This is topic Cinerama on History Channel in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=003708
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-18-2004, 02:48 AM:
 
Just received the following from Dave Strohmaier and thought some of you may be interested.

quote:
The History Channel has produced an extraordinary episode of Modern Marvels that has a 10 minute segment on the Cinerama process. Modern Marvels is History Channel's top rated show and will be aired several times giving Cinerama some well deserved nationwide publicity. John Sittig of Cinerama Inc. and Dave Strohmaier were interviewed on camera along with Martin Hart of American Widescreen Museum and several others. Cinerama Adventure and Cinerama Inc. gave them permission to use several exclusive "Smilebox" Cinerama shots as well as some historic stills, and they also filmed the Cinerama process in action at the Dome in Hollywood at the Seattle Cinerama. The rest of the episode is about movie technology evolution through the years.

Airdate is Nov. 24, 8 PM on the History Channel; Modern Marvels.
In case something changes check your local listings.

As a) I don't live in the US and b) don't have satellite I don't know when / if I will get to see this . Perhaps we could convince HC to give us a tape to screen at next year's Widescreen Weekend
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-18-2004, 03:16 AM:
 
Ditto for Randy Gitsch's feature documentary on Cinerama which was shown at the 2003 AMIA conference. A theatrical release would be wonderful, but failing that I'd love to see it released on DVD.
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-18-2004, 03:49 AM:
 
Good news for those of you living outside the USA. Look at WWW.DISCOVERYCHANNEL.COM. All of their affiliates are listed under this site, and if you have problems then just look up WWW.THEHISTORYCHANNEL.COM.
I searched for this epispode, but it does not seem to be listed yet. This might be a new show premiering on the specified date? There is another one currently available about Stereo, featuring info about THX, and Dolby, among others.

Just about all the programs featured one Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, History Channel, etc are available on home video. Episodes are generally $25.00 US, and should be readily available.

Cheers

Kutler
 
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-18-2004, 06:47 AM:
 
I e-mailed History Channel in the UK and at present they do not have plans to show this in over here [Frown] [thumbsdown]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-18-2004, 06:49 AM:
 
Randy Gitsch documentary = Dave Strohmaier documentary = Cinerama Adventure

And yes, it's great. When it ran in the Chicago International Film Festival a bit over a year ago I had them shift the press preview to my place, pro bono, from the fest's own small, non-digital sound review room so it could be seen at its best, and, of course, so I could see it myself.

Previously posted in P.34 of the Random Pictures thread in Yak (just north of Gracia's topless picture LOL):

-

Now you can all say you've seen it! [Big Grin]

The Modern Marvels installment will be about widescreen movies in general.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-18-2004, 07:55 AM:
 
They're shipping it on Cinerama reels??? Or are those just 6000' reels in a Cinerama-like shipping container? Either way, it will be a problem when the print shows up at a venue that can't accommodate them. [Confused]
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-18-2004, 08:00 AM:
 
Those type cans are the old 70MM Goldberg style shipping cans.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-18-2004, 11:00 AM:
 
Yes but this is one with a pedigree: It once held R1 of the original answer print of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-25-2004, 12:33 AM:
 
Wed 24 Nov 2004, The History Channel, Modern Marvels "Cinema Technology" just aired: here is a synoposis:

The transition of silent to sound.

Edison's inventions, including his attempt at syncing sound to film.

How Western Electric advanced Edison's origonal idea. Unfortunately, they did not show an actual Western Electric U-Base.

Briefly described optical sound.

Spoke about the early complications of camera noise affecting the soundstage/set and what was done to overcome this problem.

Described the early 3-strip Technicolor process and the subsequent Kodak advancement of color film.

Spoke about the development of wide screen presentations to counteract the impending threat of television.

Excellent review of Cinerama. Showed the origonal Cinerama camera, and described how the technology was origonally used for military gunnery training purposes, subsequently simplified and modified for cinema usage. Also described the complicated process of projecting Cinerama and even showed some screen installation footage.

Spoke about the subsequent simplification of wide screen presentations via 70mm and 35mm Scope. Also mentioned the IMAX format.

Described mag sound, and how Disney's Fantasia was the first major attempt at stereo.

Spoke about Dolby, his difficulty in selling his technology to the major studios, and finally broke thru with Lucas and Star Wars.

Brief mention of DLP.

Tribute to Loew's 100th anniversary.

Did not mention anything about Simplex, Century, Motiograph, Strong, DTS, Sony etc, etc.

No mention of Drive-ins, or how platters and automation led to the development of multi-plexes.

Did not get into detail of how projectors work, or the duties of Projectionists.
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-25-2004, 12:53 AM:
 
quote: Will Kutler
Described mag sound, and how Disney's Fantasia was the first major attempt at stereo.
Except that they actually claimed that FANTASIA was recorded and shown with mag stereo originally. FALSE! It was recorded (and shown) on OPTICAL film.

quote: Will Kutler
Spoke about the development of wide screen presentations to counteract the impending threat of television.
And (sorta) claimed the scope lens was "invented" in 1952. In actuality it was made in the 20's. Interestingly, they showed a "squeezed" 35mm image from Ben-Hur to demonstrate a film SHOT in scope and spread out in projection. While Ben-Hur was photographed with a 1.25 squeeze, it used a wide 65mm negative to capture the film.

quote: Will Kutler
Described the early 3-strip Technicolor process
But indicated that 3-strip began use in 1930. Actually, 2-strip was still being used then. 3-strip didnt start until 1934 or so.

quote: Will Kutler
Did not mention anything about Simplex, Century, Motiograph, Strong, DTS, Sony etc, etc.
Interestingly, while they were talking about SRD, they showed a close-up of an SDDS processor, with clearly labeled signal labels for L, LC, C, etc.
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-25-2004, 01:05 AM:
 
I also just saw this, and it left a LOT of topics uncovered...

-The pro-Dolby slant made sense seeing that all the manufacturer interviews were of Dolby personnel, conducted at the Dolby screening room facility in San Francisco.

-They misspelled [Dolby president] Ioan Allen's first name as 'Loan'... [Roll Eyes]

-They briefly mention 70mm releases in the 50's (assuming 5/70)but then show loads of IMAX equipment in operation.

-The thing did almost appear as being a paid adversitement for Loews Theatres and Dolby at times.

-They briefly mention DLP and show the guts of a DLP projector, and gave the usual spiel we have been hearing every year for almost the past ten years: 'In about five years DLP should be replacing 35mm film as the primary exhibition medium' YEAH, RIGHT! [Big Grin]

-A few nice shots of the Kinotons running at the Dolby screening room and of a later-model Century C on a RCA soundhead in a museum display.

and the most glaring omission of all:

NO INTERVIEWS WITH BRAD MILLER!!!

-Aaron
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-25-2004, 01:40 AM:
 
I like how the one guy was talking about the film going thru the gate all while he was pointing at the top sprocket and pad roller assembly.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-25-2004, 01:57 AM:
 
[bs] !! I missed the show. And I was HOME, too, for once, on a Wednesday! Damn! Well, sounds like I probably would've been underwhelmed.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-25-2004, 09:08 AM:
 
quote: Will Kutler
and the subsequent Kodak advancement of color film
It should have also mentioned the substantial lack of color it had.... comparatively.......

Mark
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 11-25-2004, 09:28 AM:
 
quote: Aaron Sisemore
... and of a later-model Century C on a RCA soundhead in a museum display.
...and that dinky Cinemeccanica 500-watt xenon that looked so out of place. [Roll Eyes]

I feel the production company could have tracked down a still-functioning carbon-arc changeover booth to give a better explanation of how projection was done until the early/mid-1970s, and made use of the projection booth they used for the Dave Strohmaier interviews to show how things are done nowadays.
 
Posted by Gordon Bachlund (Member # 124) on 11-25-2004, 09:39 AM:
 
An unfortunate sidebar claimed that the "flicker" in silent films results from running them at 24fps.

And not a word about theatre organs.

Perhaps it should be called the Revisionist History Channel. [Mad]
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-25-2004, 09:55 AM:
 
In addition to what has already been posted.
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 11-25-2004, 10:28 AM:
 
More additions to the list...
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-25-2004, 12:07 PM:
 
Hi gang

I just reported what the program contents generally were, without interjecting my two cents. And yes, I think it left a lot to be desired!

There is one film historian and historic collector that I know of who's museum would have been perfect for this show!

Anyhow, in reality, theatres were concerned about the impending threat of television as early as 1929. There is an article in the Arizona Daily Star regarding this topic that was printed with the opening of the Tucson Fox Theatre (Fox West Coast Theatres) in 1929.

No mention was made of early wide screen attempts, such as Simplex Grandeur.

No mention was made of Vista Vision, 3-D and other innovations.

The individual who was describing the "operation" of the Century C/RCA 9030 combination was absolutly clueless. He pointed to that rink-a-dink lamphouse, said that this is the type of carbon arc used until the '70's and that it had been converted to xenon. He basically pinted at different parts and said here is where the film comes in, exits, here is the lens and here is the sound.

With the exception of Cinerama,which was pretty good considering, the program left a lot to be desired.
 
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-25-2004, 02:55 PM:
 
C'mon guys ... this was a one-hour program for the average person. Of course, they are going to leave things out. It's damn near impossible to cover everything in that amount of time. Just like any other similar show, they presented the important aspects of motion picture projection throughout history, and in good terms that the average person (not involved with the industry) could understand.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-25-2004, 04:34 PM:
 
Of course they have to be brief. They could be accurate though. I would suppose this is with all their topics. We tend to think of the typical show like Modern Marvels as giving an accurate if cursory look at a topic. Yet maybe for those who are experts in the field being covered they also cringe at all the errors.

Check newsgroup rec.arts.movies.tech for more dissection of the program. I told Marty Hart (who appeared in the show) that at least the evening might be saved by the toilet & bathroom episode that appeared later.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-25-2004, 08:46 PM:
 
Yes, they have to keep things on a fairly uncomplicated level for their audience. It also has to move, as in, progress the story.

When's this show going to be back on? Are they having a weekend repeat, maybe?
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-25-2004, 10:27 PM:
 
Yes, this show had to be brief due to the fact that at least 1/2 of an 1 hr. show today is advertisment commericials! But this is not an excuse for a lack of accuracy.

For example, this film historian that they interviewed, Jan Christopher Horak, seemed to be clueless as to how a projector works. Darryl Spicer pointed this out in his post (the guy pointing to the upper pad roller and sprocket). Seeing as how they used anamation to describe sound, they could have shown the intermittent anamation in the FT manuals section. There is at least one collector that I know of who could've given them a practical demo of silent ops...including live music.

I am unsure of this accuracy, but they stated that Fantasia was origonally recorded using 9 tracks. That stereo release was limited to two theatres, one being in New York, and that the stereo effect had to be manually manipulated by a projectionist sound tech during the show.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-26-2004, 01:23 PM:
 
I'd like to see a Cinerama movie with a big yellow "H" in the lower-right corner [Wink]
 
Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 11-26-2004, 02:35 PM:
 
i watched it and i thought it sucked, about 25 minutes was devoted to silent films and the introduction of color. the last 10 minutes talked about imax and the future of film, the rest was fluff. it talked nothing about change-over houses or the modern projector. i reel let down.

i thought from the TV ads it was about the modern era of projection and multiplex's, but they covered it in 10 minutes. overall it sucked.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-26-2004, 03:58 PM:
 
I agree, while the show could not include everything, what was included should have at least been accurate.

The History Channel could have taken a $1.50 subway ride (PATH Train) from their corporate offices in Manhattan to Journal Square in Jersey City and seen a surviving Loews Wonder Theatre that is still running carbon arc's (Ashcroft Super-Coreless), and has a working Simplex Standard (with front shutter) along with a working Vitaphone Platter. We would have been happy to show them how it works.

/Mitchell
 
Posted by Gordon Bachlund (Member # 124) on 11-26-2004, 05:30 PM:
 
As for “Fantasia,” the original Fantasound systems were installed in only two theatres, the Broadway in New York and the Carthay Circle in Los Angeles. These systems featured 54 speakers and utlized, in addition to the full-mix backup track on the picture film, a separate synchronized 35mm film with four optical sound tracks (control, screen left, screen center and screen right) that afforded also derived house left, center and right channels, the equivalent of today’s surround channels.

However, road show engagements of “Fantasia” were accommodated by eight portable sets of road show sound equipment that afforded only three discrete front channels, orchestra, choruses and soloists.

Not bad for 1940!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-26-2004, 06:17 PM:
 
In unrelated news: The Science Channel has been running an hour-long behind-the-scenes look at IMAX and Iwerks theatres, projection systems, and simulator-ride motion bases. Ahhhem... Some of which I designed and built. [Wink]

The show is part of the "Building The Ultimate" series entitled "Extreme Screens". A well done and informative show that actually shows the 1570 rolling-loop and 870 conventional Geneva-type projectors, motion bases, and giant screens.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 11-26-2004, 08:18 PM:
 
Sounds interesting, Phil, but kind of a bummer if you don't have digital cable... [Frown] I object to having to rent a converter box for each TV set in the house, and a separate box for the VCR or DVD recorder, in order to get digital cable. What a pricey pain in the ass!
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-28-2004, 06:24 PM:
 
The History Channel presentation included interviews with this so-called "film historian" named Jan-Christopher Horack, who had as much knowledge about motion picture projection as say an uneducated/illiterate ditch digger would have about brain surgery! [Confused] [Roll Eyes]

Anyhow,THC claimed that digital cinema will present images that are superior to film, in that they will never fade, scratch or tear. Obviously, they are not familiar with todays film-stocks.

This Horack guy stated that the Powers was the initial industry workhorse (for 10 years), and made no mention of Simplex, or the major contributations this company made to cinema. Neither did they mention Century, Strong, Motiograph, RCA, etc, et.

Horack also stated that carbon-arc was directly responsible for nitrate fires, and insuniated that fires are not possible via xenon lighting systems. Furthermore, he did not mention any of the fire prevention devices installed in theatres, and stated that nitrate fires resulted in the entire theatre becomming a death trap for anyone in the building.

Horack also stated that carbon arc was only used until the 1950's, when it was replaced by xenon.

No mention of theatre organs was mentioned in this show. Instead, it was stated that music was provided by pianos and small bands or major orchestras.

It was also stated that the introduction of television in 1948 was a major threat to theatres, when in fact the television threat went as far back as 1929 or earlier.

They did give the dates of 1917-1930 for 2 strip technicolor and 1930 for 3 strip technicolor, and stated that color is what drew audiences back into theatres over television.

THey also mentioned somenting about 7 channel mag-strip.

Horack gave the date of 26 Dec. 1895 as the 1'st public screening of a motion picture to a paying audience.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-28-2004, 11:25 PM:
 
quote: Will Kutler
Horack also stated that carbon arc was only used until the 1950's, when it was replaced by xenon
What should have been said is that Nitrate film was eliminated in the 1950's with the developement of safty film in 1948 for the motion picture industry. Carbon arc was continuously used in a vast majority of theatres through the sixties. Xenon lamps were devoloped in 1951 but did not become widely used in the cinema until the advent of fillm transport systems.
 
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-29-2004, 03:24 AM:
 
Cinerama uses 7 track mag. 5 screen channels + left and right wall. At certain points in the film left wall track is switched to both walls and right wall track to rear speakers .

EX plus ,50years earlier! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-29-2004, 04:00 AM:
 
quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
The show implied that sync'ing Vitaphone discs with the picture was a matter of hit and miss. Not so. The disks had a clear start point, and the turntable was connected to the projector by gears (not belts).
The problem was not with the sychronisation mechanism per se, but the fact there were two ways sync could be and was frequently lost: if the needle jumped a groove in the record or if any length of film was lost in an accident and the projectionist failed to replace the missing frames with an identical length of opaque spacing.

Vitaphone discs were made of a softer shellac compound than the 78rpm records sold to consumers. This largely offset the loss of dynamic range from the slower rotation speed (33 1/3rpm) but did mean that the steel needle and very high tracking force tended to wear them out very quickly. Each side was supposed to be good for a set number of playings (20 I think but am not sure) and had tick boxes on the labels. Once all the boxes were ticked you were supposed to bin the disc. The problem was that as the discs were purchased by theatres outright - i.e. if you wanted to replace a worn-out set you had to pay for a new one - a lot of second run and lower budget houses didn't bother, played worn-out discs with worn-out needles and had them jump out of sync as a result.

Articles and letters in the British trade press suggest that this was a serious problem and a big part of the reason why Vitaphone was eventually discontinued. In the early days it gave a slightly better sound quality than sound on film (especially the early Western Electric AEO-light based VD tracks), but took more skill and was a lot more expensive to get right.

More info: Scott Eyman, The Speed of Sound, pp. 203-205; Edward Bernds, Mr. Bernds Goes to Hollywood, section starting on p. 68; contemporary sources - Rudolph Miehling, Sound Projection (NY, 1929); James R. Cameron, Motion Pictures With Sound (Manhattan Beach, 1929); Harold B. Franklin, Sound Motion Pictures (NY, 1929).

quote: Darryl Spicer
Xenon lamps were devoloped in 1951
Do you have a source for this? According to Don E. Kloepfel, Moving Picture Projection & Theatre Presentation Manual (SMPTE, 1969), the first short-arc xenon bulbs designed specifically for theatrical presentation were first demonstrated by Zeiss-Ikon at the Photokina trade show in 1954.

quote: Will Kutler
For example, this film historian that they interviewed, Jan Christopher Horak, seemed to be clueless as to how a projector works
I've had a factual accuracy issue with him, too. I recently wrote an article on ethics and film restoration practice for the AMIA journal (see The Moving Image, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 130-141), which he edited. As part of the revision process he suggested that I add a reference to a decision made during UCLA's restoration of another film from the one I was mainly dealing with. I couldn't find any published information on it, so I put the reference in a footnote naming him as the source. Shortly after the article was published I was contacted by someone from UCLA pointing out that the information was incorrect. Should a similar situation ever happen again I'll check it out or leave it out!

I'm with Steve on this one - sometimes boiling down technical issues for a non-technical audience can be very difficult and you often have to oversimplify some issues or leave others out altogether. But that's not an excuse for factual errors, and in these instances the programme makers should have had a system for checking and double-checking the information in the script.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-29-2004, 06:38 AM:
 
I've had 2 reports (one from a manager, one from a tech) who said that the Vitaphone discs received were *copied* via an onsite piece of equipment, the copied discs run, & the originals held for making another copy when the previous copies became worn. The tech described seeing the copying device in an older theatre, & was told what it was by an operator who'd worked there in the Vitaphone days.
 
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-29-2004, 06:46 AM:
 
quote:
I've had 2 reports (one from a manager, one from a tech) who said that the Vitaphone discs received were *copied* via an onsite piece of equipment,
You see in booth piracy even back then [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-29-2004, 06:53 AM:
 
Gosh, that's a new one on me! Must have been an acetate disc cutter of some description - I doubt if there'd be room in the booth for a full-scale wax cutting, electroplating and shellac pressing plant! I wonder if this was done with the studios' blessing or not.
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-29-2004, 07:18 AM:
 
quote: Phil Hill
In unrelated news: The Science Channel has been running an hour-long behind-the-scenes look at IMAX and Iwerks theatres, projection systems, and simulator-ride motion bases. Ahhhem... Some of which I designed and built.
Any credit given to you on the show?
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-29-2004, 09:38 AM:
 
quote: Leo Enticknap
Do you have a source for this? According to Don E. Kloepfel, Moving Picture Projection & Theatre Presentation Manual (SMPTE, 1969), the first short-arc xenon bulbs designed specifically for theatrical presentation were first demonstrated by Zeiss-Ikon at the Photokina trade show in 1954.
You are correct Leo. THe information on the site I found was not acuarate on the dates.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-29-2004, 10:05 AM:
 
The technical paper "Motion Picture Projection, Xenon Short Arc Lamp" by Seeger and Jaedicke (of Osram?) was published in the July 1960 SMPTE Journal. It was first published in German in Kino-Technik, 13: No.3, pp 55-59 in 1959.
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-29-2004, 10:37 AM:
 
The Discovery Channel has a discussion forum, on which at least 1 F-T member has posted a remark. Look at www.historychannel.com, then select Modern Marvels from the scroll down list of shows. There is a link to a discussion forum.

Anyhow, it would be interesting to see F-T members bombard THC with factual information.

Furthermore, it would really be great if Leo Enticknap would post his personal experience with Jan Christopher Horack!!

Cheers

K.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-29-2004, 11:45 AM:
 
What I posted above is really all there is to say. The person I swapped emails with at UCLA thought the most likely explanation to be that Jan-Christopher Horak had misheard the details in a lecture or conference panel and that the incorrect notes which resulted formed the basis of his suggested revision to my paper.

All human beings make mistakes and get facts wrong every now and again (I do it as much as everyone else, if not more so): the point is that if you're publishing something or putting it in a TV documentary, it's not a good idea to rely on any single source. If you have the same information in two separate sources (i.e. you can be fairly certain that one didn't get it from the other) then it's probably true; if you can't then treat the information as suspect. That really is a basic rule of historical research which it seems the producers of this documentary didn't pay much attention to, given the large number of errors which the posters in this thread have identified.

John - thanks for the reference on xenons.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-30-2004, 01:13 AM:
 
quote:
Gosh, that's a new one on me! Must have been an acetate disc cutter of some description - I doubt if there'd be room in the booth for a full-scale wax cutting, electroplating and shellac pressing plant!
These were both big Loew's houses in a large & large-midsize markets. The tech says the one he saw was in another closet-like room built for the purpose at the back of the balcony; a short walk, same level as, & opposite the projector booth, but against one of the outside walls. The tagline was the usual "I should have taken that thing with me, now it's gone..."
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-30-2004, 02:00 AM:
 
quote: Jeremy Fuentes
Any credit given to you on the show?
While I designed and/or improved several of the theatres/projectors/motion bases/systems that were shown, the premise of the show was not specific to the particular people involved but more of a general comment on the industry. However, still a very interesting and informative show.
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 11-30-2004, 06:07 PM:
 
Just for the record:

quote:

Horak, Jan-Christopher - Author Biography
Jan-Christopher Horak: Curator, Hollywood Entertainment Museum, Visiting Professor, UCLA. Previously, Founding Director, Archives Universal Studios. Director, Munich Filmmuseum, Senior Curator at George Eastman House Film Dept.. He has taught at Universities of Rochester, Munich, Salzburg, and the Munich Film Academy. Published books include Making images move (1997), Berge, licht und traum (1997), Lovers of cinema (1995), The dream merchants (1989), over 250 articles and reviews. Founding editor, The moving image. Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists.
"Those who know it do it. Those who don't know teach it."
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 11-30-2004, 06:07 PM:
 
Just for the record:

quote:

Horak, Jan-Christopher - Author Biography
Jan-Christopher Horak: Curator, Hollywood Entertainment Museum, Visiting Professor, UCLA. Previously, Founding Director, Archives Universal Studios. Director, Munich Filmmuseum, Senior Curator at George Eastman House Film Dept.. He has taught at Universities of Rochester, Munich, Salzburg, and the Munich Film Academy. Published books include Making images move (1997), Berge, licht und traum (1997), Lovers of cinema (1995), The dream merchants (1989), over 250 articles and reviews. Founding editor, The moving image. Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists.
"Those who know it do it. Those who don't know teach it." [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jeffrey Korns (Member # 2791) on 11-30-2004, 11:12 PM:
 
It was a very unsatisfying program. I agree that it was dumb to leave out the development of platter systems and to focus only on Dolby and ignore the others.

As far as early widescreen presentations go; they even left out Magnascope.

The program was also too simplistic and omitted to many details about why various things like Cinerama, and Cinemascope and 3d (which was omitted!) were adopted.

TV was only part of the problem for the movie theatres.
The anti-trust rulings in the 1940s played a BIG role in the demise of theatres. When the studios were forced to get rid of their theatres and end the states-rights bookings, the theatres were left to support themselves. Without studio subsidies they began to cut costs (something that remains to this day)and look for any gimmick they could get to draw people in. The studios also responded to this demand to get butts in the seats by coming up with these gimmicks, cause now the studios no longer had captive screens for their products.

Sadly, the Loew's sponsored program didn't even look back at any of the grand palaces that Loews used to have- probably cause they make the cookie cutter auditoriums of today look like [bs]
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-01-2004, 07:12 PM:
 
I am really amazed that more F-T members have not replied to the applicable discussion forum on THC Modern Marvels website! Talk about a good way to inform the general public about the film exhibition industry.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-02-2004, 08:06 AM:
 
quote: Christian Appelt
"Those who know it do it. Those who don't know teach it."
It's very tempting to indulge in 'expert bashing', I agree. IMHO it's not just the so-called 'experts' who are the problems, but also people who seek their views without checking them out properly first.

The producers of this sort of documentary have a lot of airtime to fill, and are not just making programmes on one subject. The chances are that the people who made this programme might have worked on one about the history of sheep farming in Wales last week and the causes of the Russian Revolution the next week. They hire researchers to go and find 'talking heads', and it's that process of identifying them which I think is at the root of the problem.

Very often those researchers are pretty lazy. I'll give you an example: back in February I was asked to be interviewed on a programme about the death penalty in 1930s America, which I know virtually nothing about. They'd found me because two years ago I'd wriitten a review of the DVD release of an archival restoration of a 1931 film called 20,000 Days in Sing-Sing in a film archivists' journal. My review focused almost entirely on the restoration aspects, and specifically the use of intertitles cut into the film to indicate where missing scenes and footage would have been. To put this in context I'd read up a little bit about the real-life case on which the film had been based, but this accounted for about 50 words in a 1,500 word review.

In order to find her 'experts', the documentary's researcher had gone to an online humanities abstract index of the sort you can use in any university library. For some reason, my article came up in her hit list (probably because she hadn't specified the search criteria very well). Enticknap not being a very common name, she then Googled me, found an archived e-mail post to a listserv with my contact details at the bottom and picked up the 'phone.

Once she explained what her programme was about, I quickly told her that I had no specialist subject knowledge in the history of capital punishment and that was the end of the conversation. But sadly I know several academics who, in that situation, would gladly have taken the fee, massaged their ego and done the interview. I can think of one individual who always appears on practically every film history documentary which broadcast here. His main research area was worked to death and has not really been interesting for over a decade now, so he's aggressively pushing himself as an expert in other areas. He's charismatic in front of the camera and efficient at delivering rentaquotes, and therefore is often in demand. Sadly, a lot of what he says is either plain simply wrong or betrays the fact that he's only read up on the basics and really can't offer any more insight than a second year undergrad student who's done the same thing.

But the TV researchers are not subject experts and in most cases simply can't tell whether someone is a leading researcher in any given area or just a slick rentaquote. In this case Horak clearly made a number of serious errors which should have been caught. But this programme was made for a cable channel and on a small budget. The researcher probably found the same CV that Christian posted, thought 'hmm... director of the Hollywood Museum... he should know his stuff'; and we know what happened next. The sad thing is that Horak is a genuinely acknowledged expert in a number of areas, and some of his restoration work is univerally regarded as ground breaking.

My theory is that the more senior subject experts get, the less they feel they have to lose by giving in to temptation and accepting offers from TV producers. For somoeone at my end of the career ladder, doing that would be extremely risky because I would potentially be making a public idiot of myself to the people I might be applying for jobs to in a few years' time. But for people further up I sometimes get the impression that they don't care if if their reputation suffers among a tiny minority of people who genuinely do know more than they do - they just love appearing big and important to the 500,000 other viewers who don't, and to other more junior members of their profession. After all, for every projectionist or technological historian who saw that programme, there will have been several hundred others who will have believed that Horak knew what he was talking about.

But people in this situation do themselves no favours when they accept invitations to represent themselves as something they're not in such a public forum, and the TV researchers who don't do their jobs properly also have a lot to answer for. In the 4 years I've been in the archive business I've seen the standard of researchers coming to me drop alarmingly - one even asked me if I had any footage of Captain Cook (1711-1779)! It's going to take change on both sides before the quality of historical programming gets signficantly better.

To give you an example of this problem, I have deliberately put two factual errors in the text of this post above. Can you find them? If you can, you'll be able to find the correct information using no more than Google. If and when you do that, ask yourself this: if you were considering whether or not to hire me as an 'expert' on some TV show, would it have occurred to you to verify that information, or would you just have taken my word for it?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-02-2004, 10:55 AM:
 
Captain James Cook (1728-1779)
20,000 Years in Sing Sing
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-02-2004, 02:26 PM:
 
...which proves that you're a far more competent researcher than most of the people who work for The History Channel. Scary, isn't it?!
 
Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 12-03-2004, 11:56 AM:
 
Some of Edison's earliest footage was shot in Hawaii, wasn't it? Probably not that early though.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-05-2004, 12:30 AM:
 
quote: Will Kutler
I am unsure of this accuracy, but they stated that Fantasia was origonally recorded using 9 tracks. That stereo release was limited to two theatres
quote: Gordon Bachlund
As for “Fantasia,” the original Fantasound systems were installed in only two theatres, the Broadway in New York and the Carthay Circle in Los Angeles.
The book "Motor City Marquees" (Stuart Galbraith, 2001) includes a claim that "Fantasound" was installed in 14 theatres. (I haven't researched this myself, so I cannot comment any further.)
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2