One thing we couldn’t quite figure out was the choice to change the screen ratio at specific points in the movie. I might have a theory, but I’m curious if anyone else felt like they understood why they did this?
Coogler sort of explains it here. My understanding is that he was trying to balance immersion in the big moments with the options most people would have available to them. I don’t think there was a deep narrative/thematic reasoning behind it.
Still very cool though, even if it’s more of a ‘vibe’ thing than something more explicitly theoretical/philosophical or whatever.
A neighbour of mine is a children’s book editor, at one point I asked them what they were working on, and they told me about a book going to print that, in the big moments, has pages that unfold to match the size and intensity of the character’s emotions. I thought that was pretty awesome as well, really interesting use of the format.
Which, I dunno, thinking more as I’m typing this - in some ways what Coogler was doing there still fits in with a reading of Fanon, who of course was also a psychoanalyst.
Like, the big moments expanding the screen, becoming an even more visceral experience, while also, due to the ratio shift, inviting the viewer to think not just about what’s being shown but how - intentional or not, I think it does speak to something about the way we process things on multiple levels, how we create memories, how we create links to the past and future, what it means to be free … even if it only spoke to those things tangentially.
At the same time, this could all be motivated reasoning on my part though, protect my own ego via protecting my pet theory ;)
Coogler sort of explains it here. My understanding is that he was trying to balance immersion in the big moments with the options most people would have available to them. I don’t think there was a deep narrative/thematic reasoning behind it.
Still very cool though, even if it’s more of a ‘vibe’ thing than something more explicitly theoretical/philosophical or whatever.
A neighbour of mine is a children’s book editor, at one point I asked them what they were working on, and they told me about a book going to print that, in the big moments, has pages that unfold to match the size and intensity of the character’s emotions. I thought that was pretty awesome as well, really interesting use of the format.
Which, I dunno, thinking more as I’m typing this - in some ways what Coogler was doing there still fits in with a reading of Fanon, who of course was also a psychoanalyst.
Like, the big moments expanding the screen, becoming an even more visceral experience, while also, due to the ratio shift, inviting the viewer to think not just about what’s being shown but how - intentional or not, I think it does speak to something about the way we process things on multiple levels, how we create memories, how we create links to the past and future, what it means to be free … even if it only spoke to those things tangentially.
At the same time, this could all be motivated reasoning on my part though, protect my own ego via protecting my pet theory ;)