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

[JeremyErwin]

Cinemascope was a gimmick, designed to get people away from the TV. I'm unfamiliar with Marilyn Monroes's work, but this review comments on how poorly cinemascope was used.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

, one of first Widescreen movies, has an aspect ratio of 2.55:1? Some scenes could perfectly fit on 1.85:1 screen (why this kind of movie is so large?), and other scenes use the whole sides, and really proves the filmmakers are doing the right thing.
I mean, this was the first time a movie looks strange to me on big screen.

Keep in mind the following items when viewing early CinemaScope:
- designed to compete not only with television, but Cinerama and 3-D
- the 2.55:1 AR existed because Fox was working with a magnetic soundtrack and dispensing with the optical one. This resulted in a physical change to the film (Fox hole sprocket holes) and magnetic stripes on the inside of those holes, cutting the AR from 2.66:1 to 2.55:1.
- early CinemaScope films were shot with non-prismatic anamorphic lenses, meaning that there was a spot in the middle of the frame that resulted in "stretching" of the image, known as CinemaScope "mumps". This not only resulted in close-ups being confined to the outer edges of the screen, but may have resulted in the compositional goofiness you mention.
-1.85:1 was, at the time, exclusive to Paramount's VistaVision process, which wasn't licenced out to other studios until MUCH later.
- compositional "newness"--no cinematographer working in Hollywood at the time was used to composing for this wide a frame.
Does this help?

 

[SteveJKo]

Cinemascope was a gimmick, designed to get people away from the TV. I'm unfamiliar with Marilyn Monroes's work, but this review comments on how poorly cinemascope was used.

Yes, it was indeed a gimmick. But it eventually grew up and gave us some of the most amazing moments in cinema.

 

[JeremyErwin]

some early thoughts on widescreen composition:

Please let me say that the close-up is actually a relic of the silent film. It was necessary in those days to show facial expression, because the screen was small and there was no dialogue to convey what the scene was about. The close-up was carried over into sound films and is still useful for dramatic effects. In CinemaScope pictures it is still used, however, because of the vastness of the theatre screen, the huge "Chokers" are no longer necessary. In fact, the figure size of the "two-shot" is larger on the modern screen than was the "Big Head" on the old smaller screen. I personally prefer to use the "Over-shoulder" shot when close-ups are required. This is possible about ninety per cent. of the time and it certainly lends itself to far more interesting composition plus effective use of Stereophonic sound. With CinemaScope films there is still freedom of expression and selectivity--no rigid rules exist. It has been my experience that when the Director rehearses a sequence, allowing the actors to make moves that seem natural, and devising action to keep the scene interesting, there is no great problem in adapting the camera to the scene so rehearsed. I believe the camera should be fitted to the action and not the reverse as is so frequently done. After all, we are telling a story and the audience should never be aware of the techniques involved. After the geography of the set has been established, which is frequently done by the characters entering the scene in a long shot, I like to move in to a medium shot which covers the action. Now if the action is so staged that the characters are manoeuvered to positions where the persons having the most important dialogue is in an advantageous camera position, the camera can move forward or back and pan when necessary with the action as long as it is desirable to hold the scene.
I believe that it is more comfortable, interesting and natural to the spectator if scenes are sustained and a minimum of cuts are made. A vast screen area, approaching the periphery of vision requires new adjustment of the eyes each time the scene is changed - the wise Director will stage his scenes to best use the advantages of this new technique. These advantages are great for no longer must we confine the actors to areas forward and backward from the camera, but may now also use lateral movement. Spreading out of the action is what is done in stage productions, and indeed in CinemaScope pictures the technique is like that of the theatre with the added advantage of being able to move in with the camera to accentuate the most important portions of a scene. Speaking of moving the camera, all of the established methods of motivating the camera - cranes, dollies, etc.-can be utilized provided they are smooth because any unsteadiness becomes exaggerated on the wide screen.

THE TECHNIQUES OF CINEMASCOPE PICTURES (1955)

 

[Simon Howson]

- early CinemaScope films were shot with non-prismatic anamorphic lenses, meaning that there was a spot in the middle of the frame that resulted in "stretching" of the image, known as CinemaScope "mumps". This not only resulted in close-ups being confined to the outer edges of the screen, but may have resulted in the compositional goofiness you mention.

I would add that those early Bausch & Lomb lenses seem to add excessive compression (and other distortion) at the edges of the frame. So most 2.55:1 films I've seen still tend to keep action within a 2:1 zone. However, there are exceptions, in Carmen Jones (1954) Preminger puts actors all over the place, and essentially says to hell wth the distortion.
If you ever seen an actor at the edge of the frame in a Bausch & Lomb CinemaScope film, they all seem too skinny to me, as if the compression at those points is greater than 2X. Also notice if a door frame is ever on the edge it will appear curved.