Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
 
|
Post by Flynn on Jul 8, 2017 3:41:21 GMT
I was watching THE INFORMER the other day, and it struck me just how wonderful the 1.37:1 aspect ratio is. In a day where seemingly everything is filmed in ultra widescreen, the 1.37:1 was refreshing, and I wasn't at all bothered by it.
I get how widescreen more approximates our own field of vision, but I think the 1.37:1 ratio better frames the face. It doesn't cut off the forehead and the chin like 2.4:1 (etc) does (when wanting to fill the frame). It also frames a single standing person a little better, allowing for a face and torso to fill the screen without background on the sides.
I'm not saying that widescreen aspect ratios don't have their benefits, or even that they shouldn't be the norm, but given that 1.37:1 is almost never used today (I'm hedging my bets with "almost"), I just got to thinking how that's a shame, considering that it lends a frame so much intimacy, warmth, and even paranoia.
It would be interesting to see a modern movie deliberately framed with that small an aspect ratio. Even 1.6:1 would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jul 8, 2017 8:38:08 GMT
It definitely has it’s advantages and can be just as beautiful as the widescreen. It closer approximates the proportions of a painting so usually makes for more "classic" compositions. Hou Hsiao-Hsien’s lovely The Assassin (2015) was made with an approximately 4:3 ratio and looks stunning. Trailer |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Jul 8, 2017 21:14:27 GMT
I grew up on 20th century television and 1930s/1940s cinema. So 4:3 seems very normal to me. I often daydream my own films in my head, and these are always in 4:3.
One thing I hate is all these YouTube videos where a 1930s film or a 1970s TV show or something is cropped into fake widescreen.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Jul 9, 2017 22:40:33 GMT
I agree with you 100% Although, it does depend upon the subject matter, I think. Most of David Lean's epics would suffer in that format. But sometimes all that extra space is used so badly that it's just like empty space and worthless. The first non-epic wide-screen film I am aware of that used the medium successfully was Elia Kazan's East of Eden (1955), in which he and his cinematographer, Ted McCord, deliberately staged things with lots of foreground objects, canted angles, etc. so the eye was always consumed with something in the frame that balanced their attention. That said, I still agree with you that many films could be and probably should be shot in the one of the smaller formats. Sadly, not likely these days. Btw, what did you think of The Informer? I haven't seen it in ages. I agree about the use of widescreen in David Lean films. I mentioned Lawrence of Arabia in my first post, but I eventually edited out my comment before I hit "create post." When starting this thread, my intent wasn't to say that widescreen aspect ratios were bad, simply that the classic 1.37:1 ratio had some benefits that today's filmmakers should consider. If, as you say, it depends on the subject matter, then I definitely think more films should take advantage of it and other similar aspect ratios. As for THE INFORMER, it's a Great film with a capital G. If we were curating films where all aspects of the filmmaking process display mastery, THE INFORMER would be in that collection. Every moment of that film contains layers of meaning, to the point where it's a little exhausting thinking about it all. It's a powerful film told powerfully. To that end, it's not everyone's cup of tea. Heck, it's so stout that it's not likely to be anyone's daily cup of tea, but it is an impressive film worth anyone's time. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jul 12, 2017 5:39:45 GMT
I was watching THE INFORMER the other day, and it struck me just how wonderful the 1.37:1 aspect ratio is. In a day where seemingly everything is filmed in ultra widescreen, the 1.37:1 was refreshing, and I wasn't at all bothered by it. I get how widescreen more approximates our own field of vision, but I think the 1.37:1 ratio better frames the face. It doesn't cut off the forehead and the chin like 2.4:1 (etc) does (when wanting to fill the frame). It also frames a single standing person a little better, allowing for a face and torso to fill the screen without background on the sides. I'm not saying that widescreen aspect ratios don't have their benefits, or even that they shouldn't be the norm, but given that 1.37:1 is almost never used today (I'm hedging my bets with "almost"), I just got to thinking how that's a shame, considering that it lends a frame so much intimacy, warmth, and even paranoia. It would be interesting to see a modern movie deliberately framed with that small an aspect ratio. Even 1.6:1 would be interesting. |
|
