Why this topic?
As it is not yet clear exactly which topic I would like to cover in my master’s thesis, I have chosen the third topic of my first entry for my second blog post, adapted it slightly and elaborated on it further. I chose this topic because it has become very relevant in today’s world, especially as the majority of moving image content on social media is now filmed and published in portrait format. I am interested in how this change in frame size influences general film production, but also the effect this frame size has on consumer perception. As part of my further research, I focused on the effects of the increased use of portrait format in film production and especially on social media. I would like to take a closer look at these aspects.
- Aesthetic choices: Reasons why filmmakers are increasingly choosing portrait format and how these choices affect the aesthetic quality and visual impact of the content produced.
- Narrative adaptations: Changes to the narrative structure and general construction of content.
- Viewer experience: An assessment of how the switch to portrait format affects the way viewers consume content and what emotional responses or interactions are enhanced.
- Creative freedom and restrictions: Does the shift to portrait format bring increased creative restrictions or does this format allow more freedom to be creative?
This blog post aims to develop an understanding of how the trend towards portrait format in film production is affecting the industry and what implications this has for viewer perception and interaction.
Looking back…
In the transformative year of 1930, cinema underwent a crucial juncture when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences proposed standardizing horizontal film frames. Sergei Eisenstein, a prominent filmmaker of the time, challenged the prevailing widescreen narrative, advocating for what he termed a „dynamic square“ that would embrace both horizontal and vertical compositions. Despite Eisenstein’s compelling arguments, the Academy chose to adopt the 1.375:1 aspect ratio, solidifying the widescreen format’s dominance in the cinematic landscape. This decision marked a historical turning point, shaping the trajectory of aspect ratios for decades to come. Widescreen cinematography became synonymous with the cinematic experience, with filmmakers adapting their compositions to fit the expansive frame. The widescreen format thrived, especially as the film industry faced challenges from the burgeoning popularity of television. However, vertical filmmaking did not disappear entirely. It found refuge in art cinema, where experimentation with unconventional aspect ratios persisted throughout the 20th century. Notable filmmakers like Robert Whitman, Jaroslav Flic, and Brian Eno explored vertical, square, and circular frames, pushing the boundaries of traditional cinematic storytelling. The 21st century witnessed a resurgence of interest in vertical framing, spurred by academics like David Bordwell. His essay on Paolo Gioli’s vertical cinema reignited discussions about challenging the dominance of horizontal framing. Gioli’s innovative works, particularly ‚Anonimatograph‘ (1972), showcased the expressive potential of vertical compositions, offering new perspectives on space, time, and corporeality. Contrary to conventional narratives, the history of cinema reveals instances of vertical framing dating back to D.W. Griffith’s ‚Intolerance‘ (1916). Even within widescreen compositions, filmmakers strategically employed masks and sub-framing techniques to introduce vertical elements. For example, Stanley Kubrick’s iconic scene in ‚The Shining‘ (1980) leveraged a vertical subframe to intensify the visual impact. Despite these historical precedents, contemporary literature often portrays vertical framing as an anomaly, overlooking its nuanced and significant role in shaping cinematic imagery. Understanding this rich history sheds light on the dynamic relationship between aspect ratios and storytelling, urging a reconsideration of vertical compositions in the broader cinematic discourse. (cf. Clayton, 2021, S.1-4)
How is it today?
What was still a rarity back then is now standard: portrait-format videos have become indispensable, especially on social networks.
The rise of smartphones and platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok has also changed the type of content that is consumed today.
What used to be the television and the classic 1.78:1 aspect ratio is now the smartphone and the 1:1.78 format turned upside down.
And it’s not just the format itself that has changed, but also the way it is produced and consumed – here are a few examples of topics on which the aspect ratio had a big influence on.
On Cameras
Professional film cameras are not designed exclusively for vertical filming, leaving mobile devices as the primary option for optimized vertical recording in social media. While professional cameras can record vertically by turning on their side, this method poses stability challenges and demands additional equipment for secure rigging and effective cable management. The current filmmaking equipment is tailored for horizontal production, and advancements in technology are anticipated in response to increasing demand for vertical content. (cf. Clayton, 2019, S.8)
Power and Vulnerability
Psychologically, height symbolizes power, and classical filmmaking often employs low-angle shots for this effect. In vertical frames, this power dynamic is intensified, while looking down on a subject accentuates vulnerability. Without angles, a vertical frame can showcase vulnerability to nature, like walking in rain or swimming underwater.
(cf. Clayton, 2019, S.4)
On Depth
Capturing descents like underwater exploration, skydiving, or entering caves is challenging in a horizontal frame, often requiring a wide shot. Contrary to conveying failure, intentional downward journeys symbolize bravery and adventure for a protagonist. The vertical frame inherently accommodates upward and downward movements, enabling dynamic framing that emphasizes depth and height. High and low-angled shots enhance drama and perspective in portraying these actions. (cf. Clayton, 2019, S.5)
On Shot Sizes and Wasted Space
In traditional horizontal filmmaking, poorly framed shots often result in wasted space above or behind the subject’s head. Proper framing typically positions the subject just above the head, aligning the eyes with the upper line of thirds. However, in vertical filmmaking, where the frame naturally accommodates the vertical human form, conventional shot sizes need reconsideration. For instance, a horizontal close-up, measured to the shoulders, becomes an extreme close-up in a vertical frame, filling a significant portion of the screen. This prompts a question: should shot classifications be redefined for vertical filmmaking, or should shot sizes be executed differently? The inclination is towards the latter.
(cf. Clayton, 2019, S.6-7)
Questions like these are the reason why I want to take a closer look at this topic in the future.
The future of content consumed on mobile devices lies in portrait format and it will therefore continue to be very important to take a closer look at how the workflow, recording techniques and processing of content can be optimised, but it will also be very exciting to find out what the long-term consequences are for consumers and whether and, if so, how the perception of certain content changes.
What´s next?
- More research on the perception of portrait and landscape format
- Find out what possibilities the portrait format offers and check whether there is more potential.
- Find examples in which the portrait format is compared with the landscape format.
- Produce content in portrait and landscape format and check the effect on a test group.
Bibliography:
Clayton, R. (2019). Filmmaking Theory for Vertical Video Production. In The International Academic Forum. Abgerufen am 11. November 2023, von https://papers.iafor.org/submission52556/
Clayton, R. (2021): The Context of Vertical Filmmaking Literature, Quarterly
Review of Film and Video, DOI: 10.1080/10509208.2021.1874853
