Movies with significant content in the outer frame (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

Check out Bad Day at Black Rock (1955). Near the beginning of Cinemascope John Sturges experimented with widescreen to create a feeling of isolation and vulnerability by putting Spencer Tracy alone in the vast landscape. There's no information but empty space at the edges of the frame, but because of the content of the story, that empty space is filled with tension. It's a shame Sturges' commentary from the laser disc was not included on the DVD. Listening to Sturges explain his approach is like taking a workshop in directing.

 

[MielR]

That's actually the first film I thought of when I read the thread's title. One scene in particular comes to mind- when Leia kisses Luke, he puts his head back and I remembered the smug look he got on his face when I first saw the film theatrically. When I saw the original VHS release for the first time- his head just disappeared off the screen! I remember how disappointed I was, and that's what spurred my interest in aspect ratios and widescreen laserdiscs.

 

[Simon Howson]

Didn't he also have to simultaneously shoot it in Academy format?

I wish Criterion would sell their old LaserDisc commentaries on iTunes.

 

[Richard--W]

I don't believe so. He doesn't mention it on the commentary. He does talk about having to justify his choice of story for the new Cinemascope process because the studio assumed that hundreds of extras and big sets were required to fill a widescreen format. He thought the reverse was true, and proved it me thinks. It's the most instructive commentary I've heard. PM me your address and I'll send it you after the Holidays, Simon.

 

[Al.Anderson]

Thanks everyone, some great specifics here for my son and I to investigate.

Contemporary directors composing for future cropping is an interesting comment that I wasn’t expecting; but something I’ll be watching for now just for curiosities sake.

Simon, that’s one heck of a list! I don’t think I’ll get to most of those; but your Budd Boetticher boxed set sounds interesting, so I’ll be checking that out.

The Apartment was actually queued up for this weekend already, so that’s where I’ll start. My son is also familiar with the Empire Strikes Back, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and Spirited Away, so they’ll be good to use in an initial comparison. And I’ve wanted to see Bad day at Black Rock, so this gives me a good reason to do that. One I had thought of after writing the post was Citizen Kane (particularly the recurring dining table image).


I’ll confess that when I wrote the question I was thinking “widescreen cropped”. I completely forgot about pan & scan, so I think that next I’ll rent a pan&scan DVD and try and see the damage done in “recomposing”.


And to those offended by the question, I can only say that I’m not advocating non-OAR. Far from it really. The idea was just to give a teenager some concrete examples. You guys probably don’t have teenagers (or had them a long time ago), because, “you’ll like it because it’s good for you and I told you so!” really doesn’t work so well.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

But that isn't really anything new. Most 1.85:1 films are shot (and have been for a long time) "open matte" and protected for 1.33:1 for television and airline sales. Super35 was invented as a way to simultaneously shoot for widescreen and TV, avoiding the need to pan and scan and giving the director control of how the TV version would look. Still a compromise, but better than having some anonymous studio telecine tech make the decisions.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Lord Dalek]

With the advent of Digital Intermediates, thats not really true anymore. If anything, the majority of directors who don't shoot scope are going for a 1.78:1 ratio as a compromise.

Very few films (if any) are made full 4-perf nowadays.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

"Citizen Kane" doesn't enter into this -- it was filmed years before "widescreen" began.

Except for a few movies in 1930, the widescreen era -- Cinerama, 1.85:1 "widescreen", CinemaScope, Panavision, and all the other varieties -- doesn't really begin until September 30, 1952, when "This Is Cinerama" premiered in New York.

Standard 1.85:1 "widescreen" began with "Shane" at the Radio City Music Hall in April of 1953; CinemaScope began with "The Robe" at the Roxy in September of 1953. There was no turning back after that.

Anyway, except for a few movies in 1930, you never have to worry about the aspect ratio of a movie until 1953. "Citizen Kane" was 1941.

 

[Richard--W]

Citizen Kane is a persistent revelation. No matter how many times I watch it, there is always something amazing going on that I didn't notice before, or that I see differently now. It's not widescreen, no, but it is a masterpiece of composition and I get what Al.Anderson means.

 

[MielR]

If you're looking for specific scenes in films that are damaged by recomposing....

The medal ceremony scene from Star Wars is one that has been tough to translate to 4:3 TV/video (as you can see from my avatar, it's one of my favorite movie scenes).

Right after Leia presents Han and Luke with their medals, they turn around and face the audience, the audience applauds and we see the reactions on the faces of the three. Luke is on the far left, Han on the far right, and Leia in the middle.

IIRC-

•The first HBO airing cropped off Luke entirely and just showed Han and Leia.

•Network broadcasts and the first video releases cropped off Han entirely and showed just Luke and Leia.

•The THX 4:3 VHS release from 1995 split the difference and showed Leia in the middle, but cropped off half of Luke's face and half of Han's face.

•The Spike TV airings are 16:9 but that still isn't wide enough, so they just do a pan to get everybody in.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

One word: Jaws. It's a crying shame Spielberg doesn't shoot in 2.35:1 more often, because he really knows how to put the frame to good use.

 

[WillG]

In "Die Hard" when Al goes into the Nakatomi building to investigate, he looks around a bit. What you see in the widescreen version that is always cropped out in P&S was that there was one of the bad guys with a gun on the left side of the frame hiding behind a wall, that was ready to shoot Al if he went in a little further before deciding to blow off looking around more.

In "The Thing" you can see a shot of Clark conceal the scalpel he later uses to try to attack McCready on the very left edge of the frame

 

[Simon Howson]

Here is a fun composition from the CinemaScope film Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959)

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/f/fa/htf_imgcache_37126.jpeg] [/url]

I have no idea how a composition like this could be pan and scanned.

Maybe they added a cut, and cut back and forth between the duck and the lady? It would've looked silly, with a hand dangling in from the right of screen.

I forgot to mention one of the best examples of widescreen filmmaking! The chariot race from Ben Hur! That sequence looks silly pan and scanned.

 

[Brianruns10]

There is a critical example of "edge of frame" information in "Bridge on the River Kwai." There is a scene in the prison camp where the British soldiers are celebrating the completion of the titular bridge by staging a revue. Near the end, their leader, Colonel Nicholson, makes a speech about their work on the bridge, and in the background, in a tiny corner of the 2.39 frame you can see the isolation box where he was kept for much of the earlier part of the film, in protest against officers being forced to labor. It is much debated whether Nicholson and his desire to complete (and later protect) the bridge is out of misguided pride in British workmanship, or sheer madness. By including that smal detail of the isolation box, it underlines the importance of that event, and suggests that he may well have gone mad. If the film is cropped at all, this detail is totally lost.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

The original question talking about "the outer frame" or "the edge of the frame" shows a misunderstanding of the pan and scan process.

In a 2.55:1 CinemaScope movie, the percent of the picture captured in the ridiculous process of "panning and scanning" could be as little as 52% of the original image, and it could be any part of that image, not just the dead center with the "edges" missing. It could be the right half with the entire left half gone, for instance.

However, I think the original question involved more recent movies, where they try to keep all the important stuff in the middle. That's one of many reasons why I don't think newer movies are as good as older ones.

 

[Simon Howson]

I saw a pan and scan broadcast of The Magnificent Matador last week which seemed to have A LOT of cuts added to it to fit the actors on screen. Because of this it felt like had been edited by someone who had drunk too much red cordial, there were cuts in extremely weird places.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Why is this still an issue? I don't know how many 4x3 TVs are still in use (I have one, but I'm replacing it as soon as I can afford to) but if you go into any store now almost ALL the TVs they have for sale are 16x9- even at Wal-Mart I only saw TWO 4x3 TVs and all the rest were 16x9. If you have a 16x9 TV and have no other choice but to watch a "full screen" movie on it, you'll have the cropped 4x3 picture in the center of the screen with black bars on the sides. If you don't like black bars, you'll wish you had the widescreen version then. (Of course a lot of idiots will just put it in stretch mode, which shouldn't even be an option.)

 

[TravisR]

Just because stores don't sell them any more, it doesn't mean that people still don't use them. I know 2 people (besides myself) that have an HDTV but they still have 4x3 TVs that get semi-regular use and not mention that I probably know at least a dozen people that still have multiple 4x3 TVs and no HDTV.

 

[Shad R]

Why aren't any filmakers putting their foot down and saying "no fullscreen!"?
I remember when Pearl Harbor came out on DVD, he refused to let a true fullscreen copy be made. Even the VHS was (even though not completely scope) was widescreen. I wish the directors/actors/producers would say something.

 

[Simon Howson]

Because the 'hands on' filmmakers don't have the power in the industry, producers and executives in distribution companies do, and they - generally speaking - prefer screens filled up, rather than respecting O.A.R.

Many current directors and D.O.P.s know this, and thus protect for 16:9.