BrokenProjector.com

Epic Hollywood Cinema and Unusually Wide Aspect Ratios

This article is now also available in Spanish here. Thanks to Darío Lavia.

Ever since the evolution of film-cameras, the question of what aspect ratio to shoot a film in has haunted filmmakers and film-lovers alike. The pre-1950 standard was 1.37:1 and filmmakers around the world were more than satisfied shooting on this ratio. The need for a wider-screen arose in the mid-fifties, to give the viewers an uninterrupted view of infinite landscapes and the feeling of being part of an epic. And the period roughly between 1952 and 1979 saw various filmmakers and film companies experiment with extremely unusual aspect ratios, owing largely to the various film formats that were tried out.

It was eventually decided that 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 ratios would be recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) in America as the standard for theatrical release. Although a similar set of standards were to be followed in the UK also, the film community there held onto 1.66:1 very dearly and continues to do so till date.

It was this period between 1952 and 1979 that saw some great experimentation in terms of the use of very wide aspect ratios.

A Comedy of Errors: The Conqueror

Director Dick Powell made a film about a Mongol warrior who battles an army of Tartars to win the love of their princess. It was an unusual subject to make a film about, even in 1954. To push things further, he went ahead and cast John Wayne as Genghis Khan (upon Wayne’s insistence). Things were really starting to shape up here. As if everything wasn’t unusual enough as it was, he wanted an extremely wide-frame to shoot his ‘epic’. The film was eventually released in 1956 in a theatrical aspect ratio of 2.55:1. The film was received poorly and eventually ended up in Harry and Michael Medved’s ‘Hollywood Hall of Shame’ in 1984. It was a fact that financer Howard Hughes brought out every single copy of the film out of a sense of guilt.

The All-Time Great: Ben-Hur

William Wyler’s three-and-a-half hour epic film that stunned critics and audiences alike and swept away 11 Oscar awards was shot on large-format 70mm film with MGM Camera 65. The brilliant film, starring Charlton Heston as the legendary Ben-Hur has the distinction of being one of the few films shot on an incredible aspect ratio of 2.76:1. The extreme width of the frame does add an elevated sense of an epic to the film, and when combined with some of the all-time greatest performances, it delivers like an epic should.

History Lesson: How the West Was Won

Directed by not less than three Directors, starring an ensemble cast of about fifteen Hollywood heavyweights and casting an astounding figure of 12,000 extras, How the West Was Won was an epic attempt made in 1962. This film was shot for screening in Cinerama theatres. This included simultaneously filming with 3 cameras and when projected on the curved screen of a Cinerama theatre, it would appear to be one continuous frame. The following excerpt is courtesy of the Internet Movie Data Base:

“Since the three lenses of the Cinerama camera sat at angles to each other on the camera itself, it was very problematic for actors to film a scene as they would in front of a single-lens camera. When their images were projected onto the three panels of the Cinerama screen, it would appear as though the actors were looking either slightly up-screen or slightly down-screen, and not directly at their fellow actors. This is very evident in a few scenes in the previous Cinerama film, The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm (1962). However, by the time this film went into production, this problem was solved somewhat. In order to compensate for the lens angles, actors would have to look one-third of the way in and toward the camera, and pretend that they were looking at their fellow actors. Hence, when their images were projected onto the Cinerama screen, it would appear as though they were looking at each other. It was a very difficult process for actors, which is one of the reasons that three-panel Cinerama was abandoned for narrative films after this film was released.”

The Cinerama frame provided an aspect ratio of 2.59:1.

Kubrick’s Odyssey and Coppola’s Apocalypse

In 1968, legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick took us into space for a journey of a lifetime. His film 2001: A Space Odyssey was a turning point in both cinema and the real-world. Some say this film was far ahead of its time. With the use of special effects that baffled and inspired at the same time, Kubrick opened up the imagination of his audience and paved the way for a new league of Science-fiction directors like Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and James Cameron. His film was presented in 70mm format with an aspect ratio of 2.20:1. Though at the time of release, it was considered common but this ratio now stands lost to time.

A similar aspect ratio was used for yet another epic that changed the face of cinema forever. Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 film Apocalypse Now, a film about the war in Vietnam was a one of the most controversial and difficult films to make. Through three years of hard work, months of over-schedule and millions of dollars of over-budget, the film was finally completed to claim its rightful place as a cinema classic.

Much on the lines of ‘2001′, Apocalypse Now was presented in a theatrical aspect ratio of 2.20:1.

Is it the width that makes an Epic?

Though these days, the standard of 2.35:1 is used as the official ‘Epic’ Aspect Ratio, there is enough proof that it’s not just the width that makes an Epic. Orson Welles shot Citizen Kane on the then-standard 1.37:1. Would he have shot it in a wider-frame if given the technology? It’s hard to say. Stanley Kubrick was well known for admitting that he preferred “height over width” for his frames. And Gus Van Sant gave us his incredible film ‘Elephant’ (2003) in a ratio much similar to Citizen Kane. On the other hand Abel Gance’s 1927 French film ‘Napoleon’ was shot on a shocking aspect ratio of 4.00:1. This was achieved by projecting three adjacent frames of 1.33:1 side-by-side (a technology very much on the lines of Cinerama).

Aspect Ratios are definitely an important thing to consider while filming: it presents the cinematographer’s vision and composition upon its theatrical release, then it needs to be pondered upon for the sake of television screenings and then if there’s a DVD coming out, it’s even more of a work-load.

But then again you can’t stop filmmakers and the things they do for art.

Resources:

The Internet Movie Data Base – www.imdb.com

Brian Fitzgerald’s Page on Aspect Ratios – www.geocities.com/hollywood/makeup/4303/aspect.html

Wikipedia – en.wikipedia.org/Aspect_ratio

Picturehouse FAQ on Aspect Ratios – new.picturehousecabinets.com/tabid/218/Default.aspx

Cinematography.com discussion – www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lofiversion/index.php?t12277.html