How pathetic is this? I'm curious as to if this is due to possibly a smaller company like Artisan not having the funds to strike multiple internegatives (which I doubt) or why the indie films always seem to have prints made from worn down negatives. Also does TES feel they can stick all of their beat up reels into the "indie guy's" cans thinking that the company isn't big enough to matter about their quality? Any input on all of this?

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Whilst I have never come across prints of with as much negative damage as Brad encountered (apart from archival prints derived from elements which were not preserved as well as they might have been), indie, art and rep release prints do, in my experience, present problems which you tend not to encounter with mainstream titles.

Firstly, a far smaller number of prints tend to get made of these titles. These prints are transported more during their lifetime, and lower proportion of showings for every time they get made up and packed off. A film like 'Gladiator' might run four times a day for three weeks in a typical venue. By way of comparison, we're showing 'La Veuve de Saint-Pierre' twice a day for one week. Often, we get these sorts of films on three-day bookings or even one-off weekend matinees.

So point one, these prints are used in a way that involves more handling, and consequently more intensive wear and tear during their lifetimes, and more opportunity for bad handling. Point two is that a lot of the venues that show art and rep are those which do not have ideal equipment, properly maintained, and whose projection staff do not have the film handling skills needed to take the best care of these prints. I'm talking student film societies, or state-funded arts centres that show films maybe one evening per week.

You can't stop supplying prints to these places on the grounds that their print handling is lousy, because they represent a significant source of income for distributors of art/rep/indie titles. In fact, probably most of their income. But on the other hand, they are making other cinemas (and audiences) suffer by the way they treat the films in their care. Said print of 'La Veuve' has a horrible emulsion tramline from start to end, is as dirty as hell, full of cinch marks, has lots of edge damage and the SR-D drops in and out all the way through.

Hardly surprising, then, that there have now been several editorials in 'Sight and Sound' (a semi-academic British film magazine aimed mainly at arthouse fans) enthusing about DLP and saying how wonderful the prospect is of nailing down the coffins of all those crappy projectionists.

It's a real Catch 22. On the evidence of where films tend to come to us on crossover and in what state they arrive, I believe that there are about 10 venues in the UK which between them are responsible for 90% of the print mangling. They probably wouldn't be if they had the money to send their projectionist on a one-day course, invest in running spools that weren't bent, buy a proper rewind table or whatever. Nevertheless, if you closed these venues down now, the quality of art and rep prints circulating in this country would improve beyond recognition - I'd put money on that.

------------------
PROJECTIONISTS LOVE THIER CRAFT.
KANDY BAR KIDS JUST GET PAID.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

*grumbles something mostly incoherent, and very impolite about technicolor*

Something weird I noticed on the print of The Watcher that I assembled & ran, the image seemed to randomly go out of focus and snap back in focus rather often. And it didn't even seem to be some quirky thing done for 'dramatic effect' either.
And NO, there was not anyone up in the booth messing with the focus knob at the time! The booth was empty, the building was empty aside from the five of us watching the screening. Though, I keep saying that the booth is haunted...and the disturbances all happen at the end where projectors 8-10 are...and The Watcher was on #8.....