The Artist

[Darkwing]

I was at work last night and as I walked through the projection booth, this trailer caught my eye.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK7pfLlsUQM

 

Primarily because it's fairly uncommon to see black and white and secondarily, because it looked like it took place in the thirties. So I caught the end of it and caught its title, so I was like, must find out what this is! So I look it up and turns out that it's actually a silent film! (I didn't know this as I had no volume upstairs) and the plot is very interesting too. In short, it's about silent movie star George Valentin and how he worries that he will fade into oblivion with the oncoming of the talking film. I find this highly fascinating as this seems to be an issue throughout at the very least, the last 80 or so years of history. Right now, we see the fading of things like the DVD, 35mm etc and it shows that in movies at least, this has almost always been happening, as eras change and fade away and the fear of will you have a job in the morning or be forgotten because you're no longer part of the "in-crowd."

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, part of what struck me, is there is currently 5 digital projectors sitting on the floor, waiting to be installed next week as we fully convert from 35mm to digital, so this whole passing or changing of an era thing is well timed

[fae_alba]

I was at work last night and as I walked through the projection booth, this trailer caught my eye.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK7pfLlsUQM

 

Primarily because it's fairly uncommon to see black and white and secondarily, because it looked like it took place in the thirties. So I caught the end of it and caught its title, so I was like, must find out what this is! So I look it up and turns out that it's actually a silent film! (I didn't know this as I had no volume upstairs) and the plot is very interesting too. In short, it's about silent movie star George Valentin and how he worries that he will fade into oblivion with the oncoming of the talking film. I find this highly fascinating as this seems to be an issue throughout at the very least, the last 80 or so years of history. Right now, we see the fading of things like the DVD, 35mm etc and it shows that in movies at least, this has almost always been happening, as eras change and fade away and the fear of will you have a job in the morning or be forgotten because you're no longer part of the "in-crowd."

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, part of what struck me, is there is currently 5 digital projectors sitting on the floor, waiting to be installed next week as we fully convert from 35mm to digital, so this whole passing or changing of an era thing is well timed

 

I wonder how well this movie will be received when the masses are now so used to everything in 3D? What will movie goers do with themselves when they need to imagine what the dialogue is/sounds like?

[Darkwing]

The two greatest comments I saw on youtube for it were, "it takes major balls to make a silent film in 2011" and "is it in 3d?" I highly doubt the masses will appreciate a movie like this, however I do like a silent film if its really good (such as Metropolis) so I'm quite intrigued by this movie, though I doubt it'll hit our screens

[robcat2075]

Sounds like a great idea. Could be awful if it's "ironic" but it's a great idea.

 

I'll guess it gets a modest release and not a 3500 screen release.

 

There's about 5 years at the end of the 20's where the silent films were very well done and stand up well today. It can be done.

 

 

Speaking of things going away...

 

RIP the movie camera

[John Bigboote]

SO- is this movie going to be projected digitally or filmicly? The trailer looked great... I would go and see that.

[robcat2075]

If you like spy spoofs, the male lead there, Jean DuJardin did two "OSS 117" movies that are very amusing.

 

I knew that face somewhere!

[John Bigboote]

I should chime-in to add... the company I work for, Grace & Wild Studios of Farmington, Mich... just closed our film lab last month(Filmcraft Labs)... it was one of the last places to get processing in the midwest, I think there is still a place in St. Louis and Toronto. I am by no means a 'purist'... I learned animation on film, and when I got my hands on a Mac with Cosa After Effects and Adobe Photoshop V1 in 1993--- I never looked back. That and the fact that I consider myself an environmentalist (in sofar as driving fuel conserving vehicles and recycling vehemently at home and work) and that for most of the 20th century Eastman Kodak was by and far the largest polluter on the planet... SO LONG, FILM!

 

I would like to see this film shot and projected digitally... with reproduced film nuances, just to give film purists something to consider.

[Darkwing]

Well at least here in Canada, a fair chunk of the screens are solely digital now. I know the contract with our company is that we're not allowed to have a single operational 35mm projector, so part of the install results in things like aperture plates and film gates being taken away, effectively crippling the 35mm projectors

 

EDIT: Here's some pictures of our new projectors sitting on the floor, just to show how things are changing:

 

[largento]

Fascinating. I'm sure it will be an arthouse film. I think I'd almost rather see it at home as opposed to hearing 300 people chewing their popcorn. :-)

 

I am struck by these period films when it comes to putting modern actors in recognizable time periods. I think in the 20s, the main actress would have been told to go home and eat something. She looks bone thin compared to the softer looking women of the time. Even the flappers weren't that thin. :-)

[Darkwing]

Y'know, it'd probably be quite the feat to get 300 people in to see it at once in any old average movie house. Here I'd be surprised if even 20 showed up for it

[robcat2075]

I'm surprised/not surprised at the no-film clause. That locks out anyone with a regular film to show.

 

There is a substantial "print fee" they charge per showing for conversion of a movie to the proprietary digital format those projectors accept.

 

So the idea of striking one print and touring with it is gone.

[Darkwing]

But the average 35mm print costs $6000, so that's a hefty cost, added onto maintenance, damages, replacement etc. That and film directors are fairly rapidly switching over to shooting straight to digital. It is also a bit of a forced market too, if a company like Doremi has the over 300 screens in Canada alone completely converted, that sort of forces the market. Whether that's good or bad, I dunno, good for Doremi and Barco/TI and all that I guess. I will say, as nostalgic as working with 35mm is (I'm the last of the projectionists, think on that!) there are substantial gains from digital. The most prominent is in building prints. a roughly 2 hour build time is cut down to a total of roughly 20 minutes, that's a huge time (and stress) saver. Also, the problems of brain wraps, scratches, misframes, backwards film etc are no longer existent. Mind you, these digital projectors aren't flawless. One of them has been nothing but trouble and was actually replaced all together around Christmas and that one has been nothing but trouble too. It had to have its light engine replaced because a pixel died and displayed a green dot on screen. That was a pricey (and very high tech looking) piece of machinery to replace. The other problem is that if these projectors have issues, there's not much regular projectionists can do. You have to call in one of three guys this side of Ontario that know how to fix them. That's irritating.

[John Bigboote]

That is irritating. Darkwing, let me tell you, I appreciate your perspective- from the projectionists booth... the stories you must have! AND- the fact that you aspire to be an animator and are an integral and invaluable part of our forum. There is no way in HELL that I can say that I know what you are going thru exactly... but I can say, that I have been inspired and amazed by many-many people here in Detroit who have seen they're jobs reduced and finally removed... and in the end the resolve that carries them thru is the ability to see opportunity amidst the ashes... there is always a window opened when a door is shut. In your case right there, I see you mention there is only 3 guys in your area that can service the new regime... how about becoming big number 4? You certainly have the background.

 

I wish you well in these turbulent times, and I apologize for being a 'digital-proponent'.

[Darkwing]

Actually, this has all worked very much in my advantage as I started university in September. My biggest problem is my need at the theatre as a projectionist has been pretty high, even in our dead season, so I'm getting far more hours than I want. Once we're all digital by the end of next week, my hours should be able to be slashed right back. I've been told that per week, there's the equivalent of 1 hour worth of work regarding maintenance, ingests, print building etc per week, so for us, that's 7 hours a week (we have 7 cinemas).

It's also funny that you should mention about becoming number 4, as number 3 is from our complex. We lost him in the spring to all the digital installs between here and Ontario. He's supposedly coming back in the winter, but I doubt that, with all the new projectors on the east coast of Canada and the problems that will arise from that, I imagine he'll be on the road a lot more than what's initially expected.

It's really a very interesting change because a lot of people take it for granted how movies are displayed (did you know a lot of people think we just plug in a DVD and use your regular ol LCD projector?) however, as I stated earlier, the majority of screens in Canada will be completely converted to digital by presumably by the end of the year as it's not just our company, but Cineplex as well (we're the second largest if memory serves, Cineplex is the largest) as our company alone has 300 screens. So what we're really looking at, is a massive change in era. 35mm has pretty much been the standard form of projecting movies for what, 80 to 100 years? So the thing I find weirdest, is that I actually am "last of the projectionists" in a way. Kind of a monumental thing in film history really!

But back to the becoming number 4, I'm actually very pleased with where I ended up as I started like all the rest, serving popcorn to droves of people. I reached my goal that I set back then as I'm one of the few non-management people to become a projectionist (a level 2 at that and pretty much the primary projectionist as well!) - don't mind my bragging So I'm pleased at how things turned out how the timing worked out.

[mouseman]

Thanks for the link, and it's really interesting hearing about the industry from your perspective. I'm glad the changes are fitting within your plans.

[jimd]

thanks for that one

j

[John Bigboote]

Yes, it is interesting and under-appreciated... you mention there is 1 hr per week per digital projector... what was the equivalent for the film projectors? Can you describe some of the labor involved with a film projector?

[Darkwing]

A lot. Let's see what the best way to go about this is.

 

All right, for starters, you have starting the film. A 35mm needs to be "threaded" (I have a video of that too I'll upload later) which takes for me, approx 2 min (I'm fast BTW). A digital projector runs on its own, reading the show time from our computer system and therefore starting itself at the appropriate time.

Assuming the film runs into no problems through the duration of its play, I'll move onto building prints.

A 35 mm takes an average of 1.5 to 2 hours to build. That all depends on the length of the movie (how many reels, average is 6, each reel is usually approx 20 min in runtime), what direction the reels are (heads or tails up, easier to build tails up, so if heads up, you have to spin each reel to be tails up, so add about 15 minutes per movie (or 2.5 ish min per reel)) So yeah, general assembly is about 2 hours.

A digital has two ways to be built. The common way is to build it on the central server (TMS) and then basically tell it which projector its playing at. The other is to build it right on the projector. If building on the projector, you have about a 2 hour ingest time, plus about 5-10 min to assemble the playlist. If built on the TMS, about 15 minutes to ingest plus 5-10 min to assemble the playlist.

 

Now for basic maintenance. Every 35mm should be cleaned daily. This only takes about 2 minutes to do as you simply wipe the dust out of the vents, clean the film gate, sprockets and rollers. Also if any oil has leaked, that needs to be cleaned up as well. A digital doesn't really need to be cleaned daily, just weekly as all you need to do is give a quick wipe down of the vents so that takes all of like 30 seconds. I should also mention that you don't clean a lens on either digital or 35 unless you absolutely have to. The less the lens is touched, the less chance of it being scratched or damage as they're very fragile elements.

 

Next, when a movie is done for good, it needs to be broken down. If it's a 35mm, it takes about half an hour (if you're fast) which is pretty much the opposite of building, except you do this right on the platter. At every splice, you break it, reattach the head and move onto the next reel. Trailers of course need to be broken down and labeled and this takes about 15 or so minutes.

 

On a digital, you delete the playlist, delete the old trailers (if their movie has been released) and delete the feature. You also have to run a disk cleanup. So all in all, only a few minutes to remove a digital film.

 

Now 35mm have other elements that need tune-us occasional. Brains periodically need their microchip realigned so that the platter spins at the right time so as to avoid to much or not enough tension on the film. If the screws aren't stripped, this usually only takes about 5-10 minutes per brain and usually only has to be done once every month or so.

 

Now here's the added element. A 35mm has a tendency to run into problems which can have lengthy fix times. For instance a brain wrap (when the film wraps around the brain until it pulls tight enough to trigger the alarm and stop the projector. Wraps can be of varying difficulties. I've had wraps as simple as 5 minute fixes, to 15 minute fixes. My GM has had wraps that have required the show to be cancelled as they were too intensive to be fixed in a reasonable amount of time.

 

Of course there's other problems, such as misframes (which get progressively harder to fix the deeper into the film they are.) A misframe can take anywhere from 5 minutes to fix, to half an hour to fix depending on how nice the print is feeling that day.

 

Oh and ad changes! Those are fun... Usually weekly, when an ad promotion ends (or begins) the ad has to be added or removed to a print. Again depending on how deep they are and how nice the film is feeling, they can be as short as 5 minutes per print, to 15 minutes per print (times that by currently 5 projectors as 2 have been digital for a couple years. My average time for a full ad change is 30-45 minutes). Sometimes you get lucky though if we've had a massive changeover (say we gained 4 new prints) than that's only 1 ad change as the new prints were built with the ad change already implemented. Of course with a digital, it takes like a minute to do up an add change.

 

Now here's a fun one that's about equal for both digital and 35mm (though easier to do with digital projectors)...bulb changes! Obviously when a bulb nears its ours, it needs to be replaced. This takes about 45 minutes (how many projectionists does it take to change a lightbulb?) partly because you have to be very, very careful as these bulbs like to explode (they're xenon!). So it's face mask and gloves and all that jazz to change a bulb and they're very delicate. They have to be aligned properly too because if they're not, the light could shatter the lens (fortunately I've never had this happen). Our average bulbs are 2500 watts, so if the light isn't spread evenly and is focused even just a little in one spot, that'll crack the lens. I also think bulbs are about 900 dollars.

 

Now the thing that makes digital bulbs a bit easier, is that they're placed in a sort of portable case. So when you need to change the bulb, you pull out the whole compartment unit thing and put it on a table or something, where it's easier to replace. With a 35mm, you replace it directly in the projector and it's very tight space and the bulb can't touch anything and more importantly, it's cable can't touch anything, otherwise ZAP!

 

Now the kicker with digital problems is that they;re usually software oriented. So unlike a 35mm where you could physically see the problem (in most cases) you have usually no idea what piece of code has decided to stop working, or what microchip has bit the dust. But on that note, 35mm problems are usually highly stressful to deal with as they usually occur when the movies playing and you have to be super quick at troubleshooting as you have a crowd of people who prefer uninterrupted movies. Or if it's a problem you're fixing between shows, you're simultaneously threading and starting other films and on top of that, have a very short window for fixing the problem (and even sometimes you're needed downstairs to assist with cleaning or something) so it's a lot to juggle at times.

[robcat2075]

What's a "misframe"?

 

 

Are projection booths still fireproof fortresses?

[Darkwing]

This

 

or this

 

 

And ours isn't. I mean film isn't flammable these days, it'll melt, but doesn't catch on fire, but our booth has become considerably less soundproof over the last few years, so I doubt it's fireproof

[robcat2075]

So at some point someone spliced out less than a whole frame? Or do some get printed like that?

 

 

The digital projectors are pretty good. I've been to "Met Opera in HD" at the theater which really is just a video projected onto the large screen and those are very grey, not nearly as good as the official digital movies.

 

But I've read that a true Technicolor print projected is still superior to what the digital does. I've only seen one in my life, however.

[Gerry]

Thanks for that educational rundown, Chris!

[Darkwing]

So at some point someone spliced out less than a whole frame? Or do some get printed like that?

 

 

The digital projectors are pretty good. I've been to "Met Opera in HD" at the theater which really is just a video projected onto the large screen and those are very grey, not nearly as good as the official digital movies.

 

But I've read that a true Technicolor print projected is still superior to what the digital does. I've only seen one in my life, however.

 

We play the Met Live in HD as well, except our actually is in HD. We currently have a separate projector for that which is essentially a larger version of a household one (by larger, I mean ours is 13,000 dollars) however by next week, we're supposed to be able to play the opera through our Barco units.

 

As for the print being superior, that's both a true and false statement. As film requires no resolution, it is in effect, almost infinite in quality (depending on how much light you throw behind it). Like you can run the same 35mm print on a 2500 watt system, or a 3500 watt system or even a 7000 watt system and there won't be any loss of quality or colour or vividness. However, the digitals are superior in quality due to the fact there are no splice marks, no dust, no scratches, no overall deterioration of the film (film likes to go brittle over time which is very annoying when building, playing and breaking down, as it just likes to snap and turn to dust when you put any sort of tension on it. I once had to break down a print of Home Alone and I pretty much left a note stating that that print was no longer functional as it was too brittle and basically broke every couple of minutes both in playback and in breaking down.)

 

The thing with digital too, is it really depends on what brand of projector a theatre has and on what "class." For instance, digital Imax projectors are insanely good.

Our regular digitals are pretty good too, though they aren't capable of certain features like this light enhancement thing for 3D (like Transformers 3). Of course with a digital too, it all about how many footlamberts you set your projector to run at. There's a huge difference between 7 footlamberts and 10 footlamberts (at least from my trained eye's perspective ). However, the higher the footlambert, the higher the power consumption and that can damage bulbs significantly quicker than they're supposed too (which is a problem I've been rectifying with one of our digitals).

 

 

Thanks for that educational rundown, Chris!

 

No problem, it's always interesting to see and understand how complicated something as simple as playing movies for people can be. I find projection booths impress a lot of people as people don't entirely know what to envision when they sit down and watch their flick on the big screen.

[Paul Forwood]

Very interesting. Thanks!

 

You should do a short based around "the last projectionist".

[HomeSlice]

You should do a short based around "the last projectionist".

yes!. You could call it "Brain Warp".

[Darkwing]

Had my first day of digital training today. Only one 35mm left. It was odd working yesterday, as 4 of them were digital and therefore ran on their own.

 

And Robert, I think I figured out why you (and other Americans) probably have crappier viewing experiences with regards to 3D and digital in general!

[robcat2075]

I haven't had a bad experience with 3D in theaters myself, but to read other people's accounts you'd think all they could see was dark blurs on the screen while the special glasses threw sand in their eyes.

[Darkwing]

Well I thought it was you who mentioned about it always seeming dark or dim, but perhaps it was someone else. But yeah, I believe it's actually a brand issue. I guess most of the US uses Christie projectors, which apparently turned out to be inferior machines to the ones we use (Barco). The Barcos have significantly better brightness and vividness, least that's what I was informed of in training today

[fae_alba]

So the thing I find weirdest, is that I actually am "last of the projectionists" in a way.

 

Sounds like a great story concept to me.

[Darkwing]

Very interesting. Thanks!

 

You should do a short based around "the last projectionist".

 

 

You should do a short based around "the last projectionist".

yes!. You could call it "Brain Warp".

 

 

So the thing I find weirdest, is that I actually am "last of the projectionists" in a way.

 

Sounds like a great story concept to me.

 

Or potential for the/a 2012 community project, ie everyone animates a scene that's "on screen" and the camera is from up in the projection booth and every time the splice goes through, it switches to a new scene or something, I dunno

[Roger]

But the average 35mm print costs $6000, so that's a hefty cost, added onto maintenance, damages, replacement etc. That and film directors are fairly rapidly switching over to shooting straight to digital. It is also a bit of a forced market too, if a company like Doremi has the over 300 screens in Canada alone completely converted, that sort of forces the market. Whether that's good or bad, I dunno, good for Doremi and Barco/TI and all that I guess. I will say, as nostalgic as working with 35mm is (I'm the last of the projectionists, think on that!) there are substantial gains from digital. The most prominent is in building prints. a roughly 2 hour build time is cut down to a total of roughly 20 minutes, that's a huge time (and stress) saver. Also, the problems of brain wraps, scratches, misframes, backwards film etc are no longer existent. Mind you, these digital projectors aren't flawless. One of them has been nothing but trouble and was actually replaced all together around Christmas and that one has been nothing but trouble too. It had to have its light engine replaced because a pixel died and displayed a green dot on screen. That was a pricey (and very high tech looking) piece of machinery to replace. The other problem is that if these projectors have issues, there's not much regular projectionists can do. You have to call in one of three guys this side of Ontario that know how to fix them. That's irritating.

 

Waaaay back when I worked in a theater, I would occasionally thread the projectors and would occasionally have to deal with a brain wrap. I always thought that term was something the projectionist at our theater came up with but apparently that is a widespread term.

 

Ah, memories

[Darkwing]

First day fully digital. Initial reaction upon entering the booth for the first time today...I'm obsolete now...

[robcat2075]

First day fully digital. Initial reaction upon entering the booth for the first time today...I'm obsolete now...

 

In the back of my mind I have a movie with a scene where the kids have to get Gramps out of the nursing home because he's the only one left who knows the DOS commands they need to run the old computer they dug up that has the secret info on it.

 

You could be like that, the last living person who knows how to thread a projector to show the film that saves civilization.

[robcat2075]

Morning Edition on NPR had a segment on "The Artist" today.

 

They'll post it later at this link.

[Darkwing]

Resurrecting this thread, checked my released schedule at work the other day and it looks like this movie is going to go from limited release to full release later this month, so we will most likely see this hit a lot of first run cinemas, which would be very cool as I would very much like to see this!

[robcat2075]

According to Boxofficemojo it was in all of 6 theaters last week. But doing well there.

[Darkwing]

Yeah, when they say limited, they really do mean it! But it does look like in a couple weeks it could get a full release. However by then, it'll be competing with movies like MI4 and Sherlock Holmes, so box office wise, I don't expect it to do so well (unless it turns into this year's Kings Speech)

[Gerry]

We got out to see "The Artist" yesterday and it is really a sweet, perfectly-made film. It creates the feeling of an original period-piece silent movie while weaving a story about the coming of "talkies" and how it meshed with a generational change among moviegoers and movie studios as well as the Great Depression.

 

Without giving anything away, it incorporates sound as a key element in a couple of really clever scenes. They've also got a couple of "effects shots" that work great without drawing too much attention to themselves.

 

I couldn't even begin to guess how it will do against MI, Tintin, War Horse or any of the other slambang megapics, but definitely highly recommended. They've got a handful of dialog cards where they're absolutely necessary, but it's a great pleasure to see a story being told with next to no dialog.

[Darkwing]

I honestly can't wait for it to hit DVD as I think that'll be the only way I get to see it

[Gerry]

Well it definitely wont suffer on a small screen, so there's that! When the perky young starlet who is becoming famous in "talkies" says to a reporter "Make way for the young!" I think it will resonate with just about everyone.

[thejobe]

robcat wrote:

Speaking of things going away...

 

RIP the movie camera

 

its going to take digital many many many decades to match how good film looked.

(people don't say digital looks better because its fake better!)

[robcat2075]

its going to take digital many many many decades to match how good film looked.

(people don't say digital looks better because its fake better!)

 

Speaking of film, Shorpy.com blogs historic photos, many shot on huge glass negatives that reveal amazing detail when you peer at them "full-size"

 

 

And Kodak is about to declare bankruptcy, I read today.

[Gerry]

And Kodak is about to declare bankruptcy, I read today.

Yikes.

[robcat2075]

It won! I'm surprised actually. I guess i should go see it.

[John Bigboote]

And Kodak is about to declare bankruptcy, I read today.

 

I need to see that flick too, while it's still being projected. Ecologically, the Earth is much better off without film-processing plants. For a while in the 1960's - 80's- Eastman Kodak was one of the largest corporate polluters. But it is a giant, reminds me of when Westinghouse went out of business, people could not believe it.

[Gerry]

It won! I'm surprised actually. I guess i should go see it.

You really should. It sparkles from beginning to end. Not a false note or wasted frame in it, and not dependent on "stars". If you see only one or two films this year, "The Artist" should be both of them!

[Darkwing]

Oh my goodness! The impossible has happened! We're getting the Artist on Friday! I'm super excited!

[robcat2075]

OK, I've seen it. I enjoyed it very much. For the most part it even looks authentic, like a very fresh print of an old film. Jean DuJardin is the image of Douglas Fairbanks Sr. so he's perfect in the role. A few elements break the spell by seeming too modern but overall a very enjoyable movie.

 

I wondered about some of the scratches and dirt I saw. I wondered if it was "in" the film or "on" the film.

 

I would have totally loved it if I had not seen "Napolean" last weekend. I probably should have gotten to "The Artist" first.

[Gerry]

Glad you liked it, Robert. Now that it's "ensconced" we take it for granted, but seriously, a black and white silent movie gaining any traction at all is an amazing feat. The fact that it's a really good movie is just gravy!

[robcat2075]

The situation at "Napoleon" that I went to last week was much like that opening sequence in "The Artist"... a huge ornate movie-palace theater, every seat filled and an orchestra down in front below the giant screen.