Movies I Missed in Film School - 2nd Annual Nitrate Picture Show Edition
(Nitrate Picture Show Festival Director and Senior Curator of the George Eastman Museum Motion Picture Department Paolo Cherchi Usai calling the staff and students to the stage who made the 2016 Nitrate Picture Show possible for recognition and applause.)
Technical history is often neglected in cinema studies coursework. If I ever make good on a threat to teach cinema studies I would give the technical history spotlight in addition to the industrial and creative histories that dominate most academic narratives of motion picture history. I became an advocate for this point of view when I did my graduate work at the L. Jeffrey Selznick School of Film Preservation and in learning to be a moving image archivist learned everything I had missed out on during my undergraduate coursework. I learned about additive and subtractive color processes, soundtrack formats, and the differences between film stock bases.
Cellulose nitrate, the flammable base that carried theatrical motion pictures from 1889 through approximately 1951, has a bad reputation. A reel of nitrate stored in temperatures over 40ºC (104ºF) can self-ignite when, in the words of Paul Read and Mark-Paul Meyer in “Restoration of Motion Picture Film,” “contraction causes the pressure between the wound loops of film to rise.” Both studios and archives who did not want to deal with the liability of conserving nitrate elements would dispose of nitrate originals after transferring them to safety stocks. Concerns about loss of cultural heritage due to neglect and fire spawned the “Nitrate Won’t Wait” movement, which was great for preservation and access, but further demonized the stock. Admittedly, the untrained should not handle the temperamental film stock, but properly conserved nitrate will not spontaneously combust if you look at it funny. Nitrate elements that are over 100 years old can still be reeled through, and prints with minimal decay can still be projected. Yet, due to the specific requirements necessary to store and project nitrate, only a handful of venues world wide can still legally screen such prints, and the George Eastman Museum’s Dryden Theatre in Rochester, NY is one of them.
GEM is proud to conserve over 24,000 reels of nitrate at its Louis B. Mayer Conservation Center. On one of their rotations learning all sides of moving image archiving via hands on work, Selznick students get to go out to Mayer and see examples of various soundtracks, color systems, and gauges unique or represented on the base. Some students, like me, have (and I hope still are able to) choose to do their personal project working executively with nitrate prints.
(Nitrate film inspection selfie, 2009)
Back when I was a Selznick student from 2008-2010, nitrate prints were seldom projected. GEM screened their nitrate print of “The Moon and Sixpence” (Dir. Albert Lewin, US, 1942) in the Dryden in spring of 2009, and later that same year when NYU’s moving image archivist class toured through a special example screening was done showing off the different soundtrack used on the final reel of GEM’s nitrate print of “Rebecca” (Dir. Alfred Hitchcock, US, 1940). However, with the inception of the Nitrate Picture Show last year all that has changed.
Billed as a “Festival Film of Conservation,” the Nitrate Picture Show screens nothing but vintage nitrate prints for three days, interspersed with lectures and workshops. It draws archivists and former Selznick students, but also scholars and fans. The slight turn off is the films to be screened are not announced until the day of the festival. The rationale is people are coming to view the rare prints, not the movies; though Rochester and Western New York locals have the option of doing the latter since they do not have to travel far and single screening tickets are available. For the inaugural festival, they could have screened nothing but shorts and a few features, and I would have been happy, but I’m a bit of a nitrate fetishist and a Selznick alum with friends and family in the area. However, GEM rewarded the trust of all attendees who came for a mystery schedule by showing their print of “Portrait of Jennie” (Dir. William Dieterle, US, 1948), the Academy Film Archive’s print of “Black Narcissus” (Dir. Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, UK, 1947), the UCLA Film and Television Archive’s print of “Leave Her to Heaven” (Dir. John M. Stahl, US, 1945), and the Museum of Modern Art’s print of “Casablanca” (Dir. Michael Curtiz, US, 1942), among other great films in gorgeous prints.
The success of the initial festival led to more institutions offering or agreeing for their prints to be shown. For the 2015 festival, half of the prints came from GEM’s collection. For the 2016 festival, most of the prints came from other institutions. Given what a pain it is to ship nitrate and determine if it can safely be projected, much less prepped for it, the efforts of the GEM Motion Picture Department and their collaborating institutions is particularly impressive.
But what of the schedule for 2016? How were the prints? How were the films? As I went to all but one of the screenings I can ably comment. I cannot, however, comment on any of the lectures or workshops because I was too busy hobnobbing with my fellow wizards, as the 2016 Nitrate Picture Show was also the 20th Anniversary of the founding of the Selznick School and my bigger priority was catching up with friends and colleagues.
The full catalog for the 2016 festival is available online, but here’s my two cents on the prints, the films, and (because of the bent of my cinema related blog posts this year) whether content wise they would make for good film school screening selections:
Nitrate Shorts I:
“Object Lesson” (Dir. Christopher Young, US, 1941)
Print source: Anthology Film Archives
Nearly immaculate print with imagery so perfectly composed, a still from any shot of this surrealist film could hang in an art gallery. Would be a great entry in an experimental film course.
“Cent ans de shemins de fer suisses” (Dir. Julius Pischewer, Switzerland, 1946)
Print source: Cinémathèque suisse
The print may be scratched but the color on this short celebrating 100 years of the Swiss National Railway is charming. Cinema studies doesn’t spend a lot of time on industrial or promotional films, but this one was a good example.
“Jolly Little Elves” (Dir. Manuel Moreno, US, 1934)
Print source: Museum of Modern Art
The two color Technicolor short was in fine condition and a delightful adaptation of the fairy tale of “The Elves and the Shoemaker.” It got points with the crowd for being delighted at one of the elves singing a song about love of doughnuts, as well as gasps for a black face joke. The crowd was educated enough to know it was a product of the era, but still. Great example of two color Technicolor animation and the work of a studio apart from Disney, both of which make it a good candidate to screen in a applicable cinema studies courses.
“Twenty Years of Academy Awards” (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, UC, 1948)
Print source: Academy Film Archive
The program notes the obviousness of the duped footage used to produce this short highlighting the films that won Best Picture and the performers who won Best Actress and Best Actor Academy Awards from 1928 through 1948, but the print itself was in fine shape. Probably not a great choice to screen in a cinema studies course due to access likely being an issue and content being covered elsewhere.
“The Art Director” (Dir. Otto Lang, US, 1947)
Print source: Academy Film Archive
This film was part of a series of shorts that explained various behind the scenes occupations in Hollywood and while it’s largely a fluff piece it is an informative artifact of its era. The series would be interesting to study for focusing on Golden Age Hollywood cinema. The print was in good shape too.
“The Golden State” (Dir. Seymour Kneitel, US, 1948)
Print source: Academy Film Archive
The print was a three-strip Technicolor short, which despite its scratches was still glorious, that acted as a travelogue of California, complete with a sing-along of “California Here I Come.” It’s a cheeky, fluffy yet incidentally factual take on California that would be fun to screen on a class about tourism, or how California is depicted in movies.
“Enamorada” (Dir. Emilio Fernández, Mexico, 1946)
Print source: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
The film was in Spanish and featured English subtitled projected on a smaller screen beneath it, for the benefit of the audience. “Enamorada” was representative of the best the golden age of Mexican cinema had to offer, as it starred Maria Felix and Pedro Armendáriz, was directed by Emilio Fernández, and was shot by the legendary cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa. However, it’s not the best work, in my opinion, of any of the icons. Or to put it another way, if I were going to show just one golden age Mexican film in a cinema studies course, I wouldn’t pick this one, though I would certainly want to find an excuse to screen one if possible, because the movies of that period don’t get the recognition they deserve. Part of my disappointment with it was despite what great shape the print was in, content wise it lacked the “Figueroa skies” that I was hoping for.
“Laura” (Dir. Otto Preminger, US, 1944)
Print source: Academy Film Archive
“Laura” is an obvious film to include in a film noir course. It’s an iconic crowd pleaser, and despite overhearing some woman after the fact dismiss Gene Tierney’s performance, my friends (a couple of whom had never seen it before) and I agreed seeing it was a highlight of the festival. The content was better than the print though. Likely due to use and because of the movie’s popularity, it was one of the more beat up, if not the most damaged, print that screened. Lots of splices meant lots of jumps in sound and frames. Otherwise, Gene Tierney was as luminous as any fan of the film would anticipate.
“Brighton Rock” (Dir. John Boulting, UK, 1947)
Print source: British Film Institute
I’ve commented before that British cinema doesn’t get adequate respect in film school, and “Brighton Rock” is a great example of the quality that national cinema produced. Apart from being a slow building gangster picture, it boasted a great performance from the actor-director Richard Attenborough and a small role by the original Doctor on “Doctor Who,” William Hartnell. Although the print was generally in good shape, the screening had an unscheduled intermission while they rethreaded a reel after a change over that seemed slightly off. Better safe than on fire!
“Bicycle Thieves” (“Ladri di biciclette,” Vittorio de Sica, Italy, 1948)
Print source: George Eastman Museum
“Ladri di biciclette,” or as it is more commonly known by, despite not being a totally accurate translation, “The Bicycle Thief,” is an undisputed cinematic classic. The Italian neorealist work is a stable of cinema studies, and I had it assigned as viewing in three different classes. It’s also a film that kicks your ass emotionally, so I hadn’t seen it in 6 or 7 years before this screening. The print was used as part of GEM Motion Picture Department founding curator James Card’s cinema studies course at the University of Rochester, and was screened annually for years. That being the case, you would expect it to be beat up from use. Aside from the expected wear and tear on the heads and tails of each reel, which is standard for film prints of any base, it was in amazing shape. Kudos to the past projectionists at GEM for being masters at their art.
Nitrate Shorts II
“[George Eastman Greeting SMPE]” (US, 1930)
Print source: George Eastman Museum
The film, which has an assumptive title, was recorded at the national Society of Motion Picture Engineers, which later became the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers or SMPTE, conference in Rochester in 1930. Since it was not a commercial work, it was seldom screened and it great shape. For all attendees, especially Selznick students, it was novel to hear the voice of the man responsible for Kodak and subsequently the institution where we received part of our education. I would love to see a copy of it more widely circulated, though more for historic curiosity than academic interest.
“An Optical Poem” (Dir. Oskar Fischinger, US, 1937)
“Allegretto” (Dir. Oskar Fischinger, US, 1936/1943)
Print source: Library of Congress
Both shorts were in color, one of which used the Gasparcolor process, and featured classical music paired with geometric animations. Both were essentially pristine. Both may remind viewers of the “Toccata and Fugue in D Minor” sequence that opens “Fantasia” (Dir. Samuel Armstrong, et. al., US, 1940), but much more abstract and vibrant. Again, great for showing off animation or experimental cinema.
“Tales of Hoffmann” (Dir. Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, UK, 1951)
Print source: Library of Congress
A Technicolor movie by masters of the format Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger? Opera? I am a fan of both, but combined as “Tales of Hoffmann?” I found myself thinking the next time a friend of mine starts into me about how I’m a visual aestheticist I will point out this film as a case study that a movie being pretty is simply not enough. And “Tales of Hoffmann” on a Technicolor dye imbibition nitrate print is indeed glorious, but I have never been a fan of stagey theatrical adaptations and that is exactly what this film is. They kept theatrical make-up and costuming, and if I were a kid watching it on television I probably would have been charmed by it, like fans of the film Martin Scorsese and George A. Romero were as children, since it is pretty and the dancing is so engaging. The movie is great at carrying out what it sets out to be, but it was not at all to my taste, and that’s without getting into the offensively stereotypical male sexuality at the center of the narrative. If I hadn’t seen “Black Narcissus” at last year’s Nitrate Picture Show, and had only seen “The Red Shoes” (Dir. Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, UK, 1948) and “Tales of Hoffmann,” I would not think much of the Archers as filmmakers.
“Road House” (Dir. Jean Negulesco, US, 1948)
Print source: UCLA Film and Television Archive
As previously established in an earlier blog post this year, I adore Ida Lupino, so seeing her in a film noir along with Cornel Wilde (of “Leave Her to Heave” fame), Celeste Holm (of “All About Eve” (Dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, US, 1950) fame), and Richard Widmark (who famously pushed an old lady in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs in “Kiss of Death” (Dir. Henry Hathaway, US, 1947)) was a treat in and of itself. Like pretty much every film that screened, it was in great shape, with only really obvious damage on the heads and tails. The story was more melodrama than crime story noir, but beautifully acted and with good depth. It’s a great example of part of why film noir remains a popular movement and genre is the movies were just as apt to be as pulpy as they were more grounded in reality than A pictures of the time.
“Blithe Spirit” (Dir. David Lean, UK, 1945)
Print source: Museum of Modern Art
Almost as impressive as the condition of this vibrant Technicolor dye imbibition print is the fact that it is Martin Scorsese’s personal print, on deposit at MoMA. I saw a stage production of the Noel Coward play a couple years ago, and Lean’s film is a fine, funny adaptation with a superb cast. The print and production are fabulous, but unfortunately the stage production I saw featured Angela Lansbury as daffy medium Madame Arcati, and the film had to play second fiddle to the memory of that greatness.
Blind Date with Nitrate:
“Ramona” (Dir. Edwin Carewe, US, 1928)
Print source: Gosfilmofond of Russia
Live piano accompaniment by Dr. Philip C. Carli
The entire schedule for the Nitrate Picture Show, as explained previously, is kept secret until the morning of the festival, but one film is not revealed until it hits the screen. Nitrate Picture Show Festival Director and Senior Curator of the George Eastman Museum Motion Picture Department Paolo Cherchi Usai stated in his intro he wished the whole festival was done like the Blind Date with Nitrate, but that’s a lot to ask of an audience for 10 programs worth of screenings. The main advantage of the Blind Date with Nitrate though is it enabled a last minute program switch when a tinted German release print of “Ramona” not only was able to successfully ship from Russia to Rochester, but was able to be projected, albeit after 24 hours of prep work. The festival organizers did not think it would come together for this year, but then it did and the Spanish California set melodrama wowed the crowd that came despite not knowing what they were going to see.
Seeing “Ramona” was the highlight of the festival for me. It wasn’t the film itself, which was a decent silent drama and more progressive thematically on the subject of race relations than you would expect for a film where the lead actor is in red face, but the print. My student project as a Selznick Student was creating tint logs--listings of the colors and durations of tinted sections of silent film prints--for nitrate prints. My masters essay was on the history of the preservation of applied color films, using GEM’s holdings for an original research case study. In all the hours I spent winding through tinted prints, I never expected I would ever see one projected. I assumed existent silent films, the ones with standard perforations, were too shrunken or damaged for projection period, and due to the fact that tinted and toned prints usually have splices throughout each reel due to the nature of the color format, they would be a doubly dangerous choice to project. So I was amazed to see a silent film period, but then when the scene changed and everything was suddenly tinted yellow I was flabbergasted. Yellow, blue, and red tints were employed throughout for dramatic effect, and it was glorious. The experience was a highly emotional one for me.
In his closing comments prior to the final screening, the festival’s Executive Director Jared Case talked about how he hoped to create cinematic experiences that would be memorable highlights for people. Some people, including the nitrate vault manager for the Library of Congress, who is a 30+ year veteran of the position, got to see nitrate projected for the first time. For some it was the emotional resonance of a film as well as the print quality that made for one of the best film screenings of their lives, for others it was just seeing something they never thought they would. The festival has given me the kind of theatrical film viewing highlights Case was going for two years running. I cannot recommend people with the means and interest attend this festival enough. It’s just amazing. The next festival is scheduled for May 5-7, 2017. Hope to see you there.
