639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

[HitchcockLang]

I'm all for original intentions of a film, but to step away from the auteur theory that only Reggio (or only Fricke) can determine the "correct" ratio is an oversimplification of the collaborative nature of film, not only among the crew, but between the crew and the audience. Now, I'm not suggesting that audiences should much about exercising free reign over the visual integrity of films, but we have seen the alternative academy framing and to many, regardless of original intent, it looks better.

Take the above screencaps for example which feature square features (TV screens even) which are framed perfectly in academy but clipped and cramped in 1.85:1. The artist may have intended one look, but that doesn't make the artist's intention "correct," but merely intended. A cursory glance at screencaps and a vague understanding of aesthetics and composition reveals that the 4:3 framing is more pleasing to the eye.

[MichaelB]

The only person on the crew capable of influencing the aspect ratio besides the director and cinematographer is the camera operator - and in this case I believe it was mostly/entirely Ron Fricke himself.

And the last time I saw someone using still frames to argue that the Academy version was "better", someone pointed out that the shot in question was a vertical pan, so the "vital information" that was "cropped" from the still image was in fact revealed a few seconds later - and the impact correspondingly greater because you don't initially see the people on the beach in the shadow of the cooling tower.

I'm too busy this evening to dig out my copy and examine all those shots, but does the framing remain static throughout in the way that you're implying?

[EddieLarkin]

Yeah, many of the examples posted earlier could be half way through a push or pull camera movement (not to mention that a few of them are "cropped" in the 4x3 still anyway!). To really determine which is "best", you need to watch both versions in their entirety side by side.

[HitchcockLang]

That's a compelling point. I'll have to check it out in motion. Though I still say the static still caps look better framed in 4:3.

[EddieLarkin]

Whoever took the caps of the scene showing the TV was being deliberately deceptive if you ask me (assuming they were doing so to make an argument for the 4:3 version). It's one of the time lapse sequences, showing a hundred different channels in a few seconds, which starts with the camera far away enough from the TV that it is perfectly framed for 1.85:1.

Moments after that frame there is a cut to what is perhaps a different TV, this time with the camera much closer, with the top and bottom of the TV out of frame. It was perhaps done to demonstrate the curvature of the tube TV, visible when you're up close, like so.

So if anything, the "cropping" you get in the 1.85:1 version was a deliberate aesthetic choice, that ends up negatively affected in the non-director preferred ratio of 4:3. Hardly surprising.

[MichaelB]

Whoever took the caps of the scene showing the TV was being deliberately deceptive if you ask me

Isn't it funny how this sort of thing always seems to happen with this particular film?

Which, I have to say, looks absolutely fine in 1.85:1 - the last time I watched it was via the Criterion Blu-ray, and there's no hint of cropping or overly tight framing at all, and given that the film's impact is more or less entirely aesthetic, this should notionally be far more noticeable than it would be with an engrossing dramatic narrative.

But then I'm one of those strange people who tends to go along with what the director and cinematographer prefer - you know, what with it being their film and all.

[EddieLarkin]

I watched it via the Criterion Blu-ray last time as well, before I was even aware of any debate over the AR, and recall noting how well framed everything was. Quite the cinematic experience, even at 50 inches. In nearly all cases, if the film works at the ratio that shows less image, then that is likely the intended one. If a more open ratio was intended, the tighter one is simply going to ruin the film, which is certainly not the case with Koyaanisqatsi.

[zedz]

I'm all for original intentions of a film, but to step away from the auteur theory that only Reggio (or only Fricke) can determine the "correct" ratio is an oversimplification of the collaborative nature of film, not only among the crew, but between the crew and the audience. Now, I'm not suggesting that audiences should much about exercising free reign over the visual integrity of films, but we have seen the alternative academy framing and to many, regardless of original intent, it looks better.

According to the majority of viewers, Academy ratio films look better when they're stretched out to fill the screen of their widescreen TVs so that every character looks morbidly obese, so I don't think you can win this argument by pleading democracy.

[domino harvey]

Let's get back to the thread's intended purpose: taking potshots at the third film in the trilogy

[zedz]

In nearly all cases, if the film works at the ratio that shows less image, then that is likely the intended one. If a more open ratio was intended, the tighter one is simply going to ruin the film, which is certainly not the case with Koyaanisqatsi.

This is a good point, and tighter framing often gives images a much sharper dramatic impact. It's a frame for a reason, and dead space is called dead space for a reason. This point was really brought home to me when I saw Red Psalm correctly framed on the Second Run disc after previously seeing the open matte French edition: the entire film was vastly more compelling, even though no important visual 'information' was gained or lost.

And domino - I thought my previous post was doing exactly that!

[Lowry_Sam]

Glad to see people actually discussing the AR again.....when I first raised the issue, I seemed to be the only one disappointed by this (and that the package was less than what it could have been, but I won't dwell again on the other shortcomings). Being able to show both versions side-by-side would be a great opportunity to give students an idea of the impact of AR on the viewer & Koyaanisqatsi is the perfect film to do this.

With that and today's date (9/11) in mind, I distinctly remember seeing at least one shot of the World Trade Center in the film when it was projected in full frame during a live concert with the San Francisco Symphony & Philip Glass performing the music live. I remember because there was a very noticeable collective gasp from the audience during this scene (it was during a quiet section when the camera moves along the NYC skyline). I have watched the blu-ray 2x now & have not noticed the twin towers appearing anywhere in the film. Did the change in the aspect ratio cut out this very emotional scene? was it edited out at some point? or is my memory failing me?

[naersjoen]

Interesting. There are several internet resources that suggest that the outside of the former World Trade Center does not appear in Koyaanisqatsi.

On reviewing the film just now I thought that this was it, 44:05 into the film on the IRE disc (the number of windows per floor on the side visible here match that of the actual WTC according to my eyes – 58):


However, when compared to a photo that is attributed to the actual WTC (Source), the window frames appear to be too narrow in the building shown in Koyaanisqatsi):


Still, the one shown in Koyaanisqatsi is similar to the WTC. Perhaps this is the scene that provoked the reaction in the audience you describe (it is a quiet scene as you describe, though the camera doesn't move)?

It is of course perfectly visible even in matted widescreen. Here is the same scene as it appears on the Criterion Blu-ray:


It is amazing how well the IRE DVD transfer looks next to the Criterion Blu-ray. For anyone who wants it, there is a torrent of the IRE disc out there.

[MichaelB]

Did the change in the aspect ratio cut out this very emotional scene?

"Very emotional scene" = "Architecturally neutral shot onto which an audience placed its own personal emotional construction two decades later".

[EricJ]

And domino - I thought my previous post was doing exactly that!

No, we were taking potshots at the aspect ratio, not that Naqoyqatsi looks embarrassingly naive and cliche'd after Reggio's twenty-year hiatus--like the work of somebody's ex-hippie grandpa who came back out for Occupy Wall Street--that the "Negative video" looks horrendously cheap compared to the slow-mo and time lapse of the previous two films, that he was going back over his old hits (the "video cloud" worked better in PQ) and that the two minute trailer seems to have a better idea of the "point" of what the heck the movie was about than Reggio could even flail close to.
(Although the latter was also true of Powaqqatsi, as well.)

And I'll side with the argument that that's pretty clearly not the WTC.

[zedz]

No, we were taking potshots at the aspect ratio. . .

In what way is complaining that some people think that "Academy ratio films look better when they're stretched out to fill the screen [. . .] so that every character looks morbidly obese" not a criticism of Naqotqatsi's specific visual illiteracy?

It can be two things at once!

[Robespierre]

Whoever took the caps of the scene showing the TV was being deliberately deceptive if you ask me

Isn't it funny how this sort of thing always seems to happen with this particular film? ;)

Which, I have to say, looks absolutely fine in 1.85:1 - the last time I watched it was via the Criterion Blu-ray, and there's no hint of cropping or overly tight framing at all, and given that the film's impact is more or less entirely aesthetic, this should notionally be far more noticeable than it would be with an engrossing dramatic narrative.

But then I'm one of those strange people who tends to go along with what the director and cinematographer prefer - you know, what with it being their film and all.

So what is your opinion of the "director approved" first edition of The French Connection and the later edition approved by the DP looking totally different?

[MichaelB]

So what is your opinion of the "director approved" first edition of The French Connection and the later edition approved by the DP looking totally different?

Friedkin admitted that he completely ballsed up the "restoration", which was disowned by his DOP Owen Roizman. The second version, which was approved by both of them, is clearly the definitive one.

But this seems to me to be a completely different situation. Reggio explained his reasoning for authorising a 4:3 version, which was in connection with specific historical/technological circumstances that no longer apply today.

And while we're replying to years-old posts...

This is a good point, and tighter framing often gives images a much sharper dramatic impact. It's a frame for a reason, and dead space is called dead space for a reason. This point was really brought home to me when I saw Red Psalm correctly framed on the Second Run disc after previously seeing the open matte French edition: the entire film was vastly more compelling, even though no important visual 'information' was gained or lost.

See also The Seven Minutes, which Fox only made available in a 4:3 master. Fast-forwarding through it, it was immediately clear that there was tons of headroom, and cropping it to 1.85:1 made a whopping difference - as an outstandingly accomplished photographer himself, Russ Meyer really watched his framing, and this couldn't be more obvious. I did briefly consider offering two aspect ratios on the Arrow release, but there really didn't seem to be much point: we'd have had to go to a second disc, and there was no chance that it was ever shown theatrically in Academy back in 1971.

(Although I did offer an Easter Egg in the form of a 4:3 version of the scene of the raid on the illicit porn operation, where you get to see a bit more than you do in the 1.85:1 version. But that was pretty much the only bit where such treatment was justified - otherwise, given that most of the film is a courtroom drama, the 4:3 version looked like a badly-composed TV movie.)

[tenia]

So what is your opinion of the "director approved" first edition of The French Connection and the later edition approved by the DP looking totally different?

Friedkin admitted that he completely ballsed up the "restoration", which was disowned by his DOP Owen Roizman.

IIRC, he didn't admitted anything but instead shifted the blame to the studio workflow, saying that what they did and approved isn't what ended up on the final end result.

The result is the same regarding which disc should be considered the best, but it implies quite a big difference regarding what Friedkin was willing to take responsability for.

[movielocke]

The first two films are quite good, although I was initially not a fan of powaqqatsi, by the films end I think I liked it a little more. But then I projected an internal narrative of labor v. Capital and the grinding/horrifying global universality of mind numbing poverty and its attendant enslaving serfdom on the film as it unfolded. In retrospect, contrasted with the rise of the industrial revolution in the first film, I was continually reminded at how far we have come from sludging mud up hill whilst cycling our children through the same torturous horrifying cultural machinery of pre industrial subsistence .

On the other hand I'm probably misreading the film. as I imagine it is intended as some sort of aging hippy orientalist claptrap about how boomer hippies have recently "discovered" that some pre modern non western people won the magical belief lottery and no one (western) knew that these savages had the one true belief system until i me myself discovered the truthiness (of my misunderstandings) of their beliefs and mutated it into some sort of hippy sutra of omnommy yummy mummy enlightenment (only $19.95 a week!) to package to other disaffected boomer hippies searching for the people who hit the magical belief lottery

I'm sure if we all just got a guru and found our spirit animal we'd all realize it's better to be rich and reign in pre modern hell than to be middle class and serve in modern heaven.

Silly sheeple not realizing they are slaves in modernity! Things were better back in the day!

I must say though that popularizing the super cut and super time lapse as the first film did has resulted in a lot of fruitful endeavors these days, as Vimeo is happy to illustrate .

Snark aside, I enjoyed the first two films and found them both rigorous and thought provoking.

But holy shit the third film is slimy tripe. From the abusive use of stock footage to the "everything is inverted chroma!" video effect the entire film is painful to experience. About the only thing I like is the stretching effect, which seems like a farcical, scathing take on the shitty way people abused widescreen Tvs (and thus thematically represents the misuse of technology to torture art) back in the era when such tvs were new.

It's not wholly without merit, the ideas and themes are there. but they are so overshadowed by the fetishistic use of novel technological technique that they're effectively buried under the glee of seeing what the new toys can do.
And it is fun to play with those toys. I made a student film that used similar superimpositions and effects around the same time. Those editorial options can be a powerful tool, but here they are toys trying to seem like tools. And failing.

[swo17]

I don't think widescreen TVs were common enough in 2002 for aspect ratio abuse to be a known thing yet.

[Werewolf by Night]

Werewolf's Razor: Never ascribe to artistic intent that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

[djproject]

I know Naqoyqatsi gets a bad reputation (and understandably so). I think the concept behind it was fine given its context within the larger whole. And even the execution of it was fine also as it was a way to express that theme. But I think the shortcomings are the following:

1) Philip Glass’s music. It’s fine music on its own but I think it’s too formal and too structural and somehow it doesn’t match with the sequence of images. Furthermore, I think the images were bounded to the music too religiously whereas Koyaanis- had a continuing back and forth between music and film and Powaq- had the music and film grow organically.

2) Stretching the concept longer than needed. The best way to make that point is looking at the cycle of TV advertisements in the middle of Powaqqatsi. It makes the point Naqoyqatsi in only a fraction of the time (and with better music I think).

To the film’s credit though, it did somewhat anticipate something that would occur in about ten years time that would do the same thing Naqoyqatsi did but, I think, much better: vaporwave. (Look at the various videos/visuals made of certain works like Eccojams or Floral Shoppe.)

[colinr0380]

Although there were early takes on trippy music and imagery with ecological themes that came out long before Naqoyqatsi: I'm particularly thinking of something like the early CGI-New Age-y music video feature (in fact an interesting experiment in stitching together of dozens of separate artists work, as shown in the end credits) The Gate To The Mind's Eye from 1994 (one of a series of 'Mind's Eye' films) and suchlike.

[geoffcowgill]

The internet has reached its apex. Someone has made a random parody generator. https://www.monkeon.co.uk/gifaanisqatsi/

[colinr0380]

RaMell Ross, director of Hale County This Morning, This Evening, on the Qatsi Trilogy