Ugh!
Fascinating movie, but why in the hell would someone shoot a film in 2016 in 4:3? According to what I read it's the director's "preferred aspect ratio" but that makes no sense in today's 16:9 world.
The cramped, claustrophobic feeling really distracted me and had a legitimate effect on my enjoyment of the film.
I haven't read anything from the filmmaker directly, but from reviews here and elsewhere, the 4:3 ratio was likely chosen to make you feel boxed in and cramped - even uncomfortable.
She used a similar squarish aspect ratio in Fish Tank (much better film in my opinion). It can help emphasize faces in medium shots and close ups, and in American Honey, director Andrea Arnold does utilize many atmosphere-enhancing close ups of insects like ants, bees, butterflies and crickets (symbolizing frailty? decay? freedom? nature and purity, like the title?)
One review said the aspect ratio not only helped focus on the grungy brown mud on the ground, but we unexpectedly got a lot of extra headroom and shots of the beautiful American sky. In reality, you aren't really gaining that much more headroom compared to 16:9, but psychologically, it may feel that way for many viewers. And this freeing up of verticality might help the director play even more with the contrasts between the disgusting and dignified, decay and beauty, constriction/hopelessness vs. freedom/dreams. You could do this before with the other widescreen aspect ratios, but you can do it in a slightly different way with 4:3 as well (as many classic films have done).
Thanks for the response. I did a bit more research on this and found a couple of responses from the director on the issue.
First, there's this article: http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/29/13109072/american-honey-movie-director-interview-andrea-arnold-tiff-2016
She says: "It's an artistic decision. I've done my last three films with the same ratio. It's a ratio I much love. My films are usually about one person and their experiences of the world. So I'm mainly following them around, filming them quite closely. And it's a very beautiful frame for one person. It frames them with a huge amount of respect. It gives them kind of honors, the human in that frame. I was very attracted to it when I first started making films, but I wasn't able to articulate it and understand why I was doing it until later. But now I understand, that respect is what it's about."
And I also found this: http://awisemanlives.tumblr.com/post/33463045402/andrea-arnold-on-shooting-in-43
"It’s funny. I absolutely loved using it in 'Fish Tank,' and we tested a lot on 'Wuthering Heights.' We shot some video, and then some film. We tried different stocks and things. With some of that original stuff, we had we shot it straight without a matte and projected it, and it was just the film in Academy ratio. I didn’t think it was something that would come up, but when it did, I was like, 'Oh my God, that looks so beautiful.' I loved it all over again, even though I knew it would be a provocative choice. It’s a film with a lot of landscapes, so everyone expects you to use a wide screen.
I’ve thought about it quite a lot since, and I think why I like it is because my films are mostly about one person. I’m following that one person and I’m keen on that one person. It’s a very respectful and beautiful frame for one person. It gives them a lot of space. You can frame one person in a 4x3, and it gives them a lot of - I don’t know - humanity? I’m not sure.
I like it as well because it’s the whole negative, and you’re not cutting anything off. Mostly what everyone’s doing it cutting off the top and the bottom, and I love that we don’t do that. We’re using the 35mm film negative and you get more information. It gives you more headroom, and you get quite a lot of sky. Those moors are very green, and if I shot a landscape, I figured the sky would be changing all the time. But that’s not the real reason, I suppose, it’s more of a justification. You know what I mean? You try and justify what you do, but sometimes you just love it and it’s hard to understand why."
Speaking personally, as a viewer, I don't really care for it. It feels claustrophobic and uncomfortable, and I feel like I'm missing a lot of visual information that should be there. Especially for something like American Honey, which involves a road trip through America, I would've liked to have been able to see more.
Thanks for the links - much appreciated. I'll take a look at them.
I'm with you there. I can sort of understand her reasoning (although she seems to be doing it more as a traditionalist)...but I liked the 4:3 effect more for Fish Tank, where the apartment complexes, messy rooms and abandoned railroad stations looked boxy anyways, and it follows the main girl much more closely than American Honey follows Star.
In American Honey, I did want the camera to open up more since there was so much beautiful natural landscapes to use. The heartland of America has some very gorgeous scenery that was aching to be fully captured. I can understand the director wanting us to focus more on Star's face, and probably not emphasize the "beauty" part too much since she was depicting grungy side as well. But I found Star a little too distant and inconsistent of a character, so the 4:3 didn't feel justified enough.
It doesn't feel claustrophotic in cinema due to the size of the screen and the fact that there are no widescreen shots in the movie to compare it too... The aspect ration doesn't change thoughout... You appreciate the framing and visuals much better...
Much in the same way that old 4:3 ratio movies don't feel cramped either.
I think it's only on our relatively small TVs at home that it might feel small.... I watched it on my projector and it looked great. You start to see the movie in that frame and do not notice the aspect ratio anymore. But watching it on my TV would make it feel smaller. So there is probably some truth to your criticism when it comes to viewing it at home...
I had to stop watching this movie three different times bc I was getting anxiety from the van scenes. What kept me coming back to watch this movie was how well the cinematography got
Me feeling claustrophobic.
Maybe it needs to be viewed on crt tv to be appreciated better. I still got one at home just not hooked up to netflix.
shareIt's 1:1.37 academy ratio, it was oscar baiting
share