When this week’s Seismic Cultural Shift rears its ugly head, chances are it’ll be riding on the back of flurry of activity on Twitter. The most recent sad news is that another potential death-blow has been landed on the cherished tradition of screening films from 35mm celluloid prints.
Rumours are winging their way across the Atlantic which suggest that certain repertory houses in the US (specifically LA’s New Beverly Cinema, who recently played host to the cine-whims of guest curator Edgar Wright) are finding it increasingly tough to get their hands on 35mm film prints. And that’s a big problem, because they only screen 35mm film prints.
The suggestion is that certain mega distributors – Warner Brothers are currently in the blogosphere crosshairs – are responding to requests for prints by simply suggesting that they now no longer plan to ship these cumbersome materials, especially when, with a few clicks of a mouse, a DVD or Blu-ray of the same film can arrive with you within a matter of days.
Though the very notion would seem absurd – a slap in the face with an iron mitt! – to any honest-to-goodness cinephile happy to shell out in order to revisit the back catalogue of, say, Stanley Kubrick, on the proviso that crisp analogue prints were assured, it does seem the rep houses are being forced to change the way they programme .
The view from the gutter, that is from those tortured souls for whom an integral part of the cinema experience is watching a film screened from a print (and, perhaps more importantly, have no interest in Avatar), is that the industry invariably views serious cinephiles as cranks, dilettantes and dreamers with no real concept of the fiscal realities of contemporary distribution. Yet one puckish tweet cuts straight to the heart of the matter: “Hey guys, it’s cool, we’ve got paper. No more need for canvas.”
From a personal, London-centric standpoint, it seems that there are institutions who see a certain flexibility in the move from film to DVD. In 2009, LWLies went to see Eric Rohmer’s The Green Ray in the Barbican’s main screen. Having seen the film many times before on DVD, we were intrigued to see how the infamous, optical illusion finale would look on a real print (when the film was originally released in cinemas, discussions raged over what exactly Marie Rivière had seen in that climactic shot). The Barbican did screen the film from DVD and the blocky, blown-up image leaves no discussion. In addition, the film sounded terrible, like it was being blasted through clock radio speakers.
However, speaking to the Barbican’s Head of Cinema, Robert Rider, he assures us that 35mm projection is still an integral part of the cinema experience. “When a DVD is screened, as in the case with The Green Ray, it’s usually down to the quality of the print rather than any logistical issues,” he affirmed when speaking to LWLies recently. “We are dedicated to screening films with the best materials available, and for me, DVD is a domestic rather than a professional medium. Some of the prints we receive are in terrible shape: our projectionists will spend hours mending them and the end result would still not be particularly great.
“Plus, new cinemas are no longer being kitted out with 35mm projectors, so requests for 35mm will wane, especially because a consensus is developing which suggests Blu-ray do look extremely good projected onto a large screen.” It’s interesting to note that the Barbican’s two new screens – which are set to open in the latter half of 2012 – will be equipped with 35mm projectors.
What’s perhaps most worrying about this urge to cut down on shipping and preservation costs by simply replacing celluloid with a DVD is that it’s clearly not going to be a viable long-term alternative. Firstly, lots of rare and archive titles have yet to make their way on to digital, and it’s not like companies are busting a gut to makes sure anything particularly rare or unknown is given the Blu-ray treatment (the Masters of Cinema label are a sublime exception). And let’s not forget, DVDs, discs and video files are not the most reliable of technologies: at least when a print breaks, it’s a simple scissors and glue affair to get them fixed. When a hard drive falters, then it’s game-over.
One also wonders what the collateral damage would be to DVD in the light of the all-guns-blazing marketing offensive carried out by new UK streaming platforms such as LoveFilm or Netflix? Is the next move simply to cut out any tangible object from the exhibition process and simply have films streamed digitally from computer servers? And would the companies who own these bulging archives actually have any desire (one assumes it would have to be charitable rather than economically-driven?) to create high-definition digital transfers of enough to ensure that rep houses have access to an amply diverse range of materials?
Looking elsewhere in the industry, it’s easy to see why the aesthetic and historical case for celluloid could fall on deaf ears. There have been passionate pleas from the likes of film artist Tacita Dean, with her Tate Modern installation, FILM and its accompanying guidebook which contained various luminaries (Martin Scorsese, Jean Luc-Godard, etc) all extolling the virtues of film. Even Keanu Reeves has produced a documentary about the rise of digital filmmaking called Side by Side which premieres at the 2012 Berlin International Film Festival. But can anything bar an iron-clad financial model for how celluloid can be maintained and shipped cheaply be used as an argument for saving this integral element of film history?
Bad Rep – The War Against 35mm (text) by David Jenkins is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
"… and for me, DVD is a domestic rather than a professional medium."
My favorite quote from a fantastic piece.
Written by Christine on January 25th, 2012 at 19:52
No reputable theater is screening films on DVD, big or small, or even bluray or that matter. If they don't screen on 35mm, they screen on a special digital HD print, either 2K or even 4K, that comes a special flash drive. The death 35mm in the theaters is very very sad, but at least most movies are still shooting on film.
Written by Joe on January 26th, 2012 at 07:29
Another issue alltogether is that if the only chance you have for screening a film(say, if you don't find 35 mm prints, you need subtitles, you live on a different continent, don't have the equipment for 35 mm etc etc) is from DVD/Blu-ray, Warner Bros, along with several others, refuse to let you do so. Since DVD/Blu-ray doesn't give the screening a good enough quality they won't grant you the rights to use the film at all. So how are people ever supposed to re-visit the dear, old films, I ask you…
Written by Karin on January 26th, 2012 at 08:29
The scary thing about this article is that a journo who theoretically works in the industry actually thinks that major cinemas show DVDs instead of 35mm prints.
Digital prints are often better than 35mm because huge numbers of UK distributors cut costs by using used prints. IE the movie screens in the states or Canada, 6 weeks later it opens in the UK & rather than stump up £800 for a new (pristine) print they use a used print from their parent in north america that is scratched & jumpy & rubbish.
DVDs would be a bit rubbish, but thats a staggeringly stupid concept since they are not being used… but thats not let that ruin the drive of the article eh.
Written by Claire Leah on January 26th, 2012 at 13:19
Sounds to me like this article is written by a troll. If it’s not, the author is confusing DVD with digital media. Digital media comes in a variety of different kind of resolutions and DVD resolution is not suitable for viewing the content on a cinema size screen (that’s why nobody commercially does it). Cinemas stick to the 2K-4K content resolution.
Don't panic!
Written by DeathOnMars on January 26th, 2012 at 14:30
I honestly don't mind digital projection as long as A) it is an extremely hi-def 2K or 4K showing, and B) the movie is shot in film. I recently saw a digital projection of "The Bridge on the River Kwai" that looked absolutely, unbelievably goregous, as if it was a brand-new movie. However, it would not nearly have been as stunning had it not been shot on 35mm.
Having said that, the "war on film" is largely just a misconception. Most filmmakers and cineastes prefer film, and lots of theaters still show film prints. It's this idea people seem to have that anything new is automatically better. Well, I'm afraid that just isn't true as far as film is concerned. Film hasn't changed in over 100 years, and still looks much, much better than even the highest-definition video format, not to mention much more colorful.
Written by George Fogg on January 26th, 2012 at 15:23
I'm pretty sure the Ritzy Picturehouse showed TwoLane Blacktop via DVD recently – it skipped about four times during the showing… If it wasn't a DVD, which I suppose it might not have been, what would it have been to skip like that?
Written by Georgie on January 26th, 2012 at 15:49
While I completely agree with what you're saying about the look of film, the "war on film" is not a misconception at all. They've completely discontinued the manufacture of 35mm cameras. There will still be enthusiasts who insist on shooting on film, but they will have to use old cameras and keep them in sound condition (much like film schools that insist on using 16mm Bolex cameras). Bottom line — film is in the early stages of its last days.
Written by anonymous on January 26th, 2012 at 15:52
the Blu-ray?
Either format lending a certain irony to the film's final image, no doubt. The end of celluloid indeed…
Written by Anton Bitel on January 26th, 2012 at 16:31
Filmmakers are more and more turning to digital formats. Kodak has discontinued the production of 35mm film. Most theater chains in the US are tearing out their 35mm equipment (and sending it to the junkyards) and installing digital projectors. Soon there will be no other option. And yes, some theaters are screening DVDs when Blu-ray is not available.
But a properly projected Blu-ray looks almost as good as a new 35mm print, and a lot better than a beat-up one.
Written by Nick Name on January 26th, 2012 at 17:01
Lawrence Of Arabia was shot on 70mm
Written by arivalscientist on January 26th, 2012 at 17:09
What about films that still have not made it to DVD in the U.S., such as several of the Orson Welles-directed films, or the 1936 version of “Show Boat”? Are they to be denied showings too?
Written by Albert on January 26th, 2012 at 17:23
I am a film programmer from Canada and I can confirm it is harder and harder to get 35 mm prints in North America. Some big distributors even destructed their stock of prints. Now they force feed us DVD and blu-ray. From an repertory cinema or an archives point of view, it is a tragedy.
Written by Medea on January 26th, 2012 at 18:48
The attitude that movie theaters can just show a movie on DVD or BluRay is insulting to anyone who wants to have a true cinematic experience. I have seen some amazing digital projections, mostly with the "fake" IMAX theaters. These are high-quality digital transfers using state of the art projection systems. These can be beautiful, but it's not the same as 35 mm. That said, film offers its own liabilities (scratches, splices, sync problems, color fading, grain, etc.) whereas digital has pristine images. These are two different animals, but to expect one to go extinct in favor of another is idiotic.
filmverse.wordpress.com
Written by alittleotter on January 26th, 2012 at 19:17
Hate to burst your bubble, but I've seen DVDs projected MANY times at repertory theaters when they couldn't get their hands on anything better. Not 2K or 4K, but DVDs. Don't get out much, do you?
Written by William on January 26th, 2012 at 21:55
Wow. A lot of people responding don't know what they're talking about, or don't understand the story. That being the availability of repertory titles available on film. I run a repertory series in the US. And we are a reputable cinema. We primarily screen Blu-Ray and some Dvd's – not by choice of course. We have been fortunate to get the occasional 2k DCP drive but those are rare for repertory titles.
There are several major issues with showing DVD/ Blu-Ray that haven't been addressed here. 1. Often the aspect ratios aren't true and have been reformatted to fit a 16×9 tv screen. 2. Subtitles- On scope films the subtitles are often placed in the black bar area. In the cinema this doesn't exist so subtitles would be showing on the bottom curtain so we must zoom the image down for the subs to be seen which looks terrible onscreen. 3. Non-anamorphic releases of scope films are terrible onscreen. We ran King Of Hearts. All that was ever pressed was a standard DVD with the subtitles in the letter boxing. It was the most embarrassing presentation I've had to run. 4. The DVD releases are often different from theatrical releases. This could be due to music rights, poor colour timing/authoring, directors cuts only being available, etc.
I was told by two different major studios that corporate wishes their repertory end of things would just drop dead. WB and Disney advise to only screen DVD/blu-ray. I could go on in detail suffice to say its a sad state of affairs. That being said, the majority of our audiences prefer a blocky DVD to the chopped up, scratched to hell prints we were receiving before we added digital projectors. The film afficianado in me cringes at this but they're happy and it has opened up what I can play. The number of titles on DVD outnumber the available prints. With the studios disdain for their repertory titles I don't see many if those showing up on DCP any time soon, if ever. So embrace the fact youre lucky enough to sit in a theatre with an audience and share the experience of watching a blocky DVD of My Fair Lady on a big screen. But afterwards when you complain about the image quality, which you should, don't be a dick about it. It's what we repertory theatres have to work with.
Written by Dave on January 26th, 2012 at 21:57
Only Arriflex, Panavision, and Aaton have stopped manufacturing cameras, so what? If somebody wants one made, some other company will begin manufacturing them again. Just because the corporations disappear doesn't mean the technology will. To be perfectly honest, I think those three companies are pricing themselves out of the market if they're only going to manufacture DV cameras, since so many other companies already do, and the RED is far superior to both the Panavision Genesis and Arri Alexa. Saying that film is in the early stages of it's last days is like saying vinyl records are in the early stages of their last days.
In short, people think that new automatically equals better. It's such drivel I can barely stand it. Most new things that come out these days become obsolete within 2-3 years, how is that better?
Written by George Fogg on January 26th, 2012 at 23:00
Kodak hasn't stopped manufacturing 35mm film, or 16mm, or 8mm. If Kodak disappears, some other company will buy their patents (like with Fuji Velvia).
I'm glad they switched to digital projectors, so they can wear out or become obsolete after two years and create more garbage in landfills. That's just what we all need. But as long as people are consuming, consuming, consuming, all is well.
Written by George Fogg on January 26th, 2012 at 23:03
Does Disney even still make movies anymore? I thought they were too busy throwing their weight around congress to extend copyright laws by several more centuries.
Written by George Fogg on January 26th, 2012 at 23:07
Kodak has discontinued several types of film, though, like Kodachrome 40. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.
Written by George Fogg on January 26th, 2012 at 23:10
Within 10 years I predict we won't see a single major motion pictured captured on film.
Written by krispynoodlez on January 27th, 2012 at 00:07
do your research before saying shit like this…kodak still makes film including print film and a bunch of other films that you don't need to know also in all formats 70mm,65mm,35mm,16mm,super8,8mm, 35mm with 16mm perforations, 35mm with 8mm perforations, 16mm with super 8 perforations, intermediate film, black and white film positive and negative, separation films, 16mm print film, mag film….
assholes…
if you have doubts…..motion.kodak.com and download their price list….also they're selling motion picture film on their online store and just brought back tri-x in super 8….so don't start bullshit rumors that they stopped manufacturing film…and for the asshole that said ARRI stop manufacturing….no they didn't they still make movie cameras….the pussies here in the US did…"PANAVISION"
Written by Asshole on January 27th, 2012 at 00:52
Within 10 years I predict 85-90% of major motion pictures will be shot on 35mm film (short of an environmental catastrophe).
Written by George Fogg on January 27th, 2012 at 04:03
Anyone want to put money on it? I'm saying it's going digital – the studios will push it because it's cheaper. Many indie filmmakers will do it for the same reason. Given the quality gains over the past few years, I think digital has strong potential to outdo film; however, there's always going to be something special about the natural grain of film.
Written by That Guy on January 27th, 2012 at 04:10
They've been predicting it's going to "Go Digital" for the last 15 years. Hasn't happened because A) it doesn't look very good, and B) it's a terrible archive format, due to the speed at which the tech becomes obsolete, not to mention how incredibly frail electronic storage is (since it seems people are not keeping hard copies of anything these days; let's just hope an extended power outage won't erase everything). The only way to properly archive things shot digitally is to, surprise surprise, transfer them to film prints. Also, it's not cheaper. It's about the same, and in fact it's actually cheaper to shoot on film than to shoot on HD video and make it look like film. Most filmmakers choose to shoot on film for the sole reason that it just looks and sounds so much better. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The only reason some filmmakers prefer video to film is because it's easier to use. Well, I hate to say this, but if you're not working your fingers to the bone trying to make your movie look and sound and be as good as humanly possible, you have no right to call yourself a filmmaker.
Written by George Fogg on January 27th, 2012 at 15:10
the stupidest thing about warners refusing to ship prints is that if anyone could ship prints it would be one of the biggest film companies in the world. and i doubt they get that many requests for 35 mm anymore seeing as everyone has converted to digital. truly pathetic on their part, but also just sad.
Written by mr_x on January 27th, 2012 at 20:51
also, dvd just isnt a good format all the time. for some cinemas, its fine, but a lot of the time, theyre not built for screens that big, theyre meant to be for the small tv screen at home. when i saw the female convict trilogy at the rio, it was obvious that it was from dvds, as the image was just not made to be blown up that big. luckily the films were great so it didnt matter so much but it wasnt the perfect cinematic experience prints would have made it.
Written by mr_x on January 27th, 2012 at 20:54
very lastly lol, i dont mind fucked up prints. i hate that the omnipresence of digital everywhere in our lives has meant we no longer have any time or interest in the less than perfect image.
Written by mr_x on January 27th, 2012 at 20:56
the middle installment in that trilogy, Female Convict Scorpion: Jailhouse 41, is one of my favourite films of all time – but I've only ever seen it on DVD (or, even worse, VCD). I would LOVE to see a pristine print of it. Just sayin'…
Written by Anton Bitel on January 27th, 2012 at 21:07
Interesting problem to solve, how to create a business model that will make 35mm cheaper to distribute? Its not as versatile as digital which can be distributed in many ways. I think cinemas and independents will have to start purchasing and creating their own archive of 35mm films. Every cinema I've worked at has at least 1 print laying around. A co-op of 35mm cinema chains could work, share the cost. I think allot of answers lye with how France deal with this problem, they run 35mm so much still that they have to request and out source prints from other countries.
Written by mitchell on January 28th, 2012 at 09:44
kodak has gone bust
Written by mitchell on January 28th, 2012 at 17:56
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/i…
Written by mitchell on January 28th, 2012 at 17:59
Kodak is in Chapter 11 and trading as usual, all the other stuff is just people making stuff up. Happens a lot these days when there's nobodies phone to hack into. Loads easier than having to actually understand stuff.
Written by Freya on January 28th, 2012 at 22:27
agree, the guys at the top of the company where hiding millions of pounds of loses. They should have made the switch earlier to digital, they did invent the first digital camera. Allot of film labs closed years ago and the guys at the top at kodak where stubborn enough to hid the mess they are in now. Its a shame cause it wont be long before they discontinue film printing, but if they dealt with their problems sooner they could have specialized in film printing.
Written by mitchell on January 29th, 2012 at 12:57