Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Very sad...

This is topic Very sad... in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001211

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-18-2000, 08:31 PM:

Went to the local arts center tonight. One of the local film critics is leaving town, and the center decided to allow him to pick one film to show at the center. He chose "Homicide", a David Mamet film from the early '90's. (He picked it...I didn't!!!)

This critic was a huge advocate of good projection practices, even running special articles listing problems with screenings and comments on presentation. He really cared about what went on the screen.

The print arrived today, and the last place that ran the film had ruined the print. It was totally unwatchable. This place has outstanding equipment and one of the most professional operators around, and they had to resort to showing the film from a VHS tape. They have some excellent video equipment, and it looked as good as it could, but it wasn't the same as a 35mm print. (They offered to refund peoples admission, but since it was a free screening...it really didn't matter!!)

They are also showing a series of older "B" movies this summer. They chose to run an old drag race film called "GHOST FROM DRAGSTRIP HOLLOW". MGM had a print, and the booking was arranged, but when they pulled it for shipping, MGM discovered that their only screening print was trashed.

Now, these aren't great cinematic masterpieces. But they are fine examples of work by a serious and well regarded playwright or examples of a long lost genre. It's just too bad that these and so many other films are just disappearing...slowly, slowy, one by one.

What most scares me about the rush to digital screenings is that so many films will be left behind to rot. Yes, there will be some die hards that hold on to film, but once that pricing bubble bursts, digital projection will be everywhere.

I hope we don't lose too many treasures in the process.

Mark Lensenmayer
A Patron of the Cinema

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-18-2000, 10:09 PM:

Unfortunately, one of the reasons people are interested in digital projection is because of trashed prints. While the image quality will go down, it also will be easier to operate

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-18-2000, 11:14 PM:

If you get a print of Theremin: An Electronic Oddessey you'll be getting a decent print, thanks to me

When we ordered it, they (MGM ?) told us that the print was too damaged to play. My boss complained to them that he had booked this print over 3 months in advance and they flew Lev Theremins neice from Russia, or some place, just for the event... They BETTER send us something!

Well, they sent it to us anyway, warts and all. It turned out that it wasn't THAT bad. It had a bunch of busted-out sprocket holes and it was a but chopped up. With a little extra time in the build up, (and about a 1/2 dozen trips through the FilmGuard) it was fine. (As good as it could be, anyway.) No worse than a lot of other prints that I've seen.

Question is who the hell is doing this crap to all the prints!? I've said before, I played a print of Tango that was in good shape, only to get it (the very same print) back weeks later looking like it was run over by a truck! Boy! I'd like to get my hands on that moron!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-19-2000, 05:32 AM:

Mark - I share your concern. Will the concept of a repertory cinema (or even midnight movies) exist in the DLP era?

I suppose that only time will tell, though I tend to doubt it. Even a popular film like "Casablanca" might have 1-2 new prints made every few years at a cost of a few thousand dollars. The cost of doing this is sufficiently low that Warner Bros. makes a nice profit from shows of Casablanca. The problem is that film scanning at DLP resolution will cost about $100-150k per movie, and there is a limited number of facilities equipped to do this sort of thing. The cost is sufficiently high that it will make it unprofitable to distribute most older films in this way. Thus, we'll either have the "trashed print" problem for a long time to come or, worse, these films will simply be taken out of circulation. This is not a pleasant thought.

Similarly, everyone keeps saying that digital cinema will benefit independent producers. I beg to differ. For $30k, one can have a 16mm->35mm blowup and several prints made of a low-budget feature. This is far cheaper than the $100k+ cost of film scanning, which will be seriously prohibitive for the many films that are distributed (often profitably) with small numbers of prints.

I really wish that the distributors would get pickier about who gets to show their repertory prints. Warner Bros. Classics is about the only one who is--their prints are usually very good and, as an added bonus, come with threatening notes that say things to the effect of "don't even think about damaging this print."

Other distributors are much worse. Case in point: for the 1997 reissue of "The Graduate," four prints were struck (off the original negative, unfortunately); apparently only three of them still exist, and print #3, which I showed a year ago, was in rough shape at that time. According to the distributor, those four prints are supposed to last for 10 years, as they will be unable to have access to the negative to strike new ones until 2007 (assuming that the neg is still printable in 2007). Thus, I find it highly probable that this film (one of my all-time favorites) may soon be unavailable when all of the prints are unrunnable. Very sad.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-19-2000, 06:09 AM:

Walt Kelly's cartoon character Pogo once said "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

If any of us "trash" a print because of our own incompetence or carelessness, SHAME! Learn how to handle film properly, and treat every print with care.

If a print is damaged because we don't have the right equipment, or enough time to do a good job, SHAME! Keep "fighting city hall" to get the equipment you need and the extra time to do a good job of maintenance and inspection.

If a print is damaged because someone else's carelessness caused a problem that we didn't try to fix, SHAME! Remake bad splices, repair torn perfs, use a film cleaner, do whatever it takes to "turn a sows ear into a silk purse".

If something is wrong with the "system", don't stop trying to change it. Return defective reels, document problems, suggest solutions, be the "squeeky wheel". Don't ignore problems, try to fix them. But do it in a CONSTRUCTIVE way. Despite our rage, calling a fellow operator a "moron" will not help them do a better job. But working with them to improve their film handling skill or understand the problems their "shortcuts" cause for others, will have a positive effect.

Rant "off".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-20-2000, 10:34 PM:

Some companies have simply junked all their copies of certain titles. I remember recently someone wanted to run Gremlins in 35mm. Not a hugely popular title nowadays but popular enough in its day to suggest it will get more runs in the future...nup! The guy had booked the print for his screening, done all the advertising and Warners rang the week of his screening saying they didn't have a copy!!

Incredible! This happened some time ago with a print of Smokey and the Bandit as well...

If the studios are going to continue to posess the copyright on these titles, they should be made to have the original format of the copyrighted works available to be seen. If not, relinquish the rights to someone who WILL keep the prints and not junk them all into oblivion because someone says 'Aw, no-one will ever run that again. Let's junk it and we can use the space'.

Over here, the oldest Fox title in the country on 35mm is Rocky Horror from 1975 and THAT'S only because it still gets run from time to time and at regular late shows in the capital cities. The next oldest title at Fox is Chariots Of Fire.

1981...man, that's REALLY old.

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 07-21-2000, 03:22 PM:

Sometimes, I feel it is a lot easier to book older, so-called classic films, than films of recent year.
Recently our local high-school wanted make a special day before holiday screening with the film "Flubber", distributed by Walt Disney / BVI. When calling BVI, the girl looked it up, and had to tell me it was taken out of distribution some time ago.
It happens more often than in previous years. When a friend of mine wanted to see a smaller art film, released in 1994, he was told, "that there is a beautiful VHS video available at stores." What to do, if you do not own a TV and VCR, if all your posessions are 35 mm projection?
It is much easier to get Marx Bros or W.C. Fields, as they mostly have speciality distributors still keeping stock at home, to minimize expenses. They keep film alive, and unfortunately only few operateors support them by properly handling their films.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-21-2000, 09:52 PM:

There's good news tonight. I just came from a wonderful screening of THEIF OF BAGDAD, a 1924 Douglas Fairbanks movie...all 140 minutes of it!! It was shown in a 3000 seat restored movie palace with a wonderful live organist playing an original score. The print was probably as good as one can find on this title. Thanks to master operator Ralph Bieber (who maintains the 3 projector booth) and organist Clark Wilson for a wonderful evening.

Films from the '20's we can still show. Video from the '50's and '60's can't be played on modern machines.

Video and DLP has its place, but film still seems best for archives.

If there are silent screenings your area, take the time to support them.

Mark L.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-23-2000, 03:29 PM:

Worn out and abused prints of rep and re-release titles are a major problem in the UK, too, and to my mind there are three major causes.

1. The fact that these prints are shown less often for every time they are made up and packed off. If you show a print five times a day for a month then with good film path cleaning and maintenance, there shouldn't be much problem keeping it like new. Howevever, if it is being made up, shown once, stripped down again and transported over and over again, there will inevitably be more wear and tear, however carefully it is handled.

2. There are less copies of these prints made and so each one does more work. Rep and re-release distributors do not have the money to make hundreds (or even tens) of prints, so a smaller number of copies takes longer to go round the cinemas, being handled more intensively all the while. For example, we are currently showing L'ENNUI, print no. 1., and last week we showed FLAMENCO, print no. 2. I'd be very surprised if there are more than 5 in circulation.

3. Defective equipment and/or moron projectionists. Remember that a lot of these prints get shown in universities, arts centres that only show films once or twice a week, film clubs and other venues where the equipment isn't great and the projectionist won't have had proper training or much experience. Basically, the places where people really want to see arthouse and rep are exactly the places which are likely to bugger the prints. This is a dilemma for the distributor - he can bet his bottom dollar that (i) the print will be abused, and (ii) that venue will get sell-out houses. So he can't really embargo the place because their projection is bad without shooting himself in the foot.

I do agree with a previous contributor that the answer is for all cinemas to complain loudly and demand new prints when they receive an NFG one. I send condition reports to our head office on a regular basis whenever I get a print with tramlines, rewind scratches, edge damage or any other evidence of misuse, but I have a stong suspicion that they end up in the small round filing cabinet on the floor.

Now if our CUSTOMERS started complaining...