SCREEN-L Archives

June 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, 13 Jun 2000 02:49:16 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
Shari,

A very thoughtful response. It seems, at second glance, we're barking up
the same tree. I'm not trying to twist anyone's arm to support pan-and-scan
video over letterbox. But the practice of building in throw-away content,
to me, compromises the filmmaker's "art," as you call it, and eliminates
the existence of a singular "original vision." In short, both formats can
be valid. One designed specifically for theatre. The other designed
specifically for TV. One is not always compatable with the other. I
wouldn't, for example, suggest that many "multiplicity" films be projected
in theatres in the pan-and-scan process. Though -- as with letterbox on
video -- the results can be more dynamic on occasion.

The suggestion that the widescreen image is "the artist's original vision"
(you use the phrase a number of times) and that filmmakers "continue to
have as their first choice the widescreen perspective" is further
challenged when we have confirmation from our resident expert that "very
few cinemas can show anything except 1:1.85 and scope" (which is why the
theatrical version of Eyes Wide Shut is NOT Kubrick's "original vision").
It also explains why we don't see the old Academy standard (1.66:1) very
much anymore (i.e Taxi Driver).  In short, most filmmakers have been forced
into a compromising position. So what do they do? Most opt to take the easy
way out: multiplicity. Few dare to keep their vision singular. John Woo,
for example, is one such risk-taker -- and its paying off. I was recently
dragged to a second screening of M: I 2 and I was amazed to discover how
much better the visuals are from the back row. The whole canvas is
acknowledged.

At one point you ask "that the ratio the filmmaker chooses be respected--
at least by those who claim to respect filmmaking as an art." Well, not too
many in Hollywood would they call it "art," but there are certainly
widescreen masters. To me, Cimino is the most obvious contemporary.

All I'm trying to caution is people paying $20-30 to buy yet another video
copy of a film they already own -- just because it's in "widescreen" -- and
making the rude discovery that the "original vision" was "multiplicity": a
factor which started this thread in the first place.

The "original vision" phrase -- specifically, and only, attributed to
widescreen -- is often a marketing phrase to sucker film enthusiasts
(usually high-income earners, which is why laserdiscs were so pricey) to
open their wallets once more. Sometimes it isn't. Therein lies the problem:
figuring out where the differences are.

dw

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2