|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Any info about Rolling Stones' COCKSUCKER BLUES?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-23-2009 11:08 AM
Tony, they usually just call it CB BLUES. Chicken shits.
16mm Eastman 25B gave up the ghost 20min before the show yesterday. I ran tests on Saturday night, did a prescreening run of the entire film without incident. When I came in on Sunday morning I cleaned the lens and so needed to run a test to make sure the focus was on the money.
The test film began to tear on startup. The intermittent was not turning properly. I knew exactly what that was because it had happend once before to this machine about ten years ago. A rubber isolation coupling between the intermittent and the motor falls apart as the rubber ages. We had to fabricate a new piece of rubber to replace it. Eastman no longer makes any parts.
I knew immediately that this was the problem and it wasn't anything that was going to be fixable on the spot. After trying to see if it would somehow catch but to no avail, I called it. Told them they needed to tell the audience and the two Q&A people that we couldn't show the film. No COCKSUCKER BLUES today.
Lucily this didn't happen somewhere during the show as that would have been a worse disaster -- it would have ripped this so-called archive print badly. What happens is the intermittent stops turning and the rest of the mechanism doesn't, ripping sprocket holes and tearing the film. Needless to day, it was an embarrassment to the Museum and to me; I don't do well when these things happen -- I get dejected big time. After all, I had prepped this projector and film for hours on Saturday.
What is ashame is that now I think the programmers and higher-ups are going to not want to run 16mm any more as they think the 25B is an unreliable projector (over-reaction is typical of non-technical types). Funny, when their cars conk out on them, they don't stop using cars, they get it fixed and start driving again.
I heard one of them say we they should only run DVD because they are more reliable. Yah, "reliably" showing low rez on a 30ft screen; wait until that DVD freezes in the middle of the show or their Eiki "Theatre Projector" refuses to find the input signal 10 minutes before the end of the movie (already has happened).
It was a bad, bad day all around. I came home and just went to bed to sleep it off.
BTW, no Rolling Stone showed up. That was just a rumor. They hate this film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-23-2009 11:26 AM
Frank: sucks about the showing.
Yes, the Rolling Stones hate it, that's why it can only be shown a couple of times a year, with the filmmaker Robert Frank (not the Stones).
Here's the Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocksucker_Blues
quote:
The film itself is under a court order which forbids it from being shown unless the director is physically present. This ruling stems from the conflict that arose when the band, who had commissioned the film, decided that its content was inappropriate and didn't want it shown. The director felt otherwise and thus the ruling. However, bootleg copies of the film are available. It has somewhat of a popular aura surrounding it around fellow rockers, such as Marilyn Manson, who mentioned viewing it and seeing his living room in it (parts of it were filmed at the Mary Astor House, on Appian Way in Laurel Canyon where Manson has resided since late 1997).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-24-2009 05:15 PM
Properly done, a 35mm blowup print of a smaller gauge original will always look better than a projected print of that same smaller gauge.
For one thing, the generational loss on a copy from an 8mm negative to a 35mm print is less bad, because the grain of the 35mm print is much less of a factor. Additionally, the larger gauge film will exhibit dramatically better steadiness during projection, which is a much more abusive process than printing.
I suppose some might argue that wet-gate contact printing gives a better quality transfer than a blowup optical print, but I understand that difference to be well in the noise compared to the other sources of noise in 8mm (or 16mm) projection.
Also, if there is any appreciable volume, and thus the use of interpositives, a 35mm interneg produced from a 35mm interpositive produced from an 8mm original will look a lot better than a corresponding 8mm interneg produced from an 8mm interpositive produced from the OCN.
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Shrug]](graemlins/shrug.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic