Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Tarantino Ditches Digital At New Beverly Theater

This is topic Tarantino Ditches Digital At New Beverly Theater 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=007060

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 09-05-2014, 02:21 PM:

"Tarantino Ditches Digital At New Beverly Theater"

(Link-A-Roo)

Quentin Tarantino is not only a rabid defender of 35 mm as the best medium for shooting
films, but for projecting them in theaters as well. While Christopher Nolan and
others agree that celluloid cameras are still superior to the highest HD, most
industry professionals understand that the story is over for 35 mm projection in this
country. It's done.

But not for Tarantino's New Beverly. The landlord of the venerable Los Angeles repertory
cinema is so anti-digital (see Cannes press conference) that he pulled out the digital
projector installed without his knowledge alongside the 35 mm projectors last June
by Michael Torgan, who runs New Beverly's day-to-day theater operations.

When Tarantino found out, he said the digital projector had to go. Some thought Tarantino
would go ahead and fire Torgan, but he has stayed on managing the theater.

He went ahead and acquired the digital projector because he was finding it harder and harder
to get prints. Will Tarantino eventually recognize reality? American Cinematheque director
Barbara Smith has said, "Digital is honestly the only way you can possibly stay in business
at this point."

Tarantino recently told LA Weekly: "That was the thing that pushed me over to say, ‘Now’s the
time to do it.’ I want the New Beverly to be a bastion for 35 millimeter films.

I want it to stand for something. When you see a film on the New Beverly calendar, you don’t
have to ask whether it’s going to be shown in DCP [Digital Cinema Projection] or in 35 millimeter.
You know it’s playing in 35 because it’s the New Beverly."

He announced, in the same interview, that he'll be taking over the New Beverly as Head
Programmer in the stead of Michael Torgan, who took over for his father Sherman Torgan,
who founded the LA rep theater in 1978 and passed away in 2007.

"He’s really done a Herculean job. But after seven years as owner, I wanted to make it mine."

Head to the New Beverly website and you will not find a September program--but you can
expect an October program soon. Down the line we'll see films from
Tarantino's private collection, whose highlights include prints of all three Sergio
Leone/Clint Eastwood films in IB Technicolor.

Tarantino, meanwhile, is gearing up for production on "The Hateful Eight" in the new year.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-05-2014, 02:55 PM:

Sounds like the rumors Leo was reporting in this thread were mostly true then. [Wink]

At least he didn't go as far as to fire the operator. I hope Tarantino does realize that it will be rather hard to run a venue in 35mm only in 2014, even if you're primarily a revival venue. I don't know what the deal between Tarantino and the operator (who took the business over from his father) exactly entails, but I sure hope the operator isn't the one left holding the bag when this bold plan might go south...

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-05-2014, 03:26 PM:

If Tarantino can make this work in the LA market, them more power to him. His money and influence should make a difference. However, this type of thing just wouldn't be viable outside of major markets. And I speculate that the number of people who show up there specifically because movies are shown on film will be relatively low over the course of any movie's run.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-05-2014, 04:10 PM:

Kudos! As hopeless as it seems, this is exactly what is needed to have ANY hope keeping 35mm alive. We need more like him!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-05-2014, 04:51 PM:

Do you think that there would be enough directors, or a growing amount, in favor of film where they would fight back for film to return to the cinema?

Course, we all know that the studios themselves has never given a firm date on when the striking of prints would cease - they're just going along for the ride on the "DCIP Bus."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-05-2014, 05:27 PM:

There are probably a lot of them who would "join the fight" as long as "the fight" consisted of writing letters, giving interviews and such. If "the fight" consisted of doing anything that would jeopardize the profits or grosses on their films, a lot of them would jump off the bandwagon.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-05-2014, 07:39 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Sounds like the rumors Leo was reporting in this thread were mostly true then.

And ironically, my source (my boss, Barbara Smith) is quoted in the article! Actually, the entire office was talking about it last week: it wasn't a "this is in confidence and to go no further" scenario: if it was, then obviously I wouldn't have posted it on F-T. Glad to hear that the manager who bought the digi projector wasn't fired, though: as Barbara pointed out, he simply couldn't have run even a break-even operation without it. If Tarantino is willing and able to use his personal wealth to operate the place as a film-only venue and at what will almost certainly be a significant, ongoing operating loss as a labor of love, then all kudos to him: but before he made the decision to do that, having DCP projection capability was a no-brainer.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-05-2014, 08:33 PM:

It reminds me of Charles Foster Kane on buying a newspaper in Citizen Kane (quoted something like this):
"I lost a million dollars last year. I'll loose a million dollars this year. I loose a million dollars next year. If I keep up at this rate, I'll have to close the place in 50 or 60 years."

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-06-2014, 10:38 AM:

Actually what sucks is that QT kind of strong armed Torgan out of the place. Torgan owns the NB business but QT owns the building itself and has been funding rent and such for many years. QT is quoted as they're still in negotiations with Torgan to stay on but what I'm seeing from people in the know on Facebook is that isn't going to happen.

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-06-2014, 11:25 AM:

Interesting info from Michael Torgan himself posted this morning:
(Bottom of page)

Curbed Los Angeles blog

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-06-2014, 12:49 PM:

Firstly, I wonder who is going to be doing the install for the 16mm and mag systems? Some items that could be relevant to that were snapped up at the Deluxe auction, and so maybe that is where they're going to end up.

Secondly, it'll be interesting to see how long he is able to keep this up. Unlike most other rep houses and cinematheques that are also trying, Tarantino doesn't have any money issue. But he does have all the others: no official spares and support availability anymore, the aftermarket service companies gradually withdrawing their support for film installations, increasing difficulty in finding competent projectionists and techs as time goes on, etc. etc. And unless his collection of prints is being stored in an atmospherically controlled archive vault (the acetate ones, at least) and handled per archival standards (e.g. acclimatised for 2-3 days on their way in and out of the vault each time), they will eventually succumb to VS. Even the polyester ones won't be immune from poor handling, embossing from excessive lamphouse heat perf damage from worn sprocket teeth and all the other ways in which film prints wear out.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-06-2014, 01:04 PM:

Well, until very recently, there were about 100k screens worldwide running 35mm film on a daily basis. Probably 10-20% still are. And more than that have kept film capability when instaling D-cinema equipment. All of these places had operators (mostly incompetent, but even if only the top 1% are any good, that is quite a large number of people, most of whom would probably love to work at a place like this) and service technicians (most of whom were/are good at their jobs, and some of whom were/are exceptional). Most of the needed parts can be made in a machine shop if one has money, but no other sources for them. I think that QT will have enough spare parts and installation/service knowledge to keep two 35/70 machines and one 16mm machine working long enough to outlast him.

I don't know how many prints he has, but let's say that he owns or has access to 1000 prints and no ability to order new ones. If the average print is supposed to be able to withstand 200 screenings and these prints are, on average, halfway through their useful life, he should be able to do a double feature every day for over 100 years. Not to mention the existing inventory of prints owned by the distributors and private collectors and archives around the world. Martin's comment above seems apt as well.

If anyone is going to do this, QT is the one most likely to succeed over the long term. I don't personally like his films very much, but he has money and connections and the attention of the Hollywood establishment, which is more than most idealistic film fans have.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-06-2014, 01:21 PM:

He has a ginormous collection of 35mm and a very large collection of 16mm. One of my customers ran some of his prints for him when he was filming near Jackson Hole. I had to supply special aperture plates for him.

Mark

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-06-2014, 01:56 PM:

QT also has solid connections among high-ranking-powers-that-be, so it is totally within the realm of possibility that he could swing an exclusive new print every now and again, to fill in any gaps in his personal collection.

He might have to personally underwrite the costs, and the studios probably won't be willing to strike new prints for him too frequently. But, generally, they'll probably work with him because of who he is.

I am not optimistic that this will result in any major change of course, away from digital, for the industry as a whole.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-08-2014, 12:36 PM:

Related thread:

Tarantino puts his money where his mouth is.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 09-08-2014, 01:58 PM:

Couldn't you two held on for a Little While Longer? [Eek!]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-08-2014, 01:53 PM:

The New Beverly is now open under Mr. Tarantino's management.

Click Here for the schedule.

I find the last paragraph from the first post on this film-tech thread most telling.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-08-2014, 06:55 PM:

I must try to get over there and check it out, especially as I'm told by one of the projectionists that Le Mans is going to be a 35mm, four-track mag print.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-08-2014, 08:55 PM:

Well, it will be interesting to know if those mag tracks survived the 43 years or are those prints of a more recent vintage?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-09-2014, 10:13 AM:

Hey, I know film collectors who, as they age, are now thinking about what to do with their collections -- they want them to be shown, not discarded when they pass. I will bet that lots of collectors would be happy to donate or at the least loan QT their prints if they knew they would be given the best treatment and a showplace that would do them justice. And as stated, no doubt this man has a GREAT library of 35mm prints that he's collected -- it's what people who love film do. And when you have money and even more importantly, if you have insider power, you can get pretty much whatever prints you want.

It is well-known among the people on the exhibition side of the industry here in the Tri-State area that there was a guy who was high up on the ladder in the projectionists union who could simply pick up the phone and order prints of any title he fancied from the depot in Fort Lee. His political pull was such that if a print he got was scratched, or otherwise not to his liking, he'd send it back and demand another one. It is said that his collection was not only extensive, but pristine as well -- 4track mags and IBTechs abounding. And he was no A List Hollywood director like QT. Every collector's mouth on the east coast began to drool when he passed. So there ARE prints out there.

I think Scott has it nailed down -- all you need to do to make this work is to have a passion for film and....MONEY -- lots of it. But it can work for quite a long time. And who knows, perhaps it might even catch on with some studio execs who would be into striking a few new prints of their libraries for this kind of specialty venue.

I remember in the 60s when all of a sudden film was "rediscovered" as art rather than just entertainment and cinemateques and film societies sprung up on and off college campuses all over the country as did serious study courses in film, a phenomenon that made a lot of people in the 16mm industry lots of money and which was totally unforseen. The demand for classic films in 16mm kept Films, Inc., Audio Brandon, Twyman Films and a slew of other studio sublicnesee rental houses rolling in it. Out-of-the-blue phenomena like that happen for no apparent reason and it certainly could happen if a love and passion for film (the physical stuff) takes hold. It would not be beyond a possibility.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-09-2014, 10:28 AM:

As we all know, QT's private collection, both of 35mm and 16mm, is rumored to be massive. Looking at New Bev's opening month program, it would certainly support the speculation that this is the source of a lot of what is showing: Kung Fu pics, lots of obscure and gnarly horror shows from the '70s and '80s - in short, the sort of movie he is in to and which has been the inspiration for a lot of his own movies.

As for Le Mans, I agree with Marcel that the print will have to be in very good condition for its age to be showable safely. Specifically, if it has Fox hole perfs, I'd want to put every reel on a shrinkage gauge, because even with Fox hole sprockets on the projectors, perf damage will be a serious risk if a print has shrunk significantly - the margin of tolerance is that much smaller than with conventional perfs.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-09-2014, 11:53 AM:

The problem with a future film renaissance is that it requires a vast manufacturing infrastructure to make and process motion picture film. Unlike vinyl records, for which the raw materials are plentiful due to them being used in many other products along with a fairly simple mastering/manufacturing process, the raw materials that go into film are rather specialized and will be expensive to re-create in the future. Once the currently manufactured raw stock is gone, it is unlikely that the economics of it will ever allow film to be brought back for just a limited appeal product.

As too older magnetic stereo print, my experience has been that they are no more, or less, likely to be in poor/damaged condition than a older archive/collector optical prints.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-09-2014, 03:42 PM:

I'd be concerned that the mag sound would be degraded. I have a reel of 35mm walk-in music from the 60s, that when last run was plagued with numerous dropouts.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 10-09-2014, 08:38 PM:

There are a few a little newer than that. I recall the Pasadena Hastings running Nightwing in 35 4-track mag. That was what - mid 80s?

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-10-2014, 10:20 AM:

While of course mag stereo tracks are more sensitive to bad storage and mis-handling than optical tracks, I have seen a quite lot of mag stereo film from the 1950's and '60s that play flawlessly.

The most common problem I have found is the tracks have been partially erased do to someone not cleaning and degaussing the reader heads at some point in the past.

At this point, I have found that most archives and collectors who keep and run mag know what they are doing.

There is a belief among some collectors that mag prints tend to develop vinegar syndrome faster than non-mag prints, but I don't subscribe to that theory.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-10-2014, 10:34 AM:

Mitchel, I agree. I have many mag prints from the late 50s and 60s where there is not a hint off vinegar or track deterioration. But color loss, that's another story, unless of course it's IBTech. I think that hurts the most -- when you have a print in pristine condition (leaders never spliced) and where the mag sound plays beautifully but the color has gone. Nothing is more painful that to play a picture like 2001, for example, and to feel Also Sprach Zarathustra rattling you bones but to see a field of stars against pink of outer space.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-10-2014, 11:23 AM:

My worry here was not with the integrity of an older mag track per see - as has been pointed out, you can get them from as far back as the '60s that are still in great shape. It was with the combination of acetate shrinkage and 35mm "Fox hole" perforations, because they are so tiny and thus the margin of tolerance for shrinkage without the sprockets causing perf damage is going to be that much smaller than with a 70mm print. I haven't seen a Fox hole print projected since the early '00s. If one has been in a cool and dry vault for most its life, then its theoretically possible that it would still be OK to project, but for a print that's been stored at anything close to room temperature and humidity since, say, the late '70s (which I would guess is the last time they were made on any significant scale), I'd have thought that it would be too far shrunk to risk showing.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-03-2015, 07:13 PM:

The New Beverly Cinema is going to screen a 35mm 4-track roadshow print of "The Sand Pebbles" 27-30 May. They emphasize "roadshow" since the print has an extra 10-minutes running time. I wonder if the print is a mag/op or mag-only - would love to see some 2.55:1 AR CinemaScope on a theater screen!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-03-2015, 09:50 PM:

And just what color would it be? I doubt it would be 2:55:1...most of those are in the 1953-1954 era.

Where there IB prints of this title? If so, are they showing one? Also of curiosity...any shrinkage that could prove challenging to projection of 35-mag prints. Those foxholes don't provide a lot of leeway.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-04-2015, 08:45 AM:

> The New Beverly Cinema is going to screen a 35mm 4-track roadshow print of "The Sand Pebbles" 27-30 May.

Fox struck a few brand new 35mm prints of The Sand Pebbles about 10 years ago of the roadshow version, with an optical Dolby Stereo track. I don't remember if these prints had a digital track, but I would suspect so.

If the New Beverly is not specifying mag stereo, I suspect that it is one of those 4 track analog Dolby Stereo print.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-04-2015, 01:11 PM:

Their notice on Facebook does specify 4-track mag. So, a vintage print?

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-04-2015, 01:43 PM:

> Their notice on Facebook does specify 4-track mag.

Upon checking, so does the theatre's web site.

Obviously, it has to be a vintage print. I have to wonder about how the color has held, as this was released both here and in England with color credited to Deluxe (Eastman Color). I know that the original release optical mono prints have faded to red.

Road Show Poster:

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-04-2015, 05:48 PM:

If it's an IB print and not too badly shrunk, it should look great. If it's dye coupler, as you point out, then no matter how good the mag sounds, the color will almost certainly be completely gone.

I saw one of the restoration 35mm prints at Bradford several years ago. Looked and sounded very nice, as I recall.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-04-2015, 09:06 PM:

He is not above showing faded prints, I know his prints of Thank God it's Friday and Sorcerer are also 4 track mag but faded.