![]() Even then, most projectionists don’t like to court uncertainty. Most projection setups are heavily automated and have only a few presets available. The less confusion you can create for a projectionist the better.Ĭan’t the projectionist make adjustments? This is because trailers are intended to play in sequence with the same container size as the feature film they precede. The only material that is usually required/recommended to be delivered in both FLAT and SCOPE containers are trailers. It’s important to consider how your audience will receive this when projected on screen.Ĭan I master my DCP in both FLAT and SCOPE? The letterboxing of this picture is fairly significant in a FLAT container. The choice would appear to be pretty clear cut here as well, but there is an important variable to consider in this circumstance: screen aspect ratio. Neither FLAT nor SCOPE offers a truly optimal solution here: Some aspect ratios, like the infamous RED 2:1, are a bit trickier. It’s a great choice for filmmakers looking to capitalize on the maximum resolution available to them, but a problematic choice for distribution. For instance, a 2.4:1 aspect ratio image make the most sense in the 2.39:1 SCOPE container. In most other cases your aspect ratio will likely be “close enough” to make the decision easy. Ideally, your film matches up perfectly with one of the aspect ratios listed above. SCOPE Containers should avoid Pillarboxing Yet, as he explains, those antagonisms are unintentionally disclosed in the films’ non-narrative strategies, in decisions regarding matters such as lighting, camera angles, and sound.When in doubt, play by this simple rule of thumb:įLAT containers should avoid Letterboxing Wilderson maintains that at the narrative level, they fail to recognize that the turmoil is based not in conflict, but in fundamentally irreconcilable racial antagonisms. They portray social turmoil in terms of conflict, as problems that can be solved (at least theoretically, if not in the given narratives). These films present Red and Black people beleaguered by problems such as homelessness and the repercussions of incarceration. Wilderson provides detailed readings of two films by Black directors, Antwone Fisher (Denzel Washington) and Bush Mama (Haile Gerima) one by an Indian director, Skins (Chris Eyre) and one by a White director, Monster’s Ball (Marc Foster). Both positions are foundational to the existence of (White) humanity. ![]() Just as slavery is the existential basis of the Black subject position, genocide is essential to the ontology of the Indian. From the beginning of the European slave trade until now, Blacks have had symbolic value as fungible flesh, as the non-human (or anti-human) against which Whites have defined themselves as human. Wilderson contends that for Blacks, slavery is ontological, an inseparable element of their being. That structure, he argues, is based on three essential subject positions: that of the White (the “settler,” “master,” and “human”), the Red (the “savage” and “half-human”), and the Black (the “slave” and “non-human”). Wilderson III asks whether such films accurately represent the structure of U.S. Offering an unflinching account of race and representation, Frank B. Red, White & Black is a provocative critique of socially engaged films and related critical discourse.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |