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:
David Desser <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 7 Dec 1994 14:11:08 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
> Re:  letterboxing of commercials, Gene Stavis wrote:
 
>It also intrigues me why so many video buffs insist on a "letterbox" format
>of their favorite film. Not all films benefit from an ersatz "letterboxing".
>It is primarily the anamorphic films which require it, but I constantly read
>requests for "letterboxed" versions of "Citizen Kane" or other "flat" films.
>I think this is also a misplaced idea of one form being inherently superior
>to another. It's also evidence of a culture-wide retreat into slogans rather
>than serious inquiry into the actual facts.
 
I would say that letterboxing should not be reserved just for 'scope films,
but for any film made in 1.66 or 1.85 as well. The Japanese tend to do a
better job with this for contemporary films, relying frequently on
letterboxing with 'scope and non-anamporphic widescreen. Check out, for
instance, the video of Imamura's KUROI AME (Black Rain--not to be confused
with the Ridley Scott film!). You will see how even non-scope movies
benefit from letterboxing when a director uses the width of the frame in
his compositions.
 
DD
>
>
 
_____________________________________
David Desser,UIUC Cinema Studies
2109 FLB/707 S. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801
217/244-2705

ATOM RSS1 RSS2