Could Full Screen be BETTER for these movies? (1 Viewer)

[Kramer Lowry]

 

[Nathan V]

I don't even see how this is a matter of discussion. A film is intended to be seen as the artist intended for it to be seen, period. It's that simple.

More image or altered compositions that viewers may personally happen to like or what ratio the fx were done at are all irrelevant, in my eyes. A work of art that has been altered by someone other than the artist is not something I want to see, as a matter of general principle. As a photographer, any alteration of a film's composition is unwatchable- whether it's more or less image is not the issue.

Regards,

Nathan

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

I don't even see how this is a matter of discussion. A film is intended to be seen as the artist intended for it to be seen, period. It's that simple.
More image or altered compositions that viewers may personally happen to like or what ratio the fx were done at are all irrelevant, in my eyes. A work of art that has been altered by someone other than the artist is not something I want to see, as a matter of general principle. As a photographer, any alteration of a film's composition is unwatchable- whether it's more or less image is not the issue.

Precisely....and that has long been the position of HTF as well. This is an OAR forum and this issue is not even one that is up for debate here. Any dissenters can find other avenues on the web to argue their viewpoints.
Cheers!

 

[JeremyErwin]

Many of these OAR/MAR discussions are illustrated by static shots. But a movies is not simply a sequence of static images. The best directors and cinematographers use camera movement, or the absence of movement as an additional artistic element. It is impossible to appreciate this on a P&S transfer, and I suspect that Super35 transfers have their own special difficulties.
Opening up a matte destroys the composition.
It's not as if movies are inherently widescreen--- The Rules of the Game is not cropped.
Think of it this way:
1.33 allows one closeup
1.85 allows two closeups
2.35 allows three closeups.
The compositional advantages of narrowscreen are not so obvious to me. I suppose that I should pencil in RotG for sunday, then.
A few days ago I was waxing lyrical about JP Melville. There's a long ish sequences in Le Circle Rougei where three conspirators are sitting in a car (traveling through Paris, of course). The camera never moves, because it doesn't have to.
Granted, Melville's technique is stylish. But I'm not sure that one can replicate this technique with either Super35 or open-matte, simply because the 1.85 ratio seems so perfect.
But here's a conundrum. I've always felt that Deliverance was composed for 2.35. I don't have the DVD anymore-- a horrid transfer, but it does have a 1.33 side (which I have never seen). Can anyone tell me if the MAR rendition changes how a viewer interprets the film?

 

[JeremyErwin]

To those of you with hd-dvd and/or bluray players:
Is it easier with a hd medium to notice how a film is focused? I ask because anamorphic lenses are allegedly associated with shorter focal lengths than spherical ones.
(I have an hdtv, but most films on the channels I receive are not exhibited in a manner that invites cinematographic contemplation. Besides, low bitrate mpeg-2 is not so detailed if the frames contain fast moving elements)

 

[Mattias_ka]

I don't even see how this is a matter of discussion. A film is intended to be seen as the artist intended for it to be seen, period. It's that simple.

Well, no. I would say that nothing is without exception. I would not even mention Lucas, Storaro, etc.
So there is cases where the "artists" version is not maybe the best one.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Think of it this way:
1.33 allows one closeup
1.85 allows two closeups
2.35 allows three closeups.
The compositional advantages of narrowscreen are not so obvious to me.

2.35 allows a view of the boxers nose to nose, with one grimacing
1.85 allows a view of the boxers' heads and shoulders, with one grimacing
1.33 allows a view of the boxers' heads, shoulders, and hands, with the fist of one thrusting into the belly of the other, with one grimacing;
all this with concentration of our view on the fighters.

 

[Mark Kalzer]

^ ^ I don't quite get your point.

Everything you said depends entirely on how the camera is used, and 2:35 can be chosen for completely different reasons from why 1:85 is chosen. There is no ratio that shows more or less. It is all how to fit everything into the mise en scene.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Not really a fan of boxing movies, but both Rocky and Raging Bull are 1:1.85. Maybe those are bad examples-- I've never seen them.

 

[JeremyErwin]

I'm watching the Renoir pic now. I think my present state of mind might be biasing my perception, but two things stand out.
First. quite a few shots are three dimensional. There's a definite back, middle, and foreground, and characters move through them quite naturally.
Second, two characters can be in frame at the same time-- though only one in closeup. This allows the characters to display body language, though facial expressions are not so apparent.
It's all a matter of taste.

 

[Cees Alons]

It's funny. If a film was shot on a negative exactly equal to the director's intended aspect ratio, this whole discussion would me moot.
But when it is shot on a different negative (for purely technical reasons only!) and further, only in those cases where a soft matte is used, is this discussion even possible.
In general, I would be willing to discuss, from an academic point of view, whether or not the director has chosen an aspect ratio I can agree with for a certain film. But when it's limited to more or less random cases only, I think that discussion is useless.
Note that in a collector's community like we are, the fear of being denied something that is there is not uncommon.
It may be the real psychological reason (or at least part of it) for many of us to desire to take a peek what's behind the masks.
Cees

 

[JeremyErwin]

random? I don't think I chose my films at random. The films I mentioned have a definite sense of composition. I suspect that they would not look perfect, or even interesting, if mattes were removed or inserted.
That's why I'm skeptical about the simultaneous 4:3/2.35 style of using Super35--it forces the director to compromise.

 

[Cees Alons]

Jeremy,

I wasn't referring to you (or anybody else) in particular.

With 'random" I meant: based on the fact of whether soft matting was used or not.

Cees

 

[Nathan V]

Mattias Ka, of course there's always exceptions- that goes without saying even more than OAR goes without saying!

Jeremy, I sort of get what you are saying about 1,2,3 closeups. The different ratios are well suited to different approaches, especially based on how much you fill the frame with the same ******. Spiderman 1 and 2 are interesting in this respect. 2.35 lends itself well to striking, noticeable compositions, long lens or not, while 1.85 is much easier to fill the frame with (for claustrophobia, intimacy, etc). Imagine if Brokeback had been in 2.35. It'd be a completely different movie. I've been shooting all my photos in 2.35:1 for the past few years, and just recently switched to 1.85:1; you can shoot a location, like a garbage dump, in 2.35:1, and then swith to 1.85 and reshoot the location and get compleeetely different imagery. One thing I like to ask photo students is, should Green have shot Undertow in scope, like his other movies? It's easy to say yes, because the scope compositions in his other ones look so damn good, but I personally think no, as Josh Lucas wouldn't have been quite as imposing with the comprimise of width/cutoff, and there's also something about Dermot Mulruney's (sp) hat. Hopefully this post is somewhat coherent. I'll have more later.

Regards,

Nathan

 

[JeremyErwin]

Perhaps this may be a frustrating query because the exhibitions of such films are few and far between, but the roadshow pictures of the 1950s were shown on very large, and very wide screens. The sound was, I believe six channel, 5 in the front, and one in the back.
Now, it would seem to me that, if mixed properly, this might allow the filmmaker to film mobs of people, with each voice essentially localized to a point on the screen. But I don't remember ever seeing a roadshow, nor do I think I have the right equipment to reproduce this in the home.

 

[Simon Howson]

I think 2.35:1 (or rather, 2.4:1) is so popular now because it ensures that the entire screen width is used. Since the 70s cinemas have been getting smaller, sure Megaplexes will have 1 or 2 nice big screens. But they use smaller screens to make a lot of their money.
The worth of widescreen has been partially lost in Hollywood because 50 - 60% of shots are close-ups. If directors shot less close ups then 2.4:1 would again feel like a completely different format to 1.85:1.

 

[SteveJKo]

...The worth of widescreen has been partially lost in Hollywood because 50 - 60% of shots are close-ups. If directors shot less close ups then 2.4:1 would again feel like a completely different format to 1.85:1.

Simon how right you are! I don't know what it is that's the cause, but way too many of todays films just don't look like "cinema" to me. Instead they look like made for tv movies that somehow were fit into the 2.4:1 ratio. I wish todays film makers would take some time and watch some widescreen cinema from the 50's through the early to mid 80's. Those films, no matter if they were shot in 35mm 'scope or 65mm Super Panavision, just seem so big and visually interesting.

 

[JeremyErwin]

I seem to remember that United 93 was shot in 2.35. It's been some time since I've seen it, but it's my impression that Greenglass threw the standard wisdom about scope films out the window, and I'm not so sure that the film is any better for it. Artistically, it may be justified, but Greenglass has previously used broadly similar techniques--The Bourne Supremacy comes to mind.
Which brings me to another point. Although many films contained expertly composed still shots ("Sin City" and the upcoming "300" to name a few films that embrace this technique), camera movement is important. A framegrab cannot really demonstrate Greenglass's technique.
I'll bring up Dancer in Dark, Lars von Triers rather sadistically minded movie about the State of Washington sacrificing a doomed Bjork. It's a 2:40 movie, consisting of our heroine's imaginary escapes into musicals interspersed with real life. The musicals are perfectly framed, in glorious 5.1 sound. The real life bits are drab, filmed using hand held cameras, with largely mono sound. One could argue that the contrast was meant to be deliberate, but the drab scenes remind me of "Breaking the Waves," which might well cause seasickness.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I think 2.35:1 (or rather, 2.4:1) is so popular now because it ensures that the entire screen width is used. Since the 70s cinemas have been getting smaller, sure Megaplexes will have 1 or 2 nice big screens. But they use smaller screens to make a lot of their money.

But I was under the impression most multiplexes these days have fixed-width, rather than fixed-height screens. Which means, if you want to use the full-screen, you actually want 1.85:1 ratio.

 

[Simon Howson]

But I was under the impression most multiplexes these days have fixed-width, rather than fixed-height screens. Which means, if you want to use the full-screen, you actually want 1.85:1 ratio.

They are still mainly fixed height in Australia. I don't really know what is standard in the U.S.