Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Play Time (Presented in 70MM)

This is topic Play Time (Presented in 70MM) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=001738

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-27-2010, 09:46 PM:

****

What a amazing Time!

Ok, officially, I love 70mm! What an intersting film. It was like observing people in everyday life. Reminds you of how simple movie narratives have become. There is so much going on in every shot it hard to know where to look and then you think you have missed something.

Not exactly a silent film, but kind of like one. I never really laughed out loud at all, but it was more of an amusement than homour. The door scene was funny.

Something I found intersting was that according to Roger Ebert the director lost everything (including his house) with personal bankruptcy because of this film. Also, it took three years to film on a set that was built for the built.

I knew that seeing this film in 70mm was a must as there might not be another opportunity to ever see this movie in 70mm, the jury is out whether tiff will continue playing 70mm films. I think they will. Also, it appear Roger Ebert claims that there is only one 70mm print in circulation.

The 70mm had so much detail. It really is amazing. No close up shots as everything is med-long shot. I was lucky enought to see a 70mm, (possible) 4K presentation, 35mm and then another 70mm print all back-to-back-to-back-to-back. I can honestly say, I was wrong, 70mm is the superior format. It was the most "life" like out of all format. Although 35mm is not what is used to be so I have heard.

There were some sequences where I really think it went out of 70mm from the source of restoration and thus were blown up. The blacks changed in these parts. There were only a few of the parts and they were near the end.

The print I did see had some issues, there were some scratches here and there, and the film was dirty and the beginning and end of the changeovers.

Like 2001:, I was amazed at the channel seperation. There seemed to be so much channel seperation. Going left to right and rare dialogue coming from the right/left speakers here and there. Were 70mm films made with better sound seperations?

As for presentation. The masking was not fully flat. I could see the black bars on the side. It looks like it was projected on scope with flat letterboxing. Can anyone confirm if this is the correct way of showing the film?

Also, there were a few jumpy sections and I noticed a splice every once in a while. Looks like this print has been mishandled.

Format: 70mm
Sound: DTS
The screen size was an average size. Not massive or wall to wall.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-28-2010, 12:56 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
As for presentation. The masking was not fully flat. I could see the black bars on the side. It looks like it was projected on scope with flat letterboxing. Can anyone confirm if this is the correct way of showing the film?

There's always been a controversy over what the correct aspect ratio of this picture really is. It's not 1.85:1 like Criterion says it is. As I recall it's something weird that Tati himself made up so to emphasize the vertical compositions in the film. It's something like 1.70:1. Anytime I've seen it, the masking is never quite right.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 12-28-2010, 02:42 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Like 2001:, I was amazed at the channel seperation. There seemed to be so much channel seperation. Going left to right and rare dialogue coming from the right/left speakers here and there. Were 70mm films made with better sound seperations?

There was a time when directional sound was pretty common, not only in surround films, but also regular stereo.

I personally prefer that the dialog move with the character across the screen and around the auditorium (as necessary).

For some reason, studios, directors, and sound mixers have decided that it apparently disorients/confuses people when dialog moves, so dialog is now anchored to the center channel. Of course, they're perfectly will to do directional with sound effects, which apparently DOESN'T disorient people.

For example, if you get lucky enough to see a Cinerama presentation of HOW THE WEST WAS WON, or an old roadshow print of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, all of the dialog is directional.

The sad thing is that now, with DVD and Blu-ray, studios are actually re-mixing films and locking in to the center channel what had been directional dialog.

On LaserDisc, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS has the directional dialog, but on an early release of it on DVD, the dialog was all in the center. I don't if that's still the case, but I'm always suspicious of "newly mixed audio" when it comes to new releases of classic titles.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-28-2010, 04:17 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
The print I did see had some issues, there were some scratches here and there, and the film was dirty and the beginning and end of the changeovers.

This is the problem with repertory prints. Assuming the print is destined to play only 1-2 times at an engagement, most people agree with me that running changeover puts less wear on the film. However once you hit that 3-4 showing mark, plattering puts less wear on the film because it isn't being constantly handled. Think about it. The ENDS of the reels are what is being handled each and every show on a changeover setup, hence the wear buildup at the ends of the reels. Just because someone isn't touching the actual first frame to be projected in no way stops the dirt buildup, which turns into general "wear" marks. The film DOES lay on itself and the dirt DOES migrate from layer to layer each time it is wound and unwound. Nobody seems to understand this except the crew I worked with at the GCC Northpark 1&2 and Steve Guttag.

Unfortunately this is why repertory prints are pretty much going to get worn, dirty and scratched. Mostly it is because people are too stubborn with their old practices of threading ON the countdown itself, rather than threading on an extended section of (usually additional) leader and motoring down to the starting frame. Likewise, additional tail leader is often required. I've all but given up trying to teach this to the old timers though. Even on a print like Playtime where typically there will be 30-50 of leader on it from the lab, I see people hand-winding reel to reel dragging the film across the side of the projector until they get to that precious start frame. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-28-2010, 04:28 PM:

When I run archival films, I also use PTR rollers on each show (changing at each reel). As such, there is no dust/dirt accumulation.

The labs are definitely to blame on some of this...they no longer seem to have much leader beyond the countdown.

But Brad is absolutely correct. One should NOT handle the countdown. At the Uptown, I normally added at least 15-feet of scrap film (usually recycled trailers) to the head and tails of house reels to ensure that nobody need touch the countdown. The advantage of using trailers is that you have something to frame up on and they need not last longer than the print stays in the theatre.

Playtime...which was a new print not too long ago (and has DTS sound, as already noted) probably should be Film Guarded as it is not an archival film in the strictest sense. It is a distribution print that clearly is making the rounds. I do not use any solution on a true archival print...only PTRs and again, I change them on each reel.

-Steve

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-28-2010, 05:49 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
However once you hit that 3-4 showing mark, plattering puts less wear on the film because it isn't being constantly handled. Think about it.

I would have to say a "changeover" has less chance of wear and tear, or less chance of human error.

1. First off, more likely than not. A change over will likely have of an more experienced projectionist.

2. Less cheap plastic rollers and twists etc for the film to go through

3. More chance of projectionist checking up on the machines

4. The entire print gets stratched if you make one mistake on a built up print.

5. Changeovers have less chance at missing the roller correctly.

That said, my old manager once ran half of an entire movie right into the floor as he forgot add the bottom reel of a changeover.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-28-2010, 05:55 PM:

Right! Everything works OK IF (and only if) the PERSON is right. Louis

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-28-2010, 06:03 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Right! Everything works OK IF (and only if) the PERSON is right. Louis

Even if you had the right person. The chances of making a mistake are greater on a platter system than that of a changeover. At least, that has been my experience.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-06-2011, 10:51 PM:

I saw this in 70mm over at the AFI Silver a few years back for the first time, and it floored me.... the Criterion bluray, nah, Warner Bros. 65mm hidef transfers look better than's Criterion's transfer of 'Playtime' - major disappointment.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2011, 11:57 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Nobody seems to understand this except the crew I worked with at the GCC Northpark 1&2 and Steve Guttag.

Oh c'mon, you know I understand this as well. I witnessed it firsthand at the Telluride Film Festival. Brand new print that look great on the first run or two, but by the time most of them got to me at the Nugget the beginning and ends of the changeovers looked pretty bad. Not enough leader/tail!

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2011, 12:33 AM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
I saw this in 70mm over at the AFI Silver a few years back for the first time, and it floored me

Yeah DVDs and Blu-rays just can't compete. I have heard that Baraka is an 8k transfer. I likely will pick that up, I also have the Baraka laserdisc.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 01-07-2011, 01:59 AM:

Hi Tom,

here u can read about the restoration of "PlayTime": http://www.in70mm.com/news/2004/playtime/index.htm

Additionally if you are interested; a list of all 5/65mm films: http://www.in70mm.com/library/process/_all/index.htm + Super Technirama 70 titles: http://www.in70mm.com/library/process/technirama/index.htm

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2011, 02:12 AM:

quote: Thomas Hauerslev
Hi Tom,

here u can read about the restoration of "PlayTime": http://www.in70mm.com/news/2004/playtime/index.htm

Additionally if you are interested; a list of all 5/65mm films: http://www.in70mm.com/library/process/_all/index.htm + Super Technirama 70 titles: http://www.in70mm.com/library/process/technirama/index.htm

Thanks Thomas. I appreciate the info!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-07-2011, 10:13 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I would have to say a "changeover" has less chance of wear and tear, or less chance of human error.

Says he who has never run a changeover show. Both types of film handling require great care. Just because a show is run via changeovers does not guarantee a better presentation. You yourself witnessed the result of bad film handling caused by projectionists not caring enough about the film when running changeovers.

But Brad is right. He's kind of been in the business of improving onscreen presentations for a while, you know? I think he might know a thing or two. I think it is funny that you purport that he is perhaps mistaken on this subject, however.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-07-2011, 06:53 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Says he who has never run a changeover show. Both types of film handling require great care. Just because a show is run via changeovers does not guarantee a better presentation. You yourself witnessed the result of bad film handling caused by projectionists not caring enough about the film when running changeovers.

But Brad is right. He's kind of been in the business of improving onscreen presentations for a while, you know? I think he might know a thing or two. I think it is funny that you purport that he is perhaps mistaken on this subject, however.

Are you trolling for some trouble?

quote: Joe Redifer
Says he who has never run a changeover show

haha, I ran change-over of screen #2 of the 5 Drive-In right up until it got replaced with a platter in late 2003.