Dan's review of "Zero Dark Thirty"

[madmac]

I spun this in BD format yesterday and must say that I liked it. Nothing wrong with it but nothing great either. Nicely, the BD format was in full screen. Honestly, there would be no benefit to letter boxing this film. Characters are nicely developed. The torture scenes are good and most likely accurate.....if not probably subdued compared to what really has gone down for that cause.

The guns used in the storming operation were interesting. They had a weird 'pop' sound to them rather than a 'BANG' sound. Almost like the sound of a good staple gun!!??. New technology maybe???. As you all know, we really don't have many guns here in Canada so I'm not an authority on what a gun should sound like nowadays!.

Watched it.....enjoyed it.......and have now forgotten it!. That doesn't mean it's bad...but....It means I've moved on!. 7/10 stars for this.

[Ovation]

For covert assaults like that, weapons are typically equipped with suppressors of some kind to diminish the noise. As for the aspect ratio, 1.85:1 has been around for a long time--this isn't a case like a lot of HD movie networks where they take a cinescope film (2.35-2.4:1) and zoom it to be "full screen" on a 16:9 display (the equivalent of all those pan and scan or cropped movies on VHS and broadcast TV back in the days of 4:3 SDTVs--a horrible practice then and an equally horrible practice now).

[madmac]

For covert assaults like that, weapons are typically equipped with suppressors of some kind to diminish the noise. As for the aspect ratio, 1.85:1 has been around for a long time--this isn't a case like a lot of HD movie networks where they take a cinescope film (2.35-2.4:1) and zoom it to be "full screen" on a 16:9 display (the equivalent of all those pan and scan or cropped movies on VHS and broadcast TV back in the days of 4:3 SDTVs--a horrible practice then and an equally horrible practice now).

I disagree about that on many fronts and contend that many movies do not warrant wide screen presentation.

[wkhanna]

The format that the film is released in is the one intended by the director.
All the creative intent of the cinematography & visual conception are reflected by this end product.
To just crop off portions of the frame and say it makes no difference is like cutting off someone's limb & saying, "but they are still the same person".

[Ovation]

I disagree about that on many fronts and contend that many movies do not warrant wide screen presentation.

The best example I ever saw to illustrate why I believe films should ALWAYS be presented in their OAR (with very few exceptions that I'll note a bit further down) is the first time I saw Jaws. I did not get to see it at the cinema (it was a bit too intense for an eight year old), so it was not until some years later on VHS that I saw it. This version was not pan and scan (which attempted to compensate for the cropping of images--not very well, mind you--but was better than simple cropping). During the opening credits, it read AW by ven Spiel (picture that as three lines one on top of the other). In the film, there is a scene in Roy Scheider's (sp?) kitchen where he is talking to his wife. A proper original aspect ratio presentation would have shown him and his wife. A pan and scan would have seen a shift in the image from him to her and back. The crop showed a pair of hands on the left, another on the right…a conversation between a pair of hands. :roll:

When directors set up their shots and cinematographers do the photography, they have a specific goal in mind. They are attempting to evoke a response using visual language and the way people, items, foreground and background (and a lot of other things) are placed in the shot is quite deliberate. Cropping/zooming or pan/scanning is violating the intention of the filmmakers. It is no different than going into the Louvre and cutting a famous painting into a different shape because it won't precisely fit the frame you've decided to place it in.

There are aspect ratios where the damage is less evident. 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 are two common widescreen, but not cinemascope, aspect ratios that have been in use since the 1950s. While they suffer from pan/scan or cropping, it is not as drastic as with cinemascope (2.35-2.40:1) films. Regardless, no film should be presented in anything but its OAR.

One of the pernicious effects of cropping and pan/scan on filmmaking, especially between the 1960s and 1990s, was the notion that filmmakers had to "protect" for the 4:3 ratio of TV screens before HDTV. Such filmmaking tended to reduce the sense of space that a proper widescreen composition creates and this was unfortunate.

As for respecting OAR, the rare exceptions to which I alluded to above are cases where the director has deliberately expressed a desire to have a different aspect ratio for home viewing. This is not without its own controversies, as there are many who believe we should always have access to the original theatrical version of a film, but it is defensible in the sense that it belongs to the creator--and there are many analogies in other art forms. Composers tinkered with musical compositions all the time. Artists would repaint or re-sculpt works in an effort to perfect their efforts. We get director's cuts of movies for much the same reason (not all extended cuts are director's cuts, but that's for another discussion). While I might be disappointed with a filmmaker who chooses to alter the aspect ratio of his work for home presentation, I will still defend his right to do so as it is his creation. When cropping or pan/scan is done without the express wishes of the filmmakers, though, just to please people who get annoyed with black bars on their TVs--I find that an unconscionable artistic travesty. I feel the same disgust for colourizing black and white films (I suppose it would be okay with those people for me to grab some Van Gogh pencil sketches and colour them with my kid's Crayolas).

Now, there is a reasonable argument in favour of the 4:3 ratio for films--it is called the original Academy ratio and the overwhelming majority of films made before the mid-1950s were 1.33-37:1 (all the classic greats like Casablanca and the like, for example). If a filmmaker wants to work in that ratio, that is fine and that is how it should be presented, either at home or in the cinema. Steven Soderburgh (sp?) made a movie called The Good German and wanted it screened in 1:37 (as that is how he framed it) but the studio was reluctant to demand that cinemas do so--so its theatrical release was, I believe, 1:85. However, the home release is 1:37, as intended by the filmmaker. In that instance (especially as it was an homage to films from the 40s), I am quite happy the home release is 1:37. But this is a rare exception.

[madmac]

Well, to call the majority of films 'Cinematic' art is a bit of a stretch. Also, I don't know if you know this but these 2:35-2:40 cameras actually have borders in the eyepiece that director's can see and set up the shot with 1:85 conversion in mind??. It is expected that they will be eventually converted to this format.

I do agree about the black and white conversion thing though (why??), as well as the 2D conversion to 3D for the sake of re-issuing films to make money. As for real art works, they should absolutely make the entire piece of art fill the screen of course. I just don't think the MAJORITY of movies require letterboxing and that 1:85 conversion should be fine in most cases (Most...not all of course).

[George Bellefontaine]

I hated pan and scan VHS, so when laserdisc hit the market, it was my choice for widescreen movies. As for OAR, whether I agree or disagree with a director over his or her choice of aspect ratio, I tend to want to see it the way they filmed it.

[Ovation]

Well, to call the majority of films 'Cinematic' art is a bit of a stretch. Also, I don't know if you know this but these 2:35-2:40 cameras actually have borders in the eyepiece that director's can see and set up the shot with 1:85 conversion in mind??. It is expected that they will be eventually converted to this format.

That's the "protection" I referred to (such eye pieces also contained the 4:3 ratio back when that was the standard for TV). As for film as "art"--all creative endeavours that have no practical, utilitarian application can be called "art". There are different types of art (music, literature, sculpture, film, painting, still photography, poetry…) and they can have various goals (commercial, personal, "high culture"--though that is also commercial, popular…). They may also fail to resonate with anyone else than their creators (or a small minority of others), but they remain art nonetheless. Art is defined by intent, not result, in many cases, and I'd argue that just about every filmmaker has artistic aspirations, even if they are not fully actualized by any particular work they produce. I would also argue that most filmmakers are very grudging in their acceptance of a cropped version of their film--and with DVD/Blu-ray, it happens a lot less than it used to (thankfully so).

I do agree about the black and white conversion thing though (why??), as well as the 2D conversion to 3D for the sake of re-issuing films to make money. As for real art works, they should absolutely make the entire piece of art fill the screen of course. I just don't think the MAJORITY of movies require letterboxing and that 1:85 conversion should be fine in most cases (Most...not all of course).

I have to strongly disagree with this conclusion (not that you're not entitled to your view, of course). I think a film requires exactly whatever framing the filmmaker wants--no more more and no less. I am entitled to express my satisfaction or disappointment with his choices, but I am not entitled to expect the filmmaker to "protect" for a frame shape/size he does not find satisfactory for his artistic goals, especially since such "expectations" are almost always the result of outside pressure by people who were not involved in the creative process itself.

I can live with home presentations that show me a 1.78:1 (16x9) ratio when the original was 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 (the first should leave very small black bars top and bottom on a typical HDTV/projector that does not overscan and the second should leave very small black bars left and right under the same conditions). The difference is quite small (though more evident on a large projection screen--on a typical 50" HDTV, not so much). But zooming/cropping a 2.35-2.40:1 ratio to 1.78:1 makes a HUGE difference and I will not knowingly purchase such a cropped release, nor will I watch it cropped on broadcast/cable TV if the OAR version is available on a disc somewhere within reasonable rental or purchase access. One recent exception to this would have been Skyfall, as I saw it both in a standard cinema and in IMAX. For IMAX, the aspect ratio had been altered to better fit the IMAX screen and I found the picture quality was better (and the sound way better) than at the standard cinema. However, I found the original 2.35:1 ratio at the standard cinema was a better choice from a shot composition point of view. I would have liked to have both options for home release, but I'm happy with the original version on BD. Had it been reversed, however, with the IMAX aspect ratio alone on the home release, I would have been very disappointed. I don't mind the existence of other versions (if they were approved by the filmmaker) but I vehemently object to not having access to the original, intended aspect ratio. This is especially true with today's TVs, as anyone who wants the "full screen" version simply has to use a few buttons on the remote to get that. There is no reason that people who want the original should be deprived of it because people can't figure out how to use their TVs. That's one of the biggest reasons I don't pay for HD movie channels or rent HD movies via my cable box (most of them are cropped).

[madmac]

I remember back in the day when Lazer Discs first came out and TV's were CRT standard size, I bought into it for the increase in resolution over VHS, which was basically double back then, only to find my screen cut into 3rds. One third black bar, one third picture, and the bottom third black bar!!. Needless to say, you are wasting 2/3's of the available resolution to create black bars!!. Today's bigger TV's with better resolution and wide screen panels, the bars are not as big and the sad effect of losing 2/3's of your screen to black bars is minimized. However, in those days if I saw that the lazerdisc was cropped to 2:35 I walked away and rented the VHS copy. That amount of picture (1/3) was a deal breaker for me back then on my 32 inch TV set.

[Ovation]

To each his own. I preferred getting the whole image the director originally shot, even if it was not filling the 13 inch screen I had at the time. I never had a laserdisc player but I would buy widescreen VHS releases whenever I could. And I hooked up a DVD player to that same TV for a while before getting a 32" one (that I still use in my living room today--and I still watch widescreen movies on it).

[wkhanna]

To me, watching a cropped movie is like reading most of a book.

[madmac]

To each his own. I preferred getting the whole image the director originally shot, even if it was not filling the 13 inch screen I had at the time. I never had a laserdisc player but I would buy widescreen VHS releases whenever I could. And I hooked up a DVD player to that same TV for a while before getting a 32" one (that I still use in my living room today--and I still watch widescreen movies on it).

A 13 inch screen !!!??. Letterboxed??? OH MY!!. Did you use a magnifying glass???!!. Hehehe!!!

[Chris D]

Dan, you bring up a good point that is often argued, that showing widescreen movies on 16:9 TV's, and ESPECIALLY legacy 4:3 TV's, results in black bars at the top and bottom, that can be considered "wasted" screen resolution.

Of course, I have to point out that movie makers don't primarily make movies to be watched on living room TV's. They make them for movie theaters. And unless you've got a special IMAX theater with a super tall screen relative to the theater width, you'll notice that theater screen walls naturally fit widescreen. People don't go to the theater to watch a narrow TV. (not to mention, movie makers don't know whether you watch TV on a 4:3 set, 16:9, 2.85:1, or whatever)

I also always advocate for OAR. I suppose you could summarize my perspective as, "I want to watch the whole movie, as produced, in as good of resolution as possible. Not watch part of the movie, cut to fit my particular screen resolution".

[madmac]

Dan, you bring up a good point that is often argued, that showing widescreen movies on 16:9 TV's, and ESPECIALLY legacy 4:3 TV's, results in black bars at the top and bottom, that can be considered "wasted" screen resolution.

Of course, I have to point out that movie makers don't primarily make movies to be watched on living room TV's. They make them for movie theaters. And unless you've got a special IMAX theater with a super tall screen relative to the theater width, you'll notice that theater screen walls naturally fit widescreen. People don't go to the theater to watch a narrow TV. (not to mention, movie makers don't know whether you watch TV on a 4:3 set, 16:9, 2.85:1, or whatever)

I also always advocate for OAR. I suppose you could summarize my perspective as, "I want to watch the whole movie, as produced, in as good of resolution as possible. Not watch part of the movie, cut to fit my particular screen resolution".

.....and at this point with Hi def, widescreen TV's I have to agree with you. I no longer have an issue with letterboxing like I used to with a standard CRT TV. Of all the films to be NOT letterboxed, I remember watching "Avatar" on Blu ray and it WAS NOT letterboxed and it filled my 16:9 screen and I remember saying "My...this looks pretty" !!.

[Ovation]

.....and at this point with Hi def, widescreen TV's I have to agree with you. I no longer have an issue with letterboxing like I used to with a standard CRT TV. Of all the films to be NOT letterboxed, I remember watching "Avatar" on Blu ray and it WAS NOT letterboxed and it filled my 16:9 screen and I remember saying "My...this looks pretty" !!.

Interestingly enough, Avatar was shown in 1.85:1 in its 3D presentations, but in 2.35:1 in 2D at the cinema. I haven't watched the home video release (wasn't overly impressed with it as a film--once was enough for me) but it's interesting that Cameron chose the 1.85 ratio. Perhaps he is like Kubrick who, much to my chagrin--despite the fact that he is among my three favourite directors--demanded that home video releases of his works, when he had the rights to them, be released in pan/scan or open matte to avoid black bars on SDTVs. This resulted in a few scenes where we saw stuff that was never meant to be shown (he composed his shots for the wider screens of the cinema, so wires, dollies, mic stands, etc. could be scene in the open matte releases). The advent of HDTV, thankfully, has allowed us to have home access to the releases the way they were originally screened.

[Chris D]

No kidding? that's interesting, Ovation.