Imagine being Victor J. Kemper (who shot Pee Wee's Big Adventure) and seeing that bike gag ruined on screen because of some post-production idiot. I'd personally be fucking furious.

Strange versions of classic films aren't necessary for the public at large, and for the most part, they probably offer a negative experience for filmmakers and most viewers... but for die-hard collectors, they give a whole new way to appreciate our favorite movies. Whether you collect them for an inside view into the process, to laugh at, to get that extra bit of screen information or just to have them on your hard drive so you can brag to your collector friends (who are also likely NOT getting laid), it's a great excuse to re-watch your favorite flicks one more time.

Can I Still Allow Myself to Watch Woody Allen Films?

Prelude:
Lately I've been at an impasse. I really, really love alot of Woody Allen films, but at the same time the dude might be guilty of some really fucked up charges. I have really struggled with this fact since Dylan Farrow's public letter was published, so much so that I have abstained on watching any of his films since. This blog-post is not written to sway you in any way, shape or form. It was written solely by me in an effort to work out whether or not I should allow myself to watch and or enjoy his work.

Every film buff has a Woody Allen phase. Admit it. Whether you like him or not, at some point you have made it a point to catch several of his films in quick succession due to either your adoration of his work, or attempting to figure out what all the fuss is about.Which ever side of the fence you fall on, you cannot deny the fucker is one hard-working son-of-a-bitch. "Midnight In Paris" is not only my favorite film of 2011, but is the only film I have ever seen on the small screen (caught it early while working at Sony) that I then went to the theater to watch again that night.

Before analyzing the situation, there are a number of barebones facts that are undeniable about the situation, here are the pertinent ones as I understand them.

Mia Farrow is a fucking crazy ass bitch
Immediately after publicly accusing Allen of this horrible crime, Farrow was still aggressively pursuing

her role on his next project "Manhattan Murder Mystery". To continue a relationship in any way, shape or form with a man who you believe has actually sexually-assaulted your daughter means you are either batshit crazy, a fucking liar, or the most self-centered bitch on the planet. Hell, she even testified on behalf of Roman Polanski (who was also charged with having sex with a minor) during his trial. Does this mean the incident didn't happen? Fuck no, it just means that regardless, Mia Farrow is a fucking crazy ass bitch. The insanity doesn't end there either, Farrow continued to let her children around Allen after even after she found out he had sex with Soon-Yi, her stepdaughter, which brings me to the next point.

Woody Allen is a fucked up dude

Directly before the accusation of the molestation of Dylan, Woody Allen already had sex and a relationship with one of her daughters while in a relationship with Farrow. Yes, both people in this were probably of legal age (due to her not having a birth certificate it was assumed she was between 18-20 years old) at the time, but it was still his girlfriends daughter. Further, he publicly stated that “I didn’t feel that just because she was Mia’s daughter, there was any great moral dilemma. It was a fact, but not one with any great import. It wasn’t like she was my daughter.”. Does that prove that he molested Dylan? Nope, but it does prove that he is one weird motherfucker who doesn't have issues with fucking someone who looks up to him as a father figure.

Was Allen indeed being treated for obsession over Dylan?

Taken from the custody transcript

In researching this case I discovered again and again reports that Allen had been in treatment with a "Dr. Coates" regarding treatment for his "inappropriate behavior with Dylan". Well I decided not to re-read what a bunch of fucking bloggers wrote and rewrote (scum of the Earth if you ask me ;-) and read the statement myself. According to the papers, he was not being "treated" for it, but the subject did arise while in therapy. According to Dr. Coates, the subject of Allen's preferential treatment of Dylan did indeed come up, but that he "did not see it as sexual". Basically the doctor discussed with Allen that he should not dote solely on Dylan and that doing so was creeping people out. What I find strange here is that the doctor recognized that he preferred the child, but did not believe that the attention was sexual in nature, something I would suspect someone of his profession is trained to do.

Dylan's claims
It is beyond a shadow of a doubt to me that Dylan believes she was molested by Allen at seven years old. How do you approach this claim as being potentially untruthful and not be a piece of shit? You could attempt to explain away that Mia could have brainwashed her into believing this, but jesus fucking christ, now you're questioning someone who has been through an insane ordeal. I feel dirty just writing these few lines on the subject, but then again, this is an exploratory piece. I myself have written briefly about being young and told that I watched a gun be held to my mothers head resulting in confusion of not being able to tell in retrospect what I have seen VS what I was told I had seen. To this day it is debated what actually happened. Is it a possibility that she is mistaken? Yes, I think I can speak with some very limited understanding to the effect of having people tell you what you saw and how that can cloud a young mind. Does that make it the case that it didn't happen? Shit no it doesn't.

The older brother insists it didn't happen
Moses Farrow is 8 years older than Dylan and denies that there was ever any inappropriate anything that happened during their years with Allen. Think about that for a second, that makes the kid around 15 years old when all of this was going down. I remember damn near everything from 15 years old. That either means that Moses is lying for Dad for his inheritance, being honest and nothing happened, or that he's technically retarded and never noticed anything. The first two seem like logical possibilities, but the dude seems well spoken enough to eliminate the third.

Conclusion:
That's a Readers Digest version of the nuts and bolts of it. Allen has a history of doing some weird freaky

The Whole Fucking Mess

shit and has not had problems with who he does it with, even if she's a daughter-like figure. Dylan was only 7 and impressionable, both from a nut-bag mother and a fucking weirdo father. I put a certain amount of stock in what Moses claims as he doesn't seem to be doing more than protecting his fathers name and he would have been a correct age to notice things of that sort from Allen. The custody paper's far from speak kindly about Allen, they even go as far as to say that he was detrimental to the children whether he committed the crime or not. Regardless, that cunt Mia Farrow put her children into harms way so I'd say she shoulders quite a bit of responsibility.

Did he do it? Fuck me, those are some murky waters. Dylan's insistence on the subject seems damning, but there isn't much more past that. Hell, there's even quite a bit of evidence to the contrary... so the dude very well might be guilty of an unimaginable crime. But this is America, and we are supposed to believe in innocence until proven guilty, and even the judge in the fucking custody case couldn't handle making a ruling on whether he did it or not. I have no idea if he did it, I wish to fuck I did.

To be completely honest, I thought that after researching this subject I would completely be against watching Woody Allen films ever again. But what it comes down to for me personally is that it's just not right to judge someone on one persons claims when there isn't a body of damning body of evidence to support it. After all, the weird bastard never has been accused of this before (as is usually the case with pedophiles). Perhaps I'm writing this and looking for an excuse to still watch Woody Allen's films, but I don't believe in my heart of hearts that I am. With all of the weird history, accusations, and drama in mind I choose to continue to watch his films, but I have the nagging suspicion that everytime I do, I will fell just a little bit dirty.