Spielberg's Aspect Ratios (1 Viewer)

[TheoGB]

Never seen SPR but it sounded like the sort of thing I'd prefer 2.35:1 in.
Oddly when I was checking around on IMDB I noticed that the Empire Of The Sun tech specs list it as 1.66:1. The DVD is anamorphic, though. I wonder if it's window boxed or we're losing picture...

 

[Dan Brecher]

Theo, see it before passing that judgement (you're also missing out on a very good film too). You'll find the majority who are fond of the film will feel it's AR is most beneficial.
Dan (UK)

 

[Hendrik]

...I just love carefully considered statements like these...
"...I suppose it's possible that a particular movie could work better in 1.33:1... "
...if only poor, misguided Sergei Eisenstein (Battleship Potemkin , Ivan The Terrible , etc.), Orson Welles (Citizen Kane , The Magnificent Ambersons , etc.), Alfred Hitchcock (The 39 Steps , The Lady Vanishes , etc.), Marcel Carné (Les Enfants du Paradis , etc.), Carl Dreyer (The Passion Of Joan Of Arc , etc.), Walt Disney (Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs , Bambi , etc.), Ingmar Bergman (Wild Strawberries , The Seventh Seal , etc.) had known...
. . .

. . .

 

[TomRS4]

Hendrik,
I never said there weren't some fantastic pictures which were done with an AR of 1.33:1, and when viewing these, or any film for that matter, OAR is best. But, I'm not aware of any film, including the ones on your list that I have actually seen, that would not have been better served buy using a wider aspect ratio than 1.33:1.
I don't mind if we disagree.
------------------
Tempus Fugit

 

[Richard Kim]

quote: Never seen SPR but it sounded like the sort of thing I'd prefer 2.35:1 in[/quote]
Considering that the director and cinemetographer were going for a documentary style and look for SPR (reminiscent of WWII newsreel footage), the tighter 1.85:1 AR works very well.
quote: But, I'm not aware of any film, including the ones on your list that I have actually seen, that would not have been better served buy using a wider aspect ratio than 1.33:1.[/quote]
The 2.35:1 ratio is ideal for sweeping panoramic landscape shots, but not for intimate, close up shots.
The Passion of Joan of Arc, with numerous close up shots of people's faces is perfectly suited for the 1.37:1 AR and its power would be diminished with a wider AR.
[Edited last by Richard Kim on October 17, 2001 at 10:03 AM]

 

[TomRS4]

The 2.35:1 ratio is ideal for sweeping panoramic landscape shots, but not for intimate, close up shots. The Passion of Joan of Arc, with numerous close up shots of people's faces is perfectly suited for the 1.37:1 AR and its power would be diminished with a wider AR.

I agree that 2.35:1 is too wide for some films, but there's a lot of room between 2.35:1 and 1.33:1. If you're talking about only seeing one face at a time, 1.37:1 could possibly be good for close-ups, but what about the rest of the film? It seems some compromise would need to be made with any film, but why favor an AR that only allows one face to be in close-up at a time? An AR of 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 allows the expressions of two actors to be seen at once, and keeps the external shots from looking like they're in a cave.
------------------
Tempus Fugit