Me ha parecido curioso que la relación de aspecto sea distinta a las más usuales y he encontrado estas declaraciones de algunas entrevistas (cada párrafo sacada de una) donde lo justifican.
«We composed shots making characters diminutive in frame compared to the trees. We mostly used the 1:66:1 aspect ratio because we wanted a classic, timeless frame size, but the extra height of the aspect ratio also allowed us to let the trees loom over the characters. It also hints at a world where people are always thinking about what is above them in terms of their theology».
«[...] to make the woods seem taller and the interiors more claustrophobic. 1940s vintage rehoused lens were used to further enhance the unique, at times distorted, look».
«So we shot digitally. For Jarin and I, it was like, "Alexa Plus, and that's the end of the story." It did help us out in some of the low-light situations. And because of the native aspect ratio of 4:3, he could shoot anamorphic. The shorts I shot with Jarin are all 1:33, and I really like that aspect ratio. Honestly, if I could shoot everything in 1:33, I would. It's not suitable for every story. But I just fucking love it. A close-up in 1:33 is my favorite thing in the world. I watched Klimov's Come And See yet again a couple of weeks ago, much to my wife's dismay, and I'm just like, "Damnation. God, you just can't get any better than that. But it had to have been Jarin who suggested 1:66 for this film. Which really made sense, because it gave it a little more scope. It would have been this weird, too-arty movie in 1:33, but with 1:66, we had a little more height for the trees. But it was intimate with the family. And additionally, because of the native aspect of the Alexa, we got more resolution by shooting in its native aspect ratio. And we were shooting with these re-housed Cooke lenses from the 1940s that Jarin liked to say was like looking through a crystal ball. They were dope. And we were actually using more of the lens characteristic by using that frame.».
