SCREEN-L Archives

November 1997, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:02:44 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (70 lines)
I used to run an art house and now work in a theater that shows classic
films in the summer so I've run into this before.  A boom in the frame is
something I've been seeing a lot more often in the last couple of years.
We usually frame the picture in the middle which will cut off equal amounts
from the top and bottom.  We frame subtitled films with the second line of
type at the edge of the bottom masking.  But a filmmaker friend has told me
that they are routinely shooting films these days with the camera framed at
maximum width and are assuming that the projectionist will frame the film
*at the bottom*  (thus cutting off the top of the picture when projected).
 
 
Personally, I feel this is sloppy filmmaking because they are knowingly
leaving mikes in the shots and trusting, in many cases, high school or
college students who are working as projectionists for minimum wage to make
sure the mikes aren't seen.
 
We rarely, if ever, see mikes in the shots of the classics (ie. Casablanca,
GWTW, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.) no matter how we frame the film.
 
Steve Wilson
 
 
 
 
>I've always been told that, when you see the boom mike in the shot, it
>is the projectionists fault.  They don't have the films centered
>correctly or the boom mike would be out of the picture you see.  Most
>projectionists start up the film, make sure it isn't too blurry, and
>take off to another theatre to start another film.
>
>TonyU
>
>
>SC>I just saw The Ice Storm at a local Ann ARbor theater last night and
>SC>noticed A LOT of glaring problems with the boom microphone.  It shows up
>SC>at the top of the frame in a couple scenes, and otherwise it seems that
>SC>the microphone has been masked out of a lot of scenes by masking WELL INTO
>SC>the upper part of the frame.  In some of the later scenes, for example,
>SC>the screen at my theater was 3/4 to 1/3 black.
>
>SC>ARG!!!  This is a beautiful, thoughtfully directed and acted film.
>
>SC>What's up?  Did I see a bad print? Was my theater screwy?  Or did this
>SC>somehow just get through the 20th Cent Fox gristmill looking like this?
>
>SC>My sense is that it couldn't have been the projection situation, since the
>SC>masking changed *with* the cutting from shot to shot, sometimes a big
>SC>swatch of masking would cut to no masking at all.
>
>SC>Does anyone have any info on this?  And does anyone know if the reviews
>SC>of the film have mentioned this at all?  I haven't been reading reviews
>SC>lately, but the ones of the film I've heard on the radio haven't mentioned
>SC>the problem--
>
>SC>Thanks,
>SC>Susan Crutchfield
>SC>University of Michigan
>
>SC>----
>SC>To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
>SC>in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>
>----
>To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
>in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2