|
Taking a Wider View: The Widescreen Aesthetic in Online Advertising
By Harper Cossar
(bio)
Georgia State University
Department of Communication
hcossar@yahoo.com
I am indebted to Greg Smith and NMEDIAC's editors
for their suggestions on earlier versions of this essay.
“Letterboxing is
often found on video transfers of independent films in which the director
or producer doesn’t want to trifle with the integrity of the composition
to accommodate something as pedestrian as TV viewing. It’s also used
for ‘important’ movies that address serious issues – films
such as ‘Schindler’s List,’ for example.” (Vagoni,
11/08/99, 48)
The use of widescreen aesthetics
— both, actual wide-film film formats such as CinemaScope or faux widescreen
processes such as letterboxing — exists for visual appeal and product
differentiation. Historically, widescreen processes were initially deployed
by the fledgling film industry as part of the battery economic life preservers
in the fight against television in the early 1950s. However, wide-film processes
had been experimented with in film as early as the 1890s as industrial groups
were still striving for standardization of film stocks and negative widths.
(Belton, 1992, 3) Widescreen processes have always had the goal of product differentiation
as the ultimate draw, but after they became integrated into standardized film
production practices in the 1950s, the aesthetic qualities and the subsequent
critique of such choices has been little discussed.
If the aesthetics of widescreen
film processes have lacked rigorous scholarship, then even less has been written
about digital technologies that utilize widescreen processes for cultural clout.
The advertising industry has capitalized on the use of widescreen as a visual
technique in both television and online ads. In short, why do media content
producers, specifically advertisers, use letterbox techniques for mediums such
as television and online content when they will most likely be viewed in a 4:3
aspect ratio monitor? Media producers of such ads confess that the goal is to
make “their work more ‘cinematic’ . . . with the look and
feel of a feature film.” (Vagoni, 11/08/99, 49) Therefore, some digital
content producers, much like the film industry, utilize the wide frame of feature
filmmaking for product differentiation via the aesthetics of the form itself.
This essay will examine
the use of widescreen aesthetics, particularly letterboxing, as a production
device in the online advertising campaigns of BMW Films (Star) and Buick (Tiger
Trap). Both ads feature the widescreen aesthetic via letterboxing, and Buick’s
Tiger Trap even uses a split-screen technique that has enjoyed sporadic use
since the 1960s and 1970s and is virtually new in online advertising. Both campaigns
were launched on the Internet and both are long-form (6-8 minutes) cinematic
ads, therefore they are useful texts to examine. Unlike their 30-second and
minute-long counterparts, they have the added benefit of having already captured
their audience, and therefore the letterboxing device cannot be reduced to merely
an attention grabber. To fully examine what widescreen means and how it became
endowed with those meanings, it is useful to examine the film studies’
literature with regard to scholarship on widescreen, as well as criticism of
the widescreen aesthetic in online content concerning both advertising and even
video games. Therefore, this paper will serve as a step in the process of filling
the literature gap regarding widescreen aesthetics across a variety of media
and chiefly that of online technologies. A final note about the variety of media
under consideration in this essay: I differentiate my discussion and subsequent
discussion between the aspect ratio of content traditionally viewed in a theater
(usually between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1) and that viewed on a television or most
computer monitors (4:3). Therefore, while the shape of both television and computer
monitors are shifting to a more theatrical 16:9 aspect ratio, this essay is
concerned with historical constructions of media content consumed in the 4:3
standard.
Widescreen Film
Criticism
Certain scholars have tackled
particular areas of widescreen criticism and analysis in film studies. In Widescreen
Cinema, John Belton (1992) offers both a cultural and ideological critique of
the industrial and social factors present for widescreen’s adoption. David
Bordwell (1985) has surveyed earlier scholars’ critiques of the aesthetic
and mise-en-scene signifiers of widescreen cinema, and presents a slightly-less-than-overwhelmed
assessment regarding widescreen’s impact upon filmmaking practices and
reception. Finally, there is Charles Barr’s (1963) “CinemaScope:
Before and After,” (an essay Bordwell (1985) calls both “extraordinary”
and “a landmark” (20-21)) which argues that widescreen cinema challenges
spectators to be “alert,” but should strive for a “gradation
of emphasis” regarding its implementation. (11) Barr’s contention
is that widescreen cinema (specifically CinemaScope) offers the possibility
of “greater physical involvement” for the spectator and a “more
vivid sense of space.” (4) Essentially, Barr’s essay reifies the
notions that Andre Bazin had put forth regarding the “myth of total cinema”
— that is, widescreen cinema allows for fewer edits, and thus longer takes,
which Barr and Bazin claim allows for the spectator’s deeper perceptual
submersion within the visual narrative.
Critical reactions to widescreen
aspect ratios and their importance to the canon of film studies are, at best,
conflicted. Both Belton and Bazin assert that widescreen aspect ratios offer
the possibility of greater realism and cinematic verisimilitude. Even Francois
Truffaut (1953) falls under the spell of realistic potentialities that widescreen
might possess. Bordwell ultimately advocates a formalist approach of evaluating
stylistic and technological devices within a historical framework. For Bordwell,
while there may be aesthetic changes intrinsic to widescreen’s assimilation,
they are simply markers along the road to industrial assimilation of a new technology.
Barr’s essay is where I will locate most of my energy, because it is the
canonical text from which others spring.
Barr’s contention
is that widescreen formats and their attendant “special potentialities”
achieve an aesthetic unattainable by Academy ratio (4:3) films. (9) Barr asserts
that “the more open the frame, the greater the impression of depth: the
image is more vivid, and involves us more directly.” (10) Barr goes on
to explain that “it is [this] peripheral vision which orients us and makes
the experience so vivid . . . this power was there even in the 1:1.33 image,
but for the most part remained latent.” (11) His general claim is that
widescreen achieves greater realism through the use of the long shot and long
take, and the minimal use of montage and/or editing. Like Bazin before him,
Barr praises the idea of greater open space within the wider frame, and as such,
claims that the need for insert shots that command the spectator to “look
here and look at this” — Bazin hoped that widescreen would bring
about “fin du montage” — is somehow lessened. Barr sees the
format as lending itself to “greater physical involvement” and thus
portraying imagery as “completely natural and unforced.” (11) He
contends that such involvement and natural aesthetics are due to widescreen’s
use of long shots and airy visuals that did not exist in the Academy ratio.
Ultimately, Barr reasons that, “we have to make a positive act of interpreting,
of ‘reading’ the shot.” (18) In this act of interpretation,
Barr isolates one of the primary claims of widescreen critics: due to the larger
screen area of a theatrically projected CinemaScope film and the longer takes/fewer
edits of the initial widescreen films, audiences were encouraged to perform
new viewing practices.
The critical reactions to
widescreen and its attendant aesthetics in film are a good place to begin a
discussion of what exactly widescreen means in digital and online formats. If
Barr’s assertion that the widening of the frame in fact results in “greater
physical involvement” and encourages viewers to “interpret”
and/or “read the shot” then widescreen’s deployment by the
advertising industry makes perfect sense. However, Barr also contends that the
hallmark of widescreen images is a more open frame with a “greater . .
. impression of depth” and an image that is “more vivid, and involves
us more directly.” Barr claims that this power was not present in the
Academy ratio or “remained latent.” With regard to television, this
problematizes the use of such a technique by advertisers because if the 4:3
image does not allow for “greater physical involvement,” then not
using it is to the industry’s detriment. This is of course a moot point
because letterboxing on television was not popularized until Woody Allen secured
a contractual agreement with United Artists in 1985 which gave him control over
the video versions of his work, and Allen’s Manhattan (1979) was the first
home video released in the letterbox format. (Belton, 1992) Allen’s historical
and cultural associations with the wider frame will be of importance as we continue
to examine the cultural capital with which letterboxed media is endowed.
Television, the
4:3 frame, and Letterboxing
Advertising Age critic,
Bob Garfield (1992), critiquing a Mercedes-Benz television spot remarks that
“foreign-film and Woody Allen buffs will recognize . . . the letterbox
technique” utilized in the production. Garfield further notes that Mercedes’
reason for “fiddling with the frame” is “Maximum Instantaneous
Visual Impact (MIVI). (77) This notion of MIVI is certainly not a new concept
in advertising, but it is a useful framework by which to examine the use of
letterboxing where none is warranted. In other words, Allen and foreign filmmakers
became associated with letterboxing because of a desire to control the visual
integrity of their creations. Thus, the cultural capital associated with Allen
and foreign films is also associated with their visual style, and furthermore,
their desire to maintain that style regardless of media format (i.e, film-to-video
transfer). This demands a bit more explanation. CinemaScope and its counterparts
were rolled out at a time when the motion picture industry was waging a profit
(and popularity) war against television. One of the primary draws of the wider
frame (not to mention color and stereo sound) was that it would not fit on the
small, black-and-white consumer television set. Therefore, to see a CinemaScope
film, consumers had to leave their homes in the suburbs and venture back into
the motion picture palaces. When films made after 1952 were licensed for broadcast
on television, they were panned and scanned, which Belton (1994) has argued
essentially amounts to a “recomposition” of the frame’s content.
(270) In this process, the wider negatives are panned and/or scanned horizontally
or re-edited with essential pieces of content lost completely. Ironically, the
widescreen formats, which were introduced to combat television, were aesthetically
dismembered in order to fit on television screens.
One of the initial ways
of dealing with the horrors of panning and scanning was to release films in
a letterbox format – the matting of the image with black bars at the top
and bottom of the image to preserve the film’s original composition but
shrinking the entire image to fit the reduced screen area. The letterboxing
technique therefore achieves both MIVI — another phrase for product differentiation
— and cultural significance simultaneously. Advertisers lease visual space
and/or airtime; ironically, by letterboxing their texts, advertisers are giving
away valuable visual real estate. In short, Allen and foreign films sacrificed
total image surface on the television screen to preserve their films’
artistic integrity and composition. Advertisers and other media producers use
letterboxing techniques for differentiation of product. In Garfield’s
words, “commercials have no such imperative” to use letterboxing,
but rather it is an authorial choice with the end goal being MIVI.
Therefore, letterboxed content
began with film-to-video transfers that were proprietary to television. The
letterbox process, which involves the masking of a portion of the image to achieve
the film content’s original aspect ratio, is one that provides a useful
function to filmmakers and their audiences by preserving the text’s original
format. However, when this process of letterboxing is appropriated to non-proprietary
formats such as online media, we must assume that the process of letterboxing
itself has meaning. Thus we are led to consider what does letterboxed content
mean?
A first consideration must
deal with mise-en-scene and how it is changed in a letterboxed frame. By constructing
a widescreen space in a native Academy ratio space, letterboxing manipulates
spatial relationships and their subsequent reception. As Garfield states, to
letterbox content when there is no imperative to do so is striving for MIVI.
However, once the “initial” attention is achieved, viewers are left
with content that has colonized a certain aspect ratio without their consent.
This concept demands a bit of unpacking. Consider your computer monitor or television
screen. More than likely it presents a 4:3 aspect ratio. Therefore, like letterboxed
films on VHS or DVD, monitor space that is available is masked without input
from the consumer. Thus, the content authors have made a decision to colonize
available monitor space. In other words, a consumer has a choice (often unbeknownst
to them, unfortunately) between a widescreen or full screen format for a film
or video. This is especially true with the proliferation of DVD formats, which
often offer both formats on a single disc. Therefore, consumers may choose how
much monitor (TV or computer) space they are willing to “sacrifice”
in viewing the text. With letterboxed ads however, this is not the case; the
decision to colonize monitor space has been made by the media producers and
consumers must view the matted content. Also, online advertising such as that
of BMW Films and Buick are dealing with audiences that have come to their ads,
rather than having been snared by MIVI or some other attention grabber. Media
producers state that “letterboxing simply works better from the standpoint
of cropping the images in the frame and creating a sense of . . . ‘visual
tension.’” (Vagoni, 1999, 48-50) Further, advertisers say that the
use of the letterboxing device allows “[a] spot to exhibit compositional
possibilities that the regular TV [format] would not have provided.” (Vagoni,
1999, 48-50) This “visual tension” and the resulting “compositional
possibilities” are what I have termed “colonization” with
regard to the visual image. In sum, content producers take a nod from the cultural
cache associated with letterboxed films, usually foreign or art-cinema films,
and utilize this aesthetic tradition by appropriating a consumer’s screen
space.
Once we are past the fact
that ad producers are colonizing space, then we are back to the question of
meaning. If we are to accept that letterboxing, because of its lineage from
Allen, foreign films and cinema in general, denotes “highbrow notions
of artistic merit and dramatic impact” we need to examine how these concepts
are delivered. (Vagoni, 11/08/99, 48-50) The notion of “visual tension”
is a significant one because both the BMW Films’ spots and Buick’s
ad rely upon the tension of the formatted space to deliver their content. By
assuming this cinematic visual style, the ads have already achieved the goal
of equation with cinematic formats. By equating their ads with cinema via the
letterboxing device, the advertisers imply that their products have merit based
on previous consumption of other media (cinema) with similar aesthetic characteristics.
Ironically, French New Wave
director and longtime Cahiers du Cinema critic Francois Truffaut admitted such
intentions when he decided to film The 400 Blows (1959) in CinemaScope. One
of the progenitors of the “foreign film cache” associated with letterboxing,
Truffaut says, “I had the rather naive feeling that the film would look
more professional, more stylized [in CinemaScope]; it would not be completely
naturalistic.” (Davis, 1993, 30-34) Truffaut desired a more professional
and stylized look that suspended naturalism, and believed that a wider format
held such possibilities. Advertisers have those same desires and choose the
letterbox format for similar effect.
BMW and Buick want nothing
more than for their brands to appear as “professional” and “stylized”
as possible. Further, the notion of suspended realism is of utmost significance
with regard to advertising. Advertisers expect consumers to “buy in”
to their constructions of the world within the ad and this will be discussed
in more detail with regard to the textual analysis of both Star and Tiger Trap.
These spots also have the added dimension of celebrity as Madonna and Tiger
Woods star in the BMW Films and Buick spots respectively. The suspension of
naturalism — the viewing of Madonna and Tiger Woods performing for consumers
— becomes important in the reception of the narrative but only after the
denaturalization of the monitor’s mise-en-scene has been achieved via
the letterboxing.
Video Gaming Aesthetics
Thus far, we have discussed
a range of options that may account for advertisers’ use of letterboxing
with regard to online ads. First, there is the notion of MIVI, which has attenuation
as its goal. However, the ads in question are online and therefore must be sought
out by the consumer so MIVI cannot be a sufficient reason alone. Next, there
is the notion of cultural clout and the association of letterboxing with the
“highbrow artistic merit” of quality films. While this idea also
is intriguing, it does not explain why advertisers would willingly surrender
so much vital visual real estate. Finally, consumers are usually viewing these
letterboxed ads on traditional 4:3 monitors via either television or computer
monitors. It is here that I think the online content providers have staked their
claim. Because online content faces many challenges — different operating
systems, monitor sizes, screen resolutions, and monitor widths not to mention
download speeds — it seems that the content producers want to achieve
MIVI and the panache of letterboxing by colonizing monitor space. In a discussion
of the aesthetics of computer window size, Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin
(2002) submit that a:
windowed interface does
not attempt to unify the space around any one point of view. Instead, each
text window defines its own verbal, each graphic window its own visual, point
of view. Windows may change scale quickly and radically, expanding to fill
the screen or shrinking to the size of an icon. … [The user] oscillates
wildly between manipulating the windows and examining their contents …
(33)
The implications of Bolter
and Grusin’s assessment of the windowed interface is significant. By stating
that a windowed environment does not attempt to unify any point of view, the
authors point to my characterization of advertisers’ goal in using letterboxing
to colonize; by blacking out areas of monitor space, content producers are able
to present a focal point, in much the same way as Formalist montage editing.
By re-drawing the frame boundaries within a monitor’s visual field, advertisers
focus a user’s attention to that which has been colonized and segregated.
Therefore, while a user may have a tendency to “oscillate wildly”
from window to window, the letterboxed window provides a focal point via its
visual separation and segregation. It is here that the online gaming literature
becomes more relevant.
Gaming, Cut-scenes
and Letterboxing
If a player of EA Sports’
PGA Championship video arcade game is fortunate enough to “hit”
an extraordinary golf “shot,” the aspect ratio of the game’s
interface changes from a traditional Academy aspect ratio (4:3) to a widescreen
aspect ratio, and more specifically to a letterboxed view. The actual full-screen,
4:3 visual field is thus squeezed vertically to focus the consumer’s attention
on the area the interface now provides. The game’s content producers have
colonized the visual field so that viewers’ attenuation is directed accordingly.
This cinematic flourish is accompanied by an aural heartbeat pounding and slow-motion
graphics to further enhance the exceptional quality of the “shot.”
With this “cut-scene,” EA Sports is exclaiming visually to the viewer,
“Hey, you are no longer a participant, you are now a spectator.”
(King and Kryzwinska, 2002, 11) Cut-scenes are narrative events whose importance
is usually signified by a shift in the composition of the visual space; an alteration
of the frame’s very mise-en-scene. In other words, the widescreen aesthetic
is deployed when something extraordinary is taking place which viewers are encouraged
to consume. Geoff King and Tanya Kryzwinska (2002) find that the deployment
of letterboxing at specific times during game play suggests cues for when players
should participate and when they should be spectators. King and Kryzwinska state
“the move into gameplay from cut-scenes . . . [is] typically presented
in a letterbox format to create a ‘cinematic’ effect…the change
in aspect ratio marks a movement from introductory exposition to the development
of the specific narrative events to be depicted in the film.” (17) These
so-called “cinematics” are visual cues that guide players’
reactions during game play. However, these cues are not always readily appreciated
and/or understood.
In reviewing EA Sports’
NHL 2002 (EA Sports currently has a virtual stranglehold on the
officially licensed sports game market), Dan James Kricke (6/25/02),
a fan, notes his dislike for the letterboxing because of its disempowering
potential for the gamer. Kricke writes:
For instance,
if you’ve got a breakaway, the game might switch to a letterbox
screen, the announcers will fade out and the camera will lean
in right behind your player. While this looks extremely cool,
it is horribly distracting. Similarly, there is a big save camera
that replays a big save made in that same letterbox fashion. Again,
while these options might be terrific if you are just watching
a game, they are quite awful to actually play with. (http://www.gamepartisan.com/sony/reviews/index.php?view=38)
Finally, the notion that
letterboxing encourages spectatorship rather than participation is a significant
point with regard to online advertisers’ choice of using the letterbox
aesthetic. This may seem a revelation given the preponderance of literature
regarding widescreen’s lineage with film and its association with “highbrow”
artistic media. However, computer monitors are traditionally not used for watching,
rather they are used for working. Thus, the letterbox aesthetic transforms the
work space into a leisure space. It cues the viewer, via the shift in aspect
ratio, that something different is now taking place. Further, because viewers
will recognize the letterbox aesthetic as it relates to film viewing, they will
be cued via the aspect ratio shift to now consume, rather than participate.
I am not suggesting here that consumers of such cut-scenes have no choice with
regard to active or passive consuming, but rather that media producers have
chosen an aesthetic technique to cue consumers as to appropriate actions. When
a cut-scene occurs, players are encouraged to simply consume. Monitor space
has been colonized and collapsed and such aesthetics signal to users a shift
in behavior is warranted. This last point is significant with regard to advertisers.
Advertising is built upon the notion of lack; that is, consumers’ lives
lack something, and it is the advertisers’ job to fill that void with
their products. Therefore, by prompting viewers to consume via the letterboxing
shift, advertisers may have achieved far more than MIVI or the colonization
of monitor space; they are attempting to cue consumption.
Screen space in
Star and Tiger Trap
As aforementioned, the use
of letterboxing the content of both BMW Films’ ad and Buick’s ad
is polysemic. The use of letterboxing is both a hailing device, and also one
that signifies a shift to consumption. All of these elements are problematized
when viewed upon a computer monitor. When Woody Allen chose to letterbox his
films for video release, he recognized that the space of the television monitor
must be reconfigured to retain the composition and visual style of his films.
Thus, by letterboxing their ads, both BMW and Buick are striving to retain their
look regardless of monitor shape and size. Therefore, it is useful to examine
how the letterbox space is used in each ad and to what end.
Additionally, one must recognize
that in viewing these ads on a computer monitor, there will be a
variety of competing windows, which further posits the necessity
of passive consumption. Regardless of operating system, the ads
will appear as widescreen windows among the other windows and/or
other applications on a computer desktop. Therefore, when viewing
online widescreen texts there is immediately a colonization of the
vertical axis delimited by the letterbox format. The black bars
denote not only the image field of the ad, but also they serve as
spatial demarcation separating the ad window from others on the
desktop (Figure 1).

Figure
1.
Beyond the aesthetics
of the window size on the computer’s desktop, one must consider
notions of aesthetic framing and composition that differentiates
widescreen formats from the 4:3 format. Ultimately, use of letterboxed
formats on traditional 4:3 monitors must be seen as an exploitation
and colonization of that space. However, both Charles Barr and Marshall
Deutelbaum have noted that widescreen composition involves different
framing strategies from that of the 4:3 ratio. Barr notes that directors
using CinemaScope allow their compositions to open and “encourage
participation” on the part of the spectator. In short, Barr
believes that the framing strategies of widescreen formats, specifically
CinemaScope, provide a different experience than that of a 4:3 image.
Deutelbaum (2003) examined some 100 anamorphic films and determined
that although the “photographed elements constantly change;
the frame is unchanging.” (73) Further, Deutelbaum asserts
that by quartering the frame horizontally, content producers create
distinctive framing strategies in anamorphic films.
Both Barr and
Deutelbaum’s assertions can be summed in the notion of horizontal
framing; that is, images across a greater width are composed differently
than those that are more symmetrically square and vertical. Thus,
the choice of letterboxing for the BMW and Buick ads is again a
decision to colonize space and maximize the cue for passive consumption
via the scopophilic notion of cinematic treatment of online content.
A frame from Star displays this horizontal strategy being used (Figure
2). All of the actors are framed in semi-long shot, and they are
spread across the width of the frame thus maximizing frontality.
Deutelbaum’s concept of quartering the image is of use here,
as the frame appears very balanced across its width. Further, superstar
Madonna is centered in the frame, and thus is the focus of the composition.
A similar framing technique is evident in Tiger Trap.

Figure 2.
Buick’s ad focuses
on Tiger Woods confronting unsuspecting golfers and then challenging
them to exchange golf shots with him, and the closest shot to the
pin wins a Buick SUV. There are many levels of address here regarding
consumption and notions of branding and celebrity, however I am
chiefly concerned with the ad’s visual style and its use of
widescreen. Notice the similarity of blocking in Buick’s Tiger
Trap to that of BMW Films’ Star (Figure 3). The actors are
arranged across the horizontal axis of the frame, and the depth
of field is not utilized. In Buick’s ad, this frontality and
the cinematography of the entire text is part of the spectacle.
The shoot was done in a guerilla style with camera operators “hidden”
all over the course to catch the golfers’ “true”
actions. The Buick spot also makes great effort to present multiple
perspectives via the use of split screen (Figures 4 and 5). The
use of split screen is a more significant justification of the letterbox
format than simply just MIVI or a desire for cinematics. The Buick
spot is actually less cinematic than is the BMW Films spot because
it is self-reflexive. The narrative begins with Woods acknowledging
the camera through direct address and allowing the spectator foreknowledge
of the plan (to challenge the “unsuspecting” golfers
to a competition for a Buick). Therefore, unlike the pure scopophilic
spectacle of Star, the Buick ad actually involves a certain level
of participation on the part of the viewer. In terms of the video
gaming aesthetic where the letterbox discourages participation,
the Buick ad encourages participation via both the narrative (Tiger’s
address) and the visual style (multiple perspectives and split screen).
These multiple screens are all segregated from other windows by
letterboxing, and thus again, Bolter and Grusin’s notion of
a non-focal windows interface is significant. The producers of Tiger
Trap recognize the lack of differentiation within a two-dimensional,
windowed environment. Therefore the letterboxing and split-screen
aesthetics offer viewers specific and demarcated areas upon which
to focus and consume.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.
Further, the Buick spot
is a fractured narrative that involves many “actors” and several
different plot lines, whereas the BMW Films’ text is a more traditional,
linear and cinematic narrative. However, the differences the two spots possess
in narrative structure are negated by the fact that both employ the letterbox
aesthetic. Both texts colonize the space of any 4:3 aspect ratio monitor on
which they are displayed, but neither has the “imperative” to do
so. We are back to our initial question: What does letterboxing mean in online
content?
Star is a more polished
and visually complex text than is Tiger Trap. Star utilizes filters
and complex moving camera shots, not to mention a high-speed automobile
chase. Tiger Trap on the other hand occurs on a golf course, albeit
one with 13 individual cameras and multiple perspectives. However,
while Star is a more visually flashy and cinematic text, Tiger Trap
demands more attention and participation as Barr suggested is required
with widescreen compositions. Barr however was speaking of viewing
a CinemaScope film in a theater with an enormous screen, which virtually
enveloped its spectators similar to a modern IMAX film experience
today. Barr could not have knowledge of modern consumption of online
media content. Therefore, is the widescreen aesthetic of Barr’s
CinemaScope applicable to Star and Tiger Trap? I posit that it is
but on a different scale. Neither ad can compare to the sheer grandeur
and size of a CinemaScope film viewed in a theater, nor do they
have the imperative to do so. However, by utilizing a letterbox
aesthetic, both ads hail their spectators in a similar fashion.
Both colonize a spectator’s monitor space and therefore create
spectacle via the construction of a barrier between the ad content
and the other software applications available on the computer screen’s
desktop. Therefore, while CinemaScope was a reaction to television’s
4:3 screen, so is the widescreen aesthetic of letterboxed ads. They
command control and demarcation of the desktop space via a visual
barrier (masking bars) and thus attempt to harness the spectator’s
attention by providing a focal point within an unfocused multi-windowed
interface.

Figure 5.
What of Kricke’s and
King and Kryzwinska’s notions of the shift in aspect ratio? Kricke found
the letterbox aesthetic discouraged interactivity in game play, while King and
Kryzwinska noted the importance of cut-scenes in terms of cueing gamers when
participation was warranted. While there is no physical participation with either
Star or Tiger Trap (aside from finding the URL and downloading the content),
the shift in aspect ratio and its demarcating effect from other software and/or
windows on the computer screen requires some visual attenuation. Again, the
colonization of monitor space that takes place when a spectator views this online
content embodies the binaries of work vs. leisure and productivity vs. consumption.
Computer work space is colonized by the video game or online ad interface —
the letterbox masking isolates the work space portion of the monitor from the
letterboxed, passive consumption portion that video game and ad producers want
viewers to consume.
Discussion
In this age of digital media
convergence, online letterboxed media content that is designed for consumption
on a computer monitor’s desktop is an intriguing and significant concept.
As our television screens slowly become our computer screens and vice versa,
notions of screen space and how media competes for our attention will become
more and more important. I do not feel that this essay is sufficient to answer
the question of what a widescreen aesthetic choice such as letterboxing means
intrinsically.
However, in
asking how online widescreen content differs from critical approaches
to traditional widescreen formats, I feel that this paper serves
the purpose of adding to the literature of both film studies and
that of online media aesthetics. Certainly, further scholarship
in the direction of online media colonizing desktop space and the
notions of participation/passivity are intriguing lines of inquiry.
I feel the textual
analysis herein is demonstrative that letterboxed ad content means
more than simply MIVI. The colonization of monitor space provides
a focal point within an unfocused media-rich environment. Traditional
critical responses of widescreen’s appeal, such as those proffered
by Barr, Bazin and Belton, assert that widescreen film formats encourage
viewer participation via the lack of edits. Bazin and others prophesied
that this lack of montage in widescreen films would create a new
kind of cinematic experience — one where the filmmakers did
not guide the spectator’s gaze, but rather viewers were liberated
and free to roam about the wide visual field. This essay, however,
concludes that online content authors utilize widescreen aesthetic
choices for quite opposite reasons. The texts discussed here represent
a variety of possibilities with regard to the letterbox technique’s
ability to cue spectators as to when participation is warranted
and/or when consumption is encouraged.
Certainly, filmmakers and
video distributors have long understood the importance of retaining control
of the visual frame regardless of display format. Therefore, it comes as no
surprise that advertising and video games have adopted such strategies to attempt
to guide consumers’ attention. More significant, but subsequently more
nebulous, is the binary of active vs. passive consumption and the use of letterboxing
to encourage one state over the other. When online content producers make the
decision to present a colonized visual field, they are attempting to engage
consumers’ visual attention. As aforementioned, video gamers may participate
during the course of game play, but cut-scenes cue gamers by the alteration
of available screen space to set down their controllers (literally surrendering
control) and consume the “cinematics.” Similarly, when a consumer
engages the video interface of either Star or Tiger Trap, they surrender their
control over their monitor’s screen space to the colonization of the advertising
content. As consumers then, advertisers have a mode of production by which they
may cue us when to consume by controlling the visual fields we gaze upon. I
am not suggesting a magic bullet with regard to widescreen’s ability to
cue an active vs. passive state; however content producers understand that letterboxed
visuals mean something different than traditional 4:3 ratios, and this essay
is simply one step in discovering what those meanings are and how they are communicated.
References
Barr, Charles. “CinemaScope:
Before and After,” Film Quarterly 16, no. 4 (Summer 1963).
Belton, John. Widescreen
Cinema. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.
Belton, John. American Cinema/American
Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.
Bolter, Jay David and Richard
Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002.
Bordwell, David. “Widescreen
Aesthetics and Mise En Scene Criticism,” Velvet Light Trap, no.21 (Summer
1985), 118-125.
Davis, Helene Laroche. “Reminiscing
about Shoot the Piano Player.” Cineaste. Mar93, Vol. 19(4), 30-34
Garfield, Bob. “Innovation
boxes out effective approach in Mercedes-Benz ads.” Advertising Age. 5/11/92,
Vol. 63(19), 77.
King, Geoff and Tanya Kryzwinska.
Screenplay: Cinema/videogames/interfaces. New York: Wallflower Press. 2002,
17.
Kricke, Dan James. (06/25/2002).
NHL 2002 review. http://www.gamepartisan.com/sony/reviews/index.php?view=38
Truffaut, Francois. “En
avoir en plein la vue.” Cahiers du Cinema, no. 25(July 1953): 22-3.
Vagoni, Anthony. “Out
of the box.” Advertising Age. Vol. 70(46), 11/08/99, 48-50.
|
|
|