Join the
Bayflicks.net
Mailing List

Feedback
Reader musings on movies and this web site

December 28, 2006
Hey I love your newsletter - but I was surprised that you are promoting seeing Baraka in the Red Vic with a B - while you acknowledge it's in 35mm - i think it's probably not the right venue for such a film - last time we talked about the Red Vic you liked their stuff but hadn't made it to a screening there - is that still the case?

I like Red Vic too but this particular film is probably not the best experienced there..:-)

Kimo Crossman

I think it's great to grade-- Any chance you could use little graphics that were more legible? The green circles around the red letters make it less vivid (also, someone who's red-green colorblind might have a problem). Why not just use Bodoni Bold letters, turned into graphics? I could help there, if you'd consider it.

ps-- You don't really need me to tell you that the Wizard of oz deserves an A, do you?

Paul Sas

November 3, 2006
It is really too bad I couldn't justify doing the Janus Fest at the Balboa. In a sense I have done a couple of mini versions with the Louis Malle and Samurai fests, all from  the Janus collection.

I couldn't justify doing anything less than about 40 films [that] I felt were essential to such a celebration, but when I put the costs together, along with the poor showing on most of these classics in recent bookings, it would a straight path to shuttering the Balboa. To add to the problem, the extensive Janus festivals on TCM and IFC cable confirmed my fears. The PFA and Rafael should be ok as they depend on a different kind of regular audience.  But I am still saddened that I had to make such a decision. Maybe all those people who gleefully told me how they loved my Balboa calendar because they could circle films and put them in their Netflix queue....grrrr.

Gary Meyer, Balboa Theater

Castro 70mm Sound Issues
Editor's Note, August 29, 2006: In my August 25 newsletter, I off-handedly mentioned "some sound problems with [the Castro's 70mm presentation of] Hamlet." To be more specific, every few minutes the surround speakers would burst out a brief explosion of static--well under a second of it. This was the only sound I heard out of these speakers. I might add that what came out of the front speakers was some of the best sound I've ever heard in a motion picture.

Kimo Crossman responded with the following letter, detailing more problems with the Castro's sound during the 70mm series. I forwarded my comments and Kimo's to my press contact at the Castro, and received a detailed response from Events Producer/Coordinator Bill Longen.

Both Kimo's and Bill's comments are below, with minor editing.

August 27, 2006
2001 had surround problems - the projectionist even acknowledged it to me afterwards. And as you already pointed out, it was not shown in Cinerama - but I still loved seeing it.

The speech at times was hard to follow on Lawrence and though I did not know what the problem was or confirm that there had been one, I heard an audience member who seemed to know his stuff commenting about some sound issues.

I wouldn't want this to deter the Castro from doing innovative screenings - though when you think about it, we've got Lucas (THX), Dolby, and http://www.audium.org/ in the city, so certainly the expertise is nearby.

Of course, since these are retro screenings, and it's unlikely there will be another 70 MM festival soon, by the time it occurs, our suggestions may be forgotten?

Kimo Crossman

August 28, 2006
I will answer your questions about our 70MM film series as best as possible, since we went through a stressful two weeks. We will do another 70MM festival next year, but scaled back to a more manageable program.

The 2001, SPACE ODYSSEY print is well used and the mag tracks are starting to flake, resulting in an extraordinary amount of audio dropout and a picture showing lots of wear.

HAMLET was magnetic sound, and as far as we can determine, has no surround information on the surround tracks. since it was a Shakespeare play all the sound was coming from the stage or all front speakers. The problem was that the surround channels were powered up, and what was coming through was track noise.

I watched all of LAWRENCE, which was DTS 5.1, and it seemed OK to me, no distortion or speech problems, although the print is warping and causing focus problems.

All theatres have had their sound systems revamped to Dolby 5.1; it is the industry standard, nobody has original 6 channel anymore. The Castro is Dolby 5.1 and all DTS discs are 5.1, and we run 6 channel magnetic through our system with some minor revamping and it works great. Unfortunately, the people who restored CLEOPATRA, SOUTH PACIFIC and MAD WORLD do not work in the real world of the theatre business and did only original mix 6 channel DTS discs, so outside of a very few theatres, nobody can play them as different channels are addressed to different speakers. Nobody associated with the distributors told us that 5.1 disc remixes were not available with those titles.

We purchased a new DTS player with a hard drive and download capabilities just for this run, which is great since you then don't have to rely on the actual discs for playback, but you are always at the mercy of the playback unit with software that can decide to shut down anytime it wants, leaving you with no sound, period. New 70MM's are printed without mag tracks, which I understand are environmentally damaging, and the prints are struck in Japan from what I have been told, due to the lack of labs in the US that are set up for 70MM. Important to remember, if the DTS sound does not work for a new 70MM print, there is NO BACKUP TRACK.

We were in constant contact with DTS and DOLBY and there were sound engineers in the
theatre every day. (FYI, THX is on the other hand, nothing more than a certification label slapped on a Dolby 5.1 sound system and not designed for 70MM playback.)

SOUTH PACIFIC had distortion because of the speaker configuration and the 6 channel discs.
CLEOPATRA had to be run w/o surrounds but otherwise sounded great. MAD WORLD had a 5.1 remix made just for us by DTS, and it was spectacular in sound, and for picture, Panavision and Boston Light & Sound, bless their little hearts, shipped us corrective lenses to run MAD WORLD with a full aperture from the Ultra-Panavision 70MM cold storage vault print, made directly from the master negative. MGM-UA let us have this special print since they lost reel 2 of the new 70MM release print, and MGM-UA is unable to locate the edit negative. We are bringing back MAD WORLD for one extra performance at 8pm on Thursday evening the 31st of August, Don't miss it!, with those wonderful restored police calls during the intermission.

You have to remember that 70MM was designed for roadshow runs of 6 months to a year, with theatres specifically set up for sound and projection of a particular film for an extended run.
We, on the other hand, were running a different 70MM film almost every day!
Our projectionists deserve the medal of honor for perseverance and shear energy.

Hope this answers most of your questions. I tried to be as accurate and detailed as possible.
We haven't given up on 70MM, but we will approach it next time with a bit more reserve and knowledge.

My own personal feeling is that, I prefer 6-channel analog mag over digital of any type, any day.
The analog sound is richer and purer with a dimensionality and resonance that digital sound cannot duplicate.

August 1, 2006
I'm glad you clarified things about rep attendance along with the letter from Jim C. In the mid-late 1970s you could join crowds for Rep showings in SF at the Surf, Castro, Surf Interplayers, Feathers Point, Cento Cedar, Gateway, Richelieu, Times, (those wonderous Fridays at the Avenue for silents) and several smaller semi-theatrical venues; Berkeley had PFA, Guild, Studio, Cinema, Telegraph Rep twin, Northside Twin, Rialto 4, Sunset and the U.C. Theatre.

A predecessor to BayFlicks was a monthly hang-up sheet published initially by film lover Deborah Cajacob that listed the schedules for every rep venue in the bay area. Looking back at old copies I've saved it is just incredible to see what was going on. And of course colleges had an incredible selection of films several nights a week, multiple series nightly at Berkeley.

The audiences were hungry to see it all. Video/Cable/DVD came along and threatened these places. As 35mm print quality deteriorated, audiences preferred to see films without missing dialogue and unintended jump cuts. I remember that Movie Image, an early Berkeley video store for film buffs would come by the UC Theatre asking for more calendars to distribute. Finally an employee admitted how great our calendars were for their business. People came in, circled movies they wanted to see and rented them at their convenience. The store's buyer used the UC Calendar to order extra copies of films we featured.

As box office receipts went down because of this, the distributors wouldn't spend the money for new prints and a vicious circle began....and theaters closed, went porno or first run art.

With the Balboa I dreamed I could resurrect the audiences on a regular basis. But my hopes proved futile. Yes crowds came for many film noirs and a few pre-codes. Of course they turn out for Festivals like the Silent Film Festival and other special events at the Castro, Stanford, PFA and Rafael. I think the future of specialized exhibition may be with Film Festivals.

My aesthetic side says to me: "Try a few more festivals."
My bank account says: "You tried too many. You are broke."

Gary Meyer, Balboa Theater

July 22, 2006
You did not read Gary Meyer's statement closely He wrote: San Francisco audiences are simply not attending classic films at any theaters ON A REGULAR BASIS" Those last 4 words are very important!

Sure, there are sold out shows such as the one you attended at The Castro. And there were sold out shows at The Balboa too. But on a day-to-day basis, the audiences just aren't there, and when you average out the costs of presenting these films the cost justification for continuing to do so just isn't there.

I've attended many shows at The Castro with an audience of maybe 25 or 30 people.

Both The Balboa and The Castro have many loyal fans who attend on regularly , and I'm very grateful to those people, but there just aren't enough people like them to make showing classic/foreign/independent films profitable on an ongoing basis.

JimC
Projectionist

May 29, 2006
I enjoy reading the film notes on your website, and saw you mention the California Theatre's screening of Oklahoma! in 70mm. I went to last night's screening, and can say that the print is thankfully not faded. Many of the shots are quite rich, in fact. It doesn't appear to be restored though, so there is some yellowish color shift in some shots throughout, but overall very nice and I think better then anything I saw at the Castro's 70mm festival last year. There was an odd ticking sound for the first 20 minutes on the soundtrack, but that could have been the sound system...I don't know for certain, but was glad when it cleared up. The print itself, I understand from some searching online, is the only one of it's kind in circulation and was printed in the early 80s. It has a good bit of wear marks throughout, but nothing that I found too obstructive.

Definately nice to see it in crisp 70mm, and I've always felt that the Todd-AO version of this film, is far superior to the CinemaScope version (which seems less polished for some reason).

Stefano

May 8, 2006
It's becoming more common for theaters to hold video screenings of movies (that are meant to be shown on film) without noting this in any of their publicity. Twice recently, I've commuted into S.F. to watch a film only to find there was no film (Fingers at the Roxie and The Poseidon Adventure at the Clay). Both times I left and got right back on BART.

To me, this is blatantly unethical. Many of my film-frequenting friends agree.

In the first case, I emailed the Roxie and pleaded that, at the very least, they announce on their website that they'll be showing video. I never heard back and don't know if they'll act on my suggestion.

In the past, you've pointed out that the parks screenings are DVD. Could that policy be extended to all your listings? Perhaps it's worthy of a little icon. (I'd just as soon not see these screenings listed at all, but maybe that's asking too much...)

I realize it might be just as hard for you to determine beforehand whether a video will be shown. I get the impression you mostly cull the listings from publicly available sources. (The Landmark calendar is pretty unreliable, btw.) Is it possible to arrange for the theaters to give you information directly, and that they thereby let you know if it's video (or 16mm), as a condition of inclusion in the listing?

Some of the non-theatrical listings have seemed dubious to me. The Julia Morgan theater has shown some interesting films, but are they films? I haven't been able to get through to them, so I haven't gone. Maybe I've missed out?

I do, in general, find your site useful, and this is really my only significant gripe.

Name Withheld on Request

December 30, 2005
Please do not mention "Oscar Hopefuls" again. This total B.S. prize is designed to perpetuate the myth that Hollywood is the world's center of cinema. I expect you, of all people to know better! When the average USA film reaches the standard of the average French, Italian, German or
Scandanavian film, I will consider the validity of the Oscars. Non-American films are so consistently better that they MUST, by Academy Rules, be uneligable for any award except "Best Foreign Film", which limits any other country to one entrant, for only one prize, for all of the rest of the films in the world, any film which is not holly wood crap designed to make Americans and their children as stoopid as possible...hey, let's just give Titanic another award and be done with it!

Theo

I use the term "Oscar Hopefuls" to refer to a particular type of film--a Hollywood production released near the end of the year that's a little more intelligent than most Hollywood fare. I believe it's a valid point to discuss these films in this way. The Oscars are fundamentally absurd on a number of levels. But the effect they have on the industry, including producing a wave of relatively ambitious Hollywood fare at the end of the year, is worth noting.

Americans who go to foreign films (and there are all too few of us) tend to have a distorted view of them, thinking that they're better than our local movies. That's because so few foreign films get shown here. We see only the cream of the crop--only those most likely to appeal to the few Americans willing to read subtitles.

One more point: There's nothing in the official Academy rules that disqualifies foreign films from winning any award. Indeed, within the last decade, at least two foreign films, Life is Beautiful and Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon, were nominated for Best Picture. Life is Beautiful won Best Actor (both also won Best Foreign Film). It's the narrow-mindedness of Academy members that all-but-entirely disqualifies foreign films (and documentaries and animated films) from other Oscars.

November 20, 2005
You often have insightful comments in your Log. Your one on the Ratings Codes are not. First of all, the Production Code was not totalitarian. As a political science student (and having a professor who wrote a book on totalitarian regimes), I can tell you a totalitarian system is one where the regime wants to create a utopian goal of the future. The purpose of the PCA was to have self-censorship so the government would not censor them.  Even at its most stringent times, like in the mid-30s, many films with themes unacceptable to conservative America, like Chaplin's "Modern Times" and Lang's "You Only Live Once," were able to get past the censors. The system was never able to impose some utopian vision on the film industry. So long as there were people willing to spend cash on risqué films, they were able to get them made.

Also, the ratings system have been around longer that the code (37 years to 34 years). It is about we had a change. The original purpose of the ratings were to get rid of stupid rules (like a complete ban on nudity) that were still in place. The ratings were supposed to be guidelines on how extreme the content might be. Now, however, there is to much stigmatism around certain ratings (most notably NC-17 but also to a certain extent R).  The ratings have stopped being guidelines for parents and are now a dogma for moral standards. I don't know what a good replacement would be, but I do know the system does need to change.

I hope in the future you will show more sense when branding something.  However, I do enjoy your blog. Keep up the writing.

Peter Zerzan

I confess, I wrote that line because I thought it was funny--a comic exaggeration. I'm well aware that there's a big difference between the production code and, say, Stalinist Russia.

A rating system of some sort is a necessary evil--a compromise to avoid actual censorship. The biggest problem with the current rating system is that it has become defacto censorship. Studios insist that movies get altered to avoid an NC-17 rating; and even to avoid an R rating.

Neither the code’s 34 years nor the rating system’s 37 (so far) have been static. Bonnie and Clyde would have been unthinkable in 1935. I’m not sure it could have been released in 1965. And the ratings have changed considerably, as well; as I pointed out.

I can't imagine a solution better than a rating system, although I can easily imagine one better then the current rating system. And I agree with you that additional change would be welcome.

August 19, 2005
Just a guess, but I'm betting the Stanford paired BRIDE and SUNSET because
they both feature great scores by Franz Waxman.

Love your website.

Larry Thomas, Cincinnati OH

August 5, 2005
Personally, I liked Hello Dolly - for the songs and the costumes. And how can you not like Satchmo, and Tommy Tune has impossibly long legs. Barbra obviously sings well. I hadn't seen [the]  Carol Channings version before I had seen this one, so when I was a kid this was it. I remember it being long but it was fun.

Rena Dein

I can no longer say that I've never heard anyone say it's good--Rena likes it. But it's all now hypothetical, because the Castro's presentation has been cancelled (that beautiful print is, from what I've gathered, damaged beyond projection). 

And I'd like to state that, despite my dissing both Hello, Dolly and High Society, I'm a Louis Armstrong fan.

May 2, 2005
This isn't actually a letter to this web site. It was posted on the rec.arts.movies.tech newsgroup. But I felt it was worth reposting--with the author's permission, of course, and with a response from the Casto's management. I have done some very minor editing.

I went to San Francisco's beautiful Castro Theatre the other day to see a matinee double feature of Seven Year Itch and How To Marry A Millionaire. I thought it might be fun to see these 50's Marilyn Monroe Scope films in a big, single-screen theater even though I own them both on DVD. The prints were about the worst I've ever seen in a theater (and I was once a projectionist in a last run grind house, so I've seen my share of bad prints!). "Millionaire" had gone red, but both were in pathetic shape...dirty, scratchy, hundreds of splices. The reel ends with all the splices and multiple cue marks actually drew a few chuckles from the small audience (about 20 people!). The film finally broke in the final minute of "Seven Year Itch". I'm not blaming the Castro. The prints are probably the only ones available from Fox and with so few theaters showing old films, there is probably little financial incentive to make new prints...but it's a sad state of affairs anyway! The films look MUCH better on DVD, even on my 32 inch Sony, and I get the original stereo sound, too!

What really pissed me off was that there was a 37 minute intermission between the two films. I grew up and worked as a projectionist in an era when 3 and 5 minute intermissions were the norm (some grind houses skipped them altogether). I can see a 10 or 15 (tops!) minute intermission is today's concession-oriented business, but the Castro's scheduled 30 minute intermission was totally outrageous. And then the projectionist was apparently talking on his cell phone, reading a book or taking a nap and couldn't even keep on that inflated schedule, hence the 37 minute total. The first feature also started late, by the way. I consider my time very valuable and don't like having it wasted like this. It's just another example of the contempt theater owners and managers have for their audiences nowadays. I did learn a lesson though. Next time I'll just stay home and watch the DVDs of those classic films. It just ain't worth it going to the movies any more. I really hate to say that, and may make an exception for a 70mm presentation...if and when I ever get the chance for that! Meanwhile, bring on the HDTV!

John R.

The Castro responds:
As I'm sure you know, the occasional bad prints get shown due to unfortunate circumstances at every theatre, but the Castro Theatre is not in the habit of showing them.  The prints almost always arrive at the theatre just a few days (sometimes only one day) before we run them and the projectionists inspect them as soon as they can.  In this particular case, the prints came from Criterion (who distributes Fox titles), who are notoriously very hit or miss on print condition.  Although their prints of Valley of the Dolls and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, that we screened a few days earlier, were in very good condition, these were certainly not.   

I must note that we always have and will always honor customer's requests for a refund if they are unhappy with the print condition.  We only had one customer out of 300 ask for a refund for both days of the double feature.  This was the only complaint we received about these prints as far as I know, or about any film in quite a long time.

Regarding the late start time and the long intermission in-between: When we made showtimes for these films, we unfortunately didn't pay close enough attention proofing the film start/exit times. I'm sorry, this will be corrected on all future double features. 

If a show starts late at the Castro Theatre, it is the manager on duty's fault, not the projectionist.  The projectionists at the Castro Theatre are all union and have a combined history of over 30 years projecting.  Many consider them to be the best in Northern California.  The projectionist that day was most certainly not reading a book or taking a nap, I just want to clear that up.

By the way, a 70mm series is booked for August 1-11, 2005. 

Brian Collette, Office Manager/Film Shipper, Castro Theatre

April 12, 2005
What a wonderful site – I just found it from the Balboa Theater site – I’m going to pass it along to all my friends!!!

Thank you – any change of adding an RSS/Atom blog feed to it – this would make it a bit easier to read.

Thanks so much

Kimo C

And thank you!

About the RSS/Atom blog feed: There are a lot of technical improvements I'd like to make--when I find the time.

On my April 8, 2005 entry about the SFIFF:
Spell their names right!
Costa-Gravras -> Costa-Gavras
John Houston -> John Huston
Ennio Morricon -> Ennio Morricone

I refer to Joan Allen as an actress, not an actor, but this is a matter of taste.

I am boycotting the SFIFF this year. After six years of inviting Benefactor members to attend the press screenings, they disinvited us this year. They also have closed off the Hospitality Suite to us, and have declared our memberships fully non-deductible. I exchanged my Triple Benefactor membership for a Dual Associate, and will stiff the Annual Fund come December. I'll miss many good films and the camaraderie of my circle of film sluts, but for at least one year I'd like the SFIFF to know that I am not pleased.

Touchez Pas au Grisbi is a very good film, but Anita probably should have chosen one more likely to draw an audience. Touchez played the Castro for a week in September 2003, and many who saw it then probably aren't ready to see it again yet.

Your listings leave unclear whether you've seen The Best of Youth at the Balboa. What are you waiting for? As Ebert advises, it may be six hours long, but it's also six hours deep.

Art Rothstein

The "actress/actor" issue is a touchy one, and I argued with myself about which way to go. I can't promise I will always make the same decision.

I have not yet made it to The Best of Youth, although it's high on my list. But there are time constraints in my life, and it's hard for me to devote an entire day to one movie--even a great one.

Sorry about the misspellings. I've corrected them.

What do you Think?

Note: If you don't see a link above, you can email me at 
fromweb at bayflicks dot net
(I'm going to guess you can figure that one out)

VISIT
my other web site,
TheLinkInspector

The 
Lincoln Log
Archive

Privacy and
Advertising Policies