SCREEN-L Archives

December 1994, Week 1

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:
Paul Ramaeker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 5 Dec 1994 23:58:35 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (75 lines)
On 12/5, Jennifer Warren wrote:
 
)Your point is understood, but if you know anything at all about film,
)then you know that not all 35mm films are shot in the 1:1.85 ratio.  In
)fact, very few of them are, since the end product often winds up as video
)anyway
 
Well, I honestly can't figure out what you mean here.  No 35 mm film frame
(on the celluloid itself) is 1:1.85, that's true.  The 1.85 ratio is the
result of masking, of course, and often on videos the masking is simply
removed.  But that isn't to say that the 1.85 isn't the guiding principle
of the compositions in these films, and that the 1:1.85 aspect ratio isn't
to be considered to be the proper ratio.  This isn't even to bring up
CinemaScope films, that is, films shot in 1:2.35 ratio (and use of 'Scope
is, I think, on the upswing).  Most obviously in these cases, video
eviscerates the films.  In the case of 1:1.85 films, you could argue that
many (if not most) are shot with an eye to being transferred to video, and
that the scenes are staged and shot so that little important information is
put on the edges of the frame (which seems more common for 'Scope films).
But that doesn't mean that they are not shot in 1.85.  This is the most
common trade practice for theatrical release feature films.  I'd be curious
to hear any figures you have to the contrary.  Again, you may retort that
they are shot for TV, and that is what is important here, but aspect ratio
is not the same as composition.
        Now, if you are referring to commercials, TV shows, and
straight-to-video films, then it's true that they are not  in 1.85 (though
some TV shows, like _Star Trek:TNG_, are most definitely shot in 1.85).
But TV shows don't seem to be the focus of your discussion.   I may be
wrong here, of course.
        Personally, I think that in the end, any development that improves
video technology is an obvious boon to the low-budget filmmaker, and I
think that anything that allows more people to make films with less money
is a good thing.  And, of course, it's true that, as Allen Siegal wrote,
"Good films are not technology driven."   But we also should not forget
that use of 35mm film is worth aspiring to (leaving aside artistic or
ideological reasons to purposefully  NOT do so) because the image quality
is clearly vastly superior to that of video.  It is also worth remembering
that the preservation of the proper aspect ratio (1.85 or 2.35) is worth
insisting upon for TV broadcasts or videos of films, because that is the
way they were meant to be seen.  Surely the artist's prerogative should be
our paramount concern in any technological issue, whether it's preserving
aspect ratios, or greater feasibility of production.
 
Also:
Arthur Lizie Jr. writes:
)Don't have the info handy, but I seem to remember that Coppola used video
for )one of the Hinton films or _One From The Heart_. (might be wrong about
Coppola, )but positive about the first film).
 
        Coppola has used video tap technology since _One from the Heart_ to
give him and the crew instant dailies, and to experiment in editing, but it
was still shot on film.
        This brings up anothyer point- the frame in the video shot through
the video tap *is* marked to indicate the borders of the 1.85 or 2.35
frame.
 
Finally, Irene Upshur writes:
 
)I sense you did not like NBK.  I believe this to be the most important film
)Stone has ever made. Don't you think the quick cuts--as well as the
)exaggerated characters, gore, language, camera angles, effects (color
)especially)-- fit the statement?. . .the statement being that we are an
)extreme people in an extreme world, in need of extreme sensations namely a
)shot change a second. . . .a dynamic shot at that. And hey. . .my favorite
)filmmaker is Jim Jarsmusch!
)Later.
 
        Personally, I think that NBK is a worthless mess, a baby boomer
trying to make a film for those nutty MTV-watching kids (he must've read a
USA Today article that mentioned "Generation X"), but with no idea of what
he is saying or how to say it through a coherent use of style (or a
coherently incoherent use).  But that's just me.
 
-Paul Ramaeker, sometimes easily disgruntled, but basically friendly

ATOM RSS1 RSS2