Do spaghetti westerns shot in scope have an advantage over those that were not?
Or does it not matter? What are your opinions on this?
I don’t understand the question.
You can’t watch every SW at home on your TV in 2.35:1 because some were not filmed using an anamorphic lens.
So some SWs can only have a somewhat wider image, rougly so it fills your 16:9 TV screen, there are no black bars on top and under.
I think westerns “shot in scope”, that is filmed in “cinemascope” or more correctly the cheaper techniscope the italians used, look much better for westerns, and certain other films.
You get the really wide 2.35:1 image which you don’t get if the film was not filmed in scope.
A not so wide image works better for some other types of films.
Some films like Django were shot for 1,66:1 and of course many others were shot for 1,85:1. Which is good enough for every kind of film.
2,35:1 is indeed a generally good looking image for westerns, but some directors in these years had not much ideas how to use the image properly.
Of course Sergio Leone used the scope image to it’s full advantage.
And bigger films like The Mercenary I’m also glad were shot in scope.
The question is would Django have looked better in scope?
Django has a more claustrophobic atmosphere, from that point of view a closer image suits it very well.
The Mercenary is indeed a film which uses widescreen masterfully. The directing is a pure joy to watch.
Many of Corbuccis SWs were shot in scope, Navajo Joe, The Mercenary, The Specialists, Companeros, even Sonny and Jed.
Navajo Joe looks great in scope I think.
Django, Hellbenders and The Great Silence were not in scope, and maybe it suits them better.
At least I don’t miss scope when I watch Django and TGS.