|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Young people with interest in film.
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-19-2014 03:13 PM
A couple of months ago I did a screening on DVD of work by a youth arts group. One of them asked before the show if she could see the projection room, and we got permission to take her, and a few others, up. Surprisingly, they were more interested in the film equipment than the digital projector on which their work would be shown. Unfortunately, the only 35 mm film I had to hand was a couple of loops of PA-35, so couldn't show them anything actually running.
They're back again tomorrow evening so I thought I'd take something in. I still have a handful of 35 mm shorts, so I decided to use the oldest safety print I have which is a 1950s cartoon; this also happens to be an IB print, so it has the advantage of not being totally pink like the Eastmancolor which I have. I think they might be quiet surprised that something that old will still run on modern machines; but then again I suppose that late '80s FP-30Ds will not seem that modern to them. At least it will let them see some film running through one of the machines. They are teenagers, but we still need to keep them far enough back that fingers, or anything else, can't get into the mech.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-19-2014 04:01 PM
A digital projector is just a black(ish) box with a few buttons and some cables plugged in, there's almost nothing interesting to see for the layman. Look here, I click a few things on a touch screen and voila, movie! Well, I can do that with my iPad too...
A traditional movie projector has many of its guts exposed, you can look at a piece of 35mm film and clearly see the individual frames that make up the movie, you can tell them where the analog sound is, you can see actual waveforms, etc. For those who are a bit into technology, it's way more intriguing than a digital device they tend to use day in and day out.
So yes, I can totally see why such a thing is more interesting than a digital projection system. It's by its very nature a way more physical experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-22-2014 08:48 AM
In another post I let my doom and gloom show about the classics and film, but there may also be a bright side here; as you say, just as people do take an very serious interest in older technologies, e.g., restoring vintage cars and such, perhaps there will be a resurgence of interest in film. I know that in the film school at the college here, they still teach the basics and students still make film on 16mm (although I am not sure how long that can go on given the rising level of difficulty in obtaining film stock). But there may still be hope, although it will be on a very specialized basis and certainly not anything that can make its way back into commercial cinema -- although the resurgence of interest a few years ago in Cinerama at The Neon Theatre in Ohio belies that assumption. But it is nice to know that in some quarters, young people can still be wow-ed by film.
We have a course in film sound and I am always asked to take the class up to the booth. I run two reels, do change-over, show them the carbon arc light source...they seem eager to drink it all in and it's the highlight of the course. They seem most fascinated by the carbon arc lamphouse (yes, I kill the arc and immediately open the lamphouse so they can see the still flaming, redhot tips) and they love to all look through the large barrel CinemaScope anamorphic.
There may be hope yet.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-22-2014 12:32 PM
Interesting how technologies become "cool" just as they're on their death bed, isn't it?
A decade ago no-one attending a festival or rep house/Cinematheque screening would have cared what went on in the projection booth: it was the nasty dark hole where the sad geeks hung out as far as most were concerned. But then the DCP became the industry standard, Tarantino ranted at Cannes and suddenly we have the AMIA film advocacy people, petitions to Kodak, kids making (digitally shot, of course) documentaries about projectionists and projection booths, and a rolling bandwagon that people who previously wouldn't have recognized the difference between a film and a DCP projection feel the need to climb onto. All of us at our theatre have an anecdote about an audience member congratulating us for keeping film alive after just having seen a DCP (and in one case, a BD).
And yes, we get regular visitors to the booth who don't give the d-cinema projector a second glance but can't resist groping, poking and photographing the Norelcos. I think it's because they conform to the stereotype of how a film projector ought to look: big, metal and scary. They don't pay any attention to the FP38-E we use for 16mm usually, either (except for 16mm collectors who occasionally show their stuff here, who are generally in awe of it, but of course are more knowledgeable than your average booth visitor).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-22-2014 03:29 PM
As Julian mentioned, I did make two such films. On film, and with no DI. One was actually shot back in 2005, but not fully edited until last year (I am slow). They are still making their way through the festival circuit, but I will loan out prints (or DCPs) if anyone wants to see them.
The thing that does sort of drive me crazy about the current fad of film fetishism is that everyone seems to love it for its flaws. Google "super 8 wedding video" (an oxymoron, I know) and you will find lots of really poorly shot wedding footage, complete with light leaks, out-of-focus shots, and generally bad handheld work. Most of that stuff looks way worse than the real home movies that "Aunt Millie" and friends shot in the 1940s through the 1980s. And yet modern audiences are just gobbling that stuff up right now. Same for film projection--the horror movie crowd seems to be really into film screenings, which is great, but they all seem to be happy to watch beat-up, faded, and splicy prints, which is not so great. My fear with all of this is that future generations will never see how great film can be, but rather will see bad examples of filmmaking and presentation and think that all movies must have looked and sounded that bad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|