La La Land – Deep Dive

Context –

La La Land was produced by Summit Entertainment for a modest $30 million in comparison to the $200 million budget for Rogue One released in the same year. However, the budget was a big step up for Chazelle, who first directed Whiplash in 2014 with a $3.3 million indie film budget in order to establish himself and gain funding for La La Land, his passion project. Chazelle and his college roommate Justin Hurwitz wrote the script and score for La La Land first, and after the success of Whiplash were able to secure Lionsgate’s support. The film was an unusual proposal for a big Hollywood studio and Chazelle was given artistic freedom, shooting it on location in Los Angeles in 42 days.

La La Land is a nostalgic musical genre film, looking back on early jazz and Golden Age of Hollywood cinema. Its release in 2017 perhaps reflects or offers the desire to escape during the Trump presidency, much as musicals were at their height as escapist entertainment during World War II. The film uses intertextual references, such as Sebastian swinging round the lamppost like Don in Singin’ in the Rain’, which evokes fond memories of the films and the period of cinema in which they were created. Chazelle also utilises the cinematography of the film to pay tribute to musicals, filming big musical numbers in seemingly one take (there are a few hidden cuts) just as classical Hollywood musicals did.

The film’s nostalgia has been criticised for its erasure of black influence on jazz and racial conflicts that are tightly linked with the genre. Additionally, the desire to look back is usually associated with conservatism, which is what contributed to the election of Donald Trump, with his slogan of ‘Make America Great Again’. Therefore there is an odd irony in the nostalgic sentiment the film conveys that reflected contemporary feeling, and the escape into the past that it provides from a turbulent time under the Trump administration.

Chazelle uses a 2:55:1 Cinemascope ratio in the film, which mimics the style of ‘Fred and Ginger’ musicals in the 1930s, but is rarely used today. This serves to display the vastness of Los Angles in addition to referring back to classical Hollywood. The film shows off LA in iconic locations, such as the Griffith Observatory, although the interior location had to be shot on a designed art noveau-style set because the real Griffith Observatory had undergone renovations which made it look too modern and did not fit the dreamy, nostalgic feeling Chazelle was aiming for.

Aesthetics –

La La Land blends the past and present in its aesthetics, from the use of the 2:55:1 aspect ratio, to the props and costumes. Apart from Seb’s 1982 Buick Rivera, most of the cars are modern including Mia’s Prius, which forms part of a visual joke about everyone in LA driving a Prius, but there is also the inclusion of some 1960s French and Italian cars to hint at the past.

The costumes in every scene are bright and colourful, from the variety in the opening ‘Another Day in the Sun’ scene to Mia’s bold blue dress for the party and her iconic yellow one. This shows the vibrancy of the people in LA and allows them to stand out from their backgrounds.

However, the backgrounds are also made beautiful, despite being typically bland locations, like the Freeway 105 in the opening number. The regular locations root the film in reality, but are coloured and lighted to give a more ‘fairytale’ feeling. This fits with Chazelle’s aim of making a “love song to Los Angeles” in the same way as other films have done to New York or Paris, for example, with their more recognised and typically beautiful setting.

A particularly aesthetically striking scene is the dinner at Sebastian’s apartment, with very dark lighting and green tones, which create a claustrophobic feel and reflects the intensity between the two characters, who are having an argument. Throughout the film, Chazelle straddles the line between reality and fantasy, using the film’s aesthetic to manage this. Particularly, the editing affects the response to the different scenes, with long takes in the musical scenes to allow the expansion of the film as it bursts out on the screen. In contrast, the more mundane, everyday life scenes have a much faster pace of editing.

Representation –

Age: Originally cast with Emma Watson and Miles Teller, Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling eventually ended up playing the parts of Mia and Sebastian, which changed the ages and perspectives of the characters. Instead of being fresh-faced, idealistic young adults, they became more weary and experienced. Sebastian particularly has a jaded and cynical perspective on life that would have not been possible with the younger Miles Teller. Similarly, Mia became more of a struggling actress who is fed up of the constant rejections rather than someone new to the game. This change in casting gives more urgency to the characters’ dreams, as they have spent (or wasted, as they sometimes feel) so much time on them already to the detriment to the rest of their lives.

Gender: The film has a male and female lead, which should provide balance, although there is some criticism that Mia is a passive character, fitting with typical portrayals of women in media and relationships. Sebastian takes charge by finding Mia to ask her out, persuading her to write and perform her show and driving her to her big audition. Additionally, she is encouraged to admire and support his artistic pursuits, as he teaches her to love jazz and she repeatedly watches his performances, whilst he fails to show up even for her opening night.

However, it is arguably Mia who drives the narrative, as we are first positioned with her and then follow the story of her success and fulfilment rather than Sebastian’s. The story explores her birth as an artist, as she ultimately creates something new with the film that breaks conventional casting and writing processes and makes her famous. In contrast, Sebastian is stuck in the past, recycling the old and only remixing when forced to by his friend. Therefore, it is Mia who achieves most success and is able to walk away from Sebastian with her new family and life at the end, rather than live in the past.

Ethnicity: There has been significant criticism for the lack of African-American representation in the film, especially with its focus on jazz which is historically rooted in black experiences. The only major black character in the film is Keith, played by John Legend, who is criticised by Sebastian for not staying true to what jazz really is. This is highly problematic for a white character to try and protect ‘pure jazz’, whilst suggesting his black friend has sold out to become commercially successful. Sebastian is also presented as the one to teach us and Mia about jazz, which is similarly problematic as he passes over the black influence on the genre.

Ideology –

Mainstream Hollywood films often present dominant ideologies, reinforcing societal expectations, often in terms of gender, relationships and power. La La Land initially seems to fit with the dominant ideology that heterosexual romance is most common and men are more active than women in striving for their dreams. Additionally, the idea of the American Dream plays a big part in the film, where both main characters believe they can achieve their high aspirations and they ultimately do, although as is typical for presentations of the American Dream, it fails to acknowledge whether everyone really can achieve this, including minorities. For example, whilst Keith is very successful with his modern jazz band, we see his success through the eyes of Sebastian, who views it as selling out and not a pure love of jazz, therefore this challenges the notion that Keith is happy, fulfilled and has achieved the American Dream.

The film does show a problematically nostalgic return to the past, glazing over racial discrimination, homophobia and gender inequality whilst it focuses on its white, heterosexual leads. It is almost self-consciously apolitical, and seeks to return to a world where this was accepted; Sebastian’s protection is of a jazz that was not political and not engaged with the Civil Rights movement.

However, through the character of Mia, the film is able to challenge the idea of nostalgia and question the benefits of living in the past. Although she has been criticised as a passive character and seems to fit with dominant ideology when she finds success, but also settles down with a family at the end, we can apply a feminist interpretation to her, which critics such as Anna Leszkiewitz have promoted.

The film initially positions us with the character of Mia as we discover her dreams, ambitions and struggles in life, whereas Sebastian only first appears as a main character after 17 minutes of the film. Additionally, Mia is always the audience member watching Seb, which contributes to the idea that she is passive, yet the camera is more often focused on her reaction to what she is watching, rather than the performance itself, suggesting her importance. Leszkiewitz supports this by arguing that “We rarely see [Seb] perform if not through [Mia’s] gaze, and we see her emotionally develop through her evolving reactions to his music.”

The first time Mia and Seb actually meet is in the restaurant where Seb is playing piano. Mia enters the restaurant whilst we are positioned with her, and the audience expects to see Sebastian through her eyes, thus inverting the male gaze; however, Chazelle cuts away before we see him and positions us with Sebastian in his car, taking us through his perspective before returning to the restaurant, where Mia and Seb’s gazes meet as equals.

Spectatorship –

Audiences respond differently to films based on factors such as where they watched the film, age and gender, all of which can have an affect on how they interpreted La La Land. In particular, the gender and racial criticism of La La Land shows that people can take an oppositional reading, where Sebastian’s obsession with jazz is self-indulgent and self-righteous, compared to Keith’s innovative and exciting take on jazz. The film has also been criticised for appearing a male fantasy about artistic integrity, in which Mia is a passive audience member, who supports him but fails to actively pursue her own dreams.

However, the film challenges what it is to be the audience: its intertextual references make the audience conscious that they are experiencing a film and creates an active role for them to spot the references. Similarly, in the film, Mia is a consumer of art and enjoys jazz, cinema and theatre, but goes on to be active in her role towards them; for example, she continues the movie date by taking Sebastian to the location in Rebel Without a Cause and uses the setting for her own purpose, rather than just mimicking the film. Mia is ultimately the one with the dream-life at the end of the film, we follow her from her house on her journey and then as she stumbles across Seb’s bar and whilst she again watches him, she is the active one able to walk out and back into her real life as a movie star, not just Sebastian’s girlfriend. This is perhaps not the preferred meaning of the text, which focuses on the relationship between the two and the dreams that drive their life, but the sacrifice that has to be made.

Beasts of the Southern Wild – Deep Dive

Context –

Beasts of the Southern Wild is an independent film, as it is funded by non-Hollywood financing, has elements of risk-taking, and has a personal vision that values art over money. The focus of the film on poverty and natural disasters does not align with mainstream cinema output and it only had a limited release in four US cinemas, having been produced by Court 13 for $1.8 million and funded mostly by Cinereach, a not-for-profit organisation. The film went on to gross $21 million worldwide, although the motivation for making the film was driven by the desire to tell the story rather than profit, which can be seen by the exploration of a character (Hushpuppy) above pure action and entertainment. Additionally, the film forgoes a typical Hollywood happy ending, instead opting to leave the viewer questioning the fates of the characters in their world.

Beasts of the Southern Wild focuses on a natural disaster and the impact this has on its main black characters, reflecting the reality of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina, which disproportionally affected people of colour and those in poverty. New Orleans particularly felt the effects and Zeitlin “live[s] in New Orleans [so] was interested in telling a story about people who are staying in South Louisiana and why they’re holding on.” The governmental response to Hurricane Katrina was criticised for being slow and ineffectual in a way that it might not have been had the demographic of those affected been different. Zeitlin claims he did not intend the film to be a political one, but it certainly resonates strongly today in light of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The film was very well received at Sundance Festival, and has won 74 awards, which generated enough publicity to warrant its screening in 318 cinemas. In addition to its festival awards, Beasts of the Southern Wild was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actress, making Quvenzhané Wallis the youngest nominee in history at just age nine. The announcement of Oscar nominations caused a rise in box office takings, acting as great publicity for the film.

In order to aid a wider release, Beasts of the Southern Wild was distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures, part of the Fox conglomerate. Using a major studio for distribution means the film’s release benefits from their experience and resources, so Beasts of the Southern Wild was able to attract audiences on the big screen and encourage press reviews. The blu-ray and DVD release, also by 20th Century Fox, then took an additional $11 million.

Aesthetics –

Zeitlin’s aesthetic inspiration comes partly from documentaries and he wanted to utilise close, detailed shots of nature to mimic a child’s fascination with the world around them. He also takes opportunities in the film to create beautiful shots without the need to drive on the narrative; for example, when Hushpuppy looks for her mother in the Elysian Fields scene, there are soft twinkling lights to create a beautiful yet strange environment, reflecting Hushpuppy’s wonder as she enters.

Representation –

Age: The focus of the film is on Hushpuppy as a child of six, compared to the adults around her, including her father. She respects his authority and follows his example, shown by her referring to what “Daddy says” in her narration as she grows up with him as her only parental influence. Wink is shown to be important in the community, as he instructs on how to blow up the levee and is central to the community. As a father, Wink shows two sides: he teaches Hushpuppy how to survive, but also has angry outbursts as a result of his illness, which Hushpuppy does not fully understand. For a child, she has a lot of independence, even having her own house and cooking, but she desires a closer bond with her father and her mother who she does not know. Hushpuppy takes on leadership from her father at his death and she is the one to stand up to the aurochs without fear.

Gender: Wink reinforces the idea of strength as a masculine quality to Hushpuppy and taunts her for “being a stupid little girl” at times, instead praising through calling her “the man” when she accepts his challenges of strength. Hushpuppy engages in an arm wrestle and learns skills from her father, such as catching and gutting fish and is influenced by his promotion of strong masculinity, feeling uncomfortable when dressed in a stereotypically feminine way in the hospital.

Ethnicity: The film offers representation of a community which includes black people and everyone has the same experience. However, there has been criticism of the film for its use of troubling stereotypes, made worse by the fact that Zeitlin and co-writer Lucy Alibar are both white. bell hooks’ criticises the child version of the ‘strong black female matriarch’ that Hushpuppy represents and argues that Wink embodies all the racist stereotypes that media presents as part of black masculinity. All the inhabitants of the Bathtub are presented as poor, dirty and animalistic, unwilling to be helped by ‘civilisation’, as represented by the hospital. The adults are drunk, aggressive, angry and inattentive, which is a concerning portrayal particularly of the black characters.

A positive aspect of the film is the casting on non-professional actors to play the roles. Dwight Henry plays Wink and personally experienced the impacts of Hurricane Katrina, making him a suitable choice to portray a character who endures a similar catastrophe as he “understand[s] a lot of what the people in that movie, who live on that island, what they go through.” Similarly, Quvenzhané Wallis is naturalistic in her performance because part of her personality and world-view were incorporated into the character, which means the characters are more reflective of real black people and their experiences.

Ideology –

As an independent film, Beasts of the Southern Wild does not necessarily reflect the dominant ideologies of American culture, such as capitalism and emphasis on family above community. Therefore, it is interesting to apply a Marxist lens to the film, which encourages a challenge to Hollywood’s traditional narrative structure and advocates for the freedom of the viewer to interpret the film as they choose.

In some ways, Beasts of the Southern Wild does not adhere to Marxist film principles, as Zeitlin positions the audience with Hushpuppy and encourages a certain emotional response to her through his shot choices; for example, close-ups of her face when her father is dying. Additionally, the Bathtub community takes a somewhat background seat to the relationship between Wink and Hushpuppy, which fits with dominant American ideology of family over friends.

However, the film overall addresses the situation a specific community is going through and their shared experiences, using Hushpuppy as the connection between the audience and this community. The film challenges accepted society by showing it as a threat to the Bathtub community, such as the forceful removal of them from their home, when they are taken to the hospital and made to conform with Hushpuppy wearing a dress that makes her uncomfortable.

Throughout the film, community and nature are praised instead of capitalism and wealth, which fits with the desires of Marxist theorists. In fact, the two worlds are separated, both literally, with “the wall that cuts [Hushpuppy and her community] off” and societally. The Bathtub community has low income and living standards, which challenges what portrayed on-screen in mainstream cinema. This representation is particularly important in the modern world, where Trump’s presidency sought to exploit social divisions rather than ease them. We are encouraged to support the ‘underdog’ community and admire their survival in the challenging situations, although audience perspective can vary based on personal experience.

Spectatorship –

Independent films often aim to challenge the viewer more, which fits with them as an active spectator, who is able to take away a different reading of the film. Zeitlin’s focus on character rather than action creates more of an emotional connection between the viewer and Hushpuppy, which influences their interpretation. Some audience members take an identification view, where they are able to imagine themselves in Hushpuppy’s situation and empathise with her, whereas others may have an assimilation view, where they are only able to feel sympathy, not empathy, and have to witness the character from an external position.

This can also lead to asymmetry of emotional response, as the viewer is unlikely to feel the same level of emotion as the character; for example, Hushpuppy’s grief in Wink’s death scene is far more extreme than the audience could possibly feel towards that event. Our position with Hushpuppy throughout the film makes us more likely to feel a response towards Hushpuppy’s grief than a direct response to Wink’s death.

The focus on Hushpuppy is central to the film and Zeitlin employs to keep her at the centre of our attention, noticeably through her voice-over, but also in lengthy close-ups on her face with shallow depths of field to encourage our empathy towards her. Although the introduction of the fantasy aurochs could disrupt the audience’s immersion, they allow the audience into Hushpuppy’s imaginary world, making us even closer to her. Additionally, the use of handheld camera, non-professional actors and genuine locations all make the film feel more real and can intensify the emotional response for the viewer.

Wild Tales Contextualised

1. Define a portmanteau film. What are other notable examples from recent years?

Portmanteau films are also known as anthology films, a series of short forms that are linked through a common theme. In the case of ‘Wild Tales’ the unifying theme is violence and revenge, shown to different extremes and in different ways. Sometimes, each short film is directed by a different director, such as in ‘Paris, je t’aime’ (2006). Other examples of portmanteau films are ‘V/H/S’, ‘Flesh and Fantasy’, ‘Four Rooms’ and ‘New York Stories’. ‘Love Actually’ is another well-known film, which demonstrates the qualities of a portmanteau film, although the stories are linked more strongly than other films, through the connection between the characters and not just the theme.

2. Give a brief synopsis of each of the stories in the film. Which are the most effective? Why do you think these stories have been chosen?

The first story is about two characters on a plane having a conversation and discovering that they both had bad experiences with the same person. Other people join in, until the characters realise everyone on the plane knows the same ‘Gabriel Pasternak’. His plot to bring them together and kill them is uncovered, but there is nothing to be done, and the characters all plunge to their deaths.

The second story is about a waitress who realises the only customer in the diner is the man who caused her father’s death. The cook offers to poison his food, the waitress refuses, but the cook proceeds to poison the dish anyway. The waitress serves him, ignorant of the poison that lies in his meal, although once she finds out, she tries to stop him and his son, who has since entered, eating it. The man attacks her after she throws the plate of food, and they end up fighting on the floor, until the cook stabs the man repeatedly with a knife and he dies.

In the third sequence, a driver attempts to overtake a slow roadhog. The slower driver refuses to move over, but eventually the first driver pulls away ahead of him. Unfortunately, his tyre goes flat, so he pulls over to fix it. Meanwhile, the slower driver catches up and stops, getting out of his truck to smash in the first driver’s window and urinate on it. The first driver retaliates by driver the other man’s truck into a stream, then drives away until he chooses to return in an attempt to run over the man. He ends up swerving into the stream and the other man breaks into his car, hanging the first driver with a seatbelt and setting the car aflame. Both men ultimately die in the fire and the emergency services believe it to be a “crime of passion”.

The fourth sequence is of a demolition expert, whose car keeps getting towed. He challenges the towing office, but they refuse to do anything and he gets increasingly exasperated, smashing in a window when trying to obtain a refund for his fine, which costs him his job and his marriage. As a result, he places explosives in his car and blows up the towing office without injuring anyone. This gives him status as a hero, and his wife and daughter even visit him in prison with a cake for his birthday.

In the fifth story, the son of a rich couple is involved in a hit and run, causing the death of a pregnant woman. The father tries to pay his employee to take the blame, but winds up with more people involved and has to bribe his lawyer and the local prosecutor as well. He becomes frustrated at the ever-increasing fees, telling his son to confess. Lower prices are negotiated and the groundskeeper is taken away by the police; however, his head is bashed in by the angry crowd before he is escorted into the car.

The final story is set during the wedding of Romina and Ariel. Romina finds out that Ariel cheated on her, so runs up to the balcony and sleeps with a kitchen worker, who tried to comfort her. When Ariel finds her, she promises to sleep with every man who looks at her, take all his money and if he tries to get a divorce, pretend he is to blame. The reception continues, Romina and Ariel returning and Romina dances with the woman who slept with Ariel, swinging her into a mirror. Ariel’s mother is enraged at how Romina has behaved towards her son, attacking Romina but being pulled away by the two fathers. Romina and Ariel eventually make-up: their dancing evolves into kissing and then having sex as everyone else rushes out of the door.

3. The literal translation of the title is Savage Tales. How is this a more appropriate title and how well does it apply to each of the stories in the film?

All of the stories have violence in them, some to greater extremes than others; for example, I found the end of the fifth story very violent and found it difficult to watch the groundskeeper’s head being bashed in. The third sequence is particularly savage, as there is very little ground for the extreme actions that come out of road rage; the slower driver did not have much reason to pull over and taunt the first driver and he was hogging the road completely unprompted. I felt the first one was entertaining and there was no visible violence. Equally, in the fourth one, nobody was hurt and I found the demolition expert’s revenge rather funny. In the second sequence, the violence at the end was defensive, to protect the helpless waitress, and I did not particularly feel sorry at the man’s death. The final sequence shows more of a mental revenge than a physical one, although some of the characters obtain injuries along the way.

4. What does the viewer learn about Argentine society from watching the film? Does this accurately reflect the political and social reality?

The film suggests that Argentine society is rather cut-throat, with many people out for revenge if they feel someone has wronged them, even slightly. This is evident through the driving sequence and the towing story, as the triggers were rather minor, and some of the characters in the first sequence were not really deserving of their fate. In the final sequence, one of the wedding guests talks about the country not being very safe, and Romina agrees but replies that things are getting better. This again presents Argentina as a dangerous country that people may not want to live in.

In the film, there are social inequalities and injustices; for example, in the fifth story, an innocent groundskeeper is killed for taking the blame for a hit and run committed by his employer’s son. This coercion shows the corruption of a society that enables wealthy citizens to bribe the less well-off into being held accountable for their crimes and ultimately paying the price, in this case, with their life. Therefore, the film could be critiquing capitalism and its impact on the poor.

5. Are there aesthetic differences between each of the stories? How do the aesthetic support the story being told?

Cinematographer Javier Julia and director Damian Szifrón discussed shooting each segment differently, but ultimately decided that keeping them the same would provide a more dreamlike and immersive experience for the audience.

However, the lighting and setting for each story are rather different.The first sequence is almost entirely contained on the airplane, with very artificial lighting, suitable for the story in which all the passengers have been lured and trapped there by ‘Gabriel Pasternak’ for apparently wronging him in some way. At the very end, it cuts to outside in a garden on a very sunny day, which highly contrasts the story and somewhat adds to the humorous effect.

The second story is set on a dark, rainy night and the diner itself is very dark and dingy. This shows the situation the waitress is currently living in, partly as a result of the man. The interior of the diner and kitchen is rather harshly lit, again suggesting that her situation is the harsh reality for some of the less fortunate Argentinians.

The third short has much more of a rural setting. Similar to the second, the setting seems deserted and empty, aside from the main characters. The roads are more rough tracks and the presumed heat makes it feel claustrophobic, despite the vast openness. The lack of buildings or much vegetation again adds to the isolating feeling.

Highly contrasting with the previous one, the fourth sequence is set in an urban area. It is dark and dreary, making each of the towing incidents seem more repetitive and infuriating. The colour palette reflects the demolition expert’s seeming exhaustion with life and the depressing nature of the events. Interestingly, it is at the end, when he is locked up in prison, that the man is most free throughout the whole sequence.

The penultimate short is set in a wealthy family’s house. This could be to show a different side to Argentine society, we are seeing a story from the rich man’s view. The house is nothing exceptional and the day is fairly ordinary; this story is less concerned with extremes, it seems. At the end, the groundsman leaves the property and is ambushed by a mob of people, one of whom smashes his face in. It is interesting to consider that, in this story, the poor man is killed by the ordinary man, whilst the rich one remains safe inside.

The final short is also contained within the wedding reception venue, but it has a lot of flexibility. Frequent changes in lighting vary the atmosphere and location. Additionally, at one point, Romina runs out of the room and goes up to the roof, giving her freedom from the crowded room below. The hallway is used as an escape from the craziness of the room; Lourdes is taken out into it, once she has been inflicted with injuries by Romina swinging her into a mirror. Right at the end, the story comes full circle by Romina and Ariel sleeping with each other, in the same room that they threw accusations at each other and seemed most likely to break up. Everyone hurries out, leaving them alone, after having been watched by so many just a few moments before.

The Grand Budapest Hotel – Aesthetics

Over time, there have been many changes to the size of the standard aspect ratio. William Kennedy Dickson created the first ever aspect ratio, 4:3, which was the standard silent film ration. However, the Academy Ratio was created in 1932 at a size of 1.37:1 because to add sound, a little strip has to be left at the side of the film for the track to be recorded on. On September 30th 1952, Fred Waller pioneered a new cinema aesthetic: Cinerama. It used a 2.59 aspect ration and gave an 147º field of view, but was soon replaced by the simpler CinemaScope, with a 2.35 aspect ratio, created by Twentieth-Century Fox. Paramount sought to compete, so created their own system, VistaVision, with a 1.85 aspect ratio. There have been various other aspect ratios, but a 16:9 ratio was settled on as a compromise between the standard TV screen size (4:3) and the typical film’s 2:35.

In ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, different aspect ratios are used to show the change in time period. The narrative is the tale of Gustave. H, told by an older Zero, within a story by The Author and the aspect ratios mimic this.

The start and the end of the film are set in the present day and are filmed in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio that is used commonly today and is recognisable to a modern audience.

In the scenes where the older Zero is telling the story of Gustave to the younger Author, an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 is used. This time period is set in the late 1960s, and the aspect ratio chosen is one that was very common in the 50s and 60s. Therefore, Anderson seems to be using the aspect ratios that reflect the time period he is portraying.

The main proportion of the film directly follows Gustave and the young Zero and is filmed in 1.37:1 aspect ratio, the Academy Ratio established in 1932. Interestingly, the events of the film in this section begin in 1932 so it seems evident that Anderson is using the aspect ratio of the time in which each part is set.