SCREEN-L Archives

May 2000, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Darryl Wiggers <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 9 May 2000 12:56:14 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
>and i'm puzzled . . i would have thought the premise that
>> an altered aspect ratio damages or changes film
>would lead to a PRO-letterboxing lecture . . .

I am further puzzled because the vast majority of films these days are shot without any consideration for composition... the action is deliberately kept to one area of the screen in order to allow for theatrical "wide-screen" and TV "full-screen." If you ever visit a film set, check out the monitors they use when playing back shot footage -- there are usually lines on the glass that show how the image will look in both formats. Leo, perhaps you can add some technical detail on how "masking" (is that the right term?) works?

Kubrick, for example, was never much of a wide-screen enthusiast. His cinematic heroes were those from before the 50s (before wide-screen had become part of the norm). He made the exception with 2001 because he felt the wide-screen process could better communicate the vastness and emptiness of space. In other words, its purpose was to help tell the story (by the way, both Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove have brief moments of alternative ratios). Plus, in later years, I think he also recognized that the video market was an important one. Hence, his last film was specifically shot with the standard TV screen in mind -- not standard theatrical wide-screen. This is written all over the EWS box, and appears on the video intro. Yet this still doesn't prevent so-called "purists" from jumping up-and-down and screaming "We want a LETTER-BOX version of EWS! We want to see the film as Kubrick intended!"

On the flip-side, the distribution of letter-box films on video has always been screwed-up. For years I couldn't see a letter-box version of The Wild Bunch, but I could rent or buy a letter-box version of Patrick Swayze in Road House! Now... letter-box is finally becoming accepted, but EVERYTHING is coming out in this format (after filmmakers spent 20 years mostly forsaking wide-screen, and deliberately shooting their films to avoid the "pan-and-scan" process). Recently I bought a DVD of Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me for my young nephew, and we both squinted as we tried to watch the 2.35 anamorphic framing on the family 27" TV. Trust me, neither of us were watching the film for the skill and mastery of its framing. Screw artistic integrity! Just show me enough so I can follow the action and have a good laugh!

Here in Canada we have a pay TV service called MoviePix. They specialize in showing films (mostly U.S.) from throughout the 20th century. One of their gimmicks is to show "letter-box" versions of films. In one of their promos they demonstrate the difference between "letter-box" and "full-frame" -- supposably to show why "letter-box" is superior. But some of the examples they use in the promo include "Red Violin" and "Saving Private Ryan" -- two contemporary examples that were clearly shot with TV in mind. The main difference with the "letter-box" of these two titles is that a black bar covers the top and bottom of the screen, actually showing you LESS of the film -- whereas the argument is suppose to be that letter-boxing shows you MORE.

In the over 100 year history of cinema, wide-screen composition is only a consideration in a small fraction of films (mostly those made in the 1960s and 70s, before home video became a factor in distribution). Yes, I yearn for the day when I can finally to see The Conformist as it was originally intended... if not in a theatre, a beautiful letter-box video will do (come on, Paramount!)... but can't we also accept that MOST films do not benefit from this process? That most filmmakers are not interested in telling stories through visuals, except to convey information? That there is no standard of excellence? That the "Deluxe Letter-Box" version of Runaway Train is virtually identical to the "full-screen" TV version, so why make a fuss?


.

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2