Quote:
|
Originally Posted by videoworx
In all honestly, there are many directors that don't have the imagination to fill such a wide frame, and resort to cramming everything in the happy 4x3 area, so mom can enjoy it fool-screen.
Other than Royal Tenenbaums and many tv commercials, I can't think of a recent movie that really made use of the whole canvas...well, maybe the matrix trilogy...
|
I'd say there are more than a few directors working regularly today who do know exactly how to use the full scope frame, from world-class auteurs like Michael Mann and Paul Thomas Anderson, to B-movie vets like Peter Hyams and John Carpenter. While there are plenty of "big" movies that use 2.35:1 but, as you suggest, keep everything in the safe zone, there are still some sterling examples of glorious widescreen composition in recent years -- PTA's work on BOOGIE NIGHTS, MAGNOLIA, and PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE; Mann's work on ALI; Spielberg in MINORITY REPORT; Tarantino and Richardson's work in the KILL BILL films; the Scott Brothers' work in MATCHSTICK MEN and MAN ON FIRE; Peter Weir's compositions in MASTER AND COMMANDER; and on and on.
And again, the real rub is when a talented director of a HUGE movie still opts for 1.85:1, especially when they've shot wide in the past. Ang Lee shooting THE HULK in a square frame, or Spielberg shooting the JURASSIC PARK films flat, are prime examples of such head-scratchers.