In Memoriam to the Cinema Palace

The following is the original, raw and unedited version of an article presented in the the 26th edition of OtherZine.  You can see the edited, presentable version here: http://www.othercinema.com/otherzine/in-memoriam-to-the-cinema-palace/

The following represents a closer example of the writers voice, but it is also unpolished.  It includes the accompanying video that shows footage of the demolishing of the cinema described in the article.

“The death of cinema” is a term that is thrown around quite often.  British director Peter Greenaway said it came with the invention of the remote control (1983).  Susan Sontag suggested it had died in her article "A Century of Cinema" (1995).  Many cinephiles believe it died with the invention of video or at least when it completely took over cinemas.

For me cinema died today.  Not with any conversion or transition of our beloved images, but with the erasure of my first movie palace.  The Park Theatre, in Menlo Park, California, was 66 years old when the property owner decided it should be flattened and turned into office buildings.  That might not seem very old, but for California architecture that is ample time especially considering the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.

Progress is haunting.  In one regard things change for the better.  Technology advances to make things easier, cheaper and more accessible, but not always.  Sometimes progress squashes beauty.  To what extent do we let progress determine our lives?  This was a question that spun around my head 11 years ago when the Park first closed it’s doors as a cinema to the public and now the wound has reopened and flows with blood once more.

Situations like this really make me wonder if the invisible decisions made by our current form of economy are really in line with our values.  When the pursuit of profit goes before culture, history and community it loses purpose.  Environment is a beast of a topic.  Books and artwork are archived.  Human lives are protected.  Buildings are quite different.  With property, or more specifically, buildings it is the owner that decides the fate.  A building, like a painting, can be protected, but this involves an active city council, experts and an interested community.  If someone possesses property of historic significance that they do not appreciate then why do they bother owning it?

The Dorothy Chandler Pavillion is only 50 years old and yet the Los Angeles Conservancy chose it to be apart of their Last Remaining Seats film series to recognize it’s historic significance.  The Park is it’s senior by 16 years and it left without a whisper.  However it was brilliantly orchestrated by the owner, Howard Crittenden.  Almost mysteriously so for me.  Eleven years ago he closed it’s doors to the protests of Landmark Theatres, who ran the cinema, and a few local residents.  I left for college to New York and later Los Angeles.  Upon my return to the Bay Area and after so many had forgotten and so much neglect to the building Mr. Crittenden decided to destroy the Park.  A completely unintended last laugh.

“In a critique of the lamentable state of American cities, there can be no appeal to the nostalgia for lost traditions and ways of life; our appeal can be only to the future.  This should not necessarily excite optimism.” - James Brook (“Remarks on the Poetic Transformation of San Francisco”)

In an essay on the development and short history of US cities, San Francisco in particular, Mr. Brook makes reference to a man named Nicholas Calas a European writer who immigrated to New York City in the 1940’s.  Having come from the old world with endless history in the walls of buildings and the floor beneath his feet he couldn’t stop writing about how bizarre of a hogpog construction that was the Big Apple.  A city that came from nowhere and grew not from history, culture or organic construction, but from market flow.  In many ways Calas was correct that in 1940 New York was still quite young and San Francisco even younger.  Buildings and places develop their true characters only after their initial purpose has waned.  

In previous times humankind's constructions were made to outlive their makers as a way to personify the power and creation of that period.  Now real estate developers are driven by profit, which is driven by current market trends.  It is as if the moment construction is complete that a building is already a burden upon the owner for not being enough of a cash-cow.  California is perpetually changing with the tides.  Landmarks barely have a chance to find their true personalities before they are razed and forgotten.  As Brook mentions this leaves us with only the ability to look to the future.

Calas believed that the poetry of a city could be found in the forgotten spaces and "flow" from one wondering place to the next.  The accidental or intentional additions to a sidewalk that leads to a building that's followed by a path through a park.  This is what I saw in the Park Theatre.  After 50 years of movie goers, employees, accidents, violence and love.  It was in the walls.

If enough people love something can it ever be killed?

In an age where most people are regretting the slow fade out of the medium of celluloid film, for me, this overrated argument takes a back seat to the erasure of the elegant classic movie palaces that are now on the verge of extinction.  This is a thought that runs through my mind knowing that Mr. Crittenden is also the owner of the last remaining classic cinema palace in Menlo Park, the Guild; due to turn 90 in just about two years from now.  Will we be lamenting the destruction of that elegant construction in ten years time?

Artist in Residence

In February I begin my AIR (Artist in Residence) at the EPFC (Echo Park Film Center).  I have a lot of things I'm preparing for this right now.  So check back for updates.

For now keep in mind I will have a screening with a few films including a brand new one I will be completing for this residency, which will take place on Thursday Feb 28th.

I will also be hosting a workshop on film projection and expanded cinema on February 23rd starting around noon.  As a projectionist for over 10 years and the current head projectionist at RedCat you might learn a thing or two ;)  I'll also be discussing some of my secrets of when I do live visual or expanded cinema performances.

The F-Word

A letter in response to the article "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film. But the Consequences of Going Digital Are Vast, and Troubling" by Gendy Alimurung in the LA Weekly Vol 34 no 21

Dear Gendy Alimurung,

                I don't need to tell you that your article last week on the "death of film" was quite striking.  It sent a fire storm across the city and across the world amongst movie makers and film enthusiasts in all corners.  First, let me congratulate you on a great article.  This is possibly the most in depth coverage on the complexity of film across the spectrum and it's addressing a huge problem by bringing it to a wider audience.  Yet, I have many concerns with some of the topics and conclusions you take on.  I hope you will bear with me for a moment as I try to explain things from a bit of a different side.  I think you might enjoy my conclusion, but I have a few things I need to go over before I get to it.

                I am a movie maker and even though I'm no Christopher Nolan I still have quite a lot of experience with both film and digital video.  I spent 10 years as a cinema projectionist, which included everything from reel-to-reel projection to DCP 3-D presentation.  I studied film and animation at NYU and USC, respectively.  And during my undergrad it was obvious to me that film was going the way of the dodo bird, which is why I focused on analog filmmaking, editing and presentation.  When I continued on into animation in my grad studies I decided to focus considerably more on the digital aspect of movie making.  I've worked for three different film archives - one in New York City and two in Los Angeles and I've worked with Mark Toscano, archivist at the Academy Film Archives, collaborating on film and digital moving image projects.

                There are many experts on both sides of the coin with respect to film or digital video, but I am probably one of the few that has such intricate expertise in both areas.  I have worked with every aspect of movie making from negative cutting to motion capture. I love film, but I love digital as well.  Just as there is a huge sea of possibilities in film it is the same in digital movie making.

               Digital movie making is not bad.  I know you never explicitly state this, but there is a strong undertone in this film vs. digital argument that always ends up with film enthusiasts often not realizing that they are film ONLY enthusiasts.  This segregates the market and only hurts both worlds.  My decision to work in digital is just as valid as someone else's decision to work with film.

                This is an old argument and for the past 12 years that I have worked in this world all across the country people have been telling me that film is dead.  David James used to hold an annual "Death of Cinema" conference at USC.  Dozens of filmmakers have announced the "death of film" including Peter Greenaway who dated it to be 1983 with the invention of the remote controller.  Susan Sontag announced the "death of cinephilia" and therefore "the death of the movie" in her article "A Century of Cinema" in 1995 (ironically this is about the time I was learning to become a cinephile).  I was once laughed at by a salesman of B&H when I called to ask about 16mm film equipment who replied that "film was a dead medium" and I should "get up to date with the times".

                Any film enthusiast will go out of their way to tell you how ugly video looks when compared to film in a similar fashion to Roberta Hill in the documentary "Cinemania".  This argument is usually a 4 pronged approach:

1.       Digital does not look as good as film

2.       Digital is much easier than film

3.       You can just shoot and shoot an shoot and not think about digital, but film is very precise and thought out

4.       Digital has poor preservation capabilities

                To each of these arguments I strongly emphasize that whoever is making the statement really does not have a well rounded knowledge of the entire discipline of movie making. 

1.       Your specific example of DVD is absolutely correct.  Watching a DVD (or a VHS or a Betacam) looks terrible on a huge screen.  Home video formats were never meant to be shown in a cinema.  The same could be said for 8mm film.  And if Cinefamily still has the same Christie Roadster projector that they did a couple years ago when I held an event there then you are correct in stating that the blacks are not black, there's little detail, etc.  That projectors highest capabilities are displaying a resolution of 1280x1024 (that's only if they are connecting via the best capabilities possible).  That's not even full 1080p HD let alone 2K or 4K.  If you're looking for a great indie theatre to watch digital in LA you should go to the Downtown Independent.

        However, it is a completely valid aesthetic decision to choose digital rather than film.  There is no way you can convince me that the original TRON looks better then TRON: Legacy.  I love the original and if you show it to me it better be on 35mm, but one is not better than the other simply because one was shot on film and the other on digital.  I projected Miranda July's "Me and You and Everyone We Know" when it premiered at the grand opening of the IFC Center in New York City.  It was shot on HDCam and we projected it on two formats one was HDCam and the other was 35mm and the HDCam was far more beautiful!

2.       I've worked in Super 8, 16mm, 35mm, miniDV, HD digital video files and with entirely computer generated (CG) moving images.  To say that one of the mediums is easier or harder then another is totally and completely related to context.  Just the other day I was rendering an image from a CG animation package where each frame took 1.5 minutes to output.  So I am very jealous of filmmakers that can just drop their films off at FotoKem and return the next day to watch their dailies.  Sometimes it takes weeks for me to render (aka export) the animation I work with.  The last film I made took me over a year to get just a simple three minute digital movie finished.

3.       When I shoot with my Digital SLR I can only afford a couple SD cards that are fast enough to shoot video.  On them you can only capture 12 minutes of footage at a time and the SD cards are somewhat equivalent to going out and shooting with 8 or 10 rolls of film.  So, I am absolutely conscious of what I shoot.  Every frame!   I am not the only filmmaker who works like this.  There was a huge problem with video tape, especially analog and miniDV/DVcam, but it's changed dramatically.  This change is absolutely for the better.  People should be more conscious of what they shoot.

4.       Archiving is an extremely problematic area and the biggest problem is that most archivists don't like, understand nor want to deal with digital.  So, it's no wonder no one was going to Pixar with "Toy Story" and saying - "We need to learn from the sorted history of early cinema by preserving this footage properly".  Film had the same problem.  "Metropolis" has an endless history of restoration. F.W. Murnau's  "4 Devils" is completely lost to history. Even the original print of "Citizen Kane" was lost in a fire.  The best avenue to preserve is still, admittedly, on film.  But digital archiving has so much potential.

Your report that digital file formats have changed 20 different formats in 10 years is actually an understatement.  I can count more than 10 formats that I can export right now from Final Cut Pro, but if you're thinking about a self contained movie file (as most are, including the writers of the Digital Dilemma 2) then you are thinking about it all wrong.

Film is a series of still images put together and the best way to store a digital movie is the same way - with an "image sequence" or a series of still pictures numbered in order from the first frame to the last.  You can open up a photoshop image format document now that was made 10 years ago with no problems as long as there is no corruption.

File corruption is also a big problem - and "you can't stick it on a shelf and forget about it" holds just as true with film as it does digital.  Film cannot be stored on reels, it must be stored on plastic cores in a plastic can and often the core breaks and the film sags and becomes warped all because someone left it and forgot about it.  Film must be cleaned and prepared if it is ever to be shown.  We absolutely need to get better organized with digital as well and I hope we will find more and more archivists willing to work with us on that front.

                Digital movie making is extremely important.  I say this as a lover of film.  Frankly, I do not trust a movie maker that has never worked with film.  Especially if that individual's job relates to Cinematography, Editing or Directing.  However, digital is a wonderful new world that I really love to explore.  The problem is that these two worlds are not as exclusive as some might declare.

                I tell you this because I want to save film!  George Lucas' choice to use digital is just as valid as Nolan's choice to use film.  My friend and filmmaker Rick Bahto still uses Super 8 (S8) and really only S8 and occasionally Regular 8 (R8).  As he should!  My other friend, Beth Block, used to work on film and sometime in the 80's or early 90's she had to turn her back to it because of the expense and she stopped making movies all together.  Now she has graced the world with her amazing images once again, but she will only use full 1080 HD or higher (if possible) and she refuses to show on anything but HD projection.

  It is time that we completely change this dichotomy.

                I will explain my solution with a story.  Recently George Lucas donated a huge amount of money to the USC cinema school.  I was in the process of receiving my MFA in animation at the time.  Almost all of that money went into the new Lucas building that was completed about four years ago.  Three famous individuals who donated a significant amount were leading a lot of the decision making about how the money was spent - George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis.  Rumor goes that Lucas and Zemeckis wanted the ONLY digital projection in the entire building, but Spielberg was emphatic about having at least one 35mm projector in the main theatre hall, the Ray Stark Family Theatre (aka Lucas 108).  Lucas and Zemeckis were eventually convinced and to all our benefit we are able to view 35mm film at the USC theatre.

                Just as these friends came together to find a great solution we must do the same.  We should not be divided by our differences, but united in our struggle to make and watch movies!  I call on all digital movie makers to help our brothers and sisters in arms who want to work on film.

                They are getting rid of film projectors.  At an old theatre I used to work at in San Jose, CA I recently heard from an old colleague that they just went all digital (12 screens and no film).  This is a crime!  But we cannot solve it by trying to convince people to choose a side.  Cinefamily should not be punished for refusing to install a DCP system! 

                I admit that the scale has tipped too strongly toward digital in recent years.  We need to rebalance - film and digital video are equal in my eyes.  We must unify digital movie makers and filmmakers.  I ask filmmakers to respect and understand the benefits of working in digital and likewise for digital movie makers to respect film.  But how can we really help?

                The answer is so simple.  We need to join forces and attack things at the source.  Don't go to cinemas that have only digital and no film.  Don't use distribution houses that refuses to make film prints.  If a studio forces a Director or Director of Photography to go digital then call on the other directors and DP's to shout it out in the streets. 

                We can come up with a list of institutions.  However, I don't like black lists.  Instead let's have a gold list of preferred theatres and companies to use that are film friendly.  You don't have to work in film to go to them, but in order to make sure our cinema legacy is sustained we need to make sure certain kinds of institutions are supported.

                Just a couple LA theatres on my Gold List are the Echo Park Film Center, USC's Ray Stark Family and Norris Theatres, the Egyptian, the Downtown Independent, the Hammer Museum's Billy Wilder, LACMA's Bing Center, the Academy's Linwood Dunn theatre, RedCat,  the Aero, the New Beverly, the Kodak and, of course, Cinefamily's Silent Movie Theatre.  That's just to name a few and I want to come up with a whole beautiful list from across the world and across the spectrum of film making.

                As an extremely low-budget DIY filmmaker I specifically ONLY purchase Kodak or Fuji SD cards to use in my digital camera because I want them to keep making film too.  This is rather difficult to keep up with because Kodak keeps changing their direction, but whatever their position might be I'm still supporting them as long as they support film.

                This is not the only solution.  I hope others can add to this list and come up with great ideas as well.  I should not be alone to help my comrades in their struggle.  And really, it's my struggle as well.  I am ashamed to say it, but I have still never seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" on film - (35 or 70mm).  I will one day, but there will always be another film to replace that one.  And you never completely understand a film meant to be watched on 35mm without seeing it on 35mm.

                Please feel free to contact me about this topic.  I always enjoy a great conversation about the art of the moving image medium.

Cordially,

Huckleberry Lain