When I think about all the powers that cinema has, the one that I find most striking, is its juxtaposing ability. Juxtaposing is placing two starkly contrasting elements together, only to create something equally distinct from the both of them! Sorcerous power isn’t it? The contrast could be between two images in a film, or it could be within the Mise en Scène of the image. I believe any cinematic experience stems from this very arrangement. A film is always screened at two places, in tandem. While being projected on the screen, it is also being visualised within the minds of the audience. Two aspects gain importance in this scenario. What does the Director want to show and how does he or she do it? The ‘what’ is the plot chosen by the director. The ‘how’ is the expression of the stand taken by the director. The technical aspects of the film are dependent on the expression of this stance, or it’s style. Given the role that technique plays in the aesthetics of a film, the decisions which have an impact on the technical aspects are very crucial to the film. Take for example, a parameter as simple as the aspect ratio. Owing to the extensive experiments on viewing angles, there are multiple aspect ratios like 4:3, 16:9, 1:1.88, 1:2.35 etc. some used frequently and some, rarely. It’s common practice for directors to prefer a specific aspect ratio for a specific political stance in their films. One of the prominent directors of Kannada Cinema, Girish Kasaravalli, had once explained his choice of the 1:1.88 aspect ratio for some of his films, and how it depicted his stance, the best. Such deep yet subtle, technical decisions may not always be noticed by the audience. But these decisions have a profound impact on the way the film is received.

[tags: Film technology, Aesthetics]