- Breaking Out
-

ashowkati
- October 6th, 2008
Writing the notes to page 25 made me wonder about film. In the notes i wrote:
"I have a very film-like visual sense. As this story is intended to be a film, I can’t help but see it play out in my head as such... I know that the advantage comics have to film is the fact that at any moment, comics can choose to break out of that format."
This got me thinking about the reverse. What if film could break out of it's predefined parameters of a 1.85:1 (a.k.a. 16x9) aspect ratio. Comics and photography are able to defeat this problem due to their ability to option a vertical (a.k.a. portrait format) presentation. Of course I'm not talking about differently shaped TVs, although places like Target use TVs set up on their sides to display content vertically. It would be presented in the same 1.85:1 frame, but the content within that frame would go against what is expected. Currently, film is presented in a 1.85:1 wide-screen format. Most of the time, for cinematic reasons we end up with 2.25:1, 2.05:1, 2.35:1, etc. which further limit the vertical and effectively enhance the horizontal (a.k.a. landscape format).
One example would be shooting a scene sideways (90 degrees on it's side), to display more of the vertical of the scene. There is currently no efficient method to concentrate on the vertical of a scene instead of the horizontal. You can pan up or you can also zoom out enough to encapsulate the amount of the vertical you want to display. Both are still inefficient in conveying the "vertical's" significance. Shooting a scene sideways may seem like a very bad idea, due to the fact that the audience would potentially need to tilt their head to receive the information correctly. This concern can be nulled if the information presented is important enough and of a certain nature to where the orientation isn't a factor. Of course this rules out text and things of this nature. Perhaps a man standing in front a building could work. The shot would be filled with the entirety of the building and in front of it, a man. You could avoid a pan, or a low-angle shot. If the objective is to display the building in its entirety as compared to a man, the orientation is insignificant, because both the man, and the building would still be identifiable. Especially so if the components of the shot are established in two sandwiching "upright" shots.
A more convincing setting would be in outer space. That way it is instantly justified due to the absence of gravity, or absence of ground, in space. It boggles the mind to think of the possibilities.