Director Castigates Widescreen Butchery

Director Steven Soderbergh is mad. And he has every right to be. His work is being deliberately butchered for television. This was once routine in a world where widescreen films had to fit onto a 4:3 screen. Yet even now, in the age of 16:9 and high-def, widescreen films continue to be cropped in ways that horrify the artists who made them.

Soderbergh can speak for himself, and does so in a publication of the Director's Guild of America:

Like many format fiends, I saw the advent of hi-def broadcast TV as the Holy Grail. Finally, the larger screens, greater detail, and more film-friendly 16:9 ratio would mean all films could live on forever with their extremities intact. Meet Steven Soderbergh, the DGA's reigning Pollyanna.

Since the 16:9 image is now the shape of television, only one format remains to distinguish television from the movies: the 2.40:1 aspect ratio. Because of that, I now believe shape matters more than size, and I say that knowing full well the number of jokes I just unleashed.

Television operators, the people who buy and produce things for people to watch on TV, are taking the position that films photographed in the 2.40:1 ratio should be blown up or chopped up to fit a 16:9 (1.78:1) ratio. They are taking the position that the viewers of television do not like watching 2.40 films letterboxed to fit their 16:9 screens, and that a film insisting on this is worth significantly less--or even nothing--to them. They are taking the position that no one will dare challenge them and risk losing revenue. The logic used to make you, the filmmaker, conform to this belief makes a pretzel look like a ruler: you are told you shouldn't care whether your 2.40 film is turned into a 1.78 film because there really isn't that much of a difference, while in the same breath you are told viewers notice the difference enough to complain about it.

The end result is we have a better chance of seeing a 2.40 film from 1959 in its proper format than a movie from 2009.

That's weird, and sad.

See full text in the DGA Quarterly.

X