MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Soderbergh on shape-shifting widescreen cinema

Steven Soderbergh’s got a compact screed at the DGA Quarterly website about 2.40 widescreen and its technical conversion for HD broadcast. “While there’s always an abundance of ugly things going on in the Actual World, there’s also something ugly going on in the Hi-Def World, and it isn’t just post-traumatic stress from the (pointless) Bluray/HD-DVD smackdown. It is another in a series of situations in which the default mode is an unnecessary compromise, and it won’t get fixed unless everyone gets on the same page. And it is precisely because this is not an Actual World problem that I believe there is hope—and a solution… Like many format fiends, I saw the advent of hi-def broadcast TV as the Holy Grail. Finally, the larger screens, greater detail, and more film-friendly 16:9 ratio would mean all films could live on forever with their extremities intact… Since the 16:9 image is now the shape of television, only one format remains to distinguish television from the movies: the 2.40:1 aspect ratio… Television operators, the people who buy and produce things for people to watch on TV, are taking the position that films photographed in the 2.40:1 ratio should be blown up or chopped up to fit a 16:9 (1.78:1) ratio. They are taking the position that the viewers of television do not like watching 2.40 films letterboxed to fit their 16:9 screens, and that a film insisting on this is worth significantly less—or even nothing—to them. They are taking the position that no one will dare challenge them and risk losing revenue… The end result is we have a better chance of seeing a 2.40 film from 1959 in its proper format than a movie from 2009. That’s weird, and sad. Now, I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this, because I have never believed that even a small portion of what happens in the entertainment industry matters that much, but it’s fucking lame to watch Jaws—a film that uses the 2.40 ratio as well as any ever produced—in the wrong format on HBO. Does Universal so badly need a few extra pennies that it’s willing to ruin a classic? And does HBO really think its viewers are so stupid as to forget movies currently come in two sizes?” The DGA Quarterly has the rest.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Soderbergh on shape-shifting widescreen cinema”

  1. lawnorder says:

    Thank you, Steven, for bringing this issue up. It has been driving me crazy ever since I started subscribing to HD channels. HBO is the WORST offender when it comes to altering 2.40 movies for 1.78 broadcast. The truth is: 2.40 composed films are being panned and scanned to fit the 16X9 format. It’s not just a matter of open matting them – compositions are shifted. The picture often has to be zoomed in to reduce excessive headspace or to finesse an awkward composition. I’ve seen this done in post many, many times. These films were composed for 2.40 (2.35) and they need to be presented in original aspect ratio on HD. Hats off to the Showtime Channel, which almost always presents in the 2.40 aspect ratio and I don’t see them losing any subscribers over that. HBO needs to get a fucking clue. Stop butchering our widescreen films to fit them to screen. It’s unnecessary – since they have access to 2.40 masters and (most) viewers watching HD understand the letterboxing presentation as a theatrical standard – which actually helps theatrical films stand apart from made for cable product. We need to hear from more filmmakers about this crap. Right now, HBO, Cinemax and Starz are the biggest culprits. Showtime gets it right.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon