Filmmakers vs. Tycoons (Cineastes contra magnats)

FILMMAKERS VS TYCOONS

A vampire with just one fang?

A computer-colorised vampire?

A vampire in full daylight?

A Kurosawa samurai speaking Basque?

This is a sacred place. Delphi.

The most famous oracle of ancient times.

Powerful men came to consult the gods

in search of a comforting answer.

The Apollo temple was built on these pillars.

If you didn't see the six of them,

and my hat, of course,

that would mean this film is projected incorrectly.

During the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians believed

the answers of the oracle favoured the Spartans.

The beginning of the end.

Over 2.000 years later

excavations brought these stones to light again.

Archaeologists study them to get all possible information

on who built the temples, stadiums, amphitheatres.

For 100 years, filmmakers, like new archaeologists,

have tried to explain life in that era

with images that have become sacred to many of us.

Victorious, Pompey reached the stronghold of the defeated.

Much later, in September of 1988,

cultured people, filmmakers, writers, musicians,

actors from all over Europe,

met here to defend their rights

in face of the European audiovisual crisis.

Yes, only sticking together can we defeat them.

Did they meet here thinking the oracles

always favoured the tycoons?

Are the tycoons the new oracles?

Or is this a place representing the persistence of oblivion?

The European Audiovisual Charter proclaims:

And in Barcelona, a year before Delphi, July 22nd, 1987,

the director Fred Zinnemann

read the short but forceful Barcelona Manifesto.

When Zinnemann read these words

the Spanish Intellectual Property Law was still of the XIX century.

But, a few month after reading this,

November 11th of that same year,

the new Spanish Law appeared,

integrating the protection of films and demanding:

"Respect for integrity of works, preventing any distortion,

modification, alteration or attempt against it

that is in contempt of the author's honour and reputation."

Having recourse to the new Intellectual Property Law,

in '88 a complaint was filed against the TV screening of

Man of the West that altered the original format

in contempt of Anthony Mann's reputation

as a film director. In other words, the author.

It was the first filed for a filmmaker's Moral Rights.

But we know the Court never reads the first complaint.

And they just filed it away.

But it was echoed in the press.

And a few weeks later, the same TV channel

screened the film again in its right format.

Cinema was the main broadcasting media this past century,

becoming entertainment for millions of people worldwide.

Seeing one of the first films now,

it seems strange that such shaky images

could impact so much on the audience,

but it's because of the few possibilities we have now

of seeing a film of that era

as it was projected originally.

The silent films screenings

we not at all silent.

Films were always accompanied by live music played

by an orchestra, band or a pianist,

depending upon the theatre.

Afterwards, when they were screened, generally,

they were screened at the

present speed of 24 frames per second,

thus altering the original speed.

Color systems were developed from the very beginning.

First they were hand painted, frame by frame.

Later on, color was generalised by toning and tinting.

Many films, before the arrival of sound,

had scenes shot in full color.

When the spoken word reached the cinema

all previous productions became useless to the merchants.

Silent images being useless to them, they dropped them.

Many films decomposed, and

others were destroyed by fire.

But the majority were destroyed by axe blows.

Some were saved by intrepid personal actions.

Only 15% of silent films survived.

Film destruction methods became more modern.

And so, works of Murnau, Ford, Mizoguchi, Renoir, Ozu,

Walsh, Dwan, Borzage, Melies and many others

found a very different destiny

than that of their creation, as explained in a newsreel.

Yesterday, these celebrities still enthused the world

and today their films are destroyed,

washed in a drum, and their remains are melted.

Now women have on their nails the man they loved so

because nail polish is now made of celluloid.

And that is not their only trag

The celluloid becomes a thick paste

and in the polish of their shoes

they copy the smile of a beautiful woman.

When the first talkies got to the theatres

the projectors were not yet prepared for sound.

The solution was drastic.

O.V. (SOUND) / SPANISH V. (SILENT)

Many years later...

This is format 1:37,

also called standard.

You see, it's almost square.

It's the talking film format.

Before, in silent films, it was wider.

Space was not needed for the sound track.

So, now when copies are made of silent films

with the sound track filmed,

this harms the original image.

Each film should be projected with the right catch

for the format it was shot in.

If we take a film shot in Scope,

we see the image is longer.

That is to say, anamorphised.

Later it will be the projector lens

that deanamorphises it and projects it on screen

in a proportion of 2:35.

Approximately twice the standard format.

It was as of 1953

when, to compete with Scope,

the panoramic formats appeared in the United States.

This is a 1:66.

And this a 1:85, which is even more panoramic.

If a film shot in format 1:37 is projected

with one of these catches,

which some negligent projectionists do,

the result is catastrophic.

I insert a 1:66.

And now a 1:85.

To not mutilate the film, we should use proper catches

and lenses

that are adequate for the film format.

A well-prepared room should have all these catches,

even the 1:75 format,

an intermediate panoramic used in very few films.

The 1:66 was used more in Europe,

and the 1:85 in the United States,

which I believe will end up dominating,

although good directors such as Fellini

say the 1:66 is the perfect format

for a film. I think so too, but

the Americans are the Americans.

We could also talk about 70 mm.,

ultra 70, VistaVision,

but that'll be some other day. I'd like to insist on...

You think out loud now?

I'm rehearsing a chat I'll be giving on Saturday.

In Spanish?

If I give it in Catalan, they'd leave before I get to CinemaScope.

If we don't do something we won't catch the bus.

What do you mean?

I told them these two films were

too long to go together.

- We'll leave a bit later. - And miss the last bus.

- What can I do? - "What can I do?"

As usual in these cases, eliminate a reel.

Don't just stand there.

Don't project one of the middle reels

and we gain 20 minutes.

If anyone realises, they'll think it was the censorship.

- That's not right. - Neither are such long films.

Who makes them are inconsiderate.

There's hardly a soul at the last showing.

It doesn't matter. We don't need 20 minutes

to get to the bus stop.

If we leave before half past we'll make it.

If we have to grab a cab, you'll pay it.

Look, on all showings

I'll use a speed of 26 frames.

All right, 27.

- Has bus 43 come yet? - Not yet.

- Doesn't it come at half past? - It leaves Les Corts then.

You see there was no need to rush?

At least he has a guilty conscience.

That has been lost over the years.

The French filmmaker Jean Charles Tachella,

towards the end of 1987, complained about

the use of a diabolical device from Massachusetts.

Things have changed!

Half a century ago, who came from there

was the incredible Jonathan Clark.

The Boston Man.

A device now called Lexicon Audio Timer Compressor,

which can speed up a film on television

up to ten times its normal speed,

apparently without the audience noticing.

We can see the effects here with the great Francisco Rabal.

In this way, the TV channel can sell

more publicity time

within the space dedicated to the film.

With the arrival of TV the film alterations have soared

and each change in reproduction technology

brings new systems that alter films, and destroy the original.