SCREEN-L Archives

June 1999, Week 3


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
Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:25:27 +0400
TEXT/PLAIN (37 lines)
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:58:36 -0700 "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>

> We're talking about the studio itself sending a print to
> UCLA Archive:  it was almost as if they didn't want the film
> to be seen.

And for a film which didn't do particularly well on it's original release,
there's even less excuse for supplying a duff print.  My experience has been
that for a 10-30 year old film, which was not very successful when originally
released and which has not had new prints made, there are usually quite decent
release prints available, because they won't have been abused very much the
first time round and will have been sitting on a shelf ever since.  In
particular I have recently shown beautiful 70mm copies of 'The Sand Pebbles'
and 'The Man Who Would be King' in the last month or two.  Eastmancolor fading
and brittle acetate can cause problems in prints of this age, but for this sort
of film, they're often totally free of scratches, dirt and joins.  For a film
like 'Heaven's Gate', I would have thought that UCLA could have located a
good-quality release print to use for access purposes, and certainly one
without a mis-synched reel.

Leo Enticknap
Postgraduate Common Room
School of English
University of Exeter
Queen's Building, The Queen's Drive
Devon EX4 4QH
United Kingdom
email: [log in to unmask]

Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite