Many of my beautiful readers may recall me tackling this aspect of cinema a few times before. I've covered it in my brief history of anamorphic lenses, and the time I tackled the odd choice behind Zack Snyder's Justice League, and I expressed my feelings about the aspect ratio in the film First Man. It is one of the many practical, occasionally overlooked, and sometimes decisive tools for crafting works of cinema. While there is no right or wrong answer when deciding upon an aspect ratio, I have seen and made enough films in my life (so far) to have reached a plateau and finalized my personal preferences. Plus, I have grown to feel that too many films appear to fall back on what I consider to be the most overused aspect ratio. It almost feels that too many filmmakers are on autopilot and assume this particular aspect ratio is the end-all-be-all that will solidify their credibility and enhance their works. While art is, and always shall be, subjective, and personal preferences aside, modern technology and the desire for artistic freedom calls me to speak my mind and share my thoughts.
For those who may appreciate a brief reminder, aspect ratios refer to the amount of space given to a movie's image, determining the audience's scope and field of view. As demonstrated in the title image for this blog entry, there tend to be many different kinds of aspect ratios, either wide or tall. The aspect ratio can profoundly affect how filmmakers present their story and how the audience may internalize it.
Consider the Marvel Studios masterpiece, Spider-Man: No Way Home.
Although I never got around to writing a proper review for this one, I can proudly say that it is one of my favorite Marvel movies after Endgame for its riveting story, engaging action, and robust character explorations. Not to mention, it's a near-perfect use of nostalgia: *chefs kiss*.
However, one element of the film that has often baffled and confused me is its choice of aspect ratio. The film was composed in a 2:35 ratio, which is the most commonly used ratio for movies released by the Hollywood system and most independent studios, as evidenced by the predominant black bars on the top and bottom of the frame.
This is arguably the most popular aspect ratio for theatrical releases. It encompasses a wide field of view, creating a sense of larger-than-life images on the big screen. As I explained in my history of anamorphic lenses entry, this ratio was born out of a desire to better compete against the advent of early television for audiences' attention. Since television, at the time, could only accomplish a smaller and more square-shaped image. That is before the advent of HDTVs.
The 2:35 ratio has a proud history with cinema and can be a fun space-style for creative filmmaking. However, in the case of Spider-Man movies, especially those produced by Marvel, I can't help but feel that constricting the character to such a narrow field-of-view is nothing short of a disservice.
As a character, Spider-Man is an agile, active, and acrobatic spark of energy who constantly moves in all directions when fighting crime and the forces of evil. As such, it would make significantly more sense if the filmmakers gave him a much taller aspect ratio to play with. Like, oh I don't know, 1:85 maybe?
Full disclosure: The screenshot above, taken from Captain America: Civil War, is technically not in the 1:85 aspect ratio, but it is close enough.
The 1:85 aspect ratio has been around since the dawn of cinema. It is best described as a wide screen style ratio but with a taller image, as in much smaller black bars on the top and bottom of the frame. On modern HDTVs, films composed in the 1:85 aspect ratio, such as Marvel's Avengers, Groundhog Day, and most of Tim Burton's filmography, nearly fit modern HDTVs seamlessly.
This isn't to say that movies in the wider 2:35 aspect ratio are cumbersome to watch on modern televisions. My favorite movie of all time, Ronin, is in the 2:35 aspect ratio, and I watch that film at least three times a year. However, it is to say that, in my opinion, too many filmmakers and producers appear to be falling back on the 2:35 aspect ratio as if by default with little to no consideration for the content other than it's a Hollywood product.
In my experience, taller aspect ratios like 1:85 more often than not yield more interesting, larger-than-life, and, dare I say, cinematic images than the constrictive 2:35 ratio. The 1:85 ratio allows for extra space within the frame, giving actors more room to play and expand their performances. It allows greater clarity for set design and environment, especially for films predominantly set outdoors. And, my personal favorite argument, it can perfectly accommodate the demands of theatrical screens and modern televisions. It also allows for broader camera angles for greater story enhancements.
While it is ultimately up to the storytellers to determine the best frame for their film, it would benefit all of us to take a step back and consider something other than what the big boys are doing. Don't feel as though you only have a long rectangle to enhance your story; let the story tell you how grand it wants the frame to be.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2024)
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment