Quote:
Originally Posted by doolahrock  This actually takes me back to an Argento retrospective at the NFT some years back (14 or 15 years I think.....feeling old now). At the end of the of the shindig was a showing of his new film, Stendhal Syndrome and Argento was in attendance for a Q and A at the end. One member of the audience asked about the aspect ratio of the film and why it wasn't 2.35:1 or similar. Argento responded by saying he always shoots his films in the widest possible aspect. Cue much confusion from the from the chap who asked the question.
I was only about 18 at the time and was still a few years off truly appreciating aspect ratios. It's only in recent times this has come back to me and stood out as pretty bizarre as Stendhal (from memory) is 1.66:1.
I've a feeling we may not be hearing anything about this from Argento himself. I could be wrong but I would be surprised.
Still, managed to get an autograph after the film although by the time I got to the front of the line the marker pen had run out and Argento had to use a biro  Asia was also there and a friend and I hear met her very briefly in the bar before the film. Cue much teenage stumbling over words  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecc I think Giuseppe Rotunno is more responsible for the 1.66:1 ratio and other camera choices of STENDHAL (I recall reading that Argento had initially planned to do something creative with Anna's POV during her "syndrome" states). I seem to recall reading or hearing that Sergio Stivaletti had a hard time working with Rotunno when it came to the photographing the material meant for CGI augmentation.
That said, I like the aspect ratio and it can be well-employed (check out several of Claude Chabrol's films - some of which have been ruined by 1.78:1 reframing). I was not initially impressed with the photography of THE STENDHAL SYNDROME, but I've grown to appreciate it. |
I read on an interview that one of the reason for such a close scope was to give the intention of chautrophobia.