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