my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Double-threading a projector? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Double-threading a projector? Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-12-2003 12:16 PM                     Musical treasures hmmm don't forget the popular Anne Murray and Gordon Lightfoot  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 12-12-2003 12:23 PM                        Never been a fan of Anne Murray, but I've always liked Gordon Lightfoot and Gordie Johnson.  |  IP: Logged Jennifer Fieber Film Handler Posts: 26 From: Brooklyn, NY Registered: Sep 2003 posted 12-14-2003 03:52 PM                     I went to art school with Luis in SF. He takes found footage runs it through a 16mm projector that threads manually (with lockdown clamps) and when the head leader comes out the back, loops the same film back through again to by pack with the same film. With some slack in the loop, nothing usually goes wrong. I want to reply to David Rose's question without getting in a big discussion about the validity of certain art forms. There's no use in discussions that devolve into...any monkey could paint this, if that's where the discussion ends up. Because, while there is certainly a lot of pedanticism and self-indulgence in experimental filmmakers, you should also realize that such filmmakers have a respect for the medium of film (and it's presentation) that is far deeper than most modern multiplex film goers. These are not the people that can't see the difference between film and video on screen...or don't care. Silly as some of it is, by working with scratches and dust etc. (or directly writing on blank film!), the argument goes, they are pointing out the materiality of film rather than accepting the illusion of "reality" that is masked by plot, action etc. It is supposed to point out the beauty in even the flaws of that material we have loved since the 1900s. Perhaps, I've opened a can of worms with this post, but I'll try my best to defend this position. Jennifer Fieber Anthology Film Archives I  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-14-2003 04:38 PM                    I think it's advancing the art and grammar of film. Most of those things are silly and probably admittedly so and won't ever become part of mainstream filmmaking but once upon a time crosscutting and closeups were radical as well. Back in college I remember thinking that a print of Street Musique, borrowed from the library and wonderful by itself, could be "enhanced" running it through two projectors in succession and projecting side by side.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-15-2003 02:39 AM                        That reminds me of the very thing that Andy Warhol and Paul Morrisey's did in CHELSEA GIRLS. They used dual 16mm projectors projecting images side by side and I was awed at how the juxtaposition of two different scenes created a whole new, more profound meaning, greater than either of the two parts -- a prostitute and john laying in bed as she takes money from him, juxtaposed against a very chic looking "career" woman taking money from her husband as she leave the house. I though the use of the two images was a great concept and to what great affect Warhol meticulously matched the sequences. Then I spoke to the projectionist and told him how impressed I was with the work, even though I also found it long and dreary, only to discover that the film came on ten reels and he was to put them on each projector randomly. There was no mind behind it at all. Either way, I guess it was still impressive, since without the filmmaker having much do to with the juxtapositioning of the sequences, it was up to the viewer to make meaning out of randomness -- much like we have to do in real life. It was the audience that made two disparate scenes into a more significant whole. I saw that when I was in college and I haven't seen it since. Today I probably would think it more drivel than substance, but I would like to revisit it again to see what I think of it now. Anyone know if it has a theatrical distributor? I think Morrisey's own distribution company may be gone.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-15-2003 05:12 AM                        chelsea girls played the castro in s.f. last year or so. try contacting them. carl  |  IP: Logged Joe Beres Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 606 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 12-15-2003 09:24 AM                     Chelsea Girls is available from the Museum of Modern Art Circulating Films Library. The history of how the film has been presented is very interesting. I believe it has been presented on one, two, and four screens. Now, MoMA has determined a recommended running order with the even numbered reels on the left, and the odd on the right. There are also recommendations on how the sound levels should be raised and lowered between the two projectors. The reel changes, i.e. replacing reel two with reel four, is considered to be part of the presentation. If you can appreciate Andy Warhol's film work, then this is quite a fantastic spectacle. Warhol's Outer and Inner Space can also be shown on two screens.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-15-2003 12:09 PM                     I think the University of California at Irvine ran this some time ago. Wouldn't a "recommended running order" seem to defeat Warhol's intentions?  |  IP: Logged Joe Beres Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 606 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 12-15-2003 06:16 PM                     Christopher, I have been told that Warhol experimented quite a bit. Sometimes allowing the projectionist to choose, sometimes specifying the order and orientation. Supposedly, the MoMA recommendations follow the instructions that Andy Warhol eventually settled on.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.