The first to use wide screen was Abel Gance in his 1927 film, Napoleon. This 6 hour biopic finishes with a twenty minute sequence in which 3 images are combined across 3 screens. In 1952, CINERAMA was introduced, which pretty much copied the same idea. Three cameras were linked and synchronized together recording the action at the same time. In the exhibition stage, 3 linked projectors were used for the screening of the film.
The film, “Network”, written by, Paddy Chayefsky, is a timeless classic. The reason is simple-Chayefsky wrote a perfect four act structure, with turning points every 20 minutes, creating an exemplary piece of intellectual frenzy. The scriptwriter, Robert McKee, would say that the use of narration is a copout; but I believe the VO conveys the boring, indispensable information about television ratings pertinent to the story. Forty years later not much has changed. When we watch the scenes between William Holden and Faye Dunaway and change the word television to Internet, it could be present day. The new generation is growing up in front of smaller screens, but the powers that be have the exact same agenda. Instead of ratings numbers, the buzz words are “friends’, “page visits", and bounce rates.
If you would like to learn
People who critique moving pictures fall into 3 general classes:
1. Reviewers - are generally journalists who describe the contents and general tone of a movie, with only incidental emphasis on aesthetic evaluation.
2. Critics - are also journalists for the most part, but their emphasis is more on evaluation than on mere content description.
3. Theorists - are usually professional academics, often the authors of books on how movies can be studied on amore philosophical level.
I'm a film critic and I like to write about films that are exceptional and stand above the rest.
"The role of the critic is to help people see what is in the work, what is in it that shouldn't be, what is not in it that could be. He is a good critic if he helps people understand more about the work that they could see for themselves; he is a great critic, if by his understandings and feeling for the work, by his passion, he can excite people so that they want to experience more of the art that is there, waiting to be seized. He is not necessarily bad critic if he makes errors in judgement. He is a bad critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, enlarge the interests and understanding of his audience. The art of the critic is to transmit his knowledge of and enthusiasm for art to others." ( Pauline Kael )