Wednesday, December 10, 2003

Framing in Cinemascope
Choreography and composition are important facets of any art (performing or visual). Cinema, which borrows heavily from theatre in terms of choreography, has a few distinct features of its own that can be exploited. One has to watch Welles� Citizen Kane to see what can be accomplished in the cinema frame, especially with regard to the third dimension. Directors like Kurosawa had excelled in horizontal composition with a long lens. But you necessarily cannot term the frames �flat�. (The opening scene in The Hidden Fortress is a good example) Currently, almost all mainstream Tamil and Indian films are being made with cinemascope lenses. One has to just watch a group song number in any arbitrary film to know what this has done. You have the case where a group of 20 or so dancers are placed in a flat composition (like one in a group photo) and dance to the camera. This is one kind of composition that comes straight out of standard theatre. And audience cannot take any other position while watching a stage show, but the film camera can. Yet these long-lens, wide-frame pictures don�t seem to acknowledge that. Another thing I feel, a 1:2.35 frame finds difficult to do, that a 1:1.33 frame can do easily, is stage in depth effectively. The technical failings of the anamorphic lens can be surmounted, but the aesthetics of a wide frame cannot be altered. A triangular composition (one of the primary types of depth-compositions) is flattened out in cinemascope, almost defeating the purpose unless used properly. In the widescreen format, there is a definite propensity to make effortless, flat pictures; and most of our filmmakers are doing it. This is in addition to the fact that there is hardly any on-screen or camera choreography. Using cinemascope is a tougher art. One can easily create flat pictures. While composition & choreography within the frame is a challenge in itself, composing despite the frame is a bigger one.

Comments

Post a Comment