Jump to content


Photo

Meek's Cutoff


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Ravi Kiran

Ravi Kiran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 May 2011 - 01:07 AM

Has anyone here seen Kelly Reichert's film Meek's Cutoff? It was beautifully shot by Chris Blauvelt. Reichert and Blauvelt chose the Academy aspect ratio to keep us from seeing the land before the characters because they had no idea what was up ahead either. The squareish frame keeps us focused on the people and not as much on the terrain.

I thought the night scenes were particularly noteworthy. I liked that they were barely lit. It was a look that I rarely see in films. On the other end of the spectrum, the day scenes conveyed the oppressive, overbearing desert sun.

The women always wore bonnets and the men were wearing hats. How do you generally light faces in such situations? Do you use reflectors to fill in the faces?

Does anyone know how the 35mm prints were printed? Were they true Academy prints or was the Academy image reduced to within a 1.85:1 area or possibly a 'scope print?

Edited by Ravi Kiran, 27 May 2011 - 01:12 AM.

  • 0

#2 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 27 May 2011 - 01:40 AM

The women always wore bonnets and the men were wearing hats. How do you generally light faces in such situations? Do you use reflectors to fill in the faces?

That’s what I would do, more or less. But there’s a whole school of Western film lighting devoted to that, and I’m sure some people here have quite sophisticated methods which they might want to share or not. :)

Does anyone know how the 35mm prints were printed? Were they true Academy prints or was the Academy image reduced to within a 1.85:1 area or possibly a 'scope print?

Probably – this is how most 1.33/1.37:1 films are printed nowadays, even when they’re primarily intended for festival distribution. But I’ll be able to tell you for sure in a couple of weeks.
  • 0

#3 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 27 May 2011 - 01:48 AM

I meant that they’re usually printed inside a 1.85:1 frame, with black bars on left and right. Never seen one printed inside a Scope frame, except for some segments on films that utilize several aspect ratios.
  • 0

#4 Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 May 2011 - 12:46 AM

I saw Meek's Cutoff tonight for the second time. It was projected digitally which pretty assures the audience that at least the correct aspect ratio will be employed. It was quite an experience seeing a modern-day arthouse film in the 1:37:1 but can't help but wonder if might have been more satisfying, for me at least, to see this film at least in 1:85:1, especially a western where almost every scene takes place in the wide open desert. I totally understand the filmmaker's motives for the academy ratio, but started missing the extra part of the screen.
  • 0

#5 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:59 AM

It was projected digitally which pretty assures the audience that at least the correct aspect ratio will be employed.

Actually it's very easy for the digital projectionist to choose an incorrect AR. Most systems aren't automated in this respect; they still rely on the projectionist to check the correct AR and setting it in the projector. I've seen mistakes happen where a 1.85:1 film is being shown in Scope, cropping the top and bottom.

I totally understand the filmmaker's motives for the academy ratio, but started missing the extra part of the screen.

One reason for that might be that in modern theaters, the screen masking isn't adjustable to Academy width. So you get a screen framed with black velvet in the 1.85:1 shape with a narrower Academy image inside it, which leaves some blank white screen on both sides. These things can have a psychological effect, so that you may begin to miss the "missing" image…

Edited by Antti Näyhä, 31 May 2011 - 03:00 AM.

  • 0

#6 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 09 June 2011 - 04:23 AM

Does anyone know how the 35mm prints were printed? Were they true Academy prints or was the Academy image reduced to within a 1.85:1 area or possibly a 'scope print?

I just checked, and at least the print they sent to our festival is actually true 1.37:1. That's really rare nowadays, more so with an American film…

I don't know if they made separate 1.85:1-reduced prints for wider domestic distribution (therefore losing some resolution and adding grain, but preventing projection in a wrong AR).
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Opal

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

The Slider

CineLab