Return of Anamorphic?

[David Mullen ASC]

There is also Kurosawa's excellent use of the 2.40 frame:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this case, the widescreen frame combined with the long-lensed but deep-focus photography creates a visual effect not unlike Japanese panel art.

[Tim O'Connor]

Hi,

 

I haven't seen all the films that you listed but, for those that I have, I wouldn't necessarily agree that they are all amazing. I wouldn't break down and cry if, for example, the very last print of "Ghostbusters" was accidently recycled and lost to this world.

 

Now as for "Blade Runner", well there you have me. What a beautifully photographed film. What beautiful lighting by Jordan Cronenweth. I think the 2.40 works better for me here because of the futuristic aspect of the film and its synthetic themes and designs. 2.40 feels synthetic.

 

But generally, in most other films, the 2.40 strikes me as odd. It's as if the cinematographer is spending most of his or her time compensating for an overly wide screen. It's as if every framing is a forced compromise. A modern closeup in 2.40 routinely consists of cropping off half of the subject's head. It's so violent.

 

I should probably be clearer in that it's not so much the anamorphic process that bothers me as it is the final aspect ratio. I think that less wide aspect ratios give the cinematographer expanded compositional possibilities. Even 1.85 seems a bit too wide.

 

 

It's not too wide if you get to see a film in a theater with a really big screen. There are fewer of those theaters now but a widescreen film on

a big screen is a great way to see a movie.

[Guest stevie wara]

Violent?

 

 

Here's a lengthy article discussing Hong Kong and Japanese scope movies:

 

http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/shaw.php

 

Hi,

 

Sorry if "violent" doesn't work for you. Maybe "aggressive" is better. Or just simply "harsh".

 

 

Thank you for that link, by the way. I'll give it a read.

[Keneu Luca]

Has there ever been a film, beyond an amateur experiment, that shot anamorphic vertically, in it's entirety? And subsequently projected as such?

 

Would be quite a tight presentation. But an interesting one.

[David Mullen ASC]

Has there ever been a film, beyond an amateur experiment, that shot anamorphic vertically, in it's entirety? And subsequently projected as such?

 

Would be quite a tight presentation. But an interesting one.

 

 

Since theatrical theater screens are horizontal, it wouldn't happen for a regular movie.

 

However, Douglas Trumbull did shot 48 fps VistaVision turned 90 degrees to create a vertical image as part of the ride film he created for the Luxor in Las Vegas.

 

I'm sure some art/installation piece in a museum has done vertical projection of a scope frame at some point.

[Guest stevie wara]

It's the difficulty of composing within such a widescreen shape that makes it interesting -- it's more "modernist" because it is harder to balance the frame following classical guidelines, typified by the Golden Rectangle (1.61 : 1).

 

Instead you can play with more modern art notions of negative space and visual imbalance. When you understand this, you can create interesting compositions that use the awkwardness of the wide frame for an emotional or symbolic effect, like to create feelings of loneliness, separation or distance from others, etc. Even in a close-up, the large area of space around the actor can be used as negative space -- you feel the "weight" of all that emptiness off to one side.

 

You see this in Gordon Willis' use of the 2.40 frame like in "The Parallax View", "Paper Chase", or "Manhattan":

 

Beyond the interesting compositional effects that are possible, there is also the practical advantage of being able to hold two people in the same frame but in a tighter shot, there is the ability to surround an actor with more of the space of the location even in a close-up.

 

 

 

Thanks for putting up all of those stills. I have spent a little time with some of them to imagine how they could have been composed at 1.65.

 

Do I have the right to re-upload them with my alterations for the sake of discussion?

Edited January 24, 2010 by stevie wara

[David Mullen ASC]

Thanks for putting up all of those stills. I have spent a little time with some of them to imagine how they could have been composed at 1.65.

 

Do I have the right to re-upload them with my alterations for the sake of discussion?

 

That would be horribly arrogant of you to recompose someone else's work. Why not just start with some great paintings while you are at it too?

 

Taking an image composed for one format and then cropping it is not the same thing as composing it originally for a different format.

 

And you'd be missing the point entirely anyway by cropping a 2.40 image down to 1.66 or whatever. The point isn't that you can't also place a subject in a squarer frame -- of course you can.

 

The fact that 2.40 is a viable frame to compose in doesn't mean the other frames are less viable.

 

You're supposed to respect the choices an artist makes when they choose a frame to compose within. Why not change their color schemes as well while you are recomposing their images for them?

[David Mullen ASC]

Here's another example of the creative possibilities of the 2.40 frame, from "Superman: The Movie". In this goodbye scene you have a wide shot and the close-ups:

 

 

 

In the close-up of the Ma Kent, you have a lot of "dead" space next to her head. A pan-n-scan job could easily fit her head into a 4x3 frame, that's not the point.

 

There is enough empty space to park a bus in, let alone enough to have gotten Clark Kent in the frame -- it could have easily been shot as an over-the-shoulder. But what the widescreen frame allows is that emptiness, to emphasize not only the classic epic framing principle of small figures in large landscapes, but also the symbolic distance that happens between a mother and her son when he leaves home. Her loneliness is enhanced by her visual isolation in the frame. It's meant to be "awkward" visually -- and emotionally -- all of that emptiness. That's what the wide frame allows, that feeling of imbalance that calls attention to what's NOT in the frame just as often as to what else is in the frame. It's the principle of negative space on steroids.

 

You see some of the same principle in effect in Andrew Wyeth's landscape paintings, many of which are extremely widescreen compared to most paintings:

 

[Guest stevie wara]

That would be horribly arrogant of you to recompose someone else's work. Why not just start with some great paintings while you are at it too?

 

Taking an image compose for one format and then cropping it is not the same thing as composing it originally for a different format.

 

And you'd be missing the point entirely anyway by cropping a 2.40 image down to 1.66 or whatever. The point isn't that you can't also place a subject in a squarer frame -- of course you can.

 

The fact that 2.40 is a viable frame to compose in doesn't mean the other frames are less viable.

 

You're supposed to respect the choices an artist makes when they choose a frame to compose within. Why not change their color schemes as well while you are recomposing their images for them?

 

 

I haven't taken someone else's film, re-cropped it, and then re-issued it to the public. I don't have that kind of power. I would never have any such intentions or desire. You posted various stills to demonstrate how they work (for you) and I wanted to explore how they possibly could have been framed in another format and how that might affect their meaning, whether for better or worse. I don't know about you, but when I watch a film I sometimes find myself imagining alternate compositions while the film is unfolding, and even more so upon a second viewing. I don't think I am disrespecting the artist (if one happens to be present) just because I have an imagination.

 

When a distributor takes one of your very own 2.40 efforts (or even one composed by a colleague) and re-crops it to 1.33 for a video release, do you make a point of sending them a note with complaints of horrible arrogance?

 

Most of your uploads for "The Parallax View", by the way, are not 2.40. They are in fact very close to 2.00. Did you make these crops yourself or is it someone else's lack of respect?

 

 

 

(2.00 over 2.40)

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

This whole conversation reminds me of this scene from Chaplin's "A King in New York": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHWVjG3hlK0

[David Mullen ASC]

This discussion has become pointless when someone would rather second guess some of the greatest directors and cinematographers of the past fifty years rather than try to understand what they were trying to do.

 

One aspect ratio isn't superior to another -- this isn't about saying that 1.33 or 1.66 or 1.85 aren't artistic frames, just that 2.40 can be.

 

So there is no point in trying to make some sort of argument that these 2.40 movies could have been artistically composed in other aspect ratios -- they were made by artists, so of course they could have been composed in other aspect ratios. But the point is that they chose 2.40.

[Ravi Kiran]

David, thanks for posting those caps. Kurosawa was one of the filmmakers whose images first captivated me as a kid.

 

Heh, I never intended for this thread to become a debate about the "viability" of 2.40:1 and/or anamorphic! It makes about as much sense as Fritz Lang's "funerals and snakes" comment. Why is this even a question?

 

I'd love to see someone like Bordwell analyze Indian films' use of 2.40:1. Pretty much all mainstream Indian films (at least in the major languages) from the late 80s into the 90s and early 2000s, were shot with anamorphic lenses. I don't know what lenses they were using, but they often used zooms. Most of the films are indifferently composed, but every now and then we'll get a beautifully shot film like Lagaan (2001):

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the past 5-10 years, I've been seeing more and more Super-35 Indian films. I'm not sure why this is, but it could coincide with the rise in CGI and DIs. Seems like even the average films without any SFX or particularly extreme looks are going through a DI, similar to how it is in the Hollywood.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Ravi Kiran

[Ravi Kiran]

With the speed of film stocks in those days plus the deep-focus, they must have been pouring light onto those sets! What stops do you think some of those deep-focus shots were achieved at?

[David Mullen ASC]

Most b&w movies opted to shoot on Plus-X back then, but deep-focus photography often employed a higher-speed stock -- Toland used Super-XX for "Citizen Kane" for example, which I think was 160/125 ASA (given that Plus-X was half that, 80/64 ASA). Kodak released Tri-X negative in 1954 (320/250 ASA), used on some movies shot by Stanley Cortez such as "Night of the Hunter". People complained though that Tri-X negative was hard to expose correctly; Kodak came out with Double-X in 1959 as a response (250/200 ASA).

 

In 1964, they came out with 4X negative (500/400 ASA) though it wasn't used much for studio features.

 

There were also b&w products by Dupont, Agfa, Ilford being used by various productions over those decades too.

 

Donald Ritchie says that some of Kurosawa's sets were lit to f/22 to achieve a deep focus even on longer anamorphic lenses. I suspect that Kurosawa was using Double-X for those scenes, such as in "High & Low", "Red Beard", etc.

 

Also, it was common to change the processing to compensate for underexposure, i.e. pushing the film or developing to a higher gamma. B&W stocks respond to this better than color stocks do.

[Matt Read]

I'm amazed that no one has brought up any Westerns in discussing the 2.40 aspect ratio. When I think of that aspect ratio, the first films that come to my mind are Westerns. And no one has mentioned "Lawrence of Arabia" either. That aspect ratio seems like it was made for shooting the landscapes that are so integral to the look of these pictures.

[chris descor]

[Tom Jensen]

Chris,

I'm not sure of your point but anamorphic isn't simply letterboxing an already composed image. When you shoot anamorphic, you compose for that frame. If you are too tight and are missing information, you go to a wider lens or you back up.

[David Mullen ASC]

The issue is always what was the frame you originally composed within, not that you can take someone else's compositions for one frame and make a new composition out of it, or that you just shoot stuff without composing the shot and then crop it in post to create a composition.

 

You have a rectangle in the camera viewfinder and you compose within it.

 

And there are examples in history of great compositions for almost any aspect ratio.

 

Dismissing an entire aspect ratio used for almost 50% of all movies since the 1950's is like dismissing an entire movement in art or music.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

I'm amazed that no one has brought up any Westerns in discussing the 2.40 aspect ratio.

 

"Once Upon a Time in the West", THAT'S the film that makes me wanna shoot a western in anamorphic :)

[Satsuki Murashige]

Hi,

 

I haven't seen all the films that you listed but, for those that I have, I wouldn't necessarily agree that they are all amazing. I wouldn't break down and cry if, for example, the very last print of "Ghostbusters" was accidently recycled and lost to this world.

Go see them!! You'll be doing yourself a favor... If Ghostbusters is not to your personal taste, ok. I grew up in the 80's so I've got a soft spot for a lot of those films.

 

I should probably be clearer in that it's not so much the anamorphic process that bothers me as it is the final aspect ratio.

Well, that opens up the field to 65mm (2.20:1), Techniscope, Super35 films, and digitally-originated films. How about:

 

2001: A Space Odyssey

Lawrence if Arabia

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Once Upon a Time in the West

Baraka

Far and Away

Seven

Fight Club

Amelie

Munich

The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

No Country for Old Men

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

(feel free to add your own, people!)

 

I think that less wide aspect ratios give the cinematographer expanded compositional possibilities.

It's because we as cinematographers and filmmakers have a choice of aspect ratios that those possibilities exist. And the formats at the extremes, 1.33 and 2.40, have the most unique compositional possibilities. 1.85, being a compromise, can cover more situations but in a less interesting way IMHO.

 

Even 1.85 seems a bit too wide.

I wonder how much of your dislike comes from seeing wide films letterboxed on video, rather than in the theater where the image is actually wider than 1.85? I've noticed for myself that letterboxing not only makes the image smaller and lower resolution (affecting issues of scale and pace in the editing), but it also emphasizes the shape of the frame in an unintended way.

 

In the theater, partly because of the larger size and also because there is no vertical masking I find it's much easier to accept the wide image and forget it's shape.

[Paul Bruening]

WhackoScope: Compose that!

[Paul Bruening]

WhackoScope: Compose that!

 

This is weird. My own post just gave me an idea. If you had that kind of framing, you'd have to cut between a subject's mouth and eyes to keep up with their presentations. In effect, their own eyes would be the cut-away from their mouth and spoken words. That opens up a whole new pattern for editing: The self-cut-away. I believe that I can still use that technique in the Techniscope framing in God Bites Man.

[Guest stevie wara]

...If Ghostbusters is not to your personal taste, ok. I grew up in the 80's so I've got a soft spot for a lot of those films.

 

I saw Ghostbusters in a cinema upon its release and had a good laugh. It played very well to an audience.

 

 

 

I wonder how much of your dislike comes from seeing wide films letterboxed on video, rather than in the theater where the image is actually wider than 1.85? I've noticed for myself that letterboxing not only makes the image smaller and lower resolution (affecting issues of scale and pace in the editing), but it also emphasizes the shape of the frame in an unintended way.

 

In the theater, partly because of the larger size and also because there is no vertical masking I find it's much easier to accept the wide image and forget it's shape.

 

I think you are right about this. (Tim O'Conner also brought this up partially in an earlier post.) Many of these films I have never seen projected in a cinema and that could be affecting how they fall on my eyes.

 

For a cinema-projected 2.40 or 2.20 film, do you find yourself paying less attention to the extremes of the frame and letting your attention fall more to the middle?

 

This also has me wondering how the cinematographer composes for a very wide image. Is the cinematographer only concentrating on the framings as they play in the viewfinder, or is there an added attempt to imagine how they will play in the theatre?

[Guest stevie wara]

This discussion has become pointless when someone would rather second guess some of the greatest directors and cinematographers of the past fifty years rather than try to understand what they were trying to do.

 

One aspect ratio isn't superior to another -- this isn't about saying that 1.33 or 1.66 or 1.85 aren't artistic frames, just that 2.40 can be.

 

So there is no point in trying to make some sort of argument that these 2.40 movies could have been artistically composed in other aspect ratios -- they were made by artists, so of course they could have been composed in other aspect ratios. But the point is that they chose 2.40.

 

 

So then, if you found yourself teaching a course one day on composition in which you presented framings in 2.40 by Gordon Willis, and if one of your students then raised his or her hand to ask how the intended meaning in a particular composition was supported by the 2.40 framing, versus how that meaning might have been changed if the composition had been composed in 1.85, then your answer would have to be, "We are talking about an artist here. We don't question the choices made by an artist, so your question is pointless." ???

Edited January 26, 2010 by stevie wara

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

WhackoScope: Compose that!

 

I worked on a corporate gig once shooting for 4:1, it was meant to work as a video bar at the top of a website, I suppose it was fitting for that situation.

 

I'm now reminded of a short Svetland Cvetko shot here in SF called "On a Tuesday". They shot S35, 3.18:1 (protecting for 2.35), and I've been interesting in seeing it ever since I read about it in AC mag.

 

AC Article: http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynamic/Jul...Takes/page1.php

 

Trailer: http://www.onatuesday-theshort.com/OnATuesday_Trailer.html