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

[JeremyErwin]

Bordwall's book looks good, although the few pages I looked at made it seem like "film once had a distinctive visual style, but commercial considerations ruined that."
the weinstein interview is here

 

[Simon Howson]

the weinstein interview is here

Thanks, I couldn't find it.
The latest post on Bordwell's blog refers to Steven Soderberg's latest film The Good German. He is interested in the film because Soderberg tried to shoot it like a 1940s film, such as restricting oneself to a limited range of fixed focal length lenses, avoiding excessive coverage, and relying on boom mics. It will be interesting to see if Soderberg could shoot a film in that style, I fear that most contemporary directors couldn't.

 

[Ethan Riley]

I think most filmmakers of today are capable of just about anything they set their minds to--however, they tend to cater to what they think is popular taste and so continue to shoot in MTV style. Whenever they try something totally different--say "Sin City," it's viewed as a gimmick.

 

[Ira Siegel]

The latest post on Bordwell's blog refers to Steven Soderberg's latest film The Good German. He is interested in the film because Soderberg tried to shoot it like a 1940s film, . . . .

If imdb is correct, his aspect ratio is 1.66:1. This could indicate to other movie makers that, rather than being locked into 2.4:1 or 1.85:1, other aspect ratios, depending upon the particular project, could be used effectively.

 

[Simon Howson]

If imdb is correct, his aspect ratio is 1.66:1. This could indicate to other movie makers that, rather than being locked into 2.4:1 or 1.85:1, other aspect ratios, depending upon the particular project, could be used effectively.

My guess is they would've had to protect for 1.85:1 because that is the least wide ratio that most cinemas can show. But if you are shooting medium shots, rather than lots of close ups, protecting for 1.85:1 is easy.
It will be interesting to see what happens for the DVD release. Perhaps 16:9 and 4:3 open matte versions on alternate sides of the DVD. I think that is what Gus Van Sant did for Elephant, which was intended to be shown 4:3, yet many cinemas showed it 1.85:1.

 

[Mattias_ka]

For example, both David Cronenberg and Paul Verhoeven are directors that prefer 1.66:1 ratio on many of their movies (Crash, Robocop, etc) but these are mostly seen in 1.85:1 in theaters and DVD's. So what is showed in theaters are not always that right ratio and I find it strange that theaters today cannot show the correct ratio, whatever it is.

 

[Mattias_ka]

I prefer open matte transfer over a over matt transfer.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

On a side note, the Metallica documentary Some Kind of Monster was actually matted down on the sides in order to show a 1.33:1 ratio on a 1.85:1 screen. I believe this was also done for the Gone With the Wind rerelease in the late 1990s.
The loss of resolution for the Metallica film was negligible (most of it was shot on video anyway), but I would think that GTTW would suffer.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Why would a 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 movie be matted on the sides in order to be shown on a 1.85:1 screen?

 

[JeremyErwin]

well, you could either crop the bottom or top sides, or hard matte the negative on the left and right as well as the top and bottom.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Why would a 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 movie be matted on the sides in order to be shown on a 1.85:1 screen?

Ira,
Almost all modern theaters don't have the lenses necessary to project a 1.33:1 film correctly as there really aren't any new films being shot in Academy Ratio. That means that re-releases of A.R. films need to be projected like a 1.85:1 film in order to fit on the screen and in focus. There are theaters that can still show 1.33:1 films, but they tend to be older houses or theaters that show a lot of older films. Most gigaplexes don't bother.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Thanks for the info, Jeremy and Brian.

 

[MarkHastings]

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.

I wonder if it has to do with budgets? I think a lot of directors go in tight because there isn't enough scenery (due to budget constraints) to go much wider than they already are.
I know I've heard some commentaries where they've said something to the effect of "We had to go in close because if we zoomed out, you'd see the set walls...." (or whatever)

 

[JeremyErwin]

I think Frank Oz said something similar about the Score.

 

[Simon Howson]

I wonder if it has to do with budgets? I think a lot of directors go in tight because there isn't enough scenery (due to budget constraints) to go much wider than they already are.
I know I've heard some commentaries where they've said something to the effect of "We had to go in close because if we zoomed out, you'd see the set walls...." (or whatever)

But even on a US$150 million film? I think they shoot a lot of close-ups because they think that is what gives a film impact or intensity when viewed on a reasonably small TV screen. If they didn't shoot a close-up for EVERY actor, then the producers would get concerned that they didn't have enough footage to play with during editing.
Hal Hartley is one director who hardly ever shoots regular establishing shots, for him there is a budget consideration because he makes cheap films. He is essentially experimenting with the principle that you can film an entire scene in close-ups, but it can be done creatively.

 

[MarkHastings]

But even on a US$150 million film? I think they shoot a lot of close-ups because they think that is what gives a film impact or intensity when viewed on a reasonably small TV screen.

I was going to mention that it might be the director thinking ahead to what the image would look like on TV sets, but I didn't think it was a viable argument...but who knows.

 

[SteveJKo]

But even on a US$150 million film? I think they shoot a lot of close-ups because they think that is what gives a film impact or intensity when viewed on a reasonably small TV screen.....

Simon that was my first thought as well. I can't help but feel that tv is the reason films today look like they do. The directors shoot for what they think will look good on television, not in the theatre. The irony is modern tv's are bigger than ever, and classic wide screen film composition looks fantastic on them.

 

[MarkHastings]

You guys do make an interesting case about "TV viewing" - that's where a lot of profit now comes from (i.e. home video sales). I would assume if the movie isn't one of these Big Blockbuster/Lord of the Rings type of movies, the director knows that theater shelf life might not be it's best asset. So maybe they do 'dumb' down the footage for home viewing. True, TV's are getting bigger, but a large percentage of home video viewing is on 36" and smaller sets.
I remember watching that movie with Rowan Atkinson (where he was the James Bond character) on my big tv...IIRC, the movie was close to 2.35:1 and there was a scene where he walks in the frame from the right (so you see his entire body), he pauses in the middle of the shot and makes a goofy face...I laughed at that point, but when I brought the movie to my parents house (to show them the movie), we watched it on their 27" TV. At the point mentioned above, when Rowan walks across the frame, it was SOOOO small that you could barely make out his face and the 'goofy face' joke was lost in a sea of tiny pixels and black bars.
If I were a director (or a studio exec), that would probably have an influence on me as to how a future film would be shot in order to maximize home video sales/enjoyment.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

If you want to see a film from the last 20 years where the director composed in a classic "widescreen" style, I would recommend Mikael Salomon's A Far Off Place. As a cinematographer, Salomon always had a fantastic eye for composition, and his capturing of desert vistas here is nothing short of gorgeous.
And Reese Witherspoon is beautiful, as always.

 

[Kramer Lowry]