Aspect ratios and film genres

F

fdirector

Active member
Hello everyone and welcome to this thread!

Let's talk about aspect ratios today.
I'm a filmmaker, and I have noticed with years that different aspect ratios have own impact on viewer.
For example, 2.39 or 2.40 are more suitable for horror films, thrillers, drama, action films etc.
Meanwhile 16:9, 1.85 are more suitable for comedy films, adventures, westerns etc.

Only I have this impression?
Please specify your favorite aspect ratio and say us why.
 
The aspect ratio is another character in the film, just like locations. It should be used to fine tune the tone and feel of the story. My 2 cents.
 
The aspect ratio can affect the feeling of the film. Wider aspect ratios tend to feel more "epic," more expansive, bigger. Narrower aspect ratios tend to feel more intimate. Of course, that can vary from piece to piece. (Spielberg seems to love 1.85:1 for almost everything.)

A really narrow aspect ratio could feel claustrophobic, so as an example, if you wanted to do your "buried in a box underground" film, 16:9 or even 4:3 may help with the closed-in feeling.
 
Since most TV sets are 16:9 now and you loose the black "look it´s a motion picture" bars, 1.85:1 is the new 16:9.

my ct2

Frank
 
Very wide screen formats work well for outdoor epics like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "How the West Was Won". In those movies, the landscape is an important part of the story, and wide screen formats help the viewers feel like they're in that landscape.
- Ken
 
Seems like most movies are new 2.40 so they are still widescreen letterbox on widescreen tv's and not just look like tv. You have to look to older Directors that still appreciate the difference between wide and scope wide.
 
Wow, thank you all for great feedback!

Yesterday I watched a movie called 'The Breed' (2006) by Nicholas Mastandrea, it's a horror/thriller film and aspect ratio is 1.85:1, and film was Okay. Nicholas Mastandrea used 1.85 at 'The Breed' to show landscape of the lost island, woods etc.
So at this point I agree with @Snazzy Flapper that aspect ratio is a character.

Another example is 'Monsters' by Gareth Edwards. Film has LOTS of landscape scenes, but they used aspect ration of 2.35:1, and I think it worked well.


Now I guess I know which aspect ratio I'll be using for my upcoming Adventure/Sci-Fi/Thriller film. 2.40:1 + good anamorphic lenses = high quality pictures with wide angle images, and the right mood of the story.

Cheers
 
fdirector said:
Hello everyone and welcome to this thread!

Let's talk about aspect ratios today.
I'm a filmmaker, and I have noticed with years that different aspect ratios have own impact on viewer.
For example, 2.39 or 2.40 are more suitable for horror films, thrillers, drama, action films etc.
Meanwhile 16:9, 1.85 are more suitable for comedy films, adventures, westerns etc.

Only I have this impression?
Please specify your favorite aspect ratio and say us why.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree on this assessment, but a lot of it has changed since the advent of Super-35 and widescreen TVs. Back in the days "big" movies tended to be 2.39:1, films with large budgets or big scopes (Carpenter went on record saying that it was the reason his low-budgets doesn't look as cheap) while dramas and low-medium budget films where shot flat. That was until the 1980s to early 1990s. During that time 1.85:1 became the standard for so much. Look at blockbusters like Aliens, Back to the Future and most of Steven Spielberg's non-Indiana Jones films (like E.T. and Jurassic Park), all of them being made in 1.85:1. The reason for this is two-folded: First, it was that effects work is a lot easier to do when a film is shot flat and the other was the advent of home-video. Then films would be pan-scanned and a 2.39:1 film would lose half it's frame. But with flat movies, most of them would be shown without matting, giving you a full picture for the TV. But when Super-35 rolled around (plus with the better stocks, meaning it wouldn't be very grainy) the price difference between shooting academy 1.85:1 and Super-35 were just about the same. As the format was flat, effects-work was not in any way hard.. Plus as you shot with sphericals, it would be easier (not as much light required for example) and for home-video it could be shown in a full-screen non-matted version. Secondly in the early 2000s widescreen TVs rolled around. Suddenly a film shot in 2.39:1 would be shown in that format! This is why many filmmakers like Sidney Pollack returned back to 2.39:1 after having shot most of their films in 1.85:1 during the 80s. But as such, the whole 2.39:1 is for "big epics" is no longer appliable, I for example thought a lot about it during "The Men Who Stare At Goats" made in 2.39:1 in Super-35.

But to me, nothing straight dictates aspect ratio. The above mentioned blockbusters in 1.85:1 I have all seen on the big-screen (I'm a frequenter of my Cinemateque), with Aliens and E.T. having been in 70mm too! Did they feel less epic because of the ratio? Not at all! I was in awe when the Brachiosaurus showed up in Jurassic. So while a ratio can help, it doesn't "make or break" it at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top