Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Best movie Props ever and Cinema Paradiso

This is topic Best movie Props ever and Cinema Paradiso 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=007638

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 02-10-2019, 08:06 PM:

Saw a video on YouTube about the "Top 10 Movie Props of All Time" and felt that they left out one. I have copied my comment on the video here for you guys to discuss.

Top 10 Movie Props of All Time

quote: Me on Youtube
One of best props ever...the movie film in "Cinema Paradiso" . The story of a young boy's fascination with the magic that is cinema, the village projectionist Alfredo befriends the boy and trains him to run the projector. The film (in this case, 35mm nitrate film, which is highly flammable and unstable) provides a very powerful metaphor for life itself.

Alfredo gives the boy damaged and trimmed (due to church censorship) film to the boy, who treasures them, unaware of the dangers it poses due to its flammability and decomposition. (The ignition temperature drops as the film ages.) Alfredo is seriously hurt when the film catches fire in the projector due to a film break.

The film as a prop (or as I regard it, one of the stars of the movie), singlehandedly represents all elements of life: Love, laughter, emotion, pain, volatility, expression of thoughts and ideas, the cycle of life from birth (the exposure to light, development, projection, aging and eventual death.)

All of that, from a simple strip of plastic, silver and chemicals.

And today, that metaphor is lost to us due to the takeover of digital cinema. What was once a living, moving, flexible (yet fragile) medium to share all of the above, is now reduced to cold, sterile ones and zeros of computer data. Movies like "Blade Runner" and others showing the cold, digital computer domination of humans now seem more like the reality of where we as humans are heading, rather than science fiction.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 02-14-2019, 09:16 PM:

quote:
And today, that metaphor is lost to us due to the takeover of digital cinema. What was once a living, moving, flexible (yet fragile) medium to share all of the above, is now reduced to cold, sterile ones and zeros of computer data.

I think that's a bit of overkill. The sharing of the film that takes place in Cinema Paradiso is not something that happened to very many people and therefore, the fact that it's now digital really doesn't make a difference from that perspective. Even before the digital age, I can't tell you the number of times that when something went wrong with the projection, you had audience members screaming to "wind back the tape!"

However, the love for the magic of stories told in film is another matter and its importance to the town in the movie cannot be overstated, because it was literally the only entertainment in town aside from the town prostitutes and mass at church.

It's not digital that has destroyed that special feeling for film but the fact that there are so many entertainment alternatives and that movies have become so ubiquitous as they're available everywhere, they no longer seem very special.

Back in the day, when the only way to see films was at a movie theater (although the big films could play for as long as a year or more) and the only way to see older films was at a second-run theater or on a tiny black & white TV screen, usually with lousy prints, movies seemed all the more special because in many respects, they were harder to see (although there were far more theaters).

IMO, whether they're physical or digital is almost completely irrelevant unless you want to make the case that grain, dirt and scratches are somehow relaxing to the viewer.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-16-2019, 12:57 AM:

Watched Cinema Paradiso again recently and wondered why the theater had only ONE projector! Did they just have intermissions between reels in Italy, or was that a mistake in the movie?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-16-2019, 08:42 AM:

I think the theatre only had one projector because it made it easier to shoot the scenes in the projection booth. And who outside of people who worked in theatres would know or care?
In the early silent days it was not uncommon to have only one projector. Everything shown was only one reel long or less, so they did break between reels. As CP takes place in post WWII Italy, it is unlikely they ran only one projector (but I can't speak to post WWII Italy). The movie is a fantasy, so they get to make things up.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-16-2019, 09:17 AM:

I was assured by a European friend of mine, when the movie came out, that in Europe intermissions are EXPECTED on ALL movies and that only the "big cities" would have two projectors for changeovers. In the more rural areas, single projector was common and even if a theatre had two projectors, they wouldn't be used for changeover, necessarily since there would be an intermission.

You'll note when we see "Toto" at the end at a studio screening room, yes it was multiple projectors (I think three).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-16-2019, 11:19 AM:

I've been told this is common practice to do an intermission on all movies in Italy too. In fact I picked up a 6 reel 35mm print awhile back from Italy and at the end of reel 3 was a printed-in "Intermission" slate, and the "tail 3" and "head 4" leaders were uncut, clearly indicating that they were running on 6000 foot reels and at least could have easily had a one projector booth.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 02-16-2019, 12:50 PM:

Steve already gave the answer I was about to post..I too spoke with a European acquaintance back then, who said the same things. Small villages and towns often had only one projector, and pauses between reels were the norm.

When I worked at a Laemmle location in the early 90's, even at that time I had a few tourists come through who were surprised that we ran an entire feature without stopping. A few said "back home" the norm was every 20 minutes and a few said every hour, so both single reel and 6k reel setups were still in use.

Makes me wonder how the "old timers" feel about how digital has now most likely eliminated the pauses even in the smallest of towns.

quote: Martin Brooks
I think that's a bit of overkill. The sharing of the film that takes place in Cinema Paradiso is not something that happened to very many people and therefore, the fact that it's now digital really doesn't make a difference from that perspective. Even before the digital age, I can't tell you the number of times that when something went wrong with the projection, you had audience members screaming to "wind back the tape!"

I was not speaking in the sense of the average Joe not being able to possess film, but of the simple fact that film is a moving, flexible and organic (remember nitrate film base starts off as cotton) medium.

quote: Martin Brooks
However, the love for the magic of stories told in film is another matter and its importance to the town in the movie cannot be overstated, because it was literally the only entertainment in town aside from the town prostitutes and mass at church.

Exactly.

quote: Martin Brooks
It's not digital that has destroyed that special feeling for film but the fact that there are so many entertainment alternatives and that movies have become so ubiquitous as they're available everywhere, they no longer seem very special.

I disagree with the first part, digital HAS destroyed the special feeling, precisely because of what you say in the second part...digital media in general is the prime reason movies HAVE become so ubiquitous since they're available everywhere, in a much simpler to obtain and use form.

Back in the day, to see a REAL movie, you had to go to the cinema, or like some of us, be special enough (or perhaps crazy enough would be the better term) to go through setting up actual 35mm equipment in a large enough room with the proper screen, masking and sound gear to replicate the experience. The costs were enormous and getting prints was a challenge.

I actually had a full setup in my house in LA (no masking and the screen was a white wall, but I had full 5.1 Dolby CP-65 sound), on the rare times I was able to get prints, it was an event, all my friends and neighbors showed up to watch, marveling at the projector and platter running in the open space. It was an experience.

Now, if you are willing to wait a month or two (sometimes less) you can, with your Blu ray player and HQ flat screen with surround receiver, get a pretty good approximation of a cinema experience. BUT the quality is now on par with (or sometimes better than) the digital experience at your local cinema. (And it costs a lot less too.)

quote: Martin Brooks
Back in the day, when the only way to see films was at a movie theater (although the big films could play for as long as a year or more) and the only way to see older films was at a second-run theater or on a tiny black & white TV screen, usually with lousy prints, movies seemed all the more special because in many respects, they were harder to see (although there were far more theaters).

Agree.

quote: Martin Brooks
IMO, whether they're physical or digital is almost completely irrelevant unless you want to make the case that grain, dirt and scratches are somehow relaxing to the viewer.

Not irrelevant at all IMHO, even average folks do notice the difference. How they express it is in non-technical terms, unlike us in the biz. My generation ALL noticed the change, with the most common comment being "It felt like watching my TV at home."

As for the scratches and dirt being more relaxing...when CD's first came out (and I bought one of the first players at a huge price) I noticed that the CD's of many of my favorite albums were very harsh and fatiguing to listen to, they did lack the warmth and character of LPs. Tests of them and the albums with my spectrum analyzer didn't show huge differences in levels or frequency peaks, but they were definitely different in many ways.

I know of several people who prefer the sound of AM radio vs. FM for music, due to the warmer sound and yes, even the static. It all goes back the the main point, the sound being organic and imperfect...just like real life.