DVDFILE.COM Forum - View Single Post - Why would anyone want to shoot their movies in the 1.85:1 hackspect ratio?

Lex M · 07-26-2004, 11:00 PM

When I sit down in a theatre and notice the screen is in that sort-of-a-rectangle, more-like-a-square boring-ass 1.85:1 ratio, my heart always sinks a little bit. After all, a director has been given the chance to use a movie screen as the canvas for his vision, and his vision....looks pretty much like a television set. Monetary issues for beginning filmmakers aside, why would anyone go out of their way to consciously frame for and shoot in such a dull ratio? I sometimes hear the argument that "scope" is only really necessary for big spectacle films, but this is not necessarily true. In the '70s, directors of all stripes had Panavision fever, and knew how to use that frame, whether it was for large-scale action or personal dramas. Hell, UP IN SMOKE was in widescreen. Now even some action directors seem reluctant to shoot wide.

Frustratingly, though, most directors go back and forth depending on the piece, but often arbitrarily. Why, one must ask, is Ridley Scott's HANNIBAL in boring 1.85, while MATCHSTICK MEN is in glorious widescreen? Spielberg: AI in bore-vision, but MINORITY REPORT in 2.35:1? Soderberg recently, mercifully, has begun to open up his framing, but why would anyone conceive TRAFFIC as a flat ratio movie? That cried out for widescreen. So did the first SPIDER-MAN. Raimi corrected that oversight with the sequel, but now they have no uniformity of vision, since one film is framed like a TV show, and the other is framed like a real movie.

In short, 1.85:1 is BORING and lazy. If I wanted to watch TV, I'd stay home and watch YES, DEAR. Certainly, there are great artists, from Rafelson to Ashby to Peckinpah to Coppola who shot most of their great achievements on less-than-wide tableaux. But even their masterpieces, I'd argue, would be a little more awesome in 2.35:1. Everything's a little better wider.

07-26-2004, 11:00 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lex M Actor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Los Angeles	Why would anyone want to shoot their movies in the 1.85:1 hackspect ratio? When I sit down in a theatre and notice the screen is in that sort-of-a-rectangle, more-like-a-square boring-ass 1.85:1 ratio, my heart always sinks a little bit. After all, a director has been given the chance to use a movie screen as the canvas for his vision, and his vision....looks pretty much like a television set. Monetary issues for beginning filmmakers aside, why would anyone go out of their way to consciously frame for and shoot in such a dull ratio? I sometimes hear the argument that "scope" is only really necessary for big spectacle films, but this is not necessarily true. In the '70s, directors of all stripes had Panavision fever, and knew how to use that frame, whether it was for large-scale action or personal dramas. Hell, UP IN SMOKE was in widescreen. Now even some action directors seem reluctant to shoot wide. Frustratingly, though, most directors go back and forth depending on the piece, but often arbitrarily. Why, one must ask, is Ridley Scott's HANNIBAL in boring 1.85, while MATCHSTICK MEN is in glorious widescreen? Spielberg: AI in bore-vision, but MINORITY REPORT in 2.35:1? Soderberg recently, mercifully, has begun to open up his framing, but why would anyone conceive TRAFFIC as a flat ratio movie? That cried out for widescreen. So did the first SPIDER-MAN. Raimi corrected that oversight with the sequel, but now they have no uniformity of vision, since one film is framed like a TV show, and the other is framed like a real movie. In short, 1.85:1 is BORING and lazy. If I wanted to watch TV, I'd stay home and watch YES, DEAR. Certainly, there are great artists, from Rafelson to Ashby to Peckinpah to Coppola who shot most of their great achievements on less-than-wide tableaux. But even their masterpieces, I'd argue, would be a little more awesome in 2.35:1. Everything's a little better wider.