quote:

---

In New York City the projectionists needs a license.

---

• 520 CMR 3.00: Use of Cinematograph and Similar Apparatuys for the Exhibition of Motion Pictures.
• 780 CMR 407: Motion Picture Projection Rooms
• 780 CMR 408.3: Projection Rooms
• 780 CMR 613: Motion Picture Projection Rooms, Screening Rooms, and Sound Stages

• Chapter 143 of the Massachusetts General Laws: Inspection and Regulation of, and licenses for, buildings, elevators and cinematographs.

quote:

---

Rachel, does Massachussetts provide a study guide or a suggested reading list for candidates preparing for the projectionist exam?

---

Yeah, what John said!
 

---

Posted by Carmine Occhino (Member # 1699) on 11-18-2003, 04:56 AM:
 
"Do the managers who run the smaller theaters have licenses or has it been waived for them? "

I believe whom ever is running the projector, for an audience, manager or not, is required to have the license.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-19-2003, 01:52 AM:
 
The still on-line GCC site had a "primer" for the MA license exam:

http://zulugruv.home.texas.net/gcc/primer.html
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-19-2003, 07:03 AM:
 

quote:

---

Do the managers who run the smaller theaters have licenses or has it been waived for them?

---

Although the chains mounted an attack to completely eliminate the licensing requirement in NYC, they lost. So the license has not been waived -- we still have to pay the annual fee. So they went another route and put a lot of political pressure on the department to make the tests (3 hr written and a practical) so easy that their ass. managers would take it and pass. My understanding is that even with the watered down written test, only three of the two dozen or so that the theatres sent to take it actually passed.

In 1997 I was part of a team put together by the Department of Consumer Affairs to author the written test; at that time, it was not an easy test as it covered in some detail everything from booth operation to buiding codes to electrical codes (the projectionist license here is a partial electrican license in that it allows the person to perform some limited electrical work in the booth that otherwise would require an electrician). That was then, this is now -- presently I don't know if the "real" test is still being given or if the "anyone can pass" test is; I heard a rumor that the new commissioner of the department threw out the watered down test and went back to the real one, but that was only rumor. It could very well be that testing may not even be given any more and that the license has become purely a fee license like a street vending license or business license -- its fuction only to generate money for the city, not one for public safety reasons. I am sure the chains would love that -- in other words, they could just buy a license.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-19-2003, 08:42 AM:
 
Frank
New York no longer does a practical test just a written one.
This happened about 2 1/2 years ago.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-19-2003, 08:48 AM:
 
What did the practical test in NYC involve? Did applicants have to actually inspect and show a film, or were they just required to do things like make proper splices and demonstrate the use of a volt-ohms meter?
 

---

Posted by Carmine Occhino (Member # 1699) on 11-19-2003, 08:52 AM:
 
I was told once that a projector was involved and you had to troubleshoot certain problems
 

---

Posted by Michael Goucher (Member # 199) on 11-19-2003, 05:18 PM:
 
In 1973 when I took the exam, it was in two phases, a written test which covered electrical and projection issues. In those days the variety of equipment found in operating projection booths was amazing, some dating back to earliest talkies days. Once passed, the ticket to the practical test was mailed to you and you needed to be "hands-on" knowledgeable about carbon arc projection, any one of a number of sound & projector heads, and film handling, of course. Almost always, the film piece was tails out with a head leader on it. If you fell into the trap, you got banged another testing fee, and a 9-month wait (at the time). I understand nowadays it's a walk-in exam.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 11-19-2003, 06:41 PM:
 
When I got my Massachusetts Projectionist license in 1971 things were different. In the booth of what once had been the state censors' screening room the "practical" test was given by making the applicant wire the booth! The 2 machines (regular Simplex with Strong 1kW carbon lamps & rectifiers) switches, changeovers and fuse panel had all wire connection points terminated in copper studs with wing nuts. There was an enormous pile of various gauge asbestos wires with ring lugs on the ends. The test: wire the booth (while being quizzed on fire-safety topics), inspect the print, run a show. Let's bring back the good old days! Wonder how many of today's operators could pass?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-19-2003, 11:25 PM:
 
I'll bet I probably couldn't

Steve
 

---

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 11-20-2003, 12:40 AM:
 
I'm sure there are servicepeople out there that would have trouble.

But building a booth really isn't all that relevant to operating these days. Sure it helps to know how everything works from the electrical panel to the screen but it's more important these days to know how to take care of the film and put on a good show. That seems to be quite laking in many large theaters.

--Chris
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-21-2003, 05:25 AM:
 
Larry, the NY practical was similar. You didn't have to actually build a booth, but there were lots of exercises about proper wire sizing and correct breaker wiring and knife switch assembly. On my test, the tester asked me to throw a mains switch and tell him what I observed. It had a bad mechanical spring and the correct answer was that it was a "a broken switch" (happily, I got that right). What I got wrong was when I had threaded up and was actually running film that the tester told me to imagine a fire had started in the projector, show him what I would do. After going threw the whole routine...stopping the machine, putting on the house lights, closing the fire shutter, calling the manager, I thought I had done everything needed. He asked, what else would you do? I thought a minute and saw the fire pail filled with sand, so I said, "well, I would try to put out the fire, but I am sure that even though this is a practical, you wouldn't want me to throw this bucket of sand on your projector, right?" He was not amused. He asked again, "what else would you do?" I was really stumped -- "Get my butt out of here and close the door behind it?" "What else?" he said again. I couldn't think of another thing so I finally gave up....and promptly failed. The answer, call the Department of Gas and Electric and report a fire in the booth. I passed the next time round.

I also heard of one guy where he couldn't strike the ark. They have tools in the booth at your disposal and he did everything....used a meter to test if he had DC coming out of the rectifier panel, at the knife switch, etc. Turns out he didn't test the carbon rod itself, which, surprise surprise, was really a wooden dowel painted black to look like a carbon rod.

It was a challenge.

Back when I worked on the written test to upgrade it to ask questions about the operation of a modern booth rather than one designed in 1930, there was discussions about what to do about the practical to modernize it as well. They needed to either install a platter and xenon in their mock booth, or rent out a theatre when they needed to test applicants. I guess that was more trouble that it was worth to them and they must have dropped the practical altoghther. I am sure the continuing lobbying of the chain exhibitors to make the testing easy had something to do with the decision.

I have a friend who has not renewed his license simply be cause he says he has no intention of paying for a license when the theatres are sending unlicensed people to run the booths.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 11-21-2003, 06:12 PM:
 
Frank,

Sadly, now the Mass. test is really just another tax.
And heavy lobbying by the exhibitors was the reason.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-22-2003, 11:13 AM:
 
I have still seen no justification for licensing this profession as opposed to others. If it's just to ensure the customer getting a quality presentation great but then why do we not test and license all crafts and professions? Shouldn't the person at the paint store have some training before he/she recommends an oil stain instead of a latex one? Shouldn't the clerk at the toy store have some knowledge about child psychology? The clothing store people about wool and cashmere? This is not necessarily a bad idea. But as we don't do it for most other jobs I see no point to licensing projectionists.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-25-2003, 02:47 PM:
 
Licensing has a purpose and is justified when the HEALTH and SAFETY of others depend upon the skill and knowledge of the person providing the service. If an incompetent projectionist or projection engineer jeopardizes the safety of theatre patrons, regulation through testing and licensing is justified. For example, handling nitrate film, working on power wiring, being responsible for emergency evacuation procedures, etc. There may also be justification for the protection of the worker -- assuring that a person is qualified to safely handle a xenon lamp, or understands "lock out - tag out" electrical safety procedures.

I certainly want my doctor, nurse, airline pilot, aircraft mechanic, train engineer, bus driver, electrician, etc., to be certified/licensed. I even dare to hope that all other drivers on the road are licensed. Many civil engineering projects require the sign-off of a licensed Professional Engineer (PE), plus periodic state inspection and recertification.
 

---