I just saw the DVD of _The Pillow Book_ and it said something
like "Although this film was made in multiple aspect ratios, it has been
formatted to fit your TV."
I bet Greenaway is irritated by that, considering how much he complained
when he was in Indianapolis about how his films were treated over here.

Anyone know when _The Falls_ is due out on UK DVD?

Scott

On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Shari L. Rosenblum wrote:

> DW writes:
>
> > It would be easy to support the integrity of the "widescreen" version of
> >  any film [citing examples from DIE HARD]. . . . 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. <snip>
>
> In an artistic composition, however, is it not for the artist to
> determine what content can be thrown away?  To decide
> what makes up his artistic frame and how the balance is
> achieved?  I'm not sure it is advisable to evaluate the effectiveness
> of artistic expression on the basis of its "noticeable impact"
> on first-time viewers and disinterested layfolks.
>
> I must admit that my visual perspicacity is not what I'd like it
> to be, and there's no doubt much I miss in the frames Carpenter
> and Kubrick, DePalma and Fincher choose for themselves -- in
> aesthetic balance if not necessarily in diegesis -- but is that not
> a judgment on me at least as much as on the filmmakers?
>
> Moreover, I can surely say the same for the frames Rubens
> and Velazquez, Turner and Corot, Goya and Titian etc., etc.
> choose for themselves.  And I can tell you that I would be aghast
> if some curators decided that they could clip off the edges of those
> frames because their impact on me upon first viewing would be
> nothing to speak of.
>
> Imagine art outside of the visual -- a Reader's Digest condensation,
> say, or Audiobook abridgement -- whether it be Charles Dickens or
> Harold Robbins.  We may hold it sufficient for anyone who isn't
> interested in the subtler detail and structure, but is there any among
> us who'd argue that publication of the artists' full manuscript is mere
> superfluity?
>
> It seems to me that whether an artist fails or succeeds within his
> chosen parameters should be something each viewer be allowed
> to assess for himself -- whether or not the elite and the trained
> believe him capable of doing so. Anything else, I submit, is a
> betrayal of the artists' craft.
>
> Shari L. Rosenblum
>
> ----
> 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]
>
>

 ===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Cracks in the Fourth Wall Filmworks/Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
(with special musical guest Leila Josefowicz)

"Who's John Adams?"  --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., at Monticello,
after failing to recognize busts of other founding fathers.

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu