MovieChat Forums > The Lighthouse (2019) Discussion > Aspect ratio

Aspect ratio

posted 4 years ago by mudsharkbytes (165)
10 replies | jump to latest

I’m surprised nobody is talking about this.

Not only did the director choose to shoot the movie in black and white, but he also abandoned letterbox for what appeared to be a pure 1:1 square frame. Basically, in terms of color & aspect the movie harkened back to the early days of cinema when the screen was square.

Personally, I think this was a bold move - The high contrast black & white gave it an otherworldy look and the square framing definitely added an element of claustrophobia that heightened the overall feeling of two guys shut in a small space and going berserk.

[–] DaveBowman2001 (467) 4 years ago

I noticed it right away. I though it was weird, but it's just my preference that I don't usually care for 1:1 aspect photos. It works for some subjects, but not generally the best. I think you are correct about the claustrophobia though. Good observation.

[–] Yinky (139) 4 years ago

My daughter (a film student) went on and on about this.

[–] JohnMatrix (707) 4 years ago

I noticed it right away and thought to myself, WTF is this s@#$??? But as I kept watching it, it grew on me. I still hate it though, wish it was shot in 1:89 aspect ration - my favorite one without black bars.

[–] Thunder26 (335) 4 years ago

I thought it would have been better if it had been shot in normal ratio for today and in colour. It would have had a greater impact on the viewers.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 4 years ago

I couldn't disagree more. The aspect ratio contributes to the pressed-in atmosphere and visually evokes the lighthouse itself. The black and white makes the place stark, bleak, timeless, and adds to the terror with the deep shadows. It also makes the light from the lighthouse more overwhelming by the sharp contrast.

[–] hish747 (46) 3 years ago

The B&W was fantastic but the didn't like the 1:1 or 4:3 format. I get that the square format made the movie feel older and claustrophobic, but it missed out on what could have been some immersive widescreen visuals. In that sense, it could've harkened to the past but made it more relevant to the present.

[–] 123Guy (6141) 3 years ago

I'm old, seen a lot of films, understand directors intent and all that... 1:1 did nothing for me. Never does. It's an age old way of something we have evolved from. Should they do films at 12 frames per second too? I hate watching TV and it's narrow visuals.

Film looks fine, well lit, great audio, sets, locations, actors, silly TV aspect... plot doing nothing for me while it plays in the background while I type. 20 minutes in, I can't finish this. Will skip about to the end, and expect nothing interesting other than a character piece that doesn't interest me at all.
Everyone is different.

[–] SandyR (7316) 2 years ago

I saw it in the theater and noticed.

[–] liscarkat (16476) 6 months ago

It's not "TV aspect". TV originally mimicked movie aspect ratio, the old pre-wide screen "academy ratio" of 1.33:1, which is how this movie is framed. It works great here, along with the black-and-white.

[–] SHADO (82) 5 months ago

I believe the film is presented in 1.19:1 aspect ratio. :)