Aspect Ratios in Cinemas: Compressed or Expanded?

[HerrSchreck]

Owing to my longtime desire for a thread on this subject, and spurred on by David's post on BODY SNATCHERS by Seigel, and also zedz' latest post on the Tour De Force Camera Moves thread, I'm going to go ahead and let this one rip.

I'm curious, in general sensory terms, what some folks who have been heavily immersed in cinema for decades see when they see a 'scope picture.

I recall when I was young & dumb I thought widescreen movies had a neg that was shaped that way (i e very very wide), in other words that what made them all "35mm" was that they all shared the same up/down hieght, and so the width could vary accordingly. I knew nothing about anamorphic lenses, projection masks, etc.

Of course nowadays I know better... knowing, of course, that rather than adding extra pictorial zones to the left & right of the image, widescreen merely removes info from the top and bottom (notwithstanding the use of widescreen lenses which capture info far beyond the edges of more intimate lenses... 50mm for ex).

I don't know if it's merely a symptom of watching so many pre-widescreen & silent films, but I confess that oftentimes when I see a widescreen film, I see not "widescreen" but "squatscreen". Especially in films featuring a mass of interiors, with an emphasis on dialogue, I see 'scope as an atrophied cinema, an image carrying not a surplus of imagery but a deficit... whereas some westerns and samurai and action films with a bevy of outdoor and battle scenes-- and which rely on an exposition of environment, of "place", where the terrain becomes a character (i e SAVAGE INNOCENTS or LAWRENCE OF ARABIA)-- do of course naturally benefit from widescreen. But some films-- human based dramas, as I mentioned-- reveal a widescreen which to me is nothing but shortscreen.

Of course this is relevant to the skill of the cinematographer as well as the director in his blocking-- that is, where and how he moves his actors about in space and time. But, for example, taking a film like THE BAD SLEEP WELL, despite the effectiveness of the film, I see nothing but gratutious use of a widescreen trend which dislocates the viewer from the intimacy of the proceedings, rather than draw them in. Oneshots & twoshots can feel extremely forced and stunted in scope if they are not handled by a very skilled cinematographer. A human-based, conversation-filled film in widescreen which is nontheless very effective is THE INNOCENTS... but yet, as in those outdoor films where the environment becomes a character in and of itself, breathing behind the characters with a certain omnipresent life of it's own, THE INNOCENTS features the backdrop of the house throughout the narrative (similar to THE HAUNTING by Wise, another effective widescreen human-based intimate story).

Nothing drives me crazier than seeing forheads chopped off above the eyebrows because the camera needs to come in close on two characters, and is stuck in the limitations of widescreen. I see very few directors who reveal a complete and total mastery of the super widescreen ('scope'), whereby both the quiet, intimate, conversational proceedings in unspectacular interiors, as well as bursts of action or hectic lengths of violence playing out against scenic backdrops and the outdoors are handled with absolute perfection-- and without ever feeling forced, particularly in quieter moments. Of course the Japanese are extremely comfortable in the widescreen medium, and I have to again bring up the name Masaki Kobayashi as an absolute master (Okamoto also comes to mind) of not only photographing but blocking actors through the widescreen space. Kudos to Tarkovsky for managing to bring out the intimacy of the epic despite the widescreen in the magesterial ANDREI ROUBLYEV, and for recognizing the unacceptable distance the widescreen would have placed between the viewer and the proceedings in his masterpiece THE MIRROR, which he wisely shot in 1.37 to 1 OAR. Beyond all doubt there is a certain lack of artifice, there is an intimacy and directness in the academy ratio which simply cannot be captured in other ratios. The unadulterated simplicity of 1.37 is a deceptive simplicity-- like the simplicity of the tao or a timeless haiku.. and reaching the hieghts of Sternberg or Ozu or Murnau or Renoir is like a zen koan meditated on by all filmmakers.

[Nothing]

Certainly, no-one makes a better case for the 1.85:1 frame than Antonioni. Whilst beautiful to look at, the 2.35 'Scope of Zabriskie Point somehow feels a little trashy in comparison. And yet, in Leone, the opposite is true...

It is also interesting how the use of Academy ratio by 21st century filmmakers seems to inbue a greater feeling a timelessness - eg. Brisseau, Garrel, Godard (and Eyes Wide Shut on DVD).

widescreen merely removes info from the top and bottom (notwithstanding the use of widescreen lenses which capture info far beyond the edges of more intimate lenses... 50mm for ex).

Apologies for being anal, but-

1.85:1 35mm production/projection methods do indeed involve shooting a 1.37:1 frame with spherical lenses and then projecting the film so that the top and bottom is masked off. The unwanted part of the frame is thus sometimes hard-matted during shooting or post (especially modern digital post).

However, 50mm lenses (and all other lenses) come in both spherical and anamorphic varieties. Shooting with an anamorphic lens (2.35) entails using the entire 35mm film frame, with the lens squeezing the information vertically onto the film in a 2:1 ratio. This is then unsqueezed during projection (a dedicated anamorphic lens must likewise be used by the projectionist for this purpose).

2.35 S35mm production, on the other hand, retains the spherical lenses for shooting, exposing a widened 1.77:1 film frame which is then cropped down to 2.35:1 optically or digitally, before printing anamorphically (2:1 squeeze) back onto 35mm film for release. S35mm productions are then projected in exactly the same way as 'true' anamorphic 35mm.

[colinr0380]

2.35 S35mm production, on the other hand, retains the spherical lenses for shooting, exposing a widened 1.77:1 film frame which is then cropped down to 2.35:1 optically or digitally, before printing anamorphically (2:1 squeeze) back onto 35mm film for release. S35mm productions are then projected in exactly the same way as 'true' anamorphic 35mm.

So that is why some 2.35:1 films such as Apollo 13 and A Bug's Life (and Tideland?) have extra picture information in their full screen versions (but still loose information from the sides), while other films shot in the different 2.35 method when panned-and-scanned don't gain extra top and bottom picture information - their picture is just stretched to fit the square screen?

[HerrSchreck]

Nothing--

I don't know why you felt as though you were being anal. Mentioning one example of the classic use of the 50mm lens in the academy ratio as used by bresson (DIARY) & Ozu owing to the approximation of human eyesight, for example... that was what I was bringing up.

I wasn't attempting a categorical encyclopedic listing of the 50mm. We're not throwing scholastic darts, but trying to start an aesthetic friendly conversation... and I think you well know what I meant.

[Steven H]

I share the fascination with the whats and whys of scope vs. full frame. It's interesting that HerrSchreck brought up Japanese film, as it wasn't until the 80s, I believe, that 1:85 was made standard (and this was due to the popularity of American films), before then you saw films in either 2:35 or 1:33 (in true cinemascope as well, not just masked). It's interesting that many of the ATG filmmakers used 1:33 after years of shooting with scope. Ichikawa Kon did the same thing, shot in scope all during the late fifties and sixties, and then used full frame on a few films in the 70s. If anyone remembers the Beaver Leopard OAR fiasco a couple years ago, you'll know that a lot of what is being thrown around as common knowledge about scope is a big gray area.

A couple of great recent examples of great true scope filmmaking, are Anderson's Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaums. There's a funny bit of interview contained on Criterion's Rushmore disc where Charlie Rose asks Anderson why he decided to use scope (on a "comedy" no less, the nerve) and Anderson wryly replies it's due to there being nine characters on a screen at the same time. I would cite Gus Van Sant's Elephant as one of the best looking 1:33 films I've seen (it's use of motion and academy AR is an unforgettable combination.) See zedz post in the "Subjective and tour de force camera movements thread" for similar thoughts I've had on Jissouji's Akio's use of 1:33 in Mujo (AKA This Transient Life).

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I see very few directors who reveal a complete and total mastery of the super widescreen ('scope'), whereby both the quiet, intimate, conversational proceedings in unspectacular interiors, as well as bursts of action or hectic lengths of violence playing out against scenic backdrops and the outdoors are handled with absolute perfection-- and without ever feeling forced, particularly in quieter moments.

Sergio Leone certainly displayed an incredible skill with scope on The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. For example, the first shot, the close-up of an ugly man's face is incredible and works well within the frame. And then, of course it also allows him to show things on a grand scale like the futile battle over the bridge that Blondie and Tuco eventually blow-up. Leone captures this futility in gorgeous long shots so that we see all of these soldiers killing each other almost like ants. But I think that Leone's use of widescreen really kicks in with the final duel between Blondie, Tuco Angel Eyes. How Leone captures all of them within the frame, coupled with the editing is incredible. So, he'd certainly get my vote.

[GringoTex]

I think the academy ratio has more immediacy because 1) generally more of the characters' bodies are visible (less abstract representation); 2) camera movement is more pronounced; 3) greater depth of field than scope formats (until the 1960s at least).

But widecreen did offer new methods of expression that were previously unavailable. David has mentioned Sirk, who would often compose two tableaus in the same shot (for example, characters speaking in one part of the frame while a mirror or beuatifully lit wall comments like a Greek chorus on the proceedings).

Fuller's introductory shot of Angie Dickinson's legs in China Gate would have been inconceivable before widescreen- some Cahiers critic called it an "axiom of Cinemascope."

The unbearable beauty and amount of unspoken information in this shot relies on widescreen:



As does the empty space/emptiness of this shot:

[Nothing]

yup, the 50mm is considered the nearest equivalent to human eyesight when shooting on 35mm film - at any ratio, spherical or anamorphic. It isn't a very wide lens, though, especially in its spherical variety (S35mm filmmaking thus tends to lend itself to a tighter composition).

[Nothing]

Is it still the most commonly used lens by DPs?

Well that'd be pretty hard to measure... Though the 28mm-40mm range seems increasingly popular these days, perhaps due to the increasingly ubiquitous use of Steadicam (it is easier to achieve smooth shots with a wider lens).

[Gordon]

As much as I love 'scope and 65mm, I'd probably say that VistaVision with an Eastman neg and Technicolor printing was the best format, all in all, but seeing as most films that happened to be shot in VV are terrible (The Searchers is by far the best - and it wasn't a Paramount film, so that might be telling) it is hard to appreciate it within the context of great storytelling and filmmaking. Black and white Vista is also underrated - The Tin Star (Loyal Griggs also shot the VistaVision Ten Commandments) is gorgeous [screenshots]. Vista just seemed the most natural system - and it could be razor-sharp with great saturation and in the few black and white films, it had a rare quality - and we never got bw Technirama or 65mm films, to my knowledge. The cameras were bulky, but in 1956, Paramount developed a handheld VV camera that could hold 400 or 1000 feet of film (2-5 mins of filming).

I really wish that VistaVision had endured alongside anamorphic Panavision - as I also wish that Technicope had endured. Leone and the late Tonino Delli Colli were the masters, but Otto Heller and Sidney Furie should not be overlooked: The Ipcress File is equally audacious and was a huge influence on Storaro. What was great about it was that it was 2.35, but with the spherical lenses, it was easier to achieve deep-focus (though The Innocents - CinemaScope - has some astounding wide-angle, deep-focus shots by Freddie Francis) quite uncommon to anamorphic cinematography; more to the point, some of the set-ups border on the outrageous, with Furie shooting through parking meters and blocking half of the frame with red lamp-shades. Those crazy Canadians!

But the 1.33:1 Silent ratio was a great format, as was 1.37 Academy and it was a shame that they were superceded - though Coppola and Godard composed in 4:3, in color, to great effect. The Japense changed to 1.85 in the early 70s, but the stuck with it for a long time, but I believe that that Russians did so for longer - Tarkovsky being the obvious example.

Few 2.35:1 - be it anamorphic Panavision or Super-35 - films today push the format to the extreme, ie. over-the-shoulder (Chinatown has great OTS shots) deep-focus or multiple-character set-ups. It makes me wonder why so many films are shot in 2.35 and not 1.85 when the latter would yield a more balanced frame.

[Nothing]

Actually, 2-perf Techniscope is back.

The format makes some sense again, given the prevalence of digital post. It is basically a cheaper alternative to S35mm, for those who desire a fixed 2.35:1 aspect ratio (slightly smaller active picture area, but you only shoot half as much film).

[foggy eyes]

The Ipcress File is equally audacious and was a huge influence on Storaro. What was great about it was that it was 2.35, but with the spherical lenses, it was easier to achieve deep-focus (though The Innocents - CinemaScope - has some astounding wide-angle, deep-focus shots by Freddie Francis) quite uncommon to anamorphic cinematography; more to the point, some of the set-ups border on the outrageous, with Furie shooting through parking meters and blocking half of the frame with red lamp-shades. Those crazy Canadians!

Bordwell's equally enlightening two cents on this.

[Jeff]

seeing as most films that happened to be shot in VV are terrible (The Searchers is by far the best - and it wasn't a Paramount film, so that might be telling) it is hard to appreciate it within the context of great storytelling and filmmaking.

Don't forget about the decidedly un-terrible North by Northwest, Vertigo, and Richard III. Vertigo was a Paramount film and for my money is at least as important as The Searchers.

[Gordon]

Ah, thanks for that link, Nothing - I had forgotten about the Multivision 235 system! Super-35 @ 2.40 is effectively Techniscope, but as wide-angle lenses and deep-focus are seldom used today, it does make we wonder why anyone would shoot in Multivision 235, though it is cool to have it out there - for 16mm folks wanting to experiment. I think I mention this somewhere on the forums that I love how American Graffiti was shot. Has anyone ever heard why Lucas shot his first two films in Techniscope, at a time when no American films were being shot in the system?

And thanks for your link, foggy eyes - it almost looks like I wrote the article, with Bordwell also describing Furie's compositions as "outrageous"! And they are that - it doesn't show it, but at one point, the red lampshade actually takes up the right side of the frame, with Nigel Greene on the left. Storaro met Furie some years later and acknowledged him as an inspiration. The Bird with the Crystal Plumage is certainly one of the great T-scope films - as is Two-Lane Blacktop. Argento's other early films are also striking - Cat O' Nine Tails, though far from his best film, is nevertheless ingeniously photographed. A small note: Films credited as "Cromoscope" were shot with 2-perf 2.35 Mitchell or Eclair cameras, but were not printed by Technicolor, but by another lab using contact printing, not dye-transfer.

Jeff, I wasn't intentionally overlooking Hitch and Olivier! Richard III is gorgeous - Otto Heller (Curse of the Mummy's Tomb, The Ipcress File, Alfie - all Techniscope). I think that Hitch, as always, was breaking with tradition and in Europe, outside of the aegis of Paramount, they could please themselves, though The Mountain (1956, Edward Dmytryk) sounds interesting, as it was shot at Mont-Blanc by the great Franz Planer (Letter from an Unknown Woman, Cyrano de Bergerac (1950), The Big Country, Ray's King of Kings). You can get an idea of where the Vista style may have went with Brando's, One Eyed Jacks (shot by Charles Lang). Here's the full list of VistaVision productions.

Getting back to Techniscope, perhaps the problem with it was that adventurous directors and/or cinematographers rarely seemed to use it, though I see that the great Russell Metty shot a few: The Appaloosa (1966, Sidney Furie), Counterpoint (1968, Ralph Nelson), Madigan (1968, Don Siegel). I haven't seen Counterpoint - is it visually impressive? One of the problems with Techniscope was that you needed a special editing table, as when you ran it on a normal 24-frames-per-second table, you'd get two 2.35:1 frames on the screen at the same time. This was another factor in the demise of the system. Digital editing eliminates that problem with Multivision-235.

[Greathinker]

Agreed that wider formats have become an unwanted and handicapping standard that is likely to stick around, especially since everyone's buying widescreen TVs these days (duh, the picture isn't taking up the whole space, what the hell). But what about films like Dr. Strangelove that jump back and forth? Is it inevitable for filmmakers, and possibly with time, the audience, to find that the aspect ratio of films should be more accommodating to their material? After all, I don't think it was common throughout history for patrons of painters to ever dictate the format of their artists' compositions. Though I suppose a difference is that size and detail is dependent on the painter as opposed to the filmmaker having the restraints of film. What I'm getting at is that wider formats these days inherently carry more value for general audiences and the decision is less an artistic one than an almost necessary one.

But back to my original question, if films outside the indy circuit and TV, can't use the academy ratio, is it ok for them to oscillate between ratios? Should the scene itself decide how it is to be viewed, or would this be too jarring? I've been thinking about this for some time. I'm very naive about the technical aspects of film so feel free to break down my argument if there's a weak leg somewhere.

[Gordon]

Dr Strangelove should be projected and transfered at 1.66:1 (some say it should even be 1.85, but I won't get too nit-picky - for once!).

Remember that Coppola's, One from the Heart (1982, Ronald Víctor García, Vittorio Storaro) was composed in and for 1.37:1 and should projected and transfered in that ratio - even the 70mm blow-up was 1.37.

As for oscillating between ratios, it could be done on TV/DVD, but not in a cinema, as you can't quickly change the matting during projection - or from spherical to anamorphic-taking lenses.

[Der Müde Tod]

Coming back to Schreck's original post - I think that whether one is comfortable with a format in a specific film largely depends on ones' own mentality. Weak people like myself just eat what they are fed and don't question very much whether the side dishes go well with the main course. I must complain, however - since Schreck's post, I have begun looking at the left and right edges of the screen, continuously questioning their legitimacy, almost missing the main action this way -- I also wonder - are there also films where we (or at least those among us with insatiable appetite) desire more frame? And to turn the subject around a little: Are there films in portrait format (sure, somewhat impractical, but people have committed worse crimes).

[zedz]

And to turn the subject around a little: Are there films in portrait format (sure, somewhat impractical, but people have committed worse crimes).

Unlikely for film, as it's problematic to turn a projector on its side, but there are video works that use the format. Somewhere I've got a tape of Brian Eno's Mistaken Memories of Medieval Manhattan which politely requests that you turn your television on its left side to view the work. In 4:3, it's really neither here nor there, but widescreen in portrait format does give a rather striking effect.

Getting back to the idea of changing aspect ratios, some masters of the frame do achieve this effect. Mujo is a great example, with negative space and masking utilised throughout to create a multitude of different-shaped images. Kon Ichikawa's An Actor's Revenge is another instructive case. He makes magnificent use of the widescreen frame throughout, but often goes even further, locating black sky or black ground across the top or bottom of the frame to deliver certain scenes in aspect ratios of 4:1 or greater.

Imamura has a different, but no less dazzling, mastery, often breaking the widescreen image up into different shaped fields of action (e.g. academy window on the left; 1.66 room on the right), creating complex "split-screen" effects in camera.

[HerrSchreck]

For me it's a measure of visceral impact, of poetics in the cinema.

Artists in any medium grapple with the relative impossibility of getting across the feelings that a Place triggers, usually inspired in a seed moment in their own lives where they felt a certain Something while sitting Someplace and feeling the impact of their surroundings as pertains to XYZ. This is the raw material of life... the feeling of a city, of all the lives that have gone before or are swirling around you thru the anonymous leaning crowds, or the eons lying out there in the forms of nature, the mountains, ageless forests, crags, etc... how the human mind processes the sensory input of life-- and in the cinema, the primary means of communication is (but by no means limited to) that of the visual.

Directors & cinematographers arrive on a location-- or construct one within the studio-- for a particular reason... that is, there is a certain something resident in that location that makes it more condusive to communicating something in the text than other potential locations. There is something that can be felt there in the location, perhaps even before a word is even spoken, your mind and/or your guts start working feeling some sense of awe or gloom or happy-good-mood or history or hauntedness or whatever.. and oftentimes the artist wants you to feel what it is he or she feels standing there in that spot.

Whereas I admire the beauty and excellence of the vast bulk of those most tour de force of widescreen compositions, I live in and feel to the marrow those most poetic of academy compositions. The compositions of Epstein's USHER, or Gremillion LISE or MALDONE, or Carne's QUAI DE BRUMES, or Dreyer's VAMPYR, or Kirsanoff... they actually trigger a soupy, almost alcohol-like secretion in my system when I watch them. Certain of these masterpieces, like those gloomy works of Epstein or BRUMES DE AUTOMNE by Kirsanoff duplicate the feeling from my childhood of a cloudy fall sundown out in a rundown stretch of country with bare trees and a low sky, with my body tired and rundown and I'm already halfway to sleeping & dreaming while walking, and the atmosphere becomes heavy with phantoms. It's a magical haunted feeling, of the human nervous system interacting with the terrain (the mindset or disposition that triggers religions throughout thousands of years of human history), that certain masterly academy ratio compositions can duplicate-- and in a grown up human being with full-grown concerns, in a narrative dealing with these mature concerns, the effect of this kind of visual poetry on a film is absolutely magical and extremely rare (given the omnipresence of widescreen nowadays).

But the wind up is I find the academy ratio far more condusive to getting across those elements in a composition which draw out profound responses from the mind & viscera-- clouds, wind, fog, rain, sunlight, thick snow, forestry, shadow, waves on the ocean, vistas, cities, alleys, etc, even the effect of a bare room in an old victorian house, or rooming house in skid row, whatever-- which cause films to have far more lasting and poetic impact on the brain. Although there is a plastic complexity in some widescreen arrangements which can be extremely impressive, the effect is just not as optimal for me.. though I will say in some hands the effect is not completely lost in widescreen, particularly in the compromise of 1.66 to 1.85 ratios.

[zedz]

And then there's the moment in ABBA: The Movie when the film opens out from academy to widescreen. . .


(Did I really write that?)

[Gordon]

Well-remembered, zedz! I had forgotten about that bit. That jogged my memory about Henri-Georges Clouzot's ingenious 1956 documentary, The Mystery of Picasso which begins in 1.37:1 but then changes to CinemaScope when Picasso begins to paint on the wider canvasses. The Milestone DVD also contains Resnais', Guernica.