New York City Repertory Cinema

[hearthesilence]

Jacob Perlin left Metrograph. It's likely that made a negative impact. (When he was with BAM, their program was ridiculously great.)

[Drucker]

Seems like Metrograph keeps firing people and being a terrible place to work, and the change in their aesthetic and their front and centering of their streaming app is making everything seem like the theater is an after thought at this point.

[hearthesilence]

He wasn't fired, he quit. Apparently not everyone saw eye-to-eye on how things should be run and he had enough. But to my understanding, yes, they do have ambitions beyond being a repertory house, but it's for other things beyond showing films in their theaters or via streaming.

[rrenault]

I'm just curious, but could someone explain the anti-DCP sentiment, considering decent prints of older films are very hard to come by these days? I was under the impression DCPs have been the standard on the repertory circuit for at least a decade. I don't see the negative of watching a 4K DCP of a film that has next to no chance of being made available in native 4K for the home market, such as one of Buñuel's Mexican films or many of the WCP titles. Yes, I understand the appeal of 35mm, but sometimes in the realm of niche cinema we have no choice but to settle for the best option available.

Granted, when I see repertory cinemas in Paris running 2K DCPs of stuff like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, or Mulholland Drive I want to pull my teeth out, but it's a different story if we're talking about something like Taipei Story or The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de La Cruz.

[Drucker]

I'm just curious, but could someone explain the anti-DCP sentiment, considering decent prints of older films are very hard to come by these days? I was under the impression DCPs have been the standard on the repertory circuit for at least a decade. I don't see the negative of watching a 4K DCP of a film that has next to no chance of being made available in native 4K for the home market, such as one of Buñuel's Mexican films or many of the WCP titles. Yes, I understand the appeal of 35mm, but sometimes in the realm of niche cinema we have no choice but to settle for the best option available.

Granted, when I see repertory cinemas in Paris running 2K DCPs of stuff like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, or Mulholland Drive I want to pull my teeth out, but it's a different story if we're talking about something like Taipei Story or The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de La Cruz.

I mean for me it's really just personal preference. I totally see the value in getting to watch the Three Colors trilogy or the films of Dario Argento in a big theater with loud sound and a crowd, but there are only so many hours in a day and dollars in my pocket. If I'm going to the theater, I kind of want it to be special, and I think that seeing a film on 35mm is more special. While prints have their own share of problems, they don't bother me as much as the problems that I see on DCPs that we complain about on here every day (color timing, altered audio, etc.)

Fifteen dollars to see Seven Samurai on 35mm feels very worth it. Fifteen dollars is also 5 dollars less than I could spend to get the exact same restoration on home video in a blu-ray for the latest touring Janus restoration.

ps. I also acknowledge that I'm very spoiled to live in NYC and have the opportunities to see the films I get to see in a given moment. Maybe if I lived somewhere where there were fewer options I'd be less picky. But since I live in NYC and if I wanted to, could see a film presented on celluloid nearly every day...that's what I prioritize.

[beamish14]

I'm just curious, but could someone explain the anti-DCP sentiment, considering decent prints of older films are very hard to come by these days? I was under the impression DCPs have been the standard on the repertory circuit for at least a decade. I don't see the negative of watching a 4K DCP of a film that has next to no chance of being made available in native 4K for the home market, such as one of Buñuel's Mexican films or many of the WCP titles. Yes, I understand the appeal of 35mm, but sometimes in the realm of niche cinema we have no choice but to settle for the best option available.

Granted, when I see repertory cinemas in Paris running 2K DCPs of stuff like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, or Mulholland Drive I want to pull my teeth out, but it's a different story if we're talking about something like Taipei Story or The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de La Cruz.

DCPs have a plastic, sterile look to them. I do think that theatres need to be upfront regarding the quality of 35mm prints, and explicitly warn patrons if they’re faded (this is especially true of a lot of titles made during the post-Technicolor/pre-LPP era of the mid-70’s through the early 80’s, when studios were making horrible prints on Fuji film that didn’t last more than a few years). I walked out of a screening earlier this year that was advertised as being in 35mm when it was immediately apparent that I was watching a DCP. I’ll watch it at home if that is the format it’s being presented in.

[Drucker]

For those of you following the other threads I've been following lately, IFC Center is playing Targets on 35mm on 7/27, and Paris Theater is playing Red Desert on 35mm 7/27 as well.

[hearthesilence]

I think it really, really is a case-by-case basis. As a rule of thumb, I'll catch a 35mm screening but skip a DCP if the same film has a great Blu-ray out and I know for a fact it hasn't had a 4K restoration.

I've had DCP's look better than a 35mm print - Memoria for example, which to be fair had a damaged 35mm print when I saw it, but the detail and clarity of the DCP was soooo much better, it hurt the film to lose that in a grainy haze.

Also the premiere of the Film Foundation's restoration of Olivier's Richard III looked "better" than the 35mm print I've seen. It was VistaVision, so they took advantage of the extra real estate and grabbed more resolution off the original negative (or rather most of it - there's like a reel or two where the OCN is still MIA) whereas I'm guessing the 35mm print I saw was probably more or less a reduction to get it on a standard 35mm print.

But beamish is right, there's something kind of sterile and clinical about a DCP compared to a GOOD film print, even when it's a great restoration. It's not enough to recommend a poor film print over a DCP (not even close), and it's somewhat less of an issue with a lot of latter day film prints, but if you ever see a true vintage IB Tech print of, say, Singin' in the Rain or Vincente Minnelli's The Pirate, you WILL see a difference. The colors bloom in a way that's even lost on some film prints.

Here's something interesting - you can kind of see what I'm talking about in the DVD trailer for The Searchers. The resolution is only SD, and the YouTube compression here is even shittier, but if you know the look of a true IB Tech print, you can tell the trailer was taken from an IB Tech film source. I'd like to see one transferred in 4K (like a film print, not a scan of the negatives that's digitally combined) because it could look amazing.

Also another thing to keep in mind - if you have a film print that's been struck in recent years, there's a good chance it was struck off a digital restoration, using modern negatives on an Arrilaser film recorder. IIRC a lot of Universal prints in circulation would have been done this way. (It's possible losing a lot of exhibition prints in that notorious fire made sure of that.) I think George Lucas's main argument to Scorsese's defense of film is kind of this too - if the film had a DI, it's already digital. In short, if you know they're screening a vintage print, make the effort to go. It's like the difference between a AAA tube cut vinyl record vs. a modern day pressing cut from PCM digital files.

[hearthesilence]

Actually, mentioning IB Tech opens a whole new can of worms...I didn't want to go into it, but I should.

You know how Technicolor films nowadays basically get each of the three strips scanned? It's really the only way to do it because they all have issues with shrinkage and other things due to age and wear. If you try to strike them the old-fashioned way, the details aren't going to line up and it's going to be too distracting (or just look like crap). So any restoration these days will digitally scan and combine them, because it's the only way the details will line up correctly.

Compared to a vintage print, it's going to look incredibly sharp and crisp in a way those old prints can never look - that's the advantage of digital. Detail doesn't get smeared from generational loss. (Think about analog tape dubbing vs. making a digital clone.)

The downside is you lose some of the inherent characteristics that come with making a print the old fashioned way. That's what makes those old prints so special, most of which were struck when the original elements were still in good enough shape that everything would line up correctly. Their color doesn't degrade as fast as other color film stocks so they do last.

But you have to see a vintage print. If you see a reissue from, say, the '90s, chances are it wasn't done the same way and it's not going to have that gorgeous bloom to it.

[beamish14]

I think it really, really is a case-by-case basis. As a rule of thumb, I'll catch a 35mm screening but skip a DCP if the same film has a great Blu-ray out and I know for a fact it hasn't had a 4K restoration.

I've had DCP's look better than a 35mm print - Memoria for example, which to be fair had a damaged 35mm print when I saw it, but the detail and clarity of the DCP was soooo much better, it hurt the film to lose that in a grainy haze.

Also the premiere of the Film Foundation's restoration of Olivier's Richard III looked "better" than the 35mm print I've seen. It was VistaVision, so they took advantage of the extra real estate and grabbed more resolution off the original negative (or rather most of it - there's like a reel or two where the OCN is still MIA) whereas I'm guessing the 35mm print I saw was probably more or less a reduction to get it on a standard 35mm print.

But beamish is right, there's something kind of sterile and clinical about a DCP compared to a GOOD film print, even when it's a great restoration. It's not enough to recommend a poor film print over a DCP (not even close), and it's somewhat less of an issue with a lot of latter day film prints, but if you ever see a true vintage IB Tech print of, say, Singin' in the Rain or Vincente Minnelli's The Pirate, you WILL see a difference. The colors bloom in a way that's even lost on some film prints.

Here's something interesting - you can kind of see what I'm talking about in the DVD trailer for The Searchers. The resolution is only SD, and the YouTube compression here is even shittier, but if you know the look of a true IB Tech print, you can tell the trailer was taken from an IB Tech film source. I'd like to see one transferred in 4K (like a film print, not a scan of the negatives that's digitally combined) because it could look amazing.

Also another thing to keep in mind - if you have a film print that's been struck in recent years, there's a good chance it was struck off a digital restoration, using modern negatives on an Arrilaser film recorder. IIRC a lot of Universal prints in circulation would have been done this way. (It's possible losing a lot of exhibition prints in that notorious fire made sure of that.) I think George Lucas's main argument to Scorsese's defense of film is kind of this too - if the film had a DI, it's already digital. In short, if you know they're screening a vintage print, make the effort to go. It's like the difference between a AAA tube cut vinyl record vs. a modern day pressing cut from PCM digital files.

These are all great points. It’s truly miraculous how well-preserved many I.B. Tech prints are. I’ve seen some real stunners, including The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Singing in the Rain, One-Eyed Jacks, and The Godfather Part II (which was, I believe, the final film to benefit from this process in North America). The brief revival it had during the late 90’s also led to beautiful new copies, and I have seen Universal’s Tech 2.0 copy of Rear Window, which is great. Terrence Malick’s Technicolor print of The Thin Red Line screened just once for an L.A. audience around 2000.

Regarding digital sources for new prints, I’m curious about new 70mm prints of Airport and Spartacus that Universal has made from their digital restorations. I’ve seen Netflix’s 70mm print of Roma, which I believe was taken from a digital intermediary, and it looked great, although it’s really the sound design that benefited the most.

[rrenault]

I suppose a lot of the repertory prints I've seen in recent years haven't been in the greatest shape, such as L'Avventura, Lost Highway, Wild at Heart, and Fellini's Roma, although the first of those four was really the most problematic, since it was also missing a few minutes of footage for whatever reason. The Lynch prints were fine I guess, but there may have been some projection issues instead. A 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey was screened at MOMI the last time I was in NYC, but the screening sold out in like two seconds, due to limited to covid capacity most likely, so I wasn't able to go. Hopefully the 70mm print of 2001 will make it to Paris at some point. Watching Licorice Pizza and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood on actual film was quite satisfying though, but those were obviously first run showings with prints in much better condition. LP was a 70mm blow up print, and Hollywood was 35mm projected onto a 107 square meter screen. I could be wrong, but knowing their working methods, I wouldn't think first run prints of a new Tarantino, Nolan, or PTA film are DI-sourced ala digitally-sourced modern vinyls (I saw Tenet projected on 70mm film, as well. Hey, nothing wrong with going to the cinema to watch a flawed movie to watch projected 70mm film stock) .

Oh, and there was also that hideously faded print of Godard's Weekend I watched once at MOMA back in like 2010.

But yes, I won't bother with DCPs that either A) I know don't have an extant 4K master but are available on blu-ray or B) are available on 4K UHD blu-ray period. However, I'm still happy to watch a 4K DCP of something with next to no chance of ever getting a native 4K release for the home market, such as one of Buñuel's Mexican films or something like Manila in the Claws of Light.

[hearthesilence]

Regarding digital sources for new prints, I’m curious about new 70mm prints of Airport and Spartacus that Universal has made from their digital restorations. I’ve seen Netflix’s 70mm print of Roma, which I believe was taken from a digital intermediary, and it looked great, although it’s really the sound design that benefited the most.

Was Robert A. Harris's restoration of Spartacus all photochemical or was there digital work? I know it was shown in theaters at the time - I wonder if any of those prints are still around and how they hold up.

I'd like to see Roma in 70mm. I've only seen a DCP, but the sound design was amazing, the most striking thing about seeing it in a theater.

A 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey was screened at MOMI the last time I was in NYC, but the screening sold out in like two seconds, due to limited to covid capacity most likely, so I wasn't able to go. Hopefully the 70mm print of 2001 will make it to Paris at some point.

I remember seeing that in 70mm at the Music Box in Chicago sometime in the '00s. It may have been my first time seeing a 70mm print (it was that or the restored cut of Lawrence of Arabia, also at the Music Box). Absolutely stunning, I remember being knocked out by the image quality. I've seen 2001 in 70mm twice more in NYC, but the last time was Christopher Nolan's botched attempt at re-creating a vintage print. I'm not sure if those prints are still in circulation, but I would definitely avoid those if you can. (IIRC MoMI did NOT show a Nolan-supervised print.) I'm glad Paul Thomas Anderson and Quentin Tarantino are making sure their films are being made and shown in 35mm and even 70mm, but unfortunately, except for Phantom Thread (which I thought was great), I haven't been a fan of any of their films from the past eight years.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

I’ve seen Netflix’s 70mm print of Roma, which I believe was taken from a digital intermediary, and it looked great, although it’s really the sound design that benefited the most.

Can Dolby Atmos be replicated on film? Even for the best surround sound for films back in the day, it required digital DTS systems to reach levels not matched on standard 35mm. I know 70mm has better audio, but I always knew that a major advantage to DCP systems is audio superior to what film was ever capable of. I say this as someone who prefers seeing films on scratchy prints over a new DCP.

[beamish14]

I’ve seen Netflix’s 70mm print of Roma, which I believe was taken from a digital intermediary, and it looked great, although it’s really the sound design that benefited the most.

Can Dolby Atmos be replicated on film? Even for the best surround sound for films back in the day, it required digital DTS systems to reach levels not matched on standard 35mm. I know 70mm has better audio, but I always knew that a major advantage to DCP systems is audio superior to what film was ever capable of. I say this as someone who prefers seeing films on scratchy prints over a new DCP.

That’s a good question. I remember how bass-heavy it was. The seats seemed to vibrate slightly at certain points. I don’t know if it was Atmos or more of a traditional 6-track stereo design, but it was really excellent

[beamish14]

Regarding digital sources for new prints, I’m curious about new 70mm prints of Airport and Spartacus that Universal has made from their digital restorations. I’ve seen Netflix’s 70mm print of Roma, which I believe was taken from a digital intermediary, and it looked great, although it’s really the sound design that benefited the most.

Was Robert A. Harris's restoration of Spartacus all photochemical or was there digital work? I know it was shown in theaters at the time - I wonder if any of those prints are still around and how they hold up.

I'd like to see Roma in 70mm. I've only seen a DCP, but the sound design was amazing, the most striking thing about seeing it in a theater.

A 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey was screened at MOMI the last time I was in NYC, but the screening sold out in like two seconds, due to limited to covid capacity most likely, so I wasn't able to go. Hopefully the 70mm print of 2001 will make it to Paris at some point.

I remember seeing that in 70mm at the Music Box in Chicago sometime in the '00s. It may have been my first time seeing a 70mm print (it was that or the restored cut of Lawrence of Arabia, also at the Music Box). Absolutely stunning, I remember being knocked out by the image quality. I've seen 2001 in 70mm twice more in NYC, but the last time was Christopher Nolan's botched attempt at re-creating a vintage print. I'm not sure if those prints are still in circulation, but I would definitely avoid those if you can. (IIRC MoMI did NOT show a Nolan-supervised print.) I'm glad Paul Thomas Anderson and Quentin Tarantino are making sure their films are being made and shown in 35mm and even 70mm, but unfortunately, except for Phantom Thread (which I thought was great), I haven't been a fan of any of their films from the past eight years.

I don’t know if the Harris-supervised 70mm prints survived Universal’s vault fire (which possibly took out the lone 70mm print of the Coppola Napoleon restoration). This new one is being advertised as coming straight off their 4K restoration

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

Was Robert A. Harris's restoration of Spartacus all photochemical or was there digital work? I know it was shown in theaters at the time - I wonder if any of those prints are still around and how they hold up.

I have to think it was all photochemical. None of the contemporary documentation I can find mentions digital work on the picture and that would've been very much worth noting in 1991, when that sort of thing was still in its infancy (the first commercial digital film scanner didn't even hit the market until late '92). When the Harris/Katz My Fair Lady restoration came out in '94, Katz claimed it was the first restoration to use digital cleanup, which wasn't actually true—Disney had done a full digital restoration of Snow White in 1993, and in 4K no less—but it does indicate that their earlier restorations had been all photochemical.

I don’t know if the Harris-supervised 70mm prints survived Universal’s vault fire (which possibly took out the lone 70mm print of the Coppola Napoleon restoration). This new one is being advertised as coming straight off their 4K restoration

There have been 70mm screenings of the '91 restoration since the vault fire. The most recent I can find is a July 2019 screening at the Cinestudio in Hartford, Connecticut.

[Roscoe]

I've gotten frankly leery of 35mm prints, largely because of the unpredictability. God only knows what they're going to be showing. A terribly faded print of BARRY LYNDON at MOMI last year was a real low point -- everything was pink. And projection issues at Film Forum during the Mifune series where the picture was jumping up and down, during particular high points in THE HIDDEN FORTRESS were an issue, and the dreadful 16mm print of SNOW TRAIL was a compelling argument for DCP.

[hearthesilence]

16mm screenings can be good depending on the film. When Film Forum had a Frederick Wiseman retrospective and when Anthology did their Michael Snow retrospective, it was mostly 16mm (and those particular titles were shot on 16mm), and they were all great prints.

But yes, I've been to bad screenings were it felt like a waste of time and money, i.e. I would have been better off watching the same film at home, off a Blu-ray or possibly even a DVD.

[Drucker]

Of course, the flip side of this is that I took my girlfriend to see Notting Hill at Alamo Drafthouse and it was clearly a dated digital DCP which looked like a shitty DVD. If I'm going to watch a shitty looking film in a cinema, it better be analog!

[FrauBlucher]

The new restoration of Daisies will be playing at the IFC Center starting in mid-August

[rrenault]

My one quibble about the 35mm vs DCP debate is how do we treat more recent films shot digitally. Should Parasite and Roma have just been straight-to-streaming without cinema releases? Likewise any number of recent films by NB Ceylan, Lucrecia Martel, Pedro Almodovar, etc.?

Even so, it's a shame that even someone like Almodovar has been priced out of shooting on film.

[beamish14]

My one quibble about the 35mm vs DCP debate is how do we treat more recent films shot digitally. Should Parasite and Roma have just been straight-to-streaming without cinema releases? Likewise any number of recent films by NB Ceylan, Lucrecia Martel, Pedro Almodovar, etc.?

Even so, it's a shame that even someone like Almodovar has been priced out of shooting on film.

Regarding films that are distributed by streaming services, I’ll gladly watch them theatrically if celluloid prints are available, regardless of how they were filmed. Netflix has actually struck prints of many films they distribute, including:

The Other Side of the Wind (still dying to see this on film)

Shirkers

Gunpowder Milkshake

The Meyerowitz Stories (shot in 16mm, and it looks great)


As far as I can tell, Apple has only produced DCPs

[hearthesilence]

how do we treat more recent films shot digitally. Should Parasite and Roma have just been straight-to-streaming without cinema releases?

Easy call for me, I'd much rather see them in a theater than stream them. The fact that it's shot in digital is a moot point - even with an ideal set-up, picture quality takes a hit whenever I stream, with macroblocking being the most frequent problem (something that probably doesn't bother most people but I always notice it - it usually pops up in the shadows). Even if we're talking about a UHD disc, I have to accept that there could be distractions at home. That's become more and more the case these days, which is why I usually go out when I want to see something I haven't seen before. Except for the occasional streaming-only show, I lean towards already-seen films at home.

Regardless, if the day comes where going out becomes much less of an option due to commitments at home (or if I end up moving so far from the city that traveling to the nearest arthouse venue is too cumbersome or even impractical), I may have to settle on streaming for a lot of things, but we'll see.

[Matt]

Even so, it's a shame that even someone like Almodovar has been priced out of shooting on film.

From what I’ve read, he actually prefers digital now because of the ability to use lower light to achieve a greater and sharper depth of field.

As long as filmmakers are making things that look and sound good in theaters, I think they should keep putting them in theaters.

I personally prefer to watch everything at home now, but I would have loved to see Dune (2021, entirely digital) in a proper theater projected digitally. No offense to film purists, but it seems willfully contradictory to insist on 35mm prints of films shot digitally (unless the digital-to-film transfer is part of the intended aesthetic, as with something like Julien Donkey-Boy).

[aurevoir]

I'm just curious, but could someone explain the anti-DCP sentiment, considering decent prints of older films are very hard to come by these days? I was under the impression DCPs have been the standard on the repertory circuit for at least a decade. I don't see the negative of watching a 4K DCP of a film that has next to no chance of being made available in native 4K for the home market, such as one of Buñuel's Mexican films or many of the WCP titles. Yes, I understand the appeal of 35mm, but sometimes in the realm of niche cinema we have no choice but to settle for the best option available.

Granted, when I see repertory cinemas in Paris running 2K DCPs of stuff like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, or Mulholland Drive I want to pull my teeth out, but it's a different story if we're talking about something like Taipei Story or The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de La Cruz.

In the case of the series that started this discussion, it seems worth mentioning that Film Forum's digital projection is quite bad. They frequently advertise 4K restorations but I don't think any of their projectors are actually 4K; worse is that the colors are always dull. I can't imagine watching Lawrence of Arabia there, especially when their largest screen is still fairly small. They're also the ones doing a Resnais retro next month, unfortunately.

I don't mind a DCP with a decent source and (though this is depressingly rare in NYC) good projection, and it's the native format for most new films. To name one, the DCP I saw of A Woman Under the Influence looked fantastic, not flattened out or scrubbed of texture. But the flicker and materiality of film can be more important for some titles. The DCP of Millennium Mambo, for example, was lacking something; I remember there were certain shots that began on an out-of-focus background, and the image was flat when it should have pulsed. (The famous opening was similarly marred.)

I saw the prints of Memoria and Barry Lyndon that have been derided in this thread and thought both were fine. :-k The former was certainly less vivid than the DCP and provided a surprisingly different experience, but the overcast look suited the mood of the film. It was my first time seeing the latter film, so grain of salt and all that, but the haziness seemed appropriate and even good digital would've looked less painterly.

As for 16mm: experimental films shot on 16mm should be shown on 16mm! After one or two bad experiences I try to avoid 35mm-to-16mm reduction prints on the rare occasions they pop up.