Jack Theakston Clears Up Some Myths

Excellent information and clears some questions I had.  I was amazed at the size screen the Loew's State in New Orleans had during their silent and sound days until the early 50's.  Our company took over the theatre in the 80's and the old screen was still flying from the loft.  We lowered it down and it had to be no more than the 20 feet in width that Jack speaks about.  It looked so tiny in an auditorium that held 2900 seats.  There were still sets flying left from the vaudeville days and the Perspecta Stereo Sound system was still installed.  It was as walking through film history.

Thanks for posting that link, Bob, and for starting this thread. Always interested to read anything Jack Theakston has to say about aspect ratios. It's such a fascinating topic.

Thanks for posting the link. An informative and much-needed paper. When a logical mind and an adept researcher come together in one lab tech, you get Jack Theakston. He knows whereof he speaks.

Does Jack have plans to publish the paper?

Thanks everyone.  The slide-show will be available for AMIA members on the AMIA website, however it's far from what I would call definitive or in-depth (it's a crash-course of 50 years in 60 minutes, comprised of 108 slides).  I am seriously considering either writing a book or putting together a website, perhaps both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston 

Thanks everyone.  The slide-show will be available for AMIA members on the AMIA website, however it's far from what I would call definitive or in-depth (it's a crash-course of 50 years in 60 minutes, comprised of 108 slides).  I am seriously considering either writing a book or putting together a website, perhaps both.

Didn't you say here (http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/reply/412047#reply-412047) that you were writing a book?  My hopes have been dashed by studios backing off of their previously announced DVD plans before, but I never expected that from you!
 

Ray, you're good!

Yeah, I'm picking away at writing a book, but nothing is definite, and I still have a bit of research I want to do before I do anything definitive.

Well, it is good to know that you are working on it.  Several years ago I was speaking with someone who is involved in the Syracuse Cinephile Society how there was a lot involved in projecting technicolor film (what bulb you use and more), and how few around today knew anything about it.  Especially with movie theaters going all digital, I think that a book addressing how motion pictures have historically been shown would be a treasure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston 

Thanks everyone.  The slide-show will be available for AMIA members on the AMIA website, however it's far from what I would call definitive or in-depth (it's a crash-course of 50 years in 60 minutes, comprised of 108 slides).  I am seriously considering either writing a book or putting together a website, perhaps both.

I would buy multiple copies of the book. One for myself and one for anyone I know remotely interested in film. I was talking to a low-budget director who claimed that they made fake 3-D movies in the 1950s, similar to how they fake it now. I didn't think this was possible then. Was he right or wrong?

Matthew:

THIS article on 1950s 3-D films just appeared recently in the NYT.  Does this answer your question?

New Yorkers are in for a treat with that 3-D festival at the Forum. I would drop everything and go if I could. The Forum has had experience projecting double-interlock before, and done a good job with it, so I'm not concerned about that. The stereoscopic prints are not new discoveries, however. Check out the schedule at the 2003 and 2006 World 3-D Film Expos here:

http://www.3dfilmpf.org/3d-film-expo/

Then read up on Jack Theakston's and Bob Furmanek's "Top 3-D Myths" here:

http://www.3dfilmpf.org/info-top-10-3D-myths.html

Their history of John Wayne's Hondo, one of the best stereoscopic films ever made, also clears up a lot of misunderstandings about 3-D films in general:

http://www.3dfilmpf.org/info.html

Regarding the New York Times article, it's a little condescending. The purpose of movies is to entertain, and the 1950s 3-D films did that very well for 1950s audiences but that does not mean they were mindless or that they lacked dramatic value. If anything, the use of depth intensified the dramatic value of the films. I'm glad the writer noted the intelligent use of depth in Roy Ward Baker's Inferno and Raoul Walsh's Gun Fury, but many other 3-D films from that period used depth intelligently as well, particularly those 3-D genre films directed by Jack Arnold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W 

Regarding the New York Times article, it's a little condescending.

   There's a real "dog bites man" statement, Richard!  

Thanks for all the extra info. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W 

The Forum has had experience projecting double-interlock before, and done a good job with it

I can attest to that, having seen Dial M for Murder in 3D at Film Forum when they first showed it some years back. A fascinating experience. I wish I had more time for the current festival.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon 

   There's a real "dog bites man" statement, Richard!  

 

Hey!

I deny the accusation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA 
 I was talking to a low-budget director who claimed that they made fake 3-D movies in the 1950s, similar to how they fake it now. I didn't think this was possible then. Was he right or wrong?

Fake it?

What do you mean, fake it?

That was real 3-D in the 1950s and a close approximation to how human beings see (two eyes like two cameras or two projectors, one on each side of the face, so to speak).

3-D goes back to the earliest days of photography.

Get hold of some stereoviews from the Civil War from 150 years ago.

Look at Viewmaster slides which began in 1938.

Once upon a time, every home in America had a box of 3-D stereoviews and Viewmaster slides.

Today they are mostly found on ebay and in museums; a regression.

Stereoscopic films operate on the same basic optical principle as stereoscopic photography.

It was a short step from 3-D photos and slides to 3-D films, and it is all real 3-D, not "fake."

There are two excellent histories of stereoscopic films. R.M. Hayes pioneered the topic with 3-D Movies: A History and Filmography of Stereoscopic Cinema published by McFarland. An informative study, although it needs revision and reformatting:

http://www.amazon.com/3-D-Movies-Filmography-Stereoscopic-McFarland/dp/0786405783/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

Ray Zone updates the research and compliments Hayes with Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838-1952, his second book on stereoscopic films, which I enthusiastically recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Stereoscopic-Cinema-Origins-Film-1838-1952/dp/0813124611/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

  Just awesome! 

People who expect titillation from Miss Sadie Thompson will be disappointed. The publicity campaign does the film a disservice. It's a serious character-driven drama about falling from grace and redemption and is based on a classic novel by Somerset Maugham, which had been filmed twice before. This version is a little too shy. It doesn't probe as deeply into the story as previous versions, but it's still a solid drama enhanced and intensified by 3-D. It is a restrained and intelligent use of 3-D. Perhaps too restrained. I wish there were more 3-D films like it. You don't want to miss it at the Forum, in any case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W 

People who expect titillation from Miss Sadie Thompson will be disappointed. The publicity campaign does the film a disservice. It's a serious character-driven drama...

But her torso wriggles! 

I cannot believe the studios would ever exaggerate in their advertising to get the audience to expect one thing and then deliver another.  Say it ain't so. 

Alright Mike, if it pleases you, it ain't necessarily so.

Yeah, and the good folks behind these new digital 3-D systems are making false claims about the photochemical / double-interlock era and rewriting the history of stereoscopic films to push their own proprietary systems. So, what else is new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W 

Fake it?

What do you mean, fake it?

That was real 3-D in the 1950s and a close approximation to how human beings see (two eyes like two cameras or two projectors, one on each side of the face, so to speak).

 

3-D goes back to the earliest days of photography.

Get hold of some stereoviews from the Civil War from 150 years ago.

Look at Viewmaster slides which began in 1938.

Once upon a time, every home in America had a box of 3-D stereoviews and Viewmaster slides.

Today they are mostly found on ebay and in museums; a regression.

Stereoscopic films operate on the same basic optical principle as stereoscopic photography.

It was a short step from 3-D photos and slides to 3-D films, and it is all real 3-D, not "fake."

 

There are two excellent histories of stereoscopic films. R.M. Hayes pioneered the topic with 3-D Movies: A History and Filmography of Stereoscopic Cinema published by McFarland. An informative study, although it needs revision and reformatting:

 

http://www.amazon.com/3-D-Movies-Filmography-Stereoscopic-McFarland/dp/0786405783/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

 

Ray Zone updates the research and compliments Hayes with Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838-1952, his second book on stereoscopic films, which I enthusiastically recommend:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Stereoscopic-Cinema-Origins-Film-1838-1952/dp/0813124611/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

I know about the real 3-D movies using the polarized system and interlocked projectors. I even saw it at the 3-D Film Festival in Hollywood. That's why I was flabbergasted by the idea that my friend, who claims to be knowledgeable about movies, claimed that anyone would ever have, or could have, capitalized on the craze for real 3-D movies in the 1950s by making fake 3-D movies out of 2-D ones.

Oh, you mean converting 2-d (lower case, please) films to 3-D films? No that didn't start in the 1950s. It started recently, in the digital age. Flat films in the public domain -- including some prints of Night of the Living Dead (1968) -- have been converted, yes. And they look as crappy as you would expect. Conversions will always be problematic because stereoscopic films are staged, designed, and shot differently from flat films. But it's being done on new productions now as well. Big mistake.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

Well, that's Memphis for you. Always over-reacting. They didn't like Elvis doing the shimmy-shimmy-shake at the county fair, either. Maybe it was the screaming that frightened them, the sound and sight of their wives and daughters losing control. Compared to Elvis, Rita is tame. She doesn't do anything except fill a tight dress, sing a suggestive song, dance a little, and pal around with the sailors. I guess those Memphis folk just lost their heads over Rita's red hair and voluptuous figure. The pre-code version with Joan Crawford showed some skin and was less guarded in referencing prostitution and depicting sexual adventuring. I like the fact that Miss Sadie Thompson takes its drama seriously, but it's a thin adaptation and too watered down compared to previous versions. I mean, it's even tame compared to other popular soap operas of the 1950s. It' still a good film, however, passionately acted, beautifully composed and expertly shot in depth.

Isn't that right, Jack?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W 

Oh, you mean converting 2-d (lower case, please) films to 3-D films? No that didn't start in the 1950s. It started recently, in the digital age. Flat films in the public domain -- including some prints of Night of the Living Dead (1968) -- have been converted, yes. And they look as crappy as you would expect. Conversions will always be problematic because stereoscopic films are staged, designed, and shot differently from flat films. But it's being done on new productions now as well. Big mistake.

 

Sorry I misunderstood you.

No problem, but thanks for clearing it up. I know about the conversions now, and even with some of the "real" 3-D, it doesn't always work. I think it added little to Toy Story 3 because so many of the shots have a shallow depth of field. Ironically, the 3-D versions of parts 1 and 2 had more effective (but subtle) 3-D.

SADIE is certainly one of the best of the '50s titles and not worth missing.

Shooting in 3D is always walking a tightrope of too many gimmicks and not enough (people will complain either way).  If you look at the gimmick shots in something such as CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, for example, they work seamlessly in the context they're placed (such as the native throwing a lamp a the Creature's POV shot).