From: charlotte lipman (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2008 - 09:43:48 PDT
Ah... Thanks Andy - that would explain a lot. It¹s what I had mostly
understood from what Carolee said, except for the ³extra footage² factor,
which I found confusing. Lest I sound unfair to Carolee, her work (and
especially her current work) is clearly not about these kinds of
distinctions, so they wouldn¹t likely be a priority for her. But hopefully
she can be convinced to try to show the print rather than the video when
On 9/5/08 8:18 AM, "andrew lampert" <email suppressed> wrote:
> Hate to say it, but I think Carolee might be a bit confused. I supervised the
> video transfer that Carolee has been showing from the new print that we made.
> Still, that she prefers the DVD is certainly something. It does fit in one's
> bag much easier than a big ol' 16mm reel.
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: charlotte lipman <email suppressed>
> To: email suppressed
> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2008 2:17:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Fuses restored (from Ross Lipman)
> Hello there -
> Some more on FUSES.
> Los Angeles Film Forum showed the restored FUSES at a James Tenney tribute
> last year and it indeed looks extraordinary.
> Then, a few months ago Carolee came to UCLA & showed a video version which
> she said had additional footage. I couldn't tell, as it looked terrible in
> comparison with the print I'd seen several months before. Yet Carolee
> claimed the video version was the best available--superior to anything else
> in both content and quality--and what she preferred to show.
> At drinks after the screening I mentioned the Anthology print, and she
> seemed interested but not entirely clear about any distinctions or
> relationship between it and the restoration. (Perhaps someone on the list
> can shed some light on this?) Regardless, Carolee basically seemed pretty
> sold on the video.
> More fuel for the fire. Burn, fuses, burn.
> \\ Andy
> A fast note as I'm on vacation...
> I haven't looked at the Coop site so had not noticed this listing. The
> "newly restored" version does not have added footage. The film is projected
> at 18fps, which may cause some confusion. I will talk to Serra about it when
> I'm back.
> Otherwise, the difference is that the new negative was made directly from
> the collage 16mm original. In the 60s, Carolee had trouble printing the
> movie from the spliced, painted reversal original because of it's fragile
> shape and the erotic/pornographic content. A1 lab in NYC (r.i.p.) made a
> contact reversal from the spliced original. Carolee then duped this and
> step-printed certain sections to stretch them out. She made some more
> reversal prints from this and eventually an internegative. So, the old
> prints were all many generations away from the original. We (Anthology) used
> the spliced original to make the new internegative and avoided all those
> generational steps. By doing so the image is sharper and less contrasty
> while the colors are far more vibrant. The new print, which was made in
> close consultation with Carolee, matches the colors and textures of the
> spliced original much moreso than the softness and darkness of previous
> prints. It really is wonderful.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> __________________________________________________________________ For info on
> FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.