Last B&W widescreen Hollywood movie?

thanks...IIRC, the Criterion has an extended version as well...

 

Paper Moon, released in 1973.

 

I don’t recall that being 2:35

 

This reminded me of the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou which was filmed in full color then digitally processed to look like sepia tone.

 

I thought any film wider than a ratio of 12:16 could be considered widescreen, maybe not very widescreen but widescreen just the same.

 

Not exactly. All they did was take the greens and bend them towards yellow, then they pulled a bit of the blues from the skies and and also reduced magenta. It wasn't just sepia. This was meticulously done by colorist Julius Friede over at Cinesite/Hollywood, supervised by the great Roger Deakins -- one of the very first full D.I. features done start to finish. It was frustrating for everybody because it took about 3 times longer than anybody expected. The whole point of that was that they wanted a "brown/dustbowl" 1930s look, and the grass and trees and shrubberies were too lush and green-looking. It was easier to do this in post than actually find a location that was this brown to begin with.

We generally express screen ratios compared to "1," so it's 2.39:1, 2.20:1, 2.00:1, 1.85:1, and so on, but leave off the ":1" for brevity. Nobody uses 12x16 or anything like that. 16x9 kind of became a thing because of HD, but it's really 1.78 (technically 1.777777).

 

I think Paper Moon is 1.85 or maybe even 1.78.

 

I'm pretty sure that Peter Bogdanovich has always shot in 1.85, and the primary reason is because of closeups. Bogdanovich often used just one lens (like a 25mm or 28mm) for an entire film (particularly The Last Picture Show, Paper Moon, and Nickelodeon), kind of emulating the way John Ford and other classic directors used to shoot. Basically, the camera has to physically move closer to an actor for a close-up and then roll back for a big wide shot, rather than just changing the lens and leaving the camera where it is. I actually admire that approach, though it's harder to do and takes more time on the set. Visually it looks better to me, and you can make an argument that it's a more "honest" look to the image than (say) a zoom lens. Although... I do like intricate camera moves when they're done well.

 

Almost a decade ago.