An interesting, short article on Time's site concerning digital theater conversion.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020506-234152-1,00.html

As a former projectionist myself, we weren't unionized (we were just high school kids and college students making a little above minimum wage) but we took great pride in keeping our prints clean. Wiping the gate was a ritual performed many times each night. Prints which came in spliced, dirty and scratched were obviously the result of careless projectionists elsewhere.

better - good - doesn't matter. bottom line will be the $$. if the BEST won beta would be here not vhs.. films would be shot in 65mm not 35mm ...our tv's would be PAL , we'd all own mercedes not chevy's ...

and WE will not decide. hollywood will decide for US. at the moment the only thing stopping digital projection is the COST . theater owners don't want to foot the BILL ! it's not the quality that is stopping them it's the $$$ ....

"I have run film prints more than 5 times a day for over 4 months straight and there was not a single speck of dirt, dust, or anything on it at the end of its run."

when film is projected it does pick up DUST - no if's ands buts.. on every run as the film runs thru projector from feed reel to take up reel dust that is in the room will land on the film !! and as you say it's whoever is running the film. mistakes happen all the time on splicing ( splice comes undone - print ends up on floor )

i saw the latest digital projection at NAB .. whether it was as good, better image wise doesn't matter as there are tade off's .
in the REAL world today - prints gets scratched, film projectors go slightly out of alignment and have a slight jitter/weave, projectionist don't focus properly, the angle of projector and screen do NOT line up .. all these are FIXABLE BUT over the years most theaters do NOT keep equipment in top shape and the person running projector is serving popcorn & coke between movies. but all that doesn't matter - in the long run digital projection will SAVE the studio/distributor $$$ ....

you will soon see theaters advertising that they have digital projection to get you to come to their theater and not the theater projecting a film print. this advertising will give the impression that digital is BETTER and the masses will buy the line- that is callled MARKETING - and marketing has nothing to do with better/ good / worse ...........

as the article states - CONTROL - the sudio's want to know how many times a day the movie is shown! i have heard this since 1977 when i heard george lucas speak ... back then he wanted to know how many times a day his film was shown and how many person were in theater... i think he'll find out within next decade.

more persons watch movies on their TV 's ( broadcast & renting VHS )then see then projected in theaters ... so far the masses are NOT buying HD -16x9 TV's in the USA

I think the best digital projectors produces a better projection compared to the 35mm ones. I recently attended a Sony demo in Europe and think the difference is not in image quality but in the fact that it is very enjoyable to the eyes to watch a perfectly still image without jitter/weave. Also dust and microscratches are a big issue. My first feature shot on 35mm went to telecine from a first print done at Technicolor (N.Y.). We checked the print once on the big screen and then went straight into the filmscanner. One single projection gave it microscratches that are highly apparent in the videoprint. That is the way film behaves. Some like it and calles it a part of the experience. I dislike it and it annoys me. HD is looking great!

Donatello made this comment:
"when film is projected it does pick up DUST - no if's ands buts.. on every run as the film runs thru projector from feed reel to take up reel dust that is in the room will land on the film !! and as you say it's whoever is running the film. mistakes happen all the time on splicing ( splice comes undone - print ends up on floor )"

First off, probably only 1% of theaters even use reels to transport film these days. My company specializes in this specifically and we manufacture the #1 best selling film cleaning product in the world and I can absolutely assure you that Joe's comment is NOT a lie or even a tiny exaggeration. My record for running a 35mm film print was 1500 runs and I screened the final performance in it's entirity and it was FLAWLESS. Anyone who thinks this can not be achieved with film is very much uninformed.

Now while I will not argue that MANY theaters do not handle film properly and the comments you made are valid in THOSE situations, but to say that film automatically wears and picks up dirt is sheer ignorance. People damage film, not the film itself. And I might also add that in over 15 years of daily working with film I have NEVER had a splice of mine break or wear. From the sound of it, your past experiences with film were handled by morons. (And no I see no reason to sugarcoat the obvious.)

Martin, you need to fire whoever handled your print that was only ran one time. That is beyond pathetic. Also, those digital vs. 35mm *tests* are incredibly geared toward making digital look better. I am surprised you were fooled.

TI came out to a theater I service to do a DLP vs. film shootoff a couple of years ago and they provided me with what may very well have been the worst condition print I have ever handled. In the end I refused to show it because they were taking source material transferred from the original camera negative directly to their digital format. The print I got of the same program material I was to run side by side with the DLP projector had been ran through multiple film generations and my guess is that they dragged it around the TI parking lot for a few hours to ensure it looked horrible.

But that's not all. They also wanted me to defocus the 4000 watt xenon lamp in the projector to "match our 3000 watt xenon" for a fair brightness test. What they assumed was that no one would notice that they were running a 5000 watt xenon in their DLP projector! I verified this with one of the techs who admitted I was reading their meter correctly and then I was told to not say anything as the TI spokesperson blabbled on about how the projector had a smaller light source behind it! I did not say anything, but I have regretted keeping my mouth shut ever since.

After their demo they packed up while everyone went to lunch and afterwards we screened a 35mm film. It should be no surprise that everyone ended up walking out of there that afternoon saying that the DLP looked really good, but the film looked much better.

Sorry for the rant, but I am so sick of people automatically assuming that digital is always better. In this case, it is not. DLP and similar offshoots have a few more years to go until it reaches the quality level of 35mm film. When that happens, I will gladly switch sides and push digital projection. By the way, I've got some rolls of "digital" toilet paper to sell. Guaranteed to wipe much better because it is digital! Any takers?

the comment was made "5 times a day for over 4 months straight and there was not a single speck of dirt, dust, or anything on it "

"NOT a SINGLE speck of DUST or anything on i " - - there will be a speck of dust - many specks - i'm not saying that these specks of dust will damage the print or if one would see them - i'm saying there will be specks of dust on the 10- 12,000 ft of film ...

i go to films in berkeley/SF .. i go to films every week ..everyweek i see scratched prints - how they got there i don't know ... i'll say that 75 % of the films i see the prints have scratches on them somewhere .. when i 'm in LA it's the same ... the only time i don't see scratches is when viewing a answer print ...

"but I am so sick of people automatically assuming that digital is always better" ...

i don't hear them saying it is BETTER , i think it is as martin stated digital makes "better projection " - the whole experience, take all the elements of sitting there in theater ..

i bet this is sort of what was discussed back in the days when the train or auto was invented and all those connected to HORSE transportion was taking they'll never replace the horse/wagon ?? no flys in horse stall if you keep em clean , hay is cheaper then gas , auto can go off road, horse will out run auto ...

i think digital will be SOLD to the public as better = marketing -i'm not saying it is better only that marketing will sell it as better - marketing doesn't care if it's better ..it's NEW - different -

IMO every digital projection vs. film that i've seen - FILM has looked better .. they have always had prints with no scratches ... infact i'll say the prints are prestine and are special color corrected runs - they are NOT what you see in the theaters ( print that went thru IP, dupe neg , print process) they are usually right off the original NEG ..

theaters do NoT pay when they damage a print .. we never got 1500 runs out of a print... from our 6 prints ( 35MM) i usally started seeing scratches after around 175 runs then down hill from there

" DLP and similar offshoots have a few more years to go until it reaches the quality level of 35mm film"

YES ? AND ? - you're missing the point - DLP doesn't have to reach the quality of film before it goes into theaters ! read the article even the yellow GOD ( kodak) is offering to HELP theaters lease projectors and they will keep them updated to newest technology! that is KODAK the company that makes the print film for all those theaters prints ... kodak sees the writing on the screen

donatello,

Let me put it this way, YES...NO VISIBLE DIRT WHATSOEVER! Not even the slightest scratch! Not even a thousand or more runs down the road does this happen when professional projectionists are handling the film. I am not kidding or exaggerating. Yes with your run-of-the-mill *typical* 35mm projection the film does get dirty and scratched, but with PROPER film cleaning and handling the film DOES NOT degrade whatsoever.

You're going to have to trust me on this, for as this is a video forum, the only member who can back up that statement is Joe Redifer who I have personally worked with in a projection booth and I can assure you that Joe knows the RIGHT way to handle motion picture film, and apparently you do not believe him either.

I wish I could say that berkeley/SF was a good place to see films presented properly, but according to your report, that just isn't the case. I'll bet if you were to inquire to the projectionists there how they clean their films they will say that they don't *or* they use something called PTR rollers, which are a joke if you are serious about keeping that film pristine for hundreds upon hundreds of runs.

Actually I can back up Brad's statement as well. As a former projectionist myself, I have handled hundreds and hundreds of 35mm prints that left our theater just as good if not better than the shape they came in. If we received a new print, it went out just as good as new. This was all over the city, too, which was Manhattan, Kansas back in the '80's. We were just kids really, most of us were still in high school, but we were managed by a curmudgeonly old RCA sound engineer by the name of Charles Speckman who ruled our booths with an iron fist, and woe to the boy who did not wipe the gate. That was back in the day before platters, when we still ran on reels and had to do change-overs manually. I could write a book about those days but long story short, a print left our theaters looking better than we got it, and if it was new, it looked as good as new even after two to four shows per day for eight weeks on end, because we kept things *clean.* Not every booth op worked that way but we did.

between brad , joe and chris i'm sold - next time we have in a theater run i'll fly joe or brad in to take a look at the projection room before hand etc.. in the long run it would save us $$ not having to make a new print.

it's been a good conversation. i always look at these like we are sitting in a cafe having a discussion over tea/coffee.

anybody going to showbiz expo in LA ??

Coffee, please. ShowBiz? Check your e-mail!

There seem to be a lot of skilled technicians on this forum. Too bad you don't work my local theatres. Perhaps a mixture of digital and analog would be the solution. A few top projectionist theatres and digital in all of those houses that know nothing of projection (the majority). Perhaps we can agree on the fact that a digital projection is better than the worst 35mm projections (the majority) but not at all better than the best ones? That way we would raise the over all standard of big screen viewing. :-)

Because of louzy cineplexes around where I live I prefer watching movies at home on a 32"/100Hz/16x9 monitor and great stereo (5.1 coming soon). My own home provide me with cinematic experience I can't get at the local theatre. Too bad.

I'm the opposite... I like the communal experience of going to the movies in a big theater with a lot of people. I like comfortable stadium seating, big screens and loud sound, and a fellow audience.

I think Donatello's comments earlier relate the sad fact that unfortunately there *is* some lousy projection happening, and the skill and craft of the projectionist is becoming a lost art. Scratched and dirty prints are way too easy to find. In a lot of theaters, the projectors are started by assistant managers with many other things on their minds, unfortunately.

As Brad and Joe and I have pointed out, it doesn't have to be that way. A little care goes a long, long way. I just wish there were more folks working the booth like these guys.

all things being equal, if it can be screwed up, it will be.....just Murphy's unyielding, tireless law. Given this basic truth, I can understand why a major studio would go digital. not only will it eventually be cheaper...but, it eliminates a whole gamut of potential screw-ups by pimple faced children who run these places. unfortunately, the day of the skilled craftsman is waning in everything including projectionists.

Well, I think it's only a matter of education. I was a pimple-faced kid when I ran projectors and we took care of our prints. Joe and Brad are unfortunately of a breed that is getting rare. I like Joe's idea of offering a consulting service to the theaters. Hmm, surely there's a market for that, Joe?

In my opinion, those pimple-faced kids make the best new projectionists. I know that sounds crazy, but unless they are someone like Joe, getting people who are pre-trained usually means from the "old school" thought process and 9 times out of 10 they put on the kind of presentation that donatello was describing. When I get some 16 year old kid who has never touched film a day in his life, I show him the right way to do things from the get go and he does it that way because he doesn't know there is any other way to do it. So hey, next time you see some young kid in the booth, don't discount the presentation until the picture hits the screen. It just might be the best presentation you've ever seen.

I would agree though that I would rather watch a DLP presentation than a poor film presentation. Fortunately there are enough GOOD theaters around here that I don't have to.

Ya' ll are quite right....*provided* we're dealing with a kid who CARES....aka has pride in his work. Seems like there's a ton of kids that just don't care....they're going thru the motions for $$$$. There's absolutely nothing to replace having passion for your work, eh?....and the satisfaction of knowing you did the best you could do.

technically.. i dont know much about film projection, but I do know
that everytime i see a film its scratched and dirty, to some extent..

if this is bad then the theaters here in Vegas need new faculty!

Ditto for me, Adam.

It's been several years since I've seen a movie in a theater. Perhaps I'm just getting older but it just became an increasingly unpleasent experience. Absurdly loud sound, often rude or thoughtless neighbors and, yes, dirty and often jittery projections finally just made me ask "Why is this worthwhile?" And my local theaters are some of the most reportedly sophisticated joints in the Midwest. But my recollections of the projections are not flattering.

Certainly I have many very fond memories of going to the movies with my friends when I was young. Perhaps that's really what the experience is meant for now. But today, with a full home theater and over 1,000 titles in our home library I think I've scraped the last gum wad from my shoes. I love -good- films but have no love for the movie theater experience any more.

kodak must have been reading our discussion !!


Kodak Offers Projection Training
By Staff
May 06, 2002 09:26 AM PDT

Kodak Cinema Operations is offering an advanced training course for film handlers May 28-29. Building on the solid foundation provided by their beginner class, the advanced class provides students with hands-on training and knowledge of traditional film systems. The class features a low student-to-instructor ratio to maximize the amount of hands-on training provided. Advanced classes are offered in the Kodak Los Angeles training facility. The intensive two-day agenda covers the topics of film handling, projection, film characteristics, power, automation, electrical, sound, film history and saftely. How it works, soundtracks, sound formats, digital readers, troubleshooting, sound, safety, film history and maintenance.

It's really a shame that some theaters give virtually all theaters a bad name. The sound can be fixed so that it is loud but not "absurd". It's all in the EQ and also how you play your trailers, etc. Most theaters play the trailers at the same volume level of the movie, and as you may have noticed trailers are recorded over TWICE AS LOUD (more than 3db) as the movie. Good theaters will adjust the volume between trailers and the movie, but many places just don't care enough about their work.

Actually Kodak has had that training thing going for a long time. I've been to two of them and in all honesty, it's all theory and offers little real day to day use.

My rule is that the kid gets 3 shifts in the booth. If at the end of the 3rd shift he still can't thread and tackle the very basics, then he is out. If he is able to handle the basics, then he gets another couple of shifts. If after 5 shifts he hasn't pretty much mastered what he needs to know in the booth for everything except assembling prints, disassembling prints and changing trailers, he's out. If he's got it, then I keep training him until he masters everything. In other words, someone who will care and WANT to do the job will bust their hump to learn and put forth the effort. That is the kind of people I keep for they want to do the job, they want to learn and they can learn quickly which is often a requirement for emergency situations. It works well.

Home theatres are great things, but they'll never replace the feeling of sitting in that dark room in front of that huge screen. I hope film dosen't die, then we'd never have these interesting discussions. Poor 'ole Joe would only have his Mac to die for then.

One thing they'll never be able to reproduce digitally is the sticky carpet.

My mom was just a little kid during World War Two, her older sisters were teenagers. My grandmother used to tell me stories about what it was like and what it meant for them to go to the movies during wartime in a small Nebraska town. Everybody in the theater knew everybody else, they'd watch newsreels, cartoons and sing songs together... it was a real communal experience. Quite different these days but I still dig the public aspect of a crowded theater and a big screen.

Well.. I got most of the things you all like right at home.

I got a very dark (DVD) hometheater... which quite often is crowded
too (friends). My beamer does a good job of producing a
screen that is larger (keeping in mind my eyes distance to
the screen) then when I'm at the local cinema. My surround
set pumps out dolby digital and DTS that is probably a better
quality than my local theater as well, primarely because I
have positioned it all perfect. In a theater you can allmost
never sit in the "perfect" sweet spot. I even got my beer
in hand reach... what more can anyone ask?

Oh.. and for those smart people around here, my theater
chairs should be coming too in the coming years.

With much DVD discs on the shelve and more only a
rental-corner away there isn't shortage of movies either.

I do tend to watch the new movies at my local theater
though... primarely because I want to see them now and
not wait for a DVD rental release (before I decide to buy them).

If you don't mind me asking Rob how much did it all cost? I'm thinking of setting up a dedicated theater what things would I need?

Plasma or Projector?

what surround sound system?

How should it be set out? and should it be sound proffed?

Ed

I'm with you. Rob. Can't beat the peace and quiet. No screamin' kids, people talking, pushing, shoving, stealing my armrest. No row in front with a woman in a bouffant hairdo or some weekend cowboy who won't take his hat off. No underdone hot dogs, gum on the seats, or sticky spots from a spilled coke on the floor. No men's room war zone or waiting in line. No idiot ticket vendor asking me if I have my "senior discount". All in all, I go to the theater every once in a while just to remind myself how good it feels to be home. Kinda like hitting myself on the head with a hammer.....you know the rest.

you forgot the most important of all,

hotdogs and popcorn at YOUR house is free, as opposed to the
the snacks at the movies that you nearly have to finance!!!

in home theater sounds like a good idea to me...

"...hotdogs and popcorn at YOUR house is free..."

only trouble is I have to make them myself. I finally taught my dog to make popcorn....except that I can't break 'im from the habit of licking all the butter up BEFORE he puts it on the popcorn....and he doesn't like mustard and onions.

You guys should see Brad's Home Theater!

One thing I always find entertaining to argue about is the center channels of home theaters. A lot of times I will see two massivley huge and powerful speakers sitting on the floor that are meant to be the left and right channels obviously. Then I look over and see this teeny tiny wimpy thing laying HORIZONTALLY on top of the TV. Do people honestly think that this little thing will match the output of their other huge speakers? "But I have a subwoofer that handles the low end of that channel" is usually the response. Then I also see these little "satellite" surround speakers nailed to the wall. I ask the same question and get the same response. That poor subwoofer! No longer is it a discrete channel. Many times none of the speakers are the same brand... the left and right speakers will be of a certain brand, the surrounds will be a different brand, the center channel will be it's own brand as will the subwoofer. "But they're timbre matched!" OK whatever you say!

If you want your home theater to sound really good, you'll have 3 identical speakers for your front three. They will all be able to handle a ton of bass and none of them will lay horizontally. Your surrounds should also be able to handle down to at least 80 Hz. NONE of the output of any speakers should ever be routed to the sub in Dolby Digital/DTS modes (Pro-Pogic it's kind of unavoidable since that's the way it works). Let the sub be it's own discrete channel. The low frequencies of your "stage" speakers combined with the sub (assuming it's good) will give you some really nice sounding bass... much better than if the sub had to do it all. Also don't forget to have 1/3 Octave EQ for each individual channel and set your levels with an analog (not digital) SPL meter which you can get at Radio Shack. Good levels will be close to the following with your volume knob set to what is normally your optimum listening level:

Left: 85db
Center: 84 to 84.5db
Right: 85db
Left Surround: 83 to 84db
Right Surround: 83 to 84db
Subwoofer: 98db

Set the SPL meter where you usually sit.

wow,

that talk is overwhelming, i have a 27 inch and thats it!
im actually considering building up a system, yet i havent watch a peice
of television since '98. hence the reason i have not much of a visual
overload of a system. Though i do LOVE movies so I am reconsidering my options....good input though!

I agree with you Joe. Althought my current sound system is not
top-notch yet (as you describe it) it will be in the future (these
things costs loads of money). I'm planning to go to one of these
specialist home theaters builders and get me a decent system.
Some speaker manufacturers also have a special center speaker
that can match the left and right and still "lay" on your TV
(if you have one)... My denon AV Receiver calculates volume
by how far the speakers are apart etc. (I can enter that into
the receiver)...

As usual, this is a great topic. In some ways similar to other film vs. DV/video talks that are often a little heated and makes most take side, quickly. I thought I'd put my 2 cents in since what I do daily and what I am doing with DV is possibly a little unique to others' experiences.

I work at a home entertainment trade, during the day, and it's incredible how the home entertainment market (although it looks radically different than what most folks remember it as, small ma and pa video stores) is the main venue for small and large studios to cash in on titles (since the Spiderman and Harry Potters are few and far between). We (the trade publication I work for) even started a secondary trade that focuses on just direct to video/DVD and special edition DVD markets trade publication, just because the demand was so high and there are more and more professionals who work in the development, production, post, and marketing of titles. It's also interesting to point out that the francising and heavy branding that studios use to produce titles these days might have been influenced by the continued success they had with 'direct to video' sequels, which brought huge returns year after year for them, while more and more of their film releases failed miserably, see the Rollerball movie as an example.

I think Variety (4 months ago or so) posted some numbers showing how theaters don't have a steady large profit growth year to year (maybe also due to the fact of canibalization from multiplexes and hightened ticket sales, currently the new Arclight Theaters here in LA charge $14 per ticket), where as home video markets do have a constant growth year after year (all the while VHS and DVD prices have gotten lower and lower (before DVD, VHS titles had two pricing levels, one for the first few months, then they were lowered for sell thru, like DVD now is right from their release which is still less than $20). So it would make sense to me that theaters would be reluctant to buy new systems to show films. The reason I am mentioning this is because I think Chris' comments about the communal movie viewing experience in theaters is beautiful but in some ways utopian, and far from the reason people pay money to go to theaters to see movies these days (economically when you look at the costs of tickets and demographic studies on consumers who attend, it's not very democratic at all).

Most of what we see in theaters (I feel) is highly controlled by MBA-sters' projections on Studio spreadsheets and an embarrassing MPAA film censorship system that prides itself on making all movies aiming at allowing >18 year olds in at any cost. We still have a large majority of theaters here in LA that will not show NC-17 and unrated films, and a good dozen magazines and newspapers that will not run ads for NC-17 or either (un)rated films.

New digital cinemas sound great and cool, but in some ways I'm skeptical about them as well as I am about the upper classists way that (film stock) filmmaking is so expensive (and thereby limits many competent voices from producing content for distribution). Spike Lee's continual struggle with studios and distributors and his, almost broken record, speeches about representation in film and television of american black actors is not as ridiculous when looked at in these lights, at all.

I'll be shooting a feature length project later this year and my main obstacles in securing financing are all the (costs) items I'd have to deliver to a distributor, which in some ways is a larger chunk compared to our production cost (since I'm shooting on DV). This whole thing is hysterical to me because even if my film totally blows, it will cost a lot just to show on a film projector and deliver to a (potentially, if lucky) distributor. I think I'm more interested in the development of new avenues for content distribution, much of what the visionaries during the big Internet days, sought after, which was a leveling of sorts, by seeking to have more original content delivered online. I'm not surprised that they failed in these markets which are often times bitter with inflated egos and scrupulous studios and distrubtion deals.

I don't think that (at least for my self) an analysis of whether film projectors or digital projectors are equal is that worthwhile, but (as content/video/film developers/producers) rather how this serves us, if at all. Personally, I could care less if Lucas' 6th episode is screened digitally or not. Or if Soderberg's playing around with 3 free XL1s cameras will be seen digitally or not. Neither of them will lose sleep if they are screened on film or digitally. And will probably make a huge profit on video (VHS and DVD) as well as in theaters.

PS-Kodak's enthusiasm is probably due to some interest in providing new products. I wonder if it will cost as much to deliver your film (digitally projected in a theater) as it does to edit and deliver on film? That would be a slap in the face in some ways, because what excites me about DV is it's potential to deliver good pictures cheaply and cut your production time (two things which low and no budget filmmaking has as its main obstacles, closely followed, often times, by bad acting and script problems).

I hope I added something and gave a little different perspective.

Regards-

Interesting perspective. I just read an article that 80% of american households linked to the internet are still on phone modems. YIKES!! What this means is that quality (aka hi res)streaming video is still a far, far away dream. Despite the upcoming(this summer) introduction of new streaming video technology by M$ and REAL networks, 80% of the public still can't see quality video on their computers. Until this bandwidth barrier is overcome, I think DVD and movie theater are the only way to go....and breaking the MPAA stranglehold on distribution is only a gleam in some Indie's eye.

Wouldn't it be a good thing if video were as easily exchanged as MP3?...now that's something to ponder

What interesting comments these are! I admit my statements about the movie-going experience are indeed utopian, but actually back in I think the 1920's it *was* pretty much that kind of experience, where common folk could pay five cents to be treated to an afternoon in an atmospheric, regal palace theater with uniformed doormen and ushers to attend to them. Kind of like the *really full* full-service Texaco gas stations of the 1950's. A utopian vision yes, but for awhile a very real experience in this country.

If video was easily exchanged as mp3, we'd all be the enemy as we are when we are trading mp3 that we make from CD we bought. The FBI has confiscated some 30 computers for file sharing violations this year alone, and crack downs are still funded. There was a great article online a month or so ago whereby the writer said that having mp3 and software to trade is so bad in this country that it's treated as if you were trading child porn (the FBI also confiscates computers for accused child molesters and accussed online pedophiles). That's something, even more important to think about, because in some ways the new Millenium Copyright is unconstitutional and a hardcore control on what you see and hear and watch (and we pay for these restrictions when we buy content, literally).

I don't know that the MPAA is the Indie's problem. It seems like a copout. A political copout in some ways, which is the worst kind. I notice that a lot of times I disenfranchise myself as an American citizen by passing on civil problems to companies and politicians to deal out, for me. Even our neighbors to the north (Canada), south (South American countries), and many other countries (France, England, Italy, etc) don't have problems like these with ratings and distribution.

Todd Solondz was interviewed recently on a censorship issue with the MPAA, recently for 'Storyteling' (which in my opinon, is a magnificently very American film), saying that he knew he would have problems with the film and certain scenes only in the US, Iran , & Iraq (no where else). It gives new perspective to my mother's advice to me when I was very small, that the rest of the world sees things very differently than we see them here in America. In a very literal way, she is proven right. But in a very concrete way, the treat of the 'p' word classification (pornography) of films and videos, threatens anyone who the MPAA finds threatening. Meanwhile, we bicker about whether video can ever have an elusive film look. It's really great to have this website and be somewhat organized and connected. That is probably a massive strength.

Chris-

Speaking of old time American ways and friendliness, I was recently back in Oregon, our neighbor to the north (from here in LA), and they still have full service gas stations. You are greeted at the driver's side and they ask you how what you would like them to pump and what you need. It always floors me. So does the fact they have no sales tax, it's like shopping online, but in person, everywhere you go. I was born in Eastern Europe and the whole 'have a nice day thing' is an American export. The checkout girl is not interested in you or your desire for eyecontact and doesn't care if you have a nice day. These, now sometime banal and overused, 'have a nice day' blessings spoken at the end of the transaction, when you shop, are truly warming to the soul from abroad. It's a very southern remanant, I hear, of 'the American way' that is still a very charming ideal to strive for.

Traveling is a great way to get a new perspective, for sure. They (Oregon) also have a whole different pricing structure at their movie theaters. You pay some 4 or 5 dollar a movie, and a max of 7 during peak times (weekend nights and Sunday matinees).

Plus, they have the cheaper theaters, nearby the regular ones, where you can see movies that have run their 8 to 12 week runs and those cost, get this, 1 dollar and 50 cents!!!! I always plan for some extra 2 to 3 days just to zone out and watch movies that I can't afford to try out at the usual 10 plus a viewing here in LA.

Best wishes to you and thanks for reading my rant.

Christian Calson

Hi Christian...

Thanx for your perspective. Clearly, this issue of control of the media, whether it's by a governmental censorship group or a private industry group like MPAA, is a hot button issue. I really don't intend to take sides as I agree that a free-for-all on copyrighted material is not a good thing. Still, I question the messages that production video brings us in this country. Just look at CNN broadcasts in Europe to see how different that message is than in this country. I think a free and open marketplace for video and audio products would benefit us all.

So, while I support copyright protection, I also fantasize about a distribution scenario where topic and theme is decided by the buying public, NOT by some industry group with a vested interest.

Thanx for your comments. Rest assured that I appreciate your viewpoint and that you share it with us all.

I can only say, in a reply to digital--guy, that it was a pleasant
read! I agree with you on this. The question is... Where does this
leave the indy film-maker?

I think this interview conducted by Canal+ says a whole lot about the current situation of distributing smaller films on big screens. It's an interview with George A. Romero who I think is a really under rated filmmaker. Martin and The Crazies are magnificent low budget films.

http://www.cplus.fr/cinema/emissions/qinterdit/itw_romero.html

He speaks about his film Bruiser and independent theatrical distribution. If E- or D-cinema can offer alternative distribution venues for independents then I'm all for it.