The international photographer (Jan-Dec 1930)

One Hundred Seventy-four The INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER June, 1930 Wide Film -BY J. O. TAYLOR, Local 659 A Cinematographer who ought to speak authoritatively. There have been many articles written in opposition to the wide film — articles stating that the height is not sufficient — that the proportions are wrong and I am told on the average of about ten times a day why it is closeups can't be made, together with a hundred and one other limitations of the wide film. I happen to stand in a little different position to the majority of these anti-widefilmites because of the fact that I have photographed the only four complete productions that have been made on the wide film and I have had the opportunity to experiment and actually find out what shots can and can not be made. With my experience of almost two years I feel the proportions as they are now are just right. They are based on the ancient Gothic architecture of theater construction and consequently will fit all the theaters in the country for those are the proportions of their proscenium arches. If the film were any higher, stages would have to be rebuilt and if it were any narrower it would be out of architectural proportions. While on the subject of size, I would like to stay that to me the one big thing in favor of the wide film is the opportunity it gives actors to move around freely, not limiting them to a very small space. This limitation has always been extremely noticeable — particularly since the advent of talking pictures. It will not be necessary for characters carrying on a group conversation or a couple of singers rendering a duet to blow down each others throats in order to keep from having their limbs or at least some part of their anatomy outside the camera lines. Regarding the arguments on closeups — closeups can be made on the wide film. Of course, it is not necessary to get as close as you do with the thirty-five millimeter camera but, comparatively speaking, you can make the same sized closeup. However, with the wide film very few closeups are needed. After all, the main reason for closeups is to get over thought and with the wide film you can get all the detail and expression in a full sized figure that you would get in a six-foot closeup with the thirty-five millimeter film. Popping to head closeups of characters from distorted angles has always been more or less objectionable to me anyway. When one considers the amount of money and time and thought that is put into the building of character sets for a motion picture it is amazing to realize the vast amount of detail that is absolutely lost in the thirty-five millimeter film. Anything twenty-five feet distant from the camera could almost be a painted setting instead of the real thing. With the thirty-five millimeter film long shots of elaborate sets can only be used in short flashes as, after all, the action must be covered close enough to see the expression on the characters' faces because atmosphere and thought are the only things in the making of a motion picture. Now, with the wide film the character can get over the action and yet you "Now In Those Days' ; About 1914) Shooting "JOAN THE WOMAN" The crew (left to right) — Unknown, Ralph Morrello, Dent Gilbert, Percy Hilburn, Hal Rosson, Chas. Roshcr. Chief Cameraman, Alvin H'yckoff; Unknown, Edward Morrison, Paul Perry, Harry Rathbun, Henry Kotani, Harry Sandford. Seated — Unknown, Al Gilks, Don Short, Connie DeRoo. can still pick up the marvelous details and atmosphere in your sets. There have been quite a few attempts and suggestions to enlarge the small film. These have all been proven impossible, due largely to the great quantity of grain that is picked up. As a matter of fact with the wide film there is comparatively no grain evident under the proper lighting conditions. Even under poor lighting conditions you can obtain very wonderful results with the wide film as you still maintain the geography of your sets in which your characters are working and you are not watching a series of closeup angles popping in and out all the time. I have also heard several arguments to the effect that a slow moving picture could not be speeded up in the cutting. Whenever a cutter has more than one angle to cut with he can usually find a method of eliminating footage. At the beginning of the talking picture era it was considered next to impossible to "speed up" any action. As a picture was shot, so it would remain. However, it was soon discovered that the limitations were not as great as anticipated. So it is with the wide film. It is pliable and the more it is experimented with the more pliable it will become. I had the pleasure of seeing a recent picture, the director of which made the statement that because of this limitation in cutting it could never have been made on wide film. To me this was a typical statement of a person who had no exDerience with wide film because as I saw that picture it was, to me, one of the best examples of a wide film subject. If the people who are against the wide film would just become the least bit familiar with its uses and possibilities I am sure they would not make the ridiculous statements they do at this time because they are as much out of place as the arguments against talking pictures were at their introduction. However, I really believe that a person cannot appreciate the wide film until he has made a production and thereby draws an actual comparison, scene for scene, with the thirty-five millimeter film. For myself, I feel that after looking at the rushes on the wide film each day and then seeing the thirty-five millimeter film with its cramped and limited proportions it looks positively antiquated and it almost seems ridiculous that anyone could even draw a comparison. I feel, however, that the wide film requires a different technique just as the technique of the talkies differs from that of the old silents. It is an entirely different means of expression and should be handled with that idea in mind. Only when this is done will they get the proper value from the wide film. In conclusion I might say I have yet to find a director who has worked on the wide film, regardless of his attitude before the picture, who was not absolutely sold on it after his first experience.