Wes Anderson’s New Movie Has Three Different Widths. Here’s Why.

Brow Beat
Slate's Culture Blog
March 6 2014 12:55 PM

The Aspect Ratios of The Grand Budapest Hotel

gbh_hotel

Fox Searchlight

The Grand Budapest Hotel, the new Wes Anderson movie, is presented in not one but three aspect ratios. That term, aspect ratio, refers to the proportion of a movie’s width to its height—so, e.g., one of the most common formats for major theatrical releases in the U.S. is 1.85:1, with the projected image almost twice as wide as it is tall. (The best-selling HD TVs have a similar ratio, 1.78:1.) Anderson uses that familiar format only briefly in Grand Budapest, though, for scenes at the beginning and end of the movie.

The majority of the film is presented in the so-called Academy ratio, 1.375:1. The name derives from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which set that ratio as the standard for studio films in 1932. And a few sequences of The Grand Budapest Hotel are presented in an anamorphic widescreen ratio, 2.35:1.

Advertisement

Each of the three ratios is used to reflect cinematic history during the respective period that it depicts. How so? Below, an illustrated explanation.

1985 to the Present, More or Less
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1

gbh_book_resized

The movie is bookended, so to speak, by snowy present-day scenes of a young woman holding a cherished copy of The Grand Budapest Hotel, a work of fiction, and leaving a key at a monument to its author, listed in the credits as Author. After the first of these snowy scenes, the movie cuts to Author himself, played in advanced age by Tom Wilkinson. The year is 1985.

gbh_wilkinson_resized

These scenes are in the 1:85:1 ratio, which became a standard format for theatrical releases starting in 1953, and so reads easily as “the present” to a moviegoer. Is 1985 a deliberate echo of 1:85? Perhaps.

The 1960s
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1

gbh_law_resized

The Author in his advanced years explains that his stories—such as the ones in his book The Grand Budapest Hotel, presumably—were often told to him by other people. The movie then cuts to the Author in his younger days, when he is played by Jude Law.

The year is 1968, and for these scenes Anderson employs a widescreen format—specifically, he told critic Matt Zoller Seitz, author of The Wes Anderson Collection, 2:35:1. From Rushmore through Fantastic Mr. Fox, all of Anderson’s movies are in a widescreen format close to this one. Interestingly, Moonrise Kingdom, which, like these scenes, is set in the 1960s, uses the 1.85:1 format that here Anderson employs for later years. Nonetheless, using widescreen for the 1960s makes sense: It was in the 1950s and 1960s that the movies got wide, in part as a reaction to the rise of the small screen (television, that is).

The 1930s
Aspect Ratio: 1.37:1

gbh_elevator_resized_2

The younger, Jude-law-embodied version of Author meets a man named Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham), who tells him a story about his own life that takes place in 1932. That is also the year that the Academy ratio was formally established as the studio standard. (Coincidence? We’re guessing not.) Anderson told Seitz that he had long wanted to make a movie in this format. “My plan is to shoot my next movie in 1.33:1,” he said at the time. (Anderson later acknowledged that it’s not 1.33, but 1.37, though the difference, visually speaking, is miniscule: “1.33 is what I always thought it was, but then the German camera guys are very precise … I was always told 1.33, but it’s not, apparently. It’s a tiny bit wider, I guess.”)

The multilayered formatting of The Grand Budapest Hotel seems to have started with the fervent wish to film in the Academy ratio. “It’s not as wide,” Robert Yeoman, Anderson’s long time cinematographer, says, “but you have more up-and-down, you see ceilings a lot more, and it’s a little bit looser. It’s very different from what we’ve done before, and I think both Wes and I really had a lot of fun.”

It certainly seemed that way to us. What’s more, the three-tiered presentation also reflects the multiple narrative ‘lenses’ through which the movie moves: from a finished book to the book’s author to the person who told the story to the author in the first place.

David Haglund is a senior editor at Slate. He runs Brow Beat, Slate's culture blog.

Aisha Harris is a Slate staff writer.

TODAY IN SLATE

Culturebox

The End of Pregnancy

And the inevitable rise of the artificial womb.

Doctor Tests Positive for Ebola in New York City

How a Company You’ve Never Heard of Took Control of the Entire Porn Industry

The Hot New Strategy for Desperate Democrats

Blame China for everything.

The Questions That Michael Brown’s Autopsies Can’t Answer

Foreigners

Kiev Used to Be an Easygoing Place

Now it’s descending into madness.

Technology

Don’t Just Sit There

How to be more productive during your commute.

There Has Never Been a Comic Book Character Like John Constantine

Which Came First, the Word Chicken or the Word Egg?

  News & Politics
The Slate Quiz
Oct. 24 2014 12:10 AM Play the Slate News Quiz With Jeopardy! superchampion Ken Jennings.
  Business
Moneybox
Oct. 23 2014 5:53 PM Amazon Investors Suddenly Bearish on Losing Money
  Life
Outward
Oct. 23 2014 5:08 PM Why Is an Obscure 1968 Documentary in the Opening Credits of Transparent?
  Double X
The XX Factor
Oct. 23 2014 11:33 AM Watch Little Princesses Curse for the Feminist Cause
  Slate Plus
Working
Oct. 23 2014 11:28 AM Slate’s Working Podcast: Episode 2 Transcript Read what David Plotz asked Dr. Meri Kolbrener about her workday.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Oct. 23 2014 6:55 PM A Goodfellas Actor Sued The Simpsons for Stealing His Likeness. Does He Have a Case?
  Technology
Technology
Oct. 23 2014 11:47 PM Don’t Just Sit There How to be more productive during your commute.
  Health & Science
Science
Oct. 23 2014 5:42 PM Seriously, Evolution: WTF? Why I love the most awkward, absurd, hacked-together species.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Oct. 20 2014 5:09 PM Keepaway, on Three. Ready—Break! On his record-breaking touchdown pass, Peyton Manning couldn’t even leave the celebration to chance.