Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lex M
I'm saying that I tend to look more favorably on films that take advantage of a 2.35:1 frame, and on directors who know how to compose their films to take full advantage of said ratio. There are exceptions -- Verhoeven, Allen, Cronenberg, and Kubrick are among my favorite directors, and shot most of their best films in a narrow ratio. But when I enter a theatre to see a new movie, like say THE TERMINAL or VAN HELSING or ANCHORMAN or what have you, I'm always a little disappointed when I see that the director has chosen to shoot in 1.85:1.
|
While I can't say I agree that a Scope aspect ratio necessarily fits every type of film, I understand completely how you feel; I have often felt the same way about many films. I, too, believe films seem more "epic", more "film-like" at a wide aspect ratio, using the logic that more can be shown with a wider canvas. Yet, at the same time, I inevitably wind up respecting the director's chosen aspect ratio, whether it be 2.76:1 or 1.37:1 or somewhere in between, because there may be artistic reasons for it. I figure they've framed for a particular aspect ratio for a reason, even if I don't find that reason fitting the story in question or being the aspect ratio I would have chosen. My only real quibbles in regards to aspect ratio have to do with how the aspect ratio fits in with the print type and the negative type. For example, I'm not a fan of the Super 35 format - I believe that if you're going to shoot in Scope, then use anamorphic lenses or just shoot Academy Flat (I frankly would prefer to see the original Cinemascope aspect ratio of 2.55:1 and the MGM Camera 65/Ultra Panavision 70 2.76:1 aspect ratio make a comeback). Also, while it doesn't happen much anymore, I prefer 70mm prints to be made from a 65mm source negative rather than a 35mm blowup, although a 35mm reduction print from a 65mm negative is generally acceptable (but not as visually impressive as a 70mm print, of course); aspect ratios will often play a little fast and furious when such negative/print interplay is made, but as long as it turns out properly, I got no problems.
Then there's
VistaVision, one of my favorite widescreen processes (and one which had 35mm negatives) - its recommended aspect ratio was 1.85:1, although Paramount's theater projection framing guide made provisions for 1:66:1 and 2:1. The major difference, however, was that it provided a HUGE picture, as wide as a 2.55:1 Cinemascope print but about 3 times as tall! (
Jurassic Park's 1.85:1 AR & subject matter would have been PERFECT for the VistaVision process!)
So, really, what
is "widescreen"? Considering that 16:9 TVs with 1.78:1 aspect ratios are quickly becoming the norm, I think theatrical motion pictures are going to have to go even wider in order to distinguish themselves from television fare, although there will always be a contingent in the film industry that will advocate maintenance of "crossoverability" between theaters and TV/video. So it seems likely that in the future, we'll see the 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio fade into the 1.78:1 aspect ratio (keeping the theater/TV transition seamless), while big ticket theatrical fare will often be presented in 2.40:1 and even wider aspect ratios. So in the end, it'll depend on the film in question - action adventures, sci-fi, war, and dramas conducive to a panoramic framing will stay wide, while "standard" comedies and dramas will likely remain in the "New Academy Flat" of 1.78:1.
Just an educated guess. In some ways, I hope I'm wrong.