|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Save Film Petition
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 06-28-2014 11:53 AM
Shouldn't you be encouraging your students to make up their own minds on issues such as this one rather than telling them what to think?
There are valid arguments against supporting this petition, as well as for signing it. For example, I note that the steering group consists almost exclusively of senior people in prominent, well resourced taxpayer-funded archives and museums, and suspect that very few of them have ever had to deal with complaints from angry customers after you've just shown them a badly scratched or faded film print in a rep theater that is struggling to survive on a daily basis, because no DCP exists of that title. Often this is because the archive that has the preservation elements refuses to make one (i.e. it would prefer to spend $5k on making one new film print which will be ruined by a single incompetent projectionist rather than on a decent DCP, which can't be), citing their mission to film purism. And ironically, it's the film purists (among the regular customers at my theater, at any rate) who complain even louder if you show them a bad print, even if it's the only one available, than if you play the movie digitally.
A few weeks ago I played a 35mm print of Harvey that was scratched to buggery, worn out and looked and sounded basically dreadful. The stock mark on that print was 1997, and so less than two decades after the studio invested in a new print for the rep circuit, it's worn out and useless. Afterwards one of our regular customers came up to the booth and complained that he was very disappointed - he'd come to this show specifically because it said in the program that we'd be playing the movie on 35mm, and he doesn't like digital. Why, he asked, do we show garbage like that? I desperately wanted to reply, "You just answered your own question, asshole!", but of course bit my lip and explained that that is what happens to a 35mm print of a "classic" after 17 years of doing the rounds of the sort of places those prints go to. If the studio has $5k to spend on continuing to make this title available, what should they do - make another print, which will soon end up the same way (and which is essentially what these campaigners want to happen), or get a DCP made which will look clean and scratch-free, can be distributed around the world with very little shipping cost, can play in multiple venues on the same night, etc. etc.?
Surely as a teacher, you should be explaining why certain people are campaigning for film (and lab operations) to continue to be made and then let them decide if they support that aim or not, not simply telling them that they should support it? Petitions were organized against the phasing out of tetraethyl lead in gasoline, too (among the arguments used were that the health risks were exaggerated, that classic cars would no longer be able to be driven and that engine maintenance costs would increase without it), but that didn't mean that everyone had to sign them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-30-2014 06:12 AM
There really can be (should be) an entire course on how this C change from film to digital came about; what are the economic forces in play; how have they impacted the makeup of the entire distribution and exhibition infrastructure. The idea that somehow simply wishing that film can be saved as the medium by which Hollywood entertainment can be distributed without understanding the much broader implications of how the many other components, many of them competing against each other, have made film obsolete, is simplistic. Isolating just the physical film component and wanting to preserve that without the other supporting entities necessary for such a reality simply will not work.
And it is not even a matter of a small cadre of passionate individuals or organizations like museums and art theatres and libraries, etc., who might get together and say, we want to pay to strike a new print of CASABLANCA that we can circulate among our member cinemas. Simple enough at first glance (or first petition) one would think, but then comes reality --where is the high quality lab that will do the sophisticated work necessary to strike this print (will it be 35mm or 70mm?) and will this cooperative also pay to hire lab technicians who have the required skill-set to produce a class A Showprint? Does anyone really think these specialists are just sitting around waiting to be hired to do one-off jobs after having been unemployed or haven't moved on years ago, assuming you can even find the old-school tradesmen...assuming you can find a lad that is still operable, or perhaps the cooperative will purchase a lab to support that noble desire to keep film alive. So we've outfitted the lab, but, oh wait, were do we get the film stock?
Next, once we have paid to open a lab and staff it and we make our print, where and who is going to store, maintain and service this print when cooperative members want to screen it? Who is going to train and certify the projectionists (and pay them a decent living wage with health benefits and a retirement plan) who will be handling this cooperative print to insure it won't get trashed a month into its life?
And that is only one single print. Will the cooperative operate and maintain what essentially was the old print exchanges for the all the prints that such a cooperative venture would need in order to maintain a viable art cinema operation? And how soon do you think it would take for the cooperative to go bankrupt if it had to put in place this entire infrastructure that would be absolutely necessary in order to "keep film alive?"
And that is the point -- there is a reason film can no longer be supported. It's not that it isn't a magnificent capture and retrieval medium that has proven itself over time, but it is everything else around it that has changed with very little chance that it will ever go back to the way it was, any more than we will ever go back to transportation by horse and buggy, no matter how much the horse and buggy lovers lament the loss. And you can be sure there were plenty who did and they were just as passionate as those who love what they remember film was capable of. I love the great single screen cinemas of my youth -- the Golden Age of the Grand Movie Palace -- but we will never go back to the many economic and social conditions that allowed that method of exhibition to flourish -- lamentable in some respects, but the reality of why they cannot work today is many-faceted and all combine to make it a hard fact. Same is true I am afraid, with projection by film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Wood
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 206
From: Oxfordshire, United kingdom
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 07-07-2014 02:23 PM
After reading recent comments I think its worth pointing out that no one is really advocating a return to distribution of movies on film, thats done and dusted and belongs to a different era. What those backing the petition are talking about is preserving the ability to make films ON film.
Look at some of the names supporting the petition, Chris Nolan, Tacita Dean, Wes Anderson, Martin Scorsese, Speilberg not to mention IMAGO an organisation that represents all the international cinematographers' societies. All these individuals are known for their passion for photo chemical image capture. I don't believe for a minute that any of these highly respected individuals would casually lend their names to any hair brained scheme whose aim was to reinstate 35mm cinema projection as the worldwide standard of motion picture presentation.
What they want, and what they would like UNESCO to recognise is that film offers the film maker a unique and irreplaceable medium with which to create motion pictures and that this is borne out by its contribution to and place in our culture and history. Guillermo Navarro ASC , who also supports the petition, calls film the R*****a Stone of our times and I think he has something there. (Forgive the stars but the forum won't let me publish the word itself , for some strange reason, but Im sure you can work it out !)
Whilst I enjoy seeing film projected, I also see the advantages of digital presentation and accept that this is the way forward, but as a working DP myself, albeit not in the league of some of the names on the petition (!) I share their passion for film as I was lucky enough to start my career shooting on film and I know, despite the amazing advances in digital image capture in recent years, that film is capable of capturing something that I can only describe as special. It's slight abstract quality suits fiction and story telling better than digital as despite the latters attempts to emulate film, which is still the holy grail of professional digital camera makers, there is still a vague brittle quality to digital which I believe makes it harder to accept in works of fiction as it reminds too much of documentary and news.
Sadly the skill, training and pay scale of film technicians at the capture end of the business was never mirrored in those film techs responsible for showing the stuff, and all the complaints about lousy prints etc are borne out by this. Thats not to say that there weren't some dedicated and well trained projectionists out there, but it only takes a handful of less conscientious technicians to create the problems that Leo describes.
Its up to the individual to decide what they think, whether its worth supporting or not but I suspect the majority of people on this forum owes some part of their living to film. That’s no reason in itself to support the petition, especially if you have spent a great deal of time dealing with films shortcomings at the presentation end. But what this petition is essentially about is trying to ensure that a film makers or artists tool of choice remains available to them. This will obviously be no simple thing. If we accept that bulk release printing is a thing of the past then in order for this to succeed there needs to be some way on ensuring negative stock continues to be available with all the necessary infrastructure and quality control that comes with it, plus a way of developing it. No small undertaking I know. Maybe on line petitions are ‘a waste of time’ but then again not many have the names attached to it that this one has? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-07-2014 04:48 PM
If you read the actual petition, this is not a silly plea to continue to shoot and/or project film. It's a plea to protect the cultural resource of film. Frankly, I wouldn't mind a law that prevents the studios from destroying all their film archives so they can save dollars on storage. Haven't we learned our lessons from the archival mistakes of the past?
Nothing wrong with encouraging Governments and arts organizations to protect the archive of film. As it is, half of U.S. films made before 1950 have been completely lost. It certainly is possible that any film for which the ownership is in question and is not in the public domain will be lost as well as any other film which the current owners feel is not financially viable as a home video release or DCP.
What's not going to happen is studios and theaters returning to film. When the business gets so small that Kodak stops making film, it's over.
Frankly, I'm surprised that Kodak is still selling as many motion picture emulsions as they do. In 35mm still photography, they're down to just 10 emulsions.
For motion pictures, they're still making 6 camera films, 5 intermediate films, 3 print films, 2 sound films, 1 title film and 3 archive films.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic