On 8/20/2010 10:46 PM, Steven C. Barr wrote:
> My point being...I STILL fondly recall a time when one went to "a movie/
> the movies" to be entertained...NOT to be part of a SERIOUS discussion
> of the particular film and its position in the all-encompassing "ranking"
> of CINEMA!! 


Then you didn;'t run around in my crowd.  Even as a kid I remember 
discussions about the film technologies as they were ALL coming out in 
the early thru mid-1950s.  I was eight when they closed the Teaneck 
Theater for two weeks to put in the CinemaScope equipment and ALL us 
Jewish kids went to see The Robe because we knew there was something 
special about the screen and the sound.  I was ten when we went into NYC 
to see Oklahoma in Todd-AO, and then Carousel and The King and I in 
CinemaScope 55, and The Seven Little Foys in VistaVision.  I saw the 
revivals of the early Cinerama films on elementary school field trips.  
Of course this was the town and the theater which spawned Leonard Maltin 
although I never knew him then because he was three or so years behind 
me and I was in college by the time he started Film Fan Monthly while he 
was in high school.  And I went to EVERY Film Society screening during 
my four undergraduate years at Temple, making it a point not to find out 
in advance what the film was so that I would never decide to miss one.  
And I took every non-production film course Northwestern had during my 
four grad school years.


> There were a very few movies made with the intent of
> providing ENTERTAINMENT...and NOT as statements in the hierarchy
> of "important cinematic phenomena!!"
>
> Anyone else recall "Uptown Sarurdat Night" (which IIRC had a sequel?!)
> or "Support Your Local Sherriff"...?! OVERstudying is a VERY real 
> danger...?!
>

I'm not sure of your point here, if you are being sarcastic or if some 
of your sentences are not formed correctly.  There are many films which 
seem to just be escapist schlock but can have inner meanings and 
techniques.  Most film makers are film enthusiasts.  But sometimes their 
main interest can be as an example of the technology.


> Do I start listening to my half-vast archive of 78's to try and figure
> out if the Eb in bar 23 is an important statement...to be studied
> and defined in university courses? After all.it COULD have been
> an E-natural...or an F...?!
>
> Steven C. Barr

That is exactly how some recordings ARE examined, discussed, and written 
about.  Attend a Society for American Music conference or look thru 
their Journal.  Also the IAJRC.  We don't do it all that much in ARSC 
but it does happen there too.

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]



From: "Roderic G Stephens" <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi Timothy,
> Well, it's probably my fault that we've gotten so far off the "16MM 
> mag sound film" subject, but I've found it informative as far as 
> updating my dated experiences with film.  In latter years, I was lucky 
> to move over to digital editing which became the better tool for me to 
> do what I had first learned to do with a Moviola and film bench.
> Ironically, your mention of the mag-striped 20th Century Fox 
> Cinemascope release prints brought back how I started on my film 
> career in 1955 as a theater projectionist in my off-duty hours in the 
> Army.  I'd been only doing it a few months when they installed the 
> first Cinemascope system at the main theater.  I had the thrill of 
> running "The Student Prince" in stereo and surround sound with Mario 
> Lanza singing those ringing high C's. I couldn't believe I was making 
> a few extra dollars to hear and see this new marvel.  Little did I 
> realize that I had also been bitten by the movie bug which launched me 
> into my final Hollywood career. I'm sure others of our group can tell 
> of such life changing events.  God moves in mysterious ways, etc.....
> Rod