Breathtaking Cinemascope: the fetish of the edge
November's edition of the Remoter Water series from our Visiting Research Fellow, Bevis Bowden
The slow moving waters of late summer have now been replaced by a very different flow state on the Isis. Storm Babet and then Ciarán deposited a lot of rain onto an already saturated landscape and as a result it feels like the river is now in perpetual flood. I was hoping for more time on the water. But it’s important to be gently reminded of where one stands amongst the greater forces of nature, so obeying the Environment Agencies red flags I have been keeping my feet dry.
Recently much of what I have shot has used a pseudo widescreen camera aspect ratio of 2.39:1 as a means - a device, of immersing the viewer into a location. But I haven’t been using anamorphic lenses to achieve this effect. Rather I have composed my shots within a 2.39:1 mask while still exposing the whole sensor. This method has one advantage in that it allows me to reposition my horizontal framing during the edit. True widescreen or CinemaScope would be achieved using dedicated anamorphic lenses. An anamorphic lens optically squeezes the image onto the squarer digital sensor. At a later stage this image is then unsqueezed (either digitally or optically) to the original aspect ratio it was shot in. An important question for me to answer is whether a widescreen aspect ratio of 2.39:1 is appropriate for my project Remote Water?
Confronted in the fifties with the threat of television, the Hollywood film studios began to exaggerate the elements they then saw as essential to the cinematic experience. The desire was to make the moviegoing experience more spectacular and monumental in an attempt to differentiate it from television but also the wish to capitalise on the innate ability of film to transport the viewer. The potent image in classic cinema of the actor tightly framed within the Academy aspect ratio of 1.37:1 gave way to the Cinemascope aspect ratio of 2.39:1 which left great plains of space and the actor reduced to an element within the composition. This is now almost the default for cinema film distribution. Broadcast predominantly exists within a 16:9 aspect ratio. This is why, more often than not, you see movies when shown on television to be letterboxed - they have black bands above and below the image.
But where are we today now we have arrived at the infinity pool? Technology allows us to film in 360 degrees and then choose the desired framing after the event. Cinema distribution standards still exist, but is the choice of aspect ratio more than complying to a standard? How much of it is an aesthetic decision? Is the importance of the edge having a renaissance or are we doing what Edgar Degas is supposed to have done and created unique frames based on the subject at hand?
I shot my graduation film in CinemaScope but on Super 8mm film. It was a quiet demonstration by bringing together technologies associated with Hollywood film production and the almost obsolete technology of home movies. I bought a beautiful Leicina Special Super 8 movie camera and attached a projector lens, the very same lens used to un-squeeze 35mm films in the cinema, to the front of the camera. It was unwieldy, but worked!
Even today we are seeing a resurgence of 70mm film production and in some cases 70mm film projection in response to the advances in home cinema technologies. The larger negative renders sharper and brighter images and allows for multiple distribution options. The new Dune feature film (directed by Denis Villeneuve) adopted a unique blend - a digital to film to digital process. Whereas Dune II (still to be released) has been shot on film in IMAX 70mm for the ultimate immersive experience.
“The sharpness and the clarity and the depth of the image is unparalleled. The headline, for me, is by shooting on IMAX 70mm film, you’re really letting the screen disappear. You’re getting a feeling of 3D without the glasses. You’ve got a huge screen and you’re filling the peripheral vision of the audience. You’re immersing them in the world of the film.”
Christopher Nolan, Director.
We are in an exciting time of hybrid digital and analog approach to filmmaking.
Remote Water certainly doesn’t have the same budget of Dune, estimated to be $165 million. But I share at least one concern - where does the threshold of illusion lie and what devices can I deploy to reach it. I suspect Remote Water will keep its black bands above and below the waterline. I hope as a viewer you experience that proximity to the water, and if you were to reach down you could possibly touch it?
