Talkback: Who's Willing to Fight for 35mm?
Few Tweeting, iPod-owning, Netflix-streaming, eternally online citizens of the 21st century would lament the advances and conveniences that digital gadgets and technologies afford, but what if you still love that which is made increasingly obsolete? In the film world, that widening gap stands between classic celluloid and digital projection; as studios like 20th Century Fox begin experimenting with digital-only distribution, where does that leave the folks who cherish the magic of watching films on, you know, film?
Fox's recent decision to stop distributing 35mm prints in Hong Kong and Macau may seem like a blip in your news feed happening halfway around the world, but it's only the beginning of a wider industry phase-out of analog film prints. "The entire Asia-Pacific region has been rapidly deploying digital cinema systems," said Fox International's Sunder Kimatrai in August, "and over the next two years we expect to be announcing additional markets where supply of 35mm will be phased out."
Putting it into context closer to home, Julia Marchese of Los Angeles' New Beverly Cinema -- a repertory house that's been playing double features of 35mm prints since 1978 and is a fixture on the L.A. film scene -- took to the internet with a plea to support the ongoing availability of film prints, even as digital measures make increasingly practical sense.
The major film studios have decided that they eventually want to stop renting all archival 35mm film prints entirely because there are so few revival houses left, and because digital is cheap and the cost of storing and shipping prints is high.
I firmly believe that when you go out to the cinema, the film should be shown in 35mm. At the New Beverly, we have never been about making money -- a double feature ticket costs only $8. We are passionate about cinema and film lovers. We still use a reel to reel projection system, and our projectionists care dearly about film, checking each print carefully before it screens and monitoring the film as it runs to ensure the best projection possible. With digital screenings, the projectionists will become obsolete and the film will be run by ushers pushing a button -- they don't ever have to even enter the theater.
The human touch will be entirely taken away. The New Beverly Cinema tries our hardest to be a timeless establishment that represents the best that the art of cinema has to offer. We want to remain a haven where true film lovers can watch a film as it was meant to be seen -- in 35mm. Revival houses perform an undeniable service to movie watchers -- a chance to watch films with an audience that would otherwise only be available for home viewing. Film is meant to be a communal experience, and nothing can surpass watching a film with a receptive audience, in a cinema, projected from a film print.
Read the full petition here.
There's no question that going digital is a cost-effective move for studios and theaters alike; so, too, could revival houses like The New Beverly simply install a dual film/digital system to accommodate both formats. That would be fine if the studios controlling vast libraries of catalogue films weren't planning, eventually, to cease film rentals altogether.
Gone will be the "human touch" that Marchese notes, the personal interaction of a trained projectionist sitting above the aisles, in the dark, guiding light through reels of celluloid to the screen. So, too, the lovable imperfections of a print that's lived, perhaps, longer than you have; the pops, the cracks, the cigarette burns that remind you you're part of a process of creation, presentation, and response.
So, yes; it's a sentimental argument, not a practical one -- though it could be argued that repertory and revival cinema, even in metropolitan hubs like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Austin, foster a film culture that in turn supports studio catalogue sales on home video and On Demand throughout the land. If a curious neophyte without access to local revival houses downloads a classic film onto their iPod because they read a blog about a screening halfway across the country or the world, hasn't repertory cinema done its part? (One would hope said hypothetical viewer would eventually watch said film on a proper screen, but you get the point.)
Whether you're a pragmatist or a sentimentalist, if you're a film fan there's an argument to be found in favor of keeping 35mm film alive. If you agree, head over to the Fight for 35mm Petition and add your signature.
And while you're at it, check out the upcoming slate of programming at The New Beverly, the American Cinematheque, the Nuart, LACMA, and Cinefamily in Los Angeles; Film Forum, the Walter Reade Theater, and MoMA in New York; the Pacific Film Archive and the Castro Theater in the SF Bay Area; and the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin. (Add your own favorite rep cinema houses below.)
[Photo of 35mm Kinoton cinema projector by Ian Gavan/Getty Images]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Film exhibition is dead. It's been dead for years and people have been selfishly and cruelly keeping it on life support rather than letting it move on. Sentimentality for dead technology is fine as long as you're the one footing the bill. Asking someone else to keep it breathing just for you is ridiculous. A digital print can just as easily record the scratches and pops from a film during transfer and a viewer can watch it just as if they were viewing the film itself. There's always a niche market for obsolete technology (vinyl being the most notable example) as long as collectors/buyers can afford it. But this is like trying to keep stone tablet engraving going in the face of the invention of paper.
As for the human touch, that has less to do with the actual, physical film itself and more to do with the attitude of the movie house. The human touch has been absent for decades even during the nascent years of digital projection.
Where technology has yet to catch up and where it is conversely moving too fast is in the realm of HD photography. HD cameras simply cannot capture movement the way film can and the muddy pictures we're seeing today (especially in a summer blockbuster like Captain America) are destroying cinematography.
Seems as though this outcry is misplaced. Let film projection die but keep photographing on film until HD is truly ready to replace it.
"There's always a niche market for obsolete technology (vinyl being the most notable example) as long as collectors/buyers can afford it. But this is like trying to keep stone tablet engraving going in the face of the invention of paper."
Couldn't agree more, though it could be argued that hi-def is actually the stone tablet _and_ the paper in this analogy, if only because it records as effectively while bringing a redoubtable durability that film (or paper, I guess) by nature cannot possess.
To quote Keanu Reeves:
"The biggest difference I have found when working photochemically versus digitally on motion pictures is the length of time the takes can last. Broadly, a 1,000ft roll of 35mm film lasts around nine-and-a-half minutes before running out, while a digital tape or recording card or hard drive can last from 40 minutes to over an hour and a half. This translates to a very different rhythm on the floor; the pressure to "cut" to save film is alleviated.
Archiving digital images is a technological dilemma. The idea of that discovered shoebox of pictures, or wedding album, will not exist digitally in your camera or on your computer or in a "cloud": you should print them. I often feel a photochemical image contains the mass of the subject and dimension; a digital image often feels as if it is mass-less. This could be nostalgia or simply how I learned to see. Others will not have this learning: they will probably never experience a photochemical image. Is this loss a tragedy, a revolution, an evolution? What have we lost, and what have we gained?
I will miss walking on to a photochemical film set. It has a magic to me. When the director says: "Action", and the film is rolling, it feels like something is at stake. It feels important and intense. In a way, death is present in the rolling of that film – we live, right now – and the director says: "Cut". And that moment in time is captured on film, really."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/oct/10/steven-spielberg-martin-scorsese-celluloid
P.S. Go back and watch Kyle Cooper's intro credits of Se7en. 'nuff said.
"There’s no question that going digital is a cost-effective move for studios and theaters alike; so, too, could revival houses like The New Beverly simply install a dual film/digital system to accommodate both formats. That would be fine if the studios controlling vast libraries of catalogue films weren’t planning, eventually, to cease film rentals altogether."
This is the large point, I think. The implications that going all-digital has for the survival of independent and revival houses which cannot afford to make the change-over are pretty apparent, and of course it's foolish to expect corporate-owned studios to think of anything but the bottom line.
But Rainestorm's argument, convincing as it sounds (and that bit about preserving pops and scratches isn't too convincing), presupposes that once 35mm print production ceases there will still be prints around to convert. It's not hard to imagine studio bonfires made from all those clunky, inconvenient reels just hanging around vaults, being of no use to anybody, all of them costing money to store and maintain. And when we've finally done away with 35mm projection in revival houses that rely on these vaults for programming, is it so far-fetched to imagine those same penny-pinching studios citing economics as an excuse for not digitizing all but the most "popular" classic film titles? If these short-sighted number-crunchers have their way, in the near future heading out for a double feature of 99 River Street and The Blue Dahlia will be a long-forgotten pleasure, with only Turner Classic Movies to remind us of the theaters and the programs we once took for granted.
Thanks for writing this, Jen, and for drawing attention to Julia's sentimental, "misplaced" effort to help preserve a cornerstone of film culture.
Dennis, my comment about recording pops and scratches was merely sarcastic, as that seems to be the basis of the film exhibition argument, "Please don't ruin my ruined print!"
I don't agree with your logic about "studio bonfires" of old films. Were that the case, the studios would have done it already. Why wait until production of 35mm film stops? The old prints are ALREADY on film, not waiting around for new film stock.
This argument is more about photographing on 35mm film as opposed to exhibiting. I agree that HD photography is not yet up to snuff but digital exhibition is far too long in coming.
It's not about preserving a "ruined" film (at least not for me) as much as it is preserving the warmth and lived-in depth to which Roderick Jaynes (the Roderick Jaynes?) refers and which projected film provides-- something that digital, for all its pristine clarity, has yet to be able to translate.
And as for the bonfires, that prospect may or may not be hyperbole, despite the readily available images of pesky, unruly 35mm film stock being fed to furnaces that I've seen. But the likelihood is that as those prints that already exist begin to disintegrate, the movement to digitally preserve them will be economically based, not based on recognition of their historical and artistic worth. And as I said, only the titles that have been determined to be the most commercially viable will be available in digital formats, thus limiting what can be shown in cinemas and exposed to future generations. For these films to mean anything to anyone down the road, it's crucial that people be able to at least have the option to see them in environments considerably more enveloping, and considerably less distracting, than their living rooms or the airports in which they distractedly try to watch whatever classic film is available on their iPods and iPhones. Comparing the dollars-and-cents cost of actual preservation to the cost of the loss of these films in terms of cultural heritage, it seems than one is (or ought to be) far more heavily weighted than the other.
This is the old art versus commerce argument and commerce will always win, as it should. Commerce is a reflection of artistic merit and popularity. After all, if only a small minority declare something to be art, does that make it so? That, too, is an old argument. Not every book that's been written, not every song that's been sung, not every piece of art that has ever been created or viewed has been preserved.... and that's how it should be. Too much variety has the undesired side-effect of diluting even the most meritorious work of art.
Back in the early 90s I worked as an apprentice editor on a short film directed by Laura Ziskin. This was my big chance, my shot at my dream and when they asked me if I wanted to do it again my answer was an resounding NO. It was painful working with film. Something I now do sitting in front of my computer with complete control and an almost guilt ridden effortlessness was a nightmare when film was involved. I spent my days rolling film and looking at small numbers through a magnifier. The phrase "Trim Bin" gives me shingles. Plus, I have seen my share of awful prints at the theater. Movies like "Jurassic Park" which had only been out a couple of months looking like it had spent the night in a Tijuana bathtub.
I love the New Beverly and have some great memories. One being when I saw Kubrick's "The Killing" and realized while watching with an audience that it is a comedy. But the experience would have been the same had it been digitally projected. The audience was what made the difference, not actual film.
Dead technology? Sentimentality? You could apply this to nearly all forms of art throughout history. Such a silly and contrarian statement to make.
No one is saying keep 35mm alive for every major release and to create 1000s of 35mm prints for cinemas. We're mostly talking strictly about rep release and specialist use.
There is simply no reason why a few archival prints can't be struck for use in rep houses museums, cinematheques and the like. They'd make their money back within the first 20 bookings. It's also a proven way of storing and preserving material, unlike digital which is running into all sorts of long term storage issues.
Sure there's a price in maintaining back catalogue titles. However, the studios have used third party systems in the past with success. A giant collective 35mm depot to handle all back catalogue bookings for the studios - kind of like what SWANK is. Or just clip the ticket with any of the numerous archives that already house studio prints for non-theatrical screenings. I think everyone is arguing about what the future may entail and that is certain titles simply disappearing forever. The cost to covert older titles and the glut of new ones means that many are going to never be available.
Pops and scratches? Come on man, celluloid is an important and vital part of film culture. It's nothing to do with animated pops and scratches. That's just plain dumb and if thats all you think film is then you have to real case to argue.
Note to self: Do not make sarcastic remarks lest the reader of your comment suggest that that is your ONLY argument while completely ignoring the rest of what you said.
Rainestorm. Oh your line about film exhibition is dead was intended as sarcasm? Didn't see the humour in something that is putting people out of work and closing cinemas down everywhere. Hey but as long as you can download the Godfather from the icloud to your 2" mobile - all is cool I guess.
When you said this "As for the human touch, that has less to do with the actual, physical film itself and more to do with the attitude of the movie house. The human touch has been absent for decades even during the nascent years of digital projection."
I just went 'huh'.. this is someone who obviously hasn't been involved with film at all. There is a human tactile experience that film will always have over video. I mean that's indisputable. What is this attitude of movie houses? You mean the belief from them and film lovers that these small venues are akin to churches and film is their religion?
Burn em at the stake.. bloody luddites!
Rainestorm says "Commerce is a reflection of artistic merit and popularity."
Is this on bizarro world or contrarian world? I dare you to say out loud that in public to a functioning adult.
I see you've decided to get hostile. So be it. I have no interest.
I was a projectionist for several years in the late 1980s and am very familiar with the tactile nature of film. But that, again, is a nostalgic pang for the projectionist and has little bearing on whether or not the audience is treated to a quality presentation from film vs. digital. If you've worked as projectionist (you didn't really say whether or not you have or have not worked in film or in what capacity, you merely suggested that I haven't) then you should know that there are two sides to this argument, the presenters and the viewers. As a presenter, to me the format of presentation was incidental to the quality of the presentation itself (and by presentation, I do not mean content). If you are any true showman then you should know that it is only the audience's enjoyment that matters, not yours. If your lament is for the loss of the projectionist, then your argument is specious as it comes from a place of pure selfishness.
Am I sad that things are changing at pace that puts people out of work? Of course. Should we halt technology and move backward? I don't see the point in that. I certainly don't lament the loss of hand-cranked dental drills.
Aside from that, you are totally misreading my argument.
"What is this attitude of movie houses? You mean the belief from them and film lovers that these small venues are akin to churches and film is their religion?"
How much of my initial post was directed at the attitude of movie houses? One line, and the argument was NOT whether or not small venues should or should not exist. I wasn't even addressing small venue houses specifically. When I mentioned the human touch, I was referring to presentation in ALL movie houses in general. Of course there are exceptions. There always are. But are you really going to tell me that the Alamo Drafthouse is going to suffer horribly because their prints are all digitally projected?
Oh, and my sarcastic comment was, to clarify again, about scratches and pops, nothing more. Considering the degree to which it has so drastically been misread, I seriously regret saying it. I won't wast anymore time defending it. However, if you choose to take it out of context and expand it to ridiculous proportions that really have nothing to do with my argument, then so be it.
Why?
"The audience was what made the difference, not actual film."
_Bam_. Good to have you back, Sunny.
By the way, I said film exhibition is dead, I didn't say motion picture exhibition is dead.
I ll watch it in SD if it is a good story. However, having just done my first short film on 35mm and watching , listening to the cinematographer's understanding of the craft. I think that shooting on film should stay firmly within the educational institutions. I have no doubt the digital trained will only evolve incrementally and become reliant on effects and "fixing it in post". In my experience those trained in shooting film have a far superior understanding of the craft and process. No reason that opportunity should be taken from students coming through. Cinemas had to be bribed to get rid of the projectors they had because they couldn't on sell it beyond the industry. Audiences aren't there to see how much money is being saved and if they can tell the difference between digital and print, they don't care.
Digital projectors and Hard Drives would last as long as film prints and projectors. Our projector is 82 years old and still running.
I think the future of cinema will be landfill every 10 years.
Bloody shame!
I'd like to thank you for the efforts you have
put in writing this website. I am hoping to view
the same high-grade content from you later on
as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities
has motivated me to get my very own blog now 😉
If you are going for finest contents like I do, just visit this web site every day because it presents quality contents, thanks
I am really glad to glance at this blog posts which includes
tons of useful facts, thanks for providing these kinds of information.
Hey I am so excited I found your webpage, I really
found you by mistake, while I was searching on Bing for something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to say
cheers for a marvelous post and a all round interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don't have time to
read it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and also added in
your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the superb work.
Hello there, I discovered your web site by means of Google even as looking for
a similar matter, your website got here up,
it appears to be like good. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Hi there, simply changed into alert to your weblog thru
Google, and found that it is truly informative. I'm going to be careful
for brussels. I'll appreciate if you happen to proceed this in future.
Numerous other folks will be benefited out of your writing.
Cheers!
There may have several contractors for slate or tile roofing, the project an entire mall
or even endeavoring to market your residence is part of the unbearable heat.
So, taking a consumers decision and create their ideal home to avoid getting fined over any number
of terms and warranties well in hand.
Next »