It would be easy to support the integrity of the "widescreen" version of

any film. In DIE HARD there's a key scene in which the cop, Lincoln, enters

the building for the first time. He has no idea terrorists are in the

building. Only in the widescreen version do you notice that a terrorist is

waiting right around the corner he's about to turn, ready to blow him away.

Yes, tension lost in pan-and-scan. There's another scene I recall in THE

AMERICAN PRESIDENT, with Michael Douglas and Annette Bening, when they have

their first conversation in the Oval Office. In the original "widescreen"

version they are seen at extreme opposite ends of the frame, with the

emblem of the U.S. between them -- obviously illustrating the vast gulf of

their separation because of the responsibilities of government (if ones

dares a reading). Subliminal message gone in pan-and-scan. But these

examples only show-up a handful of times in a 2-hour movie -- not enough to

have a noticable impact on a first-time viewer.



Yes, John Carpenter and others like to shoot in 2.35:1 ratio. But they

rarely bother to take full advantage of the frame. More often than not (as

with the above mentioned films) scenes are framed with throw-away content.

Look at a standard conversation scene. It never breaks the 180-degree rule:

the person on the left is always shot over-the-shoulder from the right,

with them framed slightly to the left. Vice-versa for the person on the

right. Other action is either kept to the right, left or centre. Almost

never is there more than one action in a scene. Very TV. That's why De

Palma continually runs into trouble. He loves using split-screen and split-

focus, which only works in widescreen. The recent pan-and-scan release of

SNAKE EYES had to resort to "letterbox" for one sequence because the

problem was so obvious.



Earlier someone had mentioned that Galaxy Quest went to the trouble of

going from something like 1.33:1 for the first 15 minutes, then switches to

2.35:1 for the rest. Intrigued, I went to a $3 matinee at a local

theatre... I have no idea why they bothered. Again, the filmmakers

continued the late 20th century tradition of shooting for TV. Keeping the

action to one area of the screen, and building in throw-away areas of the

frame.



I highlighted films like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE WILD BUNCH and 2001 not so

much because they were "better" films (that's way too subjective) but

because these films -- scene-after-scene, shot-after-shot -- always try to

use the whole frame for dramatic effect. Sometimes its filled with

information. Sometimes its filled with nothing. 2001 uses a lot of nothing.

But these films were made for theatres.



Today's filmmakers don't have that luxury. They have to consider the TV,

satellite and video market (though that may change again if wide-screen TVs

take off). Look at the films of Robert Altman, for example. The 70s

NASHVILLE and M*A*S*H are impossible to watch in pan-and-scan because too

much action is lost. But the 90s THE PLAYER, SHORT CUTS and PRET-A-PORTER

look fine on TV. That's because he, like many filmmakers of his era,

consciously changed his visual style to better suit the TV frame. You can

blame the video revolution of the early 80s for that.



Someone else asked why EYES WIDE SHUT was projected in widescreen in

theatres. I'm not sure. Leo can better address that question. It may be

that modern projectors can only show prints in certain aspect ratios. But I

do know that the original camera negative is 1.37:1, and that's what

Kubrick concentrated on in his framings. Personally, I thought the video

version has much better than the theatrical I saw. The print looked awful

and muddy, but the video was much crisper and bright. The colours were more

vibrant.



As for the pacing argument, most filmmakers (if they care) monitor the pan-

and-scan transfer. I once interviewed Canadian cinematographer Paul Sarossy

about this topic (widescreen on TV) and he talked about THE ADJUSTER, which

he shot for Atom Egoyan. At the last minute, before shooting, Egoyan

discovered he could get his hands on an anamorphic lens (not very popular

here in Canada) and he was thrilled about the prospect of shooting 2.35:1.

But when it came time for the video release, Egoyan was equally gleeful

about the pan-and-scan process. According to Sarossy, Egoyan felt like he

was getting a second chance in the editing room. He could recompose scenes

and even create visual jokes. He loved it... then again, I've never heard

Egoyan say anything negative.



dw



----

For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:

http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html