Chapter 10 Before Techniscope: the penetration of foreign widescreen technology in Italy (19531959)

Chapter 10 Before Techniscope: the penetration of foreign widescreen technology in Italy

Federico Vitella

Introduction

idescreen filming, enhanced by colour and stereophonic sound, greatly improved post-World War II Hollywood films and reinvigorated American production at an international level after temporarily stopping the drastic decline in domestic movie-going. Given the importance of foreign markets for Hollywood films, panoramic systems were immediately exported to all the major national cinemas, with an effort that was proportional to the importance of each specific national context. In every European country, the introduction of widescreen systems radically destabilized the film market and triggered an industrial revolution that can be compared to the advent of sound. Driven by significant financial investments, the conversion of each national film industry began strategically with the adaptation of movie theatre equipment, which was essential for the widespread distribution of Hollywoods widescreen films. American widescreen films which were smaller in quantity compared to previous releases but which had an obvious commercial value easily overcame the initial obstacles to their importation, optimized the ordinary rental practices and monopolized European exhibition with exceptionally long runs. Developing and printing laboratories, studios, and facilities specializing in

post-production were renovated as local widescreen production began, a process that was accelerated by runaway productions from Hollywood.1 The shift from the Academy ratio to a panoramic film format involved not only American cinema but concerned all the national film industries that had commercial relationships with Hollywood, although each responded in a different way. Before Rome Technicolors Techniscope became the main format for Italian widescreen filmmaking, thanks to Sergio Leones films of the 1960s,2 Italian cinema relied extensively on foreign technology for both production and exhibition. But what methodological issues arise when an industry moves from the initial use of a new technological mode of representation to the application of that technology? What does it mean to study the penetration of the new widescreen technologies in different countries? And, more specifically, to what extent does the importation of panoramic formats in Italy constitute a problem? My essay will address these issues in a preliminary way and then, deepening Adriano Aprs research,3 it will provide an initial history of the topic. Although recent anniversaries have finally triggered a systematic reflection on widescreen cinema as a complex historical object, there is a lack of research that addresses the institutionalization of panoramic technology in any specific

164

WIDESCREEN WORLDWIDE

Fig. 1. Advertising for CinemaScope movie theatre equipment (Cinemeccanica). In Rivista tecnica di cinematografia, elettroacustica, televisione 4 (OctoberDecembe r 1953).

country (with the notable exception of the American situation which has been documented by John Beltons work).4

Exhibition technologies: American widescreen systems

The first issue that must be addressed in order to analyze the transition from the Academy ratio to various panoramic formats in Italian cinema is the importation of American widescreen systems as exhibition technologies. The enrichment of the sensory experience provided by the new screening technologies required significant changes in theatre equipment and a structural revision of theatre architecture, especially in terms of the changes in the number and location of the seats required by a successful theatre conversion. The adoption of widescreen exhibition systems varied in expense, depend-

ing on the quality of the chosen projector, the screen, and the sound system, but the expense varied mostly in relation to the nature of the devices installed. Specialized literature divides panoramic systems into three relatively homogenous groups. The first group is made up of multi-camera systems such as Cinerama, which is characterized by the interlocking of separate film strips, cameras, camera lenses and projectors. The second group consists of anamorphic systems like CinemaScope, which obtain a panoramic image by employing a special optical device on the lenses of the camera and projector. The third group includes large-format systems like Todd-AO, which are characterized by the use of wide film possessing a large negative area. The expenses for the theatre owners are proportional to the complexity of each group of processes. Existing evidence indicates that multi-camera systems are much more expensive, followed by large-format technology systems, and finally by anamorphic systems.5 The first conversion of Italian facilities to new technologies began after Twentieth Century-Foxs introduction of CinemaScope in the autumn of 1953. Installation expenses were greater if stereophonic sound systems were installed; Fox initially made the installation of these systems obligatory for theatre owners. The basic optical equipment for screening included anamorphic lenses and a panoramic screen, the dimensions, proportion, and brightness of which should be appropriate for the dimension of the projected area (Fig. 1). The first orders were officially placed in September 1953, after CinemaScope was presented at the Venice Film Festival with a special screening reserved for exhibitors. The first film shot in CinemaScope, The Robe (1953), premiered on 27 November at the Capitol theatre in Rome. Widely celebrated wherever scheduled (though not screened widely), it won the Nastro dargento as box office sales champion of the season. The conquering of the Italian market continued, on 23 February 1954, with the distribution of How to Marry a Millionaire (1954) directed by Jean Negulesco, followed by the scheduling of additional films

Chapter 10 Before Techniscope: the penetration of foreign widescreen technology in Italy

165

as they became available and as theatres converted to show them: Beneath the 12-Mile Reef (1954) directed by Robert Webb opened on 30 March; and King of the Khyber Rifles (1954) directed by Henry King on 13 April. When Fox compromised on its stereo-only policy and started distributing copies of its films with monaural optical soundtracks, the pace of conversions increased greatly. At the end of 1956, with 3011 theatres equipped for anamorphic projection, Italy held the record for the most installations in continental Europe.6 From the winter of 195657, the remodelling of Italian cinemas continued with the conversion of theatres for large-format projection. Systems for the exhibition of 70mm film with six magnetic tracks were designed for use in large, first-run theatres where the projectors, screen and sound system would usually be replaced. According to the sources used for this research, the complete installation of one of these systems was up to three times more expensive than that of an anamorphic system.7 Nonetheless, 70mm projection became significantly common in Italy, although the process of the formats diffusion was quite slow. The first film shot with the Todd-AO system, Oklahoma! (1955), was distributed in two versions: the original edition, printed on 70mm film, was presented exclusively at the Adriano movie theatre in Rome on 14 February 1957; other theatres received instead the 35mm edition shot in CinemaScope.8 The second Todd-AO production, Around the World in Eighty Days (1956) directed by Michael Anderson, circulated in 1957 in an anamorphic 35mm version; following that, in 1958, came the 70mm version of South Pacific (1958) directed by Joshua Logan which was distributed only in Rome, Milan, and Florence (Fig. 2). Until the end of the decade exhibitors were slow to adopt the 70mm systems, but after the initial impasse due to the delay with which the first American films were imported, the rate of theatre conversions grew exponentially. By the end of 1959 the Milanbased company Cinemeccanica was responsible for the installation of 70mm equipment in twenty-six theatres, and, beginning with

Techniramas Solomon and Sheba (1959) director by King Vidor, the Todd-AO theatres started to be used by 70mm competing systems.9 Cinerama was in a different situation because its technological requirements resulted in a more limited diffusion. The architecture of theatres had to be significantly altered in order to accommodate the huge curved screen and the three projection booths. At the same time, the seating area had to be redesigned to position spectators so the screen could have maximum impact on them. The expense for the renovation of a theatre was usually ten times higher than for a Todd-AO system. About two-and-ahalf years after the first public screening in New York of This Is Cinerama (1952), the Cinerama system was installed in two Italian theatres. The Haggiag brothers, who had

Fig. 2. Advertising for Todd-AOs South Pacific (J. Logan, 1958). In Cinecorriere 12 (December 1958).

166

WIDESCREEN WORLDWIDE

Fig. 3. Advertising for French Cinpanoramic anamorphic lenses. In Bollettino AIC 5 (JuneJuly 1954).

exclusive rights to the system in Italy, worked initially on the conversion of the Manzoni theatre in Milan, which was particularly suitable for the multi-projector system because of its wide seating area and its apse-shaped rear wall. Installed under the supervision of the American engineer William R. Latady and the Italian engineer Antonio Venturini in March 1955, the system was publicly presented at a gala on the following 9 April.10 The scheduling of the first film shot in Cinerama continued without interruption until mid-September, and during the rest of the year the film was screened on Sunday mornings. The box office receipts of the first week remained more or less constant for the films entire tenure, averaging between 2 and 3 million Lira a day. The second Italian Cin-

erama theatre, the Sistina in Rome, was equipped following the success of the Cinerama theatre in Milan. After about two months of operation, receipts totalled 135 million Lira for 90,000 paying spectators.11 The Rome Cinerama screenings started on 28 June but were limited to the presentation of the first Cinerama film. Lets recapitulate. The introduction of the new widescreen technologies radically changed Italian exhibition. Given the continuing positive financial results of these formats, the more economically solid movie theatres were quickly converted, providing an impetus for the conversion of other theatres.12 The competition between rival systems that emerged more clearly after an initial chaotic phase determined the ways in which the field was restructured. Twentieth Century-Foxs CinemaScope led the way in the marketplace as the best technological compromise between the conservative inclinations expressed by exhibitors and the more radical demands for significant theatre renovation called for by producers and distributors. Michael Todds Todd-AO targeted luxury halls, which were willing to face huge expenses in order to distinguish their offerings from those of medium-sized cinemas. Fred Wallers Cinerama completed the stratification of various tiers of the exhibition circuit by equipping only the most exceptional theatres. Italian movie theatres of the mid-1950s, from first-run halls to cheap suburban cinemas, differed in terms of the equipment that could be found in their projection booths. Small suburban theatres did not participate as much in the widescreen revolution; basically, all they did was to install new screens. Fairly important theatres, on the other hand, were properly equipped for anamorphic projection and, when the budget was available, even with stereophonic sound. First-run theatres in the most important provincial capitals also had special systems for the screening of 70mm films.

Production technologies: European anamorphic systems

Not all of the widescreen systems introduced in Italy were used as both exhibition and

Chapter 10 Before Techniscope: the penetration of foreign widescreen technology in Italy

167

production technologies. This exhibition/production distinction is fundamental because technology used exclusively in theatre projection, and thus intended only for the screening of foreign films, has a socio-cultural impact that is different from the impact of technologies that were also used in the production sector. From an Italian perspective, Cinerama and Todd-AO, which were never used in Italian film production except for runaway Hollywood pictures such as Ben-Hur (1959), Cleopatra (1963), and The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965), remain largely exhibition technologies. The deluxe circuit of multi-projector and large-format systems constituted a site totally dedicated to the screening of Hollywood films. Given their nature, they are part of the larger pervasiveness of American culture in Italy in the years following the Second World War. On the other hand, CinemaScope and systems that employed anamorphic lenses have been used in Italy as both exhibition and production technologies. Adriano Aprs pioneering work provides an important mapping of the situation. According to a recent filmography of his, Italian panoramic production between 1955 and 1959 constituted about 30 per cent of the total production. Of these 200 films, more than 85 per cent were made with anamorphic systems, a confirmation of the success of Twentieth Century-Foxs brilliant promotional campaign. The remaining 15 per cent were shot instead with 35mm film exposed horizontally as in formats such as VistaVision and Technirama, which can be classified as large-format systems but which did not involve 70mm exhibition. The success of CinemaScope immediately opened the possibility for other systems based on the same technology, systems that were interested in using the newly equipped CinemaScope theatres. Notoriously, the anamorphic lens of inventor Henry Chrtien was no longer protected by patent, despite the registration by Fox in America of its CinemaScope system. Among the systems that were most important from a commercial standpoint, I suggest first of all the French formats of Cinpanoramic, Totalvision and Dyaliscope, which found widespread use in

Italy because of their technical performance which was comparable to that of CinemaScope, and because their rental costs were much more affordable for producers. Cinpanoramic was presented with great style at the Capitol Theatre in Rome on 15 July 1954, in front of ANICA and AGIS delegates. Produced and commercialized by the Parisian Distribution Internationale Cinmatographique (DIC) associated with the press mogul Jean Paul Mauclaire, this system was featured in Italy with a certain number of brand names by Report Film, a Roman cinematographic equipment rental service (Fig. 3). Among these brand names, those regularly deposited at the appropriate offices for use by Italian producers, and used for the opening credits of at least one film, were Cinescope, Supercinescope and Cinepanscope.13 Totalvision optics, which were designed for the eponymous transalpine company owned by the engineers Bonnerot and Libman old-time collaborators of the inventor of CinemaScope were featured in Italy by ATC: in 1955 with the original brand name, and from May 1956 on with the name Totalscope.14 Dyaliscope, produced by the Saint-Cloud company SATEC, was instead imported to Italy by Mole-Richardsons Rome branch, and commercialized from 1956 exclusively with the French name.15 To these first generation systems that had great international fortune we can add solutions that were less efficacious, or that came to use after the 195456 flourishing of technologies. A few examples are Vistarama, produced by the American colossus Simpson Optical Co., and featured in Italy by Edoardo Capolinos company Ameurope (1955); the German Ultrascope, designed by the Swedish inventor Jan Jacobsen for Arnold & Richter in Monaco and imported in Italy by the aforementioned Report Film (1956); and Tekniscope, produced by Los Angeles Euroscope and featured in Italy by Rome NC, which was owned by the famous cinematographer Pier Ludovico Pavoni (1960). The Italian anamorphic lenses Cinediorama deserve more attention; they were designed by Ugo Peter and presented commercially in

168

WIDESCREEN WORLDWIDE

1955 by Francesco Attenni with scarce success. From what we know, Cinediorama was the only anamorphic filming device of authentic Italian sources that reached the feature-film market (Fig. 4).16 The establishment of Cinediorama is interesting because it suggests the existence of a reality more complex than what is evident at the surface. It is in fact reasonable to think that Italy did not have just one patent case, but, like other European countries in those years, an interesting flourishing of brevets based on anamorphic technology which were defeated by foreign commercial efforts. In this direction go also the promotional campaigns of certain American brands that appeared to forestall Italian producers from the use of low-quality Italian products.17 In any case, all the systems that were compatible with the CinemaScope format share the same technical characteristics concerning optics, negatives, and positives. As regards to shooting lenses, the aforementioned systems always employ an anamorphic attachment paired with the objective lens. There are differences among these systems related to the modalities of pairing the attachments to the main lens, that is the different methods used in assembling anamorphic and primary lenses had consequences for both the practicability of shooting and the resolution of the projected image. As for the design of the film strips themselves, it is appropriate to underscore the distinction between the first commercial version of the CinemaScope system, characterized by a 2.55:1 aspect ratio and stereophonic sound with four magnetic tracks, and the version promoted by Fox following the reluctance of international movie theatres to equip themselves for multichannel sound, which resulted in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio and traditional monaural optical soundtrack. Cinpanoramic, Totalvision, Vistarama and Cinediorama CinemaScopes rivals, introduced in the market between 1954 and 1955 embraced both stereophonic and monophonic sound recording. Dyaliscope, Ultrascope and Tekniscope, introduced from 1956, can be considered exclusively monophonic systems. The difference is important, given that

stereophony was felt to be a true expressive resource, more than a technological device that could enhance the acoustics of a movie theatre.18 An aspect that should be further taken into account is the role that the various aforementioned cinema equipment rentals played in the Italian filmmaking context of the 1950s and 1960s; these companies were commercially unique precisely because they featured foreign anamorphic technology. It is important to mention that they did not only import equipment, but in various ways they also managed the technological adaptation of what they imported into the Italian market, as well as its promotion, thanks to their direct involvement in film production. The most evident cases of this are the Roman companies Report Film and ATC, the first owned by the German Johann M. Schuller, and the second by the Polish Enrico Croscicki, two fascinating and complex figures. The first company ceased its activities during the 1960s; the second, despite many headquarters and name changes, is at the root of contemporary Technovision, a leading company in the sector of new-generation anamorphic lenses and shooting equipment in general. Report Film deserves to be remembered at least because it launched Vittorio De Seta in a series of documentaries that were born to promote Cinpanoramic. De Setas famous short film Isole di fuoco represented Italy at the Cannes Film Festival in 1955, winning the widescreen documentary section.19 ATCs case is more complex. From a technological standpoint, Croscickis company appears to have imported Totalvision attachments from France, mechanically pairing them with Taylor & Hobson objective lenses under the advice of the technician Giuseppe Magni. From this point the original brand changed its name to Totalscope. For what concerns film production, the group, under the name Sancro, in the 1960s financed films by Antonio Pietrangeli (Il magnifico cornuto, The Magnificent Cuckold, 1964), Vi Horio and Paolo Taviani (Un uomo da bruciare, A Man For Burning, 1962) and Marco Ferreri (Una storia moderna, The Conjugal Bed, 1963), among others.20

Chapter 10 Before Techniscope: the penetration of foreign widescreen technology in Italy

169

Representational technologies: early Italian widescreen film

The third important issue that I will briefly address is the effect of widescreen systems on the form and content of Italian films. As with other relevant technological innovations, the advent of widescreen had an important effect on the aesthetic of Italian production of the 1950s. A comparison with the shift from silent to talking films can be illuminating. The first talking films are stylistically inconsistent because they were produced within two very different technological regimes. In a similar way, the first panoramic films show disparate themes and styles that reflect a problematic technological context. Barry Salts and David Bordwells research has shown the impact on Hollywood aesthetics of the new systems technological limitations. Specifically, they point to the important role of anamorphic systems in modifying traditional editing techniques.21 Furthermore, Marshall Deutelbaum has recently noticed the existence of a spatial rhetoric that, with its own rules governing mise-en-scne, invariably presides over the composition of classical panoramic images.22 A reflection on aesthetics comparable to the one developed by English critical literature still remains to be developed with reference to Italian panoramic film. What can we say about the impact of new shooting technology on the style of films in the 1950s? To what extent did the technological limits of anamorphic optics (i.e. optical distortion, shallow depth of field) influence staging practices? Which kinds of stories were filmed with the new formats? What were neorealist directors reactions to the new Hollywood filming equipment? Lets start with technology. The European anamorphic systems widely employed in Italy shared the limits of CinemaScope. It is well known that the first anamorphic lenses had two main types of problem: an optical distortion in close shots and a reduced depth of field. In order to confront such difficulties, the first Italian directors that used anamorphic lenses employed highly theatrical miseen-scne strategies, and then abandoned them bit by bit as lenses and emulsions were tech-

nically improved. One of the most abused solutions to these optical limitations was to arrange the various elements of narrative interest side by side, at a certain distance from the camera, horizontally along the whole field (Fig. 5). Significantly, Bordwell has found this kind of frame composition in the first Hollywood widescreen films.23 Generally one can state that Italian anamorphic films in the 1950s were characterized by a lack of close-ups, a prevalence of long shots, and slow and static frames. One of the most effective ways to measure their heterogeneity is to compare the average duration of these shots to the average duration of shots of an Academy ratio film. Film aesthetics clearly does not reside only in a films Average Shot Length, but the ASL nevertheless allows useful generalizations. From my sampling of twenty-one Italian films shot with anamor-

Fig. 4. Advertising for Italian Cinediorama anamorphic lenses. In Cinematografia doggi 1(January 1956).

170
Fig. 5. Lateral staging in Racconti romani (Roman Tales, G. Franciolini, 1955)

WIDESCREEN WORLDWIDE

Fig. 6. Advertising for Cinpanoramic (Cinescope) Giove in doppiopetto (D. Danza, 1955). In Cinemundus 1 (January 1955).

phic lenses between 1955 and 1957, I found that the average shot duration is almost fifteen seconds: a value that is significantly higher compared to non-panoramic films of the same period, which Barry Salt estimated to be eleven seconds. The first Italian panoramic film shot with anamorphic lenses, Giove in Doppiopetto (Cinpanoramic, 1955) by Daniele DAnza, even had an ASL of twentyone seconds (Fig. 6). In the beginning, panoramic formats were used almost indiscriminately across a variety of genres and story types. The first Italian films shot with the new techniques belong to the many different genres that were in style during the 1950s: neorealist melodrama (La risaia, Rice Girl, CinemaScope, 1955), film operas (Andrea Chnier, VistaVision, 1955), musical films (Canzoni di tutta Italia, Vistarama, 1955), the small community comedy, in its village (Pane, Amore e , Scandal in Sorrento, CinemaScope, 1955), urban (Racconti romani, Roman Tales, CinemaScope, 1955), and seaside variants (Racconti destate, Love on the Riviera, CinemaScope, 1957). In the aforementioned films the widescreen systems were chosen for filming outdoors, or for the formats alleged affinity with the space of the stage, which was evoked more or less explicitly by the various musicals and curtain-raiser productions. We can find a less extemporaneous use of this format in exotic documentaries (Continente perduto, Lost Continent, CinemaScope, 1955), in which the spectacularization of reality, characteristic of this genre, was mostly due to the extensive

Chapter 10 Before Techniscope: the penetration of foreign widescreen technology in Italy

171

Fig. 7. Widescreen composition in Le legioni di Cleopatra (Legions of the Nile, V. Cottafavi, 1959).

use of colour and large screen. But during these years, the relationship between genre and panoramic format became exclusive and binding, especially in the case of peplum films. Peplum films were launched by the very successful Le fatiche di Ercole (Hercules, Dyaliscope, 1958), a film designed for the national circuit and capable of penetrating markets around the whole world. In peplum films three pre-existing sub-genres of Italian cinema merge; these sub-genres, starting from 1955, were significantly characterized by the use of the widescreen format: films in ancient settings (Le schiave di Cartagine, The Sword and the Cross, Totalvision, 1956), adventure films in historical settings (Giovanni dalle bande nere, The Violent Patriot, Cinpanoramic, 1956), and adaptations of literary classics (Michele Strogoff, Michael Strogoff, CinemaScope, 1956). Peplum filmsand, generally, Italian adventure/historical films in ancient costume, were systematically produced in widescreen for two main reasons that are closely connected. The first reason is commercial, and is the result of deliberate attempts to copy American high-budget epics, such as The Robe. In this case, a successful formula was borrowed in order to certify the value of indigenous own films. The second reason is more generally aesthetic, and is due to the notion of widescreen as a format ideally suited to the filming of profilmic reality. The characteristic ingredients of this genre, such as anonymous crowds, armies, and vast landscapes, were believed to fill the panoramic frame, even if, in the end the proverbial Italian art of making-do will, in the face of

small budgets, have to discover various artifices and expedients in order to fill the screen (Fig. 7). Finally, auteurs. The most important directors were generally quite reluctant to embrace the new filming technologies. There are various reasons for the lack of affection for the widescreen format. First of all, celebrated directors were reluctant to use widescreen because of the association between widescreen and Hollywood films. Secondly, we can suppose an implicit willingness to differentiate auteur films from genre films that producers usually shot with the new technologies. Finally, we can suppose a certain level of scepticism towards a technology that involved such limitations in terms of expression.24 Consequently, most Italian panoramic films were made by the champions of low-budget filming, from Marino Girolami to Mario Mattoli, from Domenico Paolella to Giorgio Simonelli. Various films by popular cinema masters such as Riccardo Freda, Vittorio Corrafavi and Pietro Francisci deserve special treatment, because they were capable of overcoming the naivet of the topic thanks to complex miseen scne strategies. Francisci, for example, was the first Italian director to use widescreen systems with rapid cutting. The aforementioned Le fatiche di Ercole has an ASL of only six seconds. Among the few panoramic auteur films, La dolce vita by Federico Fellini (The Sweet Life, Totalvision, 1960) deserves a special mention; it is the film that perhaps best demonstrates the full maturity of Italian widescreen filming. It is astonishing for the

172
Fig. 8. Fellinis use of the widescreen frame in Tolalvision La dolce vita (The Sweet Life, 1960)

WIDESCREEN WORLDWIDE

flow of the editing, the effectiveness of shot/counter shot setups, the complexity of moving long shots, and the abundance of close shots that were designed to call attention to the many peripheral fellini-esque characters at the edges of the frame (Fig. 8).

Conclusions
The conversion of Italian movie theatres to American widescreen systems created an exhibition circuit that could be used by local production. CinemaScope theatres were an affordable venue for 1950s Italian films. The importation of European anamorphic technology triggered the production of a series of widescreen Italian films only after two long years of American monopoly. However, the time that elapsed between The Robe (1953) and Giove in Doppiopetto (1955) was not misspent. On one hand, the French clones of CinemaScope (Cinpanoramic, Totalvision, Dyaliscope) offered filmmakers an inexpensive alternative to CinemaScope that could

often be amortized through a co-production deal. On the other hand, Hollywood widescreen films were a useful reference, providing a model that could be hybridized and adapted to the local context, when not directly imitated. Initially, Italian films were static and theatrical, inevitably because of the unfamiliar nature of the new filming technologies. But the mastery of composition and editing, especially in the field of genre films, quickly eliminated any embarrassment. In the phase of greatest economic and industrial growth of the Italian film industry of that period, the new filming techniques became more and more common because they permitted a diverse body of filmmaking practices. In brief, the penetration of widescreen systems improved the commercial potential of average films, triggered original innovations within genre films, encouraged to a certain extent the maturation of auteur films and, more generally, provided the Italian cinema of the 1960s with a more fertile soil for the new seeds of modernity to take root.

Notes
1. See Tino Balio, La produzione internazionale di Hollywood, in Gian Piero Brunetta (ed.), Storia del cinema mondiale, Vol. 2 (Torino: Einaudi, 2000), 1606. 2. Barbara Grespi, Sergio Leone e il wide screen allitaliana, in Massimo Locatelli (ed.), Civilt delle macchine. Il cinema italiano e le sue tecnologie, Comunicazioni Sociali 1 (January April 2004): 87100. 3. Adriano Apr, Lo stato della tecnica: dalla pellicola al film, dal film alla sala, in Sandro Bernardi (ed.), Storia del cinema italiano (19541959), Vol. ix (Roma-Venezia: Edizioni di Bianco & Nero, Marsilio, 2004), 487514, to be integrated, in the section Documenti, with id., La tecnica: colore, formati e lavorazioni, 633647. 4.The main reference is always John Belton, Widescreen Cinema (Cambridge-London: Harvard University Press, 1992). 5.Brad Chisholm, Widescreen Technologies, in Matthew Bernstein (ed.), Widescreen, The

Chapter 10 Before Techniscope: the penetration of foreign widescreen technology in Italy

Velvet Light Trap 21 (Summer 1985): 6774; Gaetano Mannino Patan, Guida pratica per loperatore cinematografico (Milano: Hoepli, 1961), 255285. 6. For further details, see Federico Vitella, Per lo schermo panoramico: il CinemaScope e lesercizio italiano (19531955), in Francesco Casetti, Mariagrazia Fanchi (eds), La sensibilit meccanica. Cinema e tecnologia in Italia, Bianco & Nero 549 (May August 2004): 8395. 7. Robert Leonard parla del film South Pacific, Araldo dello Spettacolo 113 (22 December 1958): 3. 8. Prima assoluta europea di Oklahoma in Todd-ao, Giornale dello Spettacolo 6, (16 February 1957): 1. 9. Todd-AO, in Rivista tecnica di cinematografia, elettroacustica, televisione 1 (JanuaryMarch 1959): 4. 10. Consalvo Lepre, arrivato il Cinerama, Festival Hollywood 120 (16 April 1955): 16. 11. Alessandro Ferra, I primi della classe, Bollettino dello Spettacolo 231 (16 June 1955): 2. 12. Elena Mosconi, Tanti punti di proiezione, in Luciano De Giusti (ed.), Storia del cinema italiano (19491953), vol. viii (Roma-Venezia: Edizioni di Bianco & Nero-Marsilio, 2003), 177187. 13. Le procd franais Cinpanoramic a objectifs Anamorphot, Le Film Franais 470 (10 July 1953): 45. 14. On Totalvision and ATC, see Mario Bernardo, Un grande protagonista della tecnica cinematografica, Note di tecnica cinematografica 3 (July September 2000): 810. 15. On Dyalscope, see Paolo Uccello, Il Dyaliscope, Cinespettacolo 6 (1955): 13. 16. On Cinediorama, see Bollettino dei brevetti per invenzioni, modelli e marchi. Parte III - Marchi dimpresa 9 (September 1956): 1567. 17. Bollettino AIC 5 (June July 1955). 18. Stereofonia, nuova risorsa dellarte cinematografica, Cinemundus - Araldo dello spettacolo 102 (17 July 1953): 5; Franco Venturini, Note per una grammatica della stereofonia, Ferrania 12 (December 1954): 2324; Gaetano Mannino Patan, Gli elementi acustici e ambientali: stereofonia o suono direzionale?, Bollettino dello spettacolo 211 (30 September 1954): 3; Cesare Alessandri, Annotazioni sul Suono Stereofonico, Cine Tecnica 10 (October 1955): 1. 19. Il CinemaScope impressiona Cannes con Lisola di fuoco di V. De Seta, Araldo dello spettacolo 69 (6 May 1955): 2. 20. On Sancro Film, see La citt del cinema (Roma: Napoleone, 1979), 500. 21. Barry Salt, Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis (London: Starword, 1983); David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, Kristin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 (London: Routledge, 1985). 22. Marshall Deutelbaum, Basic Principles of Anamorphic Composition, Film History 15 (2003): 7280. 23. David Bordwell, On the History of Film Style (Cambridge-London: Harward University Press, 1999), 239. 24. The opinions of Vittorio De Sica, Luigi Zampa, Clemente Fracassi, Alessandro Blasetti, Alberto Lattuada, Duilio Coletti and Mario Camerini on widescreen cinema can be found in Luigi Costantini, I registi italiani di fronte al CinemaScope, Filmcritica 5354 (November December 1955): 361365.

173