From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 20 2005 - 22:39:08 PDT
thank you again mark
i was aware of the complexity & beyond
that he could consider the optical printer a
collaborator
to my memory
& that u would not optically re-print the original
then
but i was not aware that the original paintings
were not in full estate possession
brilliant that some are
i am honored that you would ask us what we think
it is complex
because each film did have an essence (of color
particularly 4 me)
like why i mentioned the "persian series" was that to
my memory
the colors were fr: persia he said
- the pigments of the paint -
the colors were very specific to the series
(like italia has specific hues the U.S. just doesn't)
each film/series is so unique in that way
it has these specifics way beyond my capability to
answer
in a forensic/scientific way
but my humble opinion is that as much should be pulled
out as possible unless he instructed otherwise
very grateful
c
--- Mark Toscano <email suppressed> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> Just thought I'd mention this stuff in light of
> Cari's
> most recent post re: Stan's painted films...
>
> In most cases, the "originals" for Stan's painted
> films of the '80s and later are either reversal
> masters or optical negatives. (There's a
> distinction
> here between actual physical 'original' and
> functioning 'original'.)
>
> Original painted film survives for a number of the
> films, but so many of the painted films were made of
> painted rolls that were then looped, superimposed,
> flopped, zoomed, defocused, etc. during the optical
> rephotographing process, to the point where you
> couldn't really preserve or remake the films even if
> you had the original painted material. So the
> original painted stuff essentially becomes just
> "production material" (of course the stuff is
> precious
> and priceless, but in a different way) And in a
> number of cases, I believe Stan gave original
> painted
> material away to friends, institutions, etc., so a
> lot
> of it is probably unrecoverable anyway.
>
> So, in terms of preserving the finished films, the
> originals we have to worry about are these optical
> masters. In some cases, Stan's optical masters are
> reversal rolls that he printed to internegative, and
> then made his release prints from those INs. Some
> I've already inspected, like Persians #9, are
> Kodachrome, and totally gorgeous. Mary Beth Reed
> told
> me that the ones she printed for Stan were generally
> Kodachrome.
>
> In other cases, the optical masters are negs from
> which he made interpositives, then printing
> negatives
> to make release prints.
>
> In both of these above scenarios, this implies that
> these particular films are pretty well protected
> (though I don't want to assume anything, ultimately)
>
> The films I'm worried about are the ones for which
> Stan used his "original" optical negatives also as
> printing negatives, without making any
> intermediates.
> This is the case with a group of about 2 dozen or
> more
> films mostly from the mid-'90s. Films like Self
> Song/Death Song, Earthsong of the Cricket,
> Shockingly
> Hot, Blue Value, Earthen Aerie, Divertimento, and
> others.
>
> So ironically, whereas the originals for Stan's
> earliest films, like Interim and Desistfilm, are in
> immaculate condition, these films that are sometimes
> less than 10 years old are a lot more fragile. But
> at
> least this problem has been identified and so far
> everything seems to be OK. The plan right now is to
> not print any of these negatives any further unless
> it's to create IPs and new internegatives. It's a
> group of films we've prioritized and can work on as
> soon as the negatives are transferred from MoMA, as
> Marilyn mentioned.
>
> Prior to the prolific hand-painting Stan began in
> the
> '80s, a number of his films that incorporate
> painting
> exist as originals that still have all the paint,
> tape, scratching, etc. all over them, usually in
> remarkably stable condition. (Thigh Line Lyre
> Triangular, Dog Star Man, Black Vision, etc.)
>
> here's another specific film example -
>
> The original for Nodes, which is a hand-painted
> film,
> is actually *painted* original material intercut
> with
> black leader. Prints of this film have always looked
> really "poor", because in contact printing it, the
> painted film (which is pretty thick actually)
> couldn't
> lay even remotely flat, and the resulting negative
> has
> softer, slightly blurred imagery that is VERY
> lacking
> in the color range/accuracy department. My problem
> here is whether this should be "replicated", i.e.
> should we aim for a poorly exposed, half-colorless,
> blurry negative as our goal, since that's what's
> always been out there? Or should we try to
> replicate
> that hand-painted original as best as possible,
> which
> would mean much more detailed, vivid, and colorful
> prints than Stan ever saw in his lifetime?
>
> The latter seems all the more attractive when I
> consider that A.) in general, Stan seems to have
> edited his films with the idea of wanting to get, as
> a
> final result, more or less what he was looking at as
> he edited, which is to say I don't think he painted
> and edited Nodes thinking, 'ok, this'll look just
> great as long as Western Cine can sap out half the
> color, and severely diminish its sharpness and
> detail'; and B.) Stan tended to often accept even
> terrible prints from the lab, either because of a
> certain fatalism, a certain passivity, a certain
> sense
> of wanting the lab to 'collaborate' in the look of
> his
> films, or all three.
>
> What do you think of an issue like this? I'm
> curious
> to hear peoples' opinions... I can provide more info
> if this isn't enough to judge...
>
> mark t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.