This is topic "Re-engineering" the Profession of Projectionist 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=008403

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-04-2006, 09:04 PM:
 
OK, as promised here's a thread spun off from the "Outing Bad Film Handlers Part 2" thread, that deals with some core issues raised in that thread.

It's time for some blue sky thinking. Why simply accept that Projectionists - who are skilled Professionals - be badly paid, etc. and that this will never change? Why simply accept that this Profession has effectively been casualised - for the most part?

Let's have some non-emotional factual discussion and creative thinking. How can perceptions be changed, and the Profession of Projectionist restored to its rightful place?

Also, let's acknowledge that cinemas today are being squeezed through a shrinking share of the Box Office, which is partly being driven by the losses the Studios are suffering via Piracy. And, cinemas have increasing overheads. And this is apart from the enormous outlay to big-name stars before the film reaches theatres.

To kick things off, here are some ideas:

1. Can the Projection area be related somehow more closely to Production and Post-Production? For example, Assistant Film Editors in post-production are very well paid, likewise Boom Ops on sets (trying to clumsily relate like for like here). Would this help shift perceptions of Projection away from the "menial operative" interpretation and towards the truth - which is that it is an Art and a Craft just like all the other Filmmaking Arts and Crafts? Could a publication or DVD work here?

2. Can the Projectionist's Craft be made more visible, and also can it be communicated somehow that it is extremely valuable ? Like an expert Cabinet-maker or Jeweller? Restoring value seems to be the big task here. Are other people in Filmmaking asked to work for 8$ an hour or whatever? Of course not, because their jobs are appreciated as being valuable!

3. Despite automation and technical advances, it is well known that a skilled Projectionist is worth far more than an unskilled one. How can that be communicated better? How can it be communicated that automation etc. does not in fact remove the need for a skilled Craftsperson?

4. This should not just be a matter for unions or trade guilds, or whatever. This should be seen for what it is - a problem that has implications for the whole industry. It is a cross-industry issue, and all it is is about equality. Nobody is seeking to be a millionaire! How can that be communicated?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-05-2006, 03:55 AM:
 
Brian, I think you are beating a dead horse here. Consider this -- theatre owners seem to be willing to invest HUGE amounts of money in digital equipment. And what is the seemingly inexplicable lure that is making these traditionally reluctant-to-costly-upgrade owners purchase this ghastly expensive new equipment? What's making them salivate seems to be the chance that they can FINALLY and TOTALLY eliminate even the $8/hr splice jockey.

The motivation to invest in the new technology certainly isn't any driving passion for superior presentation. Has ANYONE ever heard theatre owners lament that they wish their film presentation could be better and if ONLY someone would come up with a way to eliminate all that dirt and jitter and weave and scratches, they would jump at the chance to make those improvements on their screens no matter what the cost? I certainly haven't.

No matter what they tell you about digital eliminating scratches or dirt -- they weren't spending any money to make sure their prints didn't get scratched or dirty for years when there were much MUCH cheaper solutions to their inferior presentations than spending truck loads of money and incurring staggering debt loads, yet here they are, seemingly rational business men mortgaging their properties and for what? I say it's so they can get rid of that thorn in their butts -- the well-trained, well-paid, professional Projectionist.

Someplace in the land of cinema accounting, some bean counter has come to the conclusion that somewhere down the line investing in Dee-Cinema is going to save them big money. I guarantee that thinking includes ridding themselves of projectionist's salaries, even the miniscule ones they are paying now. I think they are going to get a big surprise down at the end of that road.

I do think it is a good idea to promote the idea of a Projection Specialist, but Brian, probably the only people who would be receptive to that concept are those operators who already appreciate what a conscientious, knowledgeable technican in the booth means and they probably have such in their hire already. It's the owners who are basically interseted in running a fast food stand without much concern for what happens in those holes in the wall beyond the concessions counter -- these are the guys you have to reach and I can't see them having any interest in changing the way they operate. I mean, they actually think they aren't going to have to pay trained, highly skilled video/network technicians to maintain the digital equipment once they change to digital. These people have seriously small brain pans. (Yah, I ran THE BIRDS over the weekend).
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-05-2006, 04:37 AM:
 
My feelings is that them days are over, I had much more respect and pay in the single screen days doing change overs and watching the carbons burn, dispite the fact that running a multiplex is a much harder, much less fun job. In those days the projectionist was essential, the movie could just fall of the screen at any time. Now today I believe the job is very important if return buisness is a factor, vital.

Unfortunatly many cinema chains have set themselves up poorly for the current compitition with the home and high definition . Afterall your home TV is never out of focus, light is always perfect, no scratches or dirt but too many cinemas are not as good!!!

As for production, Being a projectionist is what got me a job behind the camera 20 years ago for a TV station! In the Cinecamera section probably 10 percent of the staff, mostly sound recordists were former projectionists.

In Production well thats changing aswell. DV and Final Cut Pro is creating a new breed of one man band style of filmmaker and budgets are smaller than ever. Filmschools are churning out many more students than jobs.

Experienced Filmmakers are embrasing Digital. Sure the pays better per hour, but how many weeks a year does the average DOP work? There is so much more compitition than ever before.

Thats my 2 cents worth
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-05-2006, 07:35 AM:
 
I totally agree with Frank. It's a different time we live in now. The projectionists job will never be remotely the same or looked at the way it was.
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-05-2006, 08:27 AM:
 
Sadly, I agree with everyone above. The position of 'projectionist' has pretty much ended. Oh, there will be a few working in large venue places, but those will be few and far between. Theaters are an assembly line type job now; trying to shovel the most people through for the least cost. If studios and theaters wanted to improve their presentation, 70mm was always there. (For example, they can spend $300 million for 'Lord of the Rings' but not $2-3 millon for 70mm release prints?) But quality is not high on the list of goals for studio' film presentations.

All-in-all, digital is probably a good thing. While it can't be as good as the best film can be, (at least currently) it won't be as bad as the worst film can be. There will be fairly consistant presentation quality from one theater to another. A big Mac tastes the same everywhere, right?
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-05-2006, 09:44 AM:
 
I once suggested in response the the Uptown debacle in DC that projectionists should work for tips. Allow the projectionist(s) on duty to have a prominent screen display before the show explaining that the projectionist presenting tonight's film is serving at their pleasure. There would be a lock box at each exit for which only the projectionists would have the key.
In some ideal world, people would begin to notice better presentation, and would be willing to drop a dollar to encourage good work. Afterall, if they'd pay $5+ for 3¢ worth of popcorn, they would surely pay an extra buck for a well presented show. If just 1/3 of the people in a 300 seat theatre tipped, the projectionist would be making about $50 an hour --- per screen!
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-05-2006, 06:39 PM:
 
It's been gone a long time and it's not coming back, unfortunately. Digital is the final nail in that coffin.

It's over.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-05-2006, 06:57 PM:
 
OK, that's really great. So - It's Over. So how do we communicate that ?

Lets' move on that. It's Over. (BTW I'm NOT being funny with you here Tim, that's a really succinct way of summarising what everyone else here has said).

That's the message that needs to go out - It's Over. So when people go misty-eyed and say "Projectionist? That's an interesting job" the answer's got to be "Sure. But It's Over".

Great. I'll do some more work on it. The interesting thing is what will happen now one goes out and declares that It's Over! It's Over, so everyone needs to say that and get the message out right across the industry.

(But if It's Over, then why are people working in cinemas?)
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 12-05-2006, 07:34 PM:
 
Don't despair Brian.
We still have a loyal following at our little cinema despite massive competition.
One reason is that our projectionists care.
There was a time when I thought that I would never find good people under the age of 60. That is when we added automation with lens turret, etc.

My point is that you can teach caring projectionists the skills - Xenon, platters and automation make it easier. Just like teaching someone to drive. Automatic takes the worry out of coping with a clutch and gearchange so you can concentrate on piloting the vehicle safely.

We luddites like change-overs and carbons but a modern box can be less nerve-wracking.

Cofession: When we run a movie off a hard drive we can forget to check such things as the focus - the whole thing seems so distant from our normal operation that we become detached. However, after such a blunder, notes go up for everybody. One slightly out-of-focus show is one too many.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-05-2006, 07:59 PM:
 
Thanks Ron, that's inspiring!

So, what if it is that just one type of projectionist's job is Over?

Maybe all the low-rent multiplexes with slave labour will indeed go all-digital and unstaffed, leaving a new breed of more intimate cinema that actually employs skilled people, pays them properly and works like Ron has described?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-05-2006, 08:16 PM:
 

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

I once suggested in response the the Uptown debacle in DC that projectionists should work for tips.

---

Yea, you mean something like this.....?



Re: Ron Yes, there are a few theaters that do care... none in Utah though. I disagree with Ron on running a film from a hard drive.... If your projectionists are trained the same way they would be checking focus just as they always have. The thing they would find is that with digital is that it doesn't drift once set. There is not much heat to warm up the lens.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-05-2006, 08:46 PM:
 
The advent of xenon, platters and automations has made this job into an assembly line type job. Now you have ushers running large complexes, by just taking a small training course. So why pay these ushers the same wage as a seasoned projectionist. Give them .50 cents more an hour than the usher downstairs.

quote: John Walsh

---

Theaters are an assembly line type job now; trying to shovel the most people through for the least cost.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

what will happen now one goes out and declares that It's Over! It's Over, so everyone needs to say that and get the message out right across the industry.

---

I'm sorry, Brian, maybe I misunderstood you. It sounded to me like you were trying to find a means of generating clout for a job that has long since been de-professionalized. I can certainly empathise with the thought, but unfortunately, there was no going back once that industry cat was out of the bag.

I apologize if I was a bit flippant, but believe me, I take no pride in saying what I do. This is coming from one who entered the field back when it still WAS a craft; back when it paid a liveable wage, when you had to be darned good to even be considered for a relief position, and back when the theatre managers resented you for the good money you made (which was often well above their salary).

Therefore, I submit that trying to reverse a trend that began at least 25 years ago (and a perception that began even earlier), and with Digital Cinema looking to absorb even the expendable sprocket-jockeys -- to say nothing of the handful of remaining artisans -- is probably just too little, too late.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-06-2006, 10:50 AM:
 
Apologies Tim, I was in fact taking what you were saying totally seriously. You're absolutely right. Your honesty is refreshing, and it's very necessary. Sorry for any confusion.

But what would you think of the idea that it is only one type of Projectionist role that is over (i.e. the low-cost multiplex model).

Indeed, is it even worth now considering splitting the meaning of the term "Projectionist" to distinguish between those low-rent multiplex or other operations (acknowledging there are quality multiplexes as well) and the "quality" type of job as practised by artisans? By this, I mean a new term that is polite but clear (not "platter jockey" or other slang).

In other words, can we "reclaim" the Projectionist's profession by distinguishing it from the low-wage version that has devalued it?

Just some ideas. Keep 'em coming!
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-06-2006, 11:00 AM:
 
There are too few of those quality type jobs left. Less and less each day in fact. Besides, the projectionists job today is not the same as it was before. Everything is automated today. Sure, the projectionists have more screens to cover at one time, but there is less to do with each screen. Today, anyone can be a projectionist. Back then, no way. So back to your original point. This job will never be well paying except for specialty booths. Nothing is ever going to change that. You can thank technology for that.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-06-2006, 11:51 AM:
 

quote:

---

In other words, can we "reclaim" the Projectionist's profession by distinguishing it from the low-wage version that has devalved it?

---

quote: Richard May

---

So back to your original point. This job will never be well paying except for specialty booths. Nothing is ever going to change that. You can thank technology for that.

---

quote: Bill Gabel

---

The lower the senority number the longer you've been in the booth. So if this great job opened up and went for bid on the bid sheet. You would go down to the theatre for a walk through and see what kind of job it was. Then you would bid on the job, by sending a letter to the local that you are bidding on this job by a select date. When bidding ended the letters would be opened by the business agent and he would award the job to the lowest operator's senority number.

---

quote:

---

Was the Seniority Number system with the Locals a good or bad thing do you think?

---

It was good and bad. If the Local was a good fair one it worked, but if the BA was bad. Then there was no fairness in the process. They would favor their select few of operators. And give them a slight upper hand wheather mailing info on the testing of the location or times. So it would look like the other operators had problems. Once I was on this job because the regular operator had died, so I was one of the regular reliefs on the theatre. The other operator was working the regulars hours. Everything was running fine and no problems. Because the job had tobe put on the bid sheet by the local. So a few operators started to show up to do walk throughs of the booth and job. The job would be the one that I was working on. So they asked questions and saw the operations of this seven plex. The location was a money maker for the chain. This one operator was a GOOD FRIEND of the BA, he never worked the theatre. He went afar as to invite the DM to dinner afew times before the testing. So this guy comes by the theatre one night to do the walk through, he said it was a piece of cake. The local everyone who had bidded on the job by sending the test time info out by mailing it so it would get to the person after the testing. The only persons to show up for the test was that guy and another friend of the BA. The guy that took the DM to dinner lost the job because I did not tell him one important item about the digital roll around units. Which proved he was idiot to the DM and BA. He tried to put a round connector in a square hole. The other guy got the job for a few months before he got shit canned for being in the bar next door. So I was back on that job again.
On another bid I did was for this 6-plex and a tri-plex job. The local put it on the bid sheet. I had never worked these houses before. The people that came to do the testing, had come from many different theatres. One guy had never run a AA-II projector and had worked third run and grind houses. The one thing the local did not know was I had already won the job before the testing. I saw a few of the BA's friends testing there. I had worked for the chain before and they knew me and my work. Today the senority system is no longer in use in most locals. Today the BETTER jobs are only available by SPECIAL interviews and resumes. (Motion Picture Academy, Television Academy, Director's Guild, Writer's Guild and most Industry Screening Rooms)
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-07-2006, 12:43 PM:
 
I think the senority system still applies to regular houses though. Bill is right about the other rooms. It's basically by request only. BTW, this is in New York City. It may be different elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 12-07-2006, 01:30 PM:
 
The only thing that seemingly will bring us out of the low-pay expendable workforce is the fact that by 2025 in Canada anyway, the number of over-65 retired citizens will double. In the mountains of BC and oil-patch in Alberta, it's already happening. Starting wage at donut shops can be $15/hr with health and retirement benefits. That sure beats $6.85 minimum. In places like Calgary, virtually every business is short-staffed. Employers will simply HAVE to treat staff well again or go out of business.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-10-2006, 12:27 PM:
 
Thanks for the info folks, helps to chew on this! I appreciate your detailed explanation of the workings of the Seniority system Bill. Proves no system is incorruptible.

Interesting re. staff shortages in Canada Dave, maybe I'll emigrate!
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 12-10-2006, 08:17 PM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

Consider this -- theatre owners seem to be willing to invest HUGE amounts of money in digital equipment. And what is the seemingly inexplicable lure that is making these traditionally reluctant-to-costly-upgrade owners purchase this ghastly expensive new equipment? What's making them salivate seems to be the chance that they can FINALLY and TOTALLY eliminate even the $8/hr splice jockey.

---

quote:

---

That's an absurd argument. Assuming that a single projectionist can manage eight screens and earns $25 per hour and the projectors cost $240,000 each,

---