Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2014)

[Randall Maysin]

"pulpy period picture parallel would perhaps have been preferable". that's what I should have said. sorry, everyone

[mfunk9786]

Getting a similar rollout to Her, won't be nationwide until January 9, 2015

[mfunk9786]

Aspect ratio has been confirmed: 1.85:1

[Randall Maysin]

ooh! I think for most directors at least, that's the hardest aspect ratio to do well in. should be interesting just for that aspect, let alone the other stuff.

[GaryC]

I wonder if PTA has said anywhere why he seems to favour 1.85:1 now, having shot both The Master and Inherent Vice in that ratio, when every previous feature is in Scope? (Super 35 for Hard Eight, anamorphic for the others.)

This doesn't sound like a UK release before January at the earliest, as that gives me some time to rewatch his earlier films. I haven't seen Hard Eight, There Will Be Blood and The Master since their cinema releases, so I'm certainly overdue to revisit them.

[oh yeah]

ooh! I think for most directors at least, that's the hardest aspect ratio to do well in. should be interesting just for that aspect, let alone the other stuff.

I'm confused why you'd say that's the hardest AR. It's got to be the most common (at least in American film), for the past couple decades at least.

[mfunk9786]

The only reason why it's noteworthy here is because it'll be PTA's first film lensed by Elswit in that ratio. I'm also sort of puzzled by reading any further into it.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

ooh! I think for most directors at least, that's the hardest aspect ratio to do well in. should be interesting just for that aspect, let alone the other stuff.

How's it particularly hard? And isn't it a good thing to have P.T. Anderson to step away from his comfort zone of long Steadicam shots in 'scope?

[GaryC]

As an addendum to my post above, the UK release date is 30 January - which just so happens to coincide with a week off and will be a payday, so a trip to London to see it may be in order. (Somehow I doubt this will play in Aldershot, unless it's a Best Picture nominee. But then Her, mentioned upthread, was a nominee and that never played here.)

Anyone here read the novel? I'm a Pynchon neophyte, having only read The Crying of Lot 49, and that was at University thirty years ago.

[Randall Maysin]

well, for example, Once Upon a Time in America looks good, but (at least to me) the shots definitely aren't as well composed or immediately striking and cinematic as the other Leone films I've seen, like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I just feel like just about any idiot (Stanley Kramer, for instance) can film in widescreen and the film will have some basic cinematic virtues, just by being that shape. Come to think of it, I can't think of ANY film in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio range that I didn't enjoy at least on some level, visually, while there are certainly tons of films in 1.85:1 or thereabouts that (to my eye at least) look like absolute garbage. Other examples of directors whose films fit this idea: William Wyler (Ben-Hur vs. ...Dodsworth?); Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond vs. Glory).

[Werewolf by Night]

Also, any beer served in a glass always tastes better than a beer in a bottle. The quality of the beer itself is irrelevant. I can't think of a single beer I've had in a bottle that tastes better than any beer I've had in a glass. (I don't drink a lot of beer.)

[Randall Maysin]

That's not what I'm saying at all! My post wasn't intended as some crazy "2.35:1 is always better than 1.85:1" statement. I'm just saying that for some directors (especially the hacks or those who aren't as innately gifted visually as PTA) super-wide-screen seems to be easier and more rewarding to use than the mid-range aspect ratios. There are obviously lots of exceptions to this, I don't think its a rule or anythinggggg....

[flyonthewall2983]

There is something more aesthetically pleasing about the wider ratios for me, but sometimes the 1.85:1 just works for what's going on. Of my top favorite movies The Shawshank Redemption and Children of Men are in that ratio and work very well showing either a period-inspired landscape or a more dystopian one as those two did. Even a film like Aliens which followed something which was shot in widescreen, develops it's own identity with the less wider frame but doesn't stray too far from the previous film on several levels.

[domino harvey]

1.85 is also a good ratio for comedy, which I presume this is

[movielocke]

one consideration might be that 1.85:1 tends to be the largest size of the best screens in most theatres these days. scope films are usually projected on a matted 1.85 screen now, with all theatres having that screen shape. Previously some theatres, usually the largest screens, would have a scope ratio, and if it was playing 1.85 it would be matted down on the sides to that ratio.

Also 1.85 plays well when opened up to 1.78 for television airings, moreso than the center crop tossed on 2.35:1 films to 1.78 for television airings.

Is he shooting Inherent Vice in 70mm? if so 1.85 would make sense because you don't introduce optical distortion from scope projection lenses, you just compose for the 1.85 while shooting on the flat 2.20 70mm ratio and the transfer of flat 70mm to flat digital or flat 35 mm is pretty seamless.

There's a lot of different reasons he might have decided to go with 1.85 now. Perhaps he felt like he over-fetishized scope in his youth and now thinks that 1.85 is a more mature aesthetic that suits where he is now as an artist? We don't know, and we're not going to figure it out unless someone asks him why he's decided on flat for his two most recent films.

[EddieLarkin]

one consideration might be that 1.85:1 tends to be the largest size of the best screens in most theatres these days. scope films are usually projected on a matted 1.85 screen now, with all theatres having that screen shape. Previously some theatres, usually the largest screens, would have a scope ratio, and if it was playing 1.85 it would be matted down on the sides to that ratio.

Really? I can confidently state that every theatre I have visited in the last decade has been 'Scope sized, with 1.85:1 films matted down on the sides (barring proper IMAX screens, I guess). The idea of paying for the "cinema experience" and getting a 'Scope shaped film on a 1.85:1 screen would be intolerable to me. It's bad enough I have to suffer letterboxing at home!

[Jeff]

I'd say it's about 50-50 for the theaters I go to. Some have 2.35 screens where the curtains close a bit for 1.85, others have 1.85 screens with rigid horizontal masking that lowers from the top for 2.35.

[flyonthewall2983]

50-50 here too. I've noticed that it's mostly the smaller theaters of multiplexes that have those 1.85:1 screens.

[GaryC]

one consideration might be that 1.85:1 tends to be the largest size of the best screens in most theatres these days. scope films are usually projected on a matted 1.85 screen now, with all theatres having that screen shape. Previously some theatres, usually the largest screens, would have a scope ratio, and if it was playing 1.85 it would be matted down on the sides to that ratio.

Also 1.85 plays well when opened up to 1.78 for television airings, moreso than the center crop tossed on 2.35:1 films to 1.78 for television airings.

Is he shooting Inherent Vice in 70mm? if so 1.85 would make sense because you don't introduce optical distortion from scope projection lenses, you just compose for the 1.85 while shooting on the flat 2.20 70mm ratio and the transfer of flat 70mm to flat digital or flat 35 mm is pretty seamless.

Apparently it's shot on 35mm - whether that's ordinary spherical 35mm or Super 35 I don't know.

And I'm about 50/50 on cinemas here in the UK being constant height or constant width. Those in the Cineworld Aldershot (opened 2012) are constant height, so Scope gets wider rather than less tall.

[oh yeah]

I will admit there is something to me that is inherently aesthetically pleasing about the 'scope ratio; but it's certainly just as easy to make a visually drab picture in that ratio as it is in any other.

[Jeff]

Centerpiece screening at New York Film Festival

[domino harvey]

Opening in limited release December 12th

[Movie-Brat]

This one I'm confident my local theater will show on that exact date and undoubtedly good news for people in New York and LA too.

[mfunk9786]

Won't be everywhere until mid-January, a la Her

[flyonthewall2983]

Which probably means I won't see it until May, as I fully expect my neck of the woods to be an igloo by February.