Currently, one of the theatres I work at is running a film which is a 16MM blow-up (standard 16 at that).Unfortunately, it is not a terribly good example of this practice and much of the film is 'soft' with certain sequences being absolutely out of focus.
This generates constant complaints from patrons who come out asking 'the projectionist to please focus the film!'. By now I have asked all the staff to respond by telling them that the film has been shot with poor focus on 16MM film and then enlarged to 35MM for exhibition. At best, this creates suspicion; at worst, they don't believe what they're being told. The fact that the subtitles are sharp means nothing to them (no, not laser subtitles!)
Having been present during some complaints, patrons simply don't believe that the focus-puller/camera crew can possibly be at fault: the projectionist is ALWAYS to blame. Apparently, camera crews are perfect. 
It's this automatic assumption that we're not doing our job correctly that drives one insane.
(From the ridiculous to the sublime: this week, the theatre in question is running this film in a double bill with a 70MM print of 'Baraka'. Talk about extreme! )
Part 2:
Recently at another cinema I had to run a programme consisting of 10 or so 35MM shorts. Some of these were 16MM blow-ups. There was a note left by the previous projectionist who had run these that focus was a problem on a couple of titles that he specified. I should note that it was a graduate screening for the students who had made the films (but which was also open to the public).
I decided to ask the opening speaker to mention to the audience that the aforementioned titles were soft and that it's not the fault of the projectionist. She did it, albeit very nervously! I'm glad, because one film contained a prolonged two-shot that was out of focus. No complaints!
When I arrived at work next time, there was a note to me saying that I should not have asked for the announcement because it 'draws attention to what otherwise would have gone unnoticed' and 'sure you covered yourself but imagine how the focus-puller must have felt'.
And the feelings of the complaint-ridden projectionist? They don't matter, right?
This begs the question: Is the projectionist really supposed to be the whipping post that protects the sacred cow that is the film crew? Is it our job to shelter the film crew's errors and protect their reputation at our expense?
What is your opinion? Should I have done this?
Part 3:
My theory on 16MM blow-ups is that although most producers look to them as a technique for saving money, they actually require more expertise and precision from a film crew than regular 35MM, not less. Any operator error will be far more apparent than under normal circumstances.
Having said this, 16MM blowups can look excellent when executed well. This has been established by films by Mike Figgis such as 'Leaving Las Vegas' and 'The Loss of Sexual Innocence'. This is due in no small part to the excellence and virtuousity of cinematographers Declan Quinn and Benoit Delhomme, respectively. The Canadian film 'Kissed' even won a runner-up award for Best Cinematography despite having been originated on Super-16MM (cinematography by Gregory Middleton). My hat comes off - way off, to these artists for doing an incredible job and making me look good in the process!
The blow-up is simply not, however, the low-budget panacea that many seem to think it is. Done well, it becomes a creative tool used to impart a desired look and feel to the image. Done poorly, it will just make the whole production look cheap.
Home
posted 05-29-2000 04:28 AM
Printer-friendly view of this topic