Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Slamdance

This is topic Slamdance 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=004510

Posted by John Rizzo (Member # 1289) on 02-02-2003, 09:17 AM:

After reading Steve's Sundance post and Brad's You Suck Post
I just wnat to mention another festival experience in which the print came back screwed up, my lab did the blow up negative and first check print to this years Slamdance dramatic competition winner titled 'Assisted Living' a brand new print left N.Y.C.three days before it had to play and the print came back the ohter day with black scratches on 4 of the 5 reels, they also didn't put the reel breaks were we told them to put them the print had stickers on both the base and emulsion side of the print showwing the break frames for platter make up and they were ignored because there were new breaks 3 frames into the heads and tails, they them put them back together with masking tape and at the splice they were flipped.I could go on and on with stories like this, no one seems to care how they handle these very expensive prints and I feel that this further strengthens the digital projection argument.(much to my dismay)

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-02-2003, 11:24 AM:

Bill Slamdance for a new print.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-02-2003, 11:27 AM:

DEFINITELY make them pay for a new one! It's the only way to get through to these morons.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-02-2003, 12:46 PM:

Unfortunately, most festivals require that entrants sign a "we are not responsible for your prints" disclaimer. I can sort of understand this, as many festivals are run on a shoestring budget, but there should still be an ethical responsibility to take care of prints which are submitted (many of which are one-of-a-kind). If enother filmmakers complain, maybe the festival organizers can be persuaded to care more about print handling.

Another problem is that many festivals have multiple venues and some of these theatres may be more careful than others. At the Rhode Island film fest last year, every print that left the Columbus Theatre was in equal or better condition than it was in when it arrived, although I can't say the same about the other 35mm venue (which will remain nameless). We also had two operators in the booth most of the time for one screen, while the other venue probably only had one guy running several screens.

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 02-03-2003, 07:29 PM:

I understand that Slamdance has new management who have cut spending on lots of things. I know this year they hired a new projection equipment company. The answer is not TV projectors, its quality equipment and competent projectionists. Make 'em pay.

Larry

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2003, 08:23 PM:

Yea,
I USED [Roll Eyes]

to work for that other projection company. Don't know what they were doing out there attempting to run a special showing of something important. $$$ I guess.....
I heard today they had platter problems......don't know if that is related to any print damage though.......those that have seen the print, and or damage, may be able to relate to that. The print may have "been around" before hand too.

I've personally never had a problem doing any screening of any type in the past 20 years...Some extremely complex to pull off...requiring coordination of a large number of people, and some very simple. Frankly, if one is competant to begin with and preps correctly for such a thing it is difficult to not have it come off well.

There are quite a few companies that are VERY competant at doing location screenings, and it pays to shop around, and most important, get refrences before hiring anyone for any important event.
Mark

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-03-2003, 10:32 PM:

Disclaimer or not, you can still make them pay... but you'll have a lot harder time proving your case.

No matter WHAT kind of disclaimer you sign, there is such a thing as "common sense". The same thing applies at places like ballparks and ski resorts:

There is such a thing as "assumed risk", meaning that when you engage in certain activities you expect (or SHOULD expect) that certain bad things can happen. You could get hit in the head by a fould ball at a ballpark or you can go skiing and wipe out and break your leg.

Let's say that the ballpark management let the nets that catch foul balls behind home plate had big holes in them. If management knew, or SHOULD have known, that those nets were in disrepair they COULD still be liable if you get hit by a ball that comes through the hole in the net.

A ski resort isn't responsible for your falling down UNLESS they knew or SHOULD have known that there was a tree stump partially buried under the snow that you hit and busted your leg.

Same thing goes with your film... You have the right to expect that it will be handled by compentent operators on properly functioning equipment. If you can PROVE that the people operating the equipment didn't have basic compentency or that the equipment was in such a state of disrepair that they KNEW or SHOULD have known it was likely to damage your film you MAY still have the right to recover damages.

OTOH, it's going to be damn hard to prove your case in court unless you have good evidence. It's worth thinking about, at least.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-06-2003, 12:04 AM:

Not really that difficult to prove. You just get a bunch of us Film-Tech guys to come in with you and we'll explain to the court just what's reasonable wear and tear and what is abominable damage caused by incompetence, carelessness and disregard for basic film care practices.

And Randy is right....no matter what you sign, when you enter into a contract that is based on common, demonstrable functionality (such as a dry cleaner and a customer with soiled cloths, a parking lot operator and a car owner, a filmmaker and a film festival operator) most tort law recognizes that there is always a legal expectation of reasonable and responsible behavior on the part of both parties. No matter what you sign, it will almost never exempt one party or the other from abdicating his responsibly to act in a reasonable, safe and responsible manner. Naturally if it comes down to it, a court may have to decide what is reasonable, safe or responsible. But when a print goes into a venue in mint condition and then comes out after a few runs scratched and chopped to crap, reasonable people could easily consider that irresponsible and far beyond the kind of behavior from which those exclusionary waivers can legally exempt the festival operator. It's like a guy who rents a car from Avis and signs the extra insurance, then enters it in a demolition derby. [Big Grin]