PHILLIPS TRANSFER & YALE CENSORSHIP

[Greg Crawford]

Nigel,

You mentioned a Phillips transfer on another post on another post of mine, I thought I should start a new post on Phillips transfers vs Rank.

Also that Censorship issue that you brought up.

TRANSFERS

Back in 1988 I had a Seattle facility transfer some 16 mm film, I think it was on that very machine, a Phillips. The company sold the equipment to someone ells. Results looked good, but I did not transfer side by side orders of the came footage to compare what a Phillips can do compared with a Rank Transfer ...any thoughts?

CENSORSHIP

I am aware that Yale has a censorship policy, I'm not just sure what is outlawed. Any comments?

[c_77]

SUBJECT MATERIAL POLICY

We realize that the artist has full and total choice of expression. However, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. As a policy, we do not and will not process, print, repair, or transfer any film containing: nudity, pornography, sexual acts (either real or simulated), lewdness, satanic, occultic, religiously blasphemous, exploitative of children, debasement of women, containing S & M, anything illegal, or in any way extremely offensive to us. Nor will we participate in the desensitization of or the glorification of killing, rape, violence, gore, suicide, torture, profanity, etc.? whether in visual or audio form.

[Nigel]

I doubt that there is a connection between Flying Spot and the company that Xfered your 16mm. The Philips machine that they have is the Shadow which is fairly new on the block and is able to do High Def.

As for RANK I think that out of the telecine world it the best value but not the top of the line quality. You on't find a Philips Xfer for much less than 400 to 600 dollars an hour. And a high def will be about 200 more an hour. RANK is old and a bit dated but still very nice when comapring it to a film chain.

As for the censorship policy I think that most of you know how I feel about censoring. I hate it!!! Yet until I find another lab that will process my S8 neg I will have to deal with either Yale or Pro8--Thus I choose the lesser of two evils.

Good Luck

[chas_ucla]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nigel:
Yet until I find another lab that will process my S8 neg I will have to deal with either Yale or Pro8--Thus I choose the lesser of two evils.

Good Luck</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

and uh...which is the lesser? ;]

[Nigel]

You know that I would stop shooting Super8 before I went to Pro8 for anything. So you do the math ;-)

Good Luck

[Matt Pacini]

Nothing illegal?
So, no murder mysteries?
No movies where someone steals something?
No Keystone Cops - bank robbery movies?

I respect someone's right to not participate in whatever they don't want to, that's also what freedom of speech is; to not be forced to say something you don't want to by someone else.

But the thing that bugs me, is that censorship almost always is about sexuality.
We live in a culture where it's considered more offensive to show someone having sex, (which is a completely natural human activity, almost always doing something really nice for another human being), than it is to show someone murdering another human being (which is really NOT nice!).
And we'd rather have our kids watch movies & TV where someone is blowing someone away, than blowing someone. (Sorry to be graphic, but it's to make a point - the term "blowing someone" causes gasps of disbelief, but "blowing someone away" doesn't... think about it.)
Sad & silly.
I'm not suggesting we have everyone in movies running around naked having sex all the time, but it is strange that the ratings board is MUCH more concerned with sex, when deciding on whether a movie gets an R or X or NC17 or whatever, than violence.
I mean, you have to have kidneys hitting the lens of the camera to get anything more than an R rating, but you had better not show anything even close to real sex if you want an R rating.
Oh, I'm not totally right on this; if your film as big stars, you will get away with much more, but that's another gripe for another post...


Matt Pacini

[Greg Crawford]

Matt,

Good point, I know that Yale caters to students and low budget people but I do not think that Yale could have worked on any of the big Hollywood hits over the last couple of years. Even "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," would be on shaky ground with all the sex talk.

[lightfeat]

You have a good point Matt - a very good point.

However, I just watched a documentary about the life of Linda Lovelace, AKA Linda Boorman, the porn star come anti-porn activist, and it made me whince when you said that having sex is " a completely natural human activity, almost always doing something really nice for another human being," because, although for most people this is true (I hope), in the world of Media Sex (porn) things aren't that simple. Linda was forced to have sex with a dog at gunpoint, and made the famous film "Deep Throat" with huge black and blue bruises all up her thighs from the beatings her "lover" manager inflicted on her to force her to continue her increasingly depraved career under a reign of terror. I know this kind of thing is far from most of our minds when we think of sex, but the porn industry is full of this kind of vileness, and although I can't say that I would like sexual material removed from our culture entirely, I personally feel that there is very good reason to censor some of this shit.

I totally agree with you that our casual attitude to murder is stupid, and I also realise that you were referring to normal, loving sex as opposed to "depraved" sex such as rape and sexual violence, but I just wanted to point out (particularly as I watched this Docu last night, and it was very disturbing) that there really is some evil shit going on out there in the world of porn.

Lucas

[Nigel]

I agree with you word for word Matt.

In a perfect world I would have my Super8 in any film stock that available in 35mm and it would be processed at Technicolor New York and Xfered at The Tape House in New York as well.

But, We know that we are in a struggle for a medium we all love very much and we know it will never truly rise from its ashes.

So, until some more companies come forward to gamble their hard earned money--we will have to live with what we have and try to figure out ways to make it work.

Good Luck

[Matt Pacini]

Lightfeat, I agree with most of what you're saying.
I certainly wasn't really even thinking about porn, actually, and yes, there's some really sick stuff out there, and I'm not for anything forced or depraved, but see, what I think is depraved might be totally different than you, and that's where I really have no issue with Yale doing whatever they think is right.
Because everyone has their own moral standards, and I don't think anyone has the right to force someone to their own standard, especially in a business situation like this.
However, I should add, that it's really common for women to use their sexuality to further their careers, then later, say they were coerced somehow, always by men, of course.
There are lots of examples of this; Marylin Monroe, Sharon Stone, Demi Moore (who posed nude, spread-eagle for OUI magazine when she wwas like 18 or 19, by the way), the hundreds of women posing in their underwear or topless with their hands covering their boobs on all the magazines are your local bookstore, who will no doubt say they were forced or coerced into doing this... but only after their careers are launched, of course.

The Sharon Stone thing is a classic example; she became a big star, largely from all the publicity from her showing her muff in Basic Instinct.
At the time, she said she had no idea the director was going to show that, and she felt taken advantage of, etc., which is B.S.:
If you have your underwear off,they tell you to slowly cross your legs, they have a 2K light shining up your skirt, and the camera is at knee level, what do you think is going on?
A few years later, she said it was her idea, when it was "in" for women to be "empowered" by their own sexuality.

I certainly don't know the true story on Linda Lovelace, but I heard that she did all this on her own, (not expecting to be world famous for her porn films,) then claimed afterwords to be forced to do it.
I've actually met someone who did a porn film, and she said that she firmly believed that nobody she knew or was related to would ever find out about it, so that shows you how stupid some of these people are, and how surprised they are when people DO find out about it.
Whether or not it's true in Lovelace's case, it's an effective ruse that works virtually 100% of the time (only for women), and not just about sex either.
This works when women commit crimes, right up to and including murder.
If a man was in any way involved, the woman simply says the guy made her do it, and the cops go along with it, because she will always testify against the guy, and they have an open & shut case.
Basically, we don't hold women responsible for their actions, no matter what.
They can do whatever they want, and all they have to do later is say a man made them do it, and if no man was involved, they blame it on an abusive father, or whatever. Basically, if a woman does something wrong, it's always a mans fault somehow.

I love the Jack Nicholson line in "As Good As It Gets", where he's a writer, and a woman runs into him in an elevator, gushing all over him, and asks him how he writes such wonderful women characters.
He says "I think of a man, then I take away all logic and accountability".
Sorry, it sounds harsh and sexist, but the accountability part is dead on...

Matt Pacini