Home / Blog

The Artist’s Silent (and Aspect Ratio) Treatment

Shot in black and white and told without dialogue, Cannes favorite The Artist hearkens back to another era. Michel Hazanavicius’ nouvelle silent movie stars Jean Dujardin, winner of the best actor award at Cannes for his performance. The film’s first official trailer was released last night, and Oscar buzz about Dujardin, and the film itself, is already building. Dujardin’s character, George Valentin, is perhaps meant to suggest Rudolph Valentino, but to me, Dujardin more fully channels silent era star John Gilbert, often seen opposite Greta Garbo, and the pure physicality of Gene Kelly playing a silent-to-talkies actor in 1952′s Singing in the Rain. (When you count the film’s canine star, a terrier straight out of The Thin Man movies, William Powell also comes to mind). It may be Dujardin’s ability to suggest all those actors at once that won over the judges at Cannes and will nudge him onto an Oscar shortlist. The film is full of deliberately archaic aesthetic choices to further set the scene, but Hazanavicius’ decision to shoot in 1.33:1 aspect ratio tops the list. 1.33:1 was the original Academy ratio (actually 1.37:1) used during cinema’s classic era. It’s the same as the 4:3 ratio used for analogue TV. CinemaScope literally burst open the screen in 1953 with the release of The Robe, and though the new wider format was soon made obsolete by Panavision’s evolving lenses and camera technology, it launched the beginning of an anamorphic era that continues to this day. While use of the original Academy aspect ratio and black-and-white photography make The Artist read like kind of film it is honoring, it also gives its director a chance to show off his visual chops. Kubrick famously shot his last masterworks at 1.37:1, composing and cropping them to 1.85:1 for theatrical projection (and causing all kinds of problems, in his avoidance of letterbox, with the releases of those films on DVD and Blu-ray for 16:9 televisions). The Artist‘s Hazanavicius no doubt understands, as Kubrick did, that it’s a lot harder to pull off the rule of thirds when framing a shot in widescreen (the perfect golden mean springs mathematically from 1.33:1, after all ). But because The Artist will also screen at 1.33:1, it is precisely this difference that will set it apart from all the rest screening at 1.85:1 and up, including Woody Allen’s overtly nostalgic Midnight in Paris. In addition to Dujardin, the framing is just another of the stealth charms in this visual homage to the high craft of film’s earliest commercial era. Watch the trailer and decide for yourself:

4 Comments

Categories: Blog
Tags: ,

  • http://www.filmterms.com Tim Moshansky

    Wow, who would have thought to create a silent movie in this age! Hitchcock was the first to comment that a scene works if you can turn the sound off. When the “talkies” came in everyone thought they were a gimmick and wouldn’t last. Then silent movies all but disappeared.

    Hats off to Havanicious for attempting this retro idea. I am currently working with Laurence Bennett, the Production Designer for “The Artist,” and he mentioned this movie to me just yesterday. We are scouting locations for Robert Redford’s new political thriller, ” The Company You Keep.” Looking forward to seeing the movie – it looks sumptuous.

  • Tim C

    Thanks for the piece on this interesting film.

    Not sure what period you consider cinema’s classic period, but silent era films used full frame 35mm, which is 1:1.33. It was the move to Academy aperture to accommodate the optical sound track that gave us 1:1.37.

    As for anamorphic, it doesn’t really continue today as an originating medium, as Super 35 (aka full frame) has taken things back to where they started – though mostly in a 3-perf variant. With the transition to digital projection, it’s even dying as a projection format.

    Kubrick wasn’t doing anything unique shooting 1.37. Unless shooting anamorphic, all film was shot 1.37 and masked during projection until Super 35 got popular in the 1990s.

    It is a shame when the director’s intended framing gets needlessly altered, as it’s simple to frame a 4:3 image within a 16:9 frame. Worse still are networks like TBS that stretch 4:3 to 16:9 when broadcasting, as few displays can compress horizontally to correct the distorted image.

    I did see Midnight in Paris. Unfortunately, it was digital projection. At least the registration was good.

  • filmteknik

    Sound did not create the 1.37 aperture, at least not deliberately. Full Frame Silent is 1.33. Adding the soundtrack narrowed the aperture until it was only a little wider than square. That’s roughly 1.17 or 1.2:1 aka the Movietone aperture.

    Folks didn’t like square movies and also they preferred to stick to the original shape of their proscenium. So they reduced the height of the aperture which in effect creates a wider shape.

    Why they went with dimensions yielding 1.37 : 1 instead of the old 1.33 ratio I am pretty certain has been lost to history at least I have not seen any explanation. They certainly could have specified 1.33; there is no technical difference.

    Leaving that small gap between frames makes it easier to hide splices, both the image of the splice between shots on the negative as well spices made in the theatre. But that would apply to 1.33 as well as 1.37.

    It should be noted that they are for all intents and purposes the same thing. The precise shape of the picture is going to depend on how the aperture plate is filed and that’s going to depend on the throw (distance to screen), size of screen, the masking, and what lenses are available as cinema lenses come in increments. Zoom lenses that are infinitely adjustable are NOT the norm on film projection. These variations will far exceed any difference between 1.33 and 1.37 hence my saying they are essentially the same thing.

    Back to the movie at hand, does anyone know if the 35mm prints are full frame 1.33 (1.37) or are they printing a 1.33 image within the projectable area for 1.85?

  • Pingback: Studio Daily Blog » NY Critics Honor The Artist, Anointing an Oscars Front-Runner