British Kinematography (1953)

126 BR1IISH (CINEMATOGRAPHY Vol. 23, No. 5 of rather was dusted off the shelf where it had lain unused for many years. This, the anamorphotic lens, was also the invention of someone not connected with the motion picture industry. When interviewed by the press in Paris, Professor Henri Chretien of the Sorbonne remarked, not perhaps without a touch of irony : " I cannot help but be filled with admiration at what the Hollywood technicians have been able to make out of these few bits of glass which I put together 25 years ago." When discussing an industry devoid of scientific and technical policy, acting on snap judgments, and whenever possible adopting the easiest solution, it would be foolish to evaluate future trends by any rational standard except the aim of making the greatest amount of money with the least expenditure of mental effort. The aim will be to astonish and stun the public, in fact to produce a sensation, and it is in terms of the impact which the new forms of the cinema can produce that we must try to evaluate them if we are not to fall into sentimental speculation. Now, within the limits of what can be accomplished to-day, there are only three ways in which the cinema's impact can be increased : first, by enlarging the picture so that to a much greater extent than formerly it appears to engulf the spectator ; second, by creating a picture in 3-dimensional space so that objects may be made to emerge from the screen and approach or strike the spectator, as well, of course, as occupying distant space behind the screen ; third, by surrounding the spectator with sound, preferably of very loud volume and improved fidelity, it may prove possible to batter him still further into a state of dumb identification with the drama. I will now deal with these alternatives in ascending order of complexity, and will try to evaluate them in terms of sensation (what is politely called " audience appeal "), taking into account most of the variants which are now under discussion. Wide Screen Processes The first essential is to get a bigger picture, which can of course be very simply attained, especially in to-day's half empty cinemas, by sitting everybody closer to the screen. By changing the front rows of seats, which in Britain are the cheapest, into the most expensive, and the back rows from the most expensive to the cheapest, this revolution could be effected very simply and at almost no cost. I myself would regret the change, because as a large-screen enthusiast long before anyone murmured the word " engulfment," I have been able to buy my entertainment very cheaply. The next step onward is to make the screen larger than it was previously ; and since the screen can seldom be extended upwards or downwards very much without great inconvenience or actual structural alteration, it is practical (as well as fashionable). to increase the aspect ratio. The new aspect ratio will not be less than 1*66, or the change would scarcely be worth while ; nor will it be more than 2:1, since beyond this ratio an excessive amount of the image would be lost. But within these limits there is no standardization at all. The ratio is established at the whim of the producing company ; and since screens, once masked, cannot easily be altered, we now suffer from the spectacle of important parts of the picture being amputated, or of the projectionist frantically racking up and down to keep it in the frame. To guard against this, directors are now forced to huddle their action together in the middle of the scene, leaving large areas of wasted space above and below when the film is screened at the 3 to 4 proportion. Once an aspect ratio is agreed on, this solution must irresistibly appeal to the film industry, for it is of utter simplicity, consisting of nothing but altering the shape and size of the screen, the focal length of the projector lenses, and two little aperture plates in the camera and the projector respectively. But this enlarged screen, which is a constant factor in all the proposed pictorial innovations, does in fact raise far more interesting questions. In the cinema of the past, no one thought of aiming at the engulfment of the spectator ; a proper distance was established between audience and screen (this is marked