Jury Coordination and Notes

Women in Film & Television by Brianna Hope Beaton

July 20th, 2015

wift.fl.jpgSomething that really inspires me to do all I can to help others are great organizations that strive to aid the men and woman in need. To have an association that focuses on the film industry and helping others is such a plus to so many people around the country and world.

Woman in Film & Television - Florida is an organization that strives to empower men and woman to achieve their highest professional/creative potential, and create more job opportunities throughout the state of Florida. They would like to continue to search for and retain members who have a minimum of two years experience working in the film, television and digital media industries.

Tichi Wilkerson Kassel and a group of woman representing a range of facets of the film and television business founded Woman in Film in Los Angeles in 1973. Woman in Film was created to recognize, develop and actively promote the unique visions of woman in the field of communications. The Central Florida Chapter of Women in Film (the original name) was established in 1989 by a dynamic group of independent producers looking for companionship and support. In 1999, the name was changed to Women in Film & Television - Florida (WIFT-FL) to better reflect the chapter’s membership and sponsor base. The members of WIFT-FL organization are qualified women and men from a range of job categories - performers, producers, directors, writers, agents, publicists, photographers and administrative and managerial personnel. WIFT-FL is part of an international network (Women in Film & Television International or WIFTI), which has 40 chapters around the world. WIFTI’s membership base exceeds 10,000 working professionals.

Daytona Beach, Jacksonville, Miami and Tampa are the four WIFT-FL branches. Some of the corporate members include Adrenaline Films, Central Florida Film Festival, DAVE School and Orlando Actors Headshots. WIFT-FL has more than ten sponsors including

BriannaHopeBeaton2.jpg

Production HUB, Solodev, Doverwood CENFLO and continue to grow.

Woman in Film & Television - Florida is a great organization that many people (including me) have and are grateful for. To get more information you can visit http://womeninfilmfl.org.

YouTube vs. Movies By Keefer C.Blakeslee

July 12th, 2015

youtube_logo_detail.jpgI want you to ask yourself one question (No this is not a set up for a Clint Eastwood line). How many hours a day do you spend on Youtube? 3 hours maybe even 5. According to Youtube satistics,”Every day people watch hundreds of millions of hours on YouTube and generate billions of views. The number of hours people are watching on YouTube each month is up 50% year over year.” It’s no surprise that Youtube is huge. People go on Youtube to watch music videos, tutorials, movie reviews (*Cough KIDS FIRST! Cough), you name it. If you’re one of the many people who go on Youtube a lot, and chances are you are, then you have a favorite Youtuber that you suscribe to. For instance my favorites are ERB, Game Therory and AVbyte.  Maybe yours are Miranda Sings, Rhett and Link or Lindsey Sterling.

Suscriber after subscriber, Youtube has made these people celebrities. I did not fully realize how huge these people were until I volunteered at a gift lounge. I carried around bags full of merchandise from different vendors for people. We had an unexpected guest, Jenna Marbles. For those of you who don’t know, she is a big Youtuber who does comedy videos. I had the pleasure of escorting her throughout the gift lounge. What I did not expect was the whole room going crazy over her. Left and right, people wanted pictures with her and her autographs. This reaction showed me how much people love Youtubers. It got me thinking, which is pretty dangerous, how does a Swedish man playing video games named  Pewdiepie become as well-known as some movie stars? First, there is exposure. Youtube provides  access to many outlets for exposure - tablets, computers and smart phones. In fact (add smart phone fact): To make it even better, it’s free. This creates a large audience. A lot of the hard work goes into advertising your Youtube page. Second, is social media. People share Youtube videos on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and others. Other forms of media do the same type of method of advertising but where Youtube differs is the duration of the videos. This leads me to the third reason, attention span. People have busy schedules - work, school, family. A lot of people don’t have time to see an hour and a half film or a 22-minute television show. What people do have the time for is a 2 minute video of a cat playing a piano. If you’re like me and watch 50 minute videos of cats, you’re not the norm. Now some Youtube videos are longer but, most of them are 15 minutes at the most. While all these qualities of Youtube makes it strong, I think what makes Youtubers big is that it shows hope. I know it sounds corny but hear me out. Youtubers represent the everyday person who decided to record themselves and upload it to Youtube. When they did this, people started watching their video and generated a lot of views. People enjoy the video, urge other people to like and even subscribe to their channel. Then the person who created the video has a fan base and a reason to create more videos. Do you see where I’m going? Youtubers are fueled by fans. They create videos to please their fans. They communicate with them. This is something that Hollywood stars don’t usually do. That’s what makes them more identifiable. They are like the hometown celebrities.

Youtube is an outlet for artists. Anybody can upload their short films, music videos or comedy sketches. This does not mean you are going to be an over night star but Youtubers show that it can happen and give us hope. They are the light at the end of the tunnel.  So are Youtubers bigger than Hollywoood stars. Well I think Youtube has its own community of artists and its own set of fans. Some strive and succeed in becoming Hollywood satrs.

In the end, Youtubers and Hollywood stars have the same goal - which is to create and distribute entertainment. They just go about it in different ways. Hollywood is judged by critics and the press  while Youtubers are judged by subscribers and commentators. And, by the way, did you see my latest Youtube video?

Artists Make Art for Artists By Willie Jones

July 5th, 2015

Artfilms_1.jpg…and for those who most appreciate it. In my last blog I explained and examined the debate between films and movies. I concluded that, because of the noticeable decline in appreciation for artful films such as The Master and the increasing demand for  box office blow ups such as Jurassic World, artists like Paul Thomas Anderson make their films for their contemporaries with the hopes that the general public may appreciate it. It is my theory, that films like The Master are created in the hopes that a general audience will appreciate it, but is truly made for movie buffs and those who appreciate artful films.

Woody Allen, my favorite writer and director, said in a recent interview “…a film opens like The Avengers and in one weekend, one weekend, it makes more money than six of my films make in ten years.” Mind you, Woody Allen makes films that deal with themes of love, death, psychology, relationships and other mature themes that will stand the test of time. Most of his movies barely break even. Whereas, films like The Avengers whose themes are recycled and predictable, out-gross 10 of Allen’s films combined. Yet,  a film such as Melinda and Melinda has more to offer a person internally. It lingers longer and more effectively but it stays in obscurity. Allen also said that “If nobody ever comes to my films, if people don’t want to give me money to make films, that will stop me. But, as long as people come from all over the world and I have an audience and I have ideas for films, I will do them for as long as I enjoy the process.” Woody Allen is certainly a director with a recognizable audience. He’s an acquired taste, per se. They are, presumably, fans of more artful films and Allen makes films FOR THEM. For the art fans, for his contemporaries like Martin Scorsese.

Now of course, I don’t mean that  filmmakers don’t make films for money. Of course they do. Filmmaking is a business too. But if filmmakers J.C. Chandor, whose films have barely broken even, if at all, continue to make movies, then money obviously isn’t the main motivation. His last three movies, Margin Call, All is Lost and A Most Violent Year, made a total of less than 20 million dollars. They have all been appreciated by critics and contemporaries alike yet, the masses don’t want to see them. J.C. Chandor is aware of this, so my theory could apply to him. He makes films hoping the masses will flock to see them, but he makes them for the likes of Richard Roeper and Peter Travers - those who are willing to appreciate the art and not skip over it to watch the latest weekend blockbuster.

So, is this good or bad? Is it anything at all? I say it is unfortunate. Why can’t the general masses and film buffs alike appreciate the same movie? Or, at least try to. The Master should be able to be Oscar nominated and gross hunWillie1.jpgdreds of millions. Films like that should be breaking box-office records. Blockbusters have their credibility. but filmmakers like J.C. Chandor shouldn’t be kept in obscurity because their films don’t have explosions or huge stars of predictable plot formulas. They should be Hollywood’s priority because their messages will stand the test of time. And they will. When all is said and done and our civilization falls, it is the films of J.C. Chandor and Paul Thomas Anderson that will be most appreciated - films with lessons in greed and themes of finding yourself, not another recycled blockbuster, no matter how entertaining it is.

We learn from art. We learn from Only Lovers Alive. We learn from it artistically, intellectually and imaginatively. We don’t learn from Age of Ultron. Artists wish to teach, not merely entertain. It’s just unfortunate that the masses don’t wish to learn.

Thank you for reading. Willie Jones.

Women in Film, Words of Wisdom by Brianna Hope Beaton

June 28th, 2015

BeSTrong.jpgInspirational quotes are something that many people like reading because it keeps their hopes alive and pushes them to remain working on whatever they are trying to accomplish. In many situations, I find myself looking up to various people in hopes of clarifying and motivating me for whatever path I should take in life. All of these women have in one way or another inspired me to accept who I am, be confident, work hard, be bold and to do what I feel is right. Here are some inspirational quotes from a few women in the film industry that have inspired me and will inspire you as well. 

“The key to realizing a dream is to focus not on success but significance – and then even the small steps and little victories along your path will take on greater meaning.”
Oprah Winfrey (Talk Show Host, Television Producer, Philanthropist, Film Actress)

“Without pain, there would be no suffering, without suffering we would never learn from our mistakes” Angelina Jolie (Actress, Filmmaker, and Humanitarian)

“ If you truly pour your heart into what you believe in, even if it makes you vulnerable, amazing things can and will happen” Emma Watson (Actress, Model, and Activist)

“Young women, don’t worry so much about your weight. What makes you different or weird - that’s your strength.” Meryl Streep (Actress)

“I believe in kindness toward people, but I also try to voice what I want and not be shy about standing up for myself.” Natalie Portman (Actress, Producer, and Director)BriannaHopeBeaton2.jpg

“My friends, failure isn’t shameful, but cowardice is. So let’s take risks. Let’s raise our voices, honor the fire within, ignore our fears. In short, let’s stand tall and never, ever apologize for it.” Nicole Kidman (Actress and Film Producer)

I am very grateful that we have so many women participating in the film industry that are helping others become great people, by not only their actions but also by their words.

Prequels, reboots, remakes, epilogues and sequels by Gerry Orz

June 22nd, 2015

AttackofSequels.jpgToday, it seems as if nobody really has an original idea anymore. The majority of films are remakes reboots or sequels. With the new film Jurassic World being a reboot of the original Jurassic series and Avengers: Age of Ultron a sequel to the original Avengers, the pattern continues. Of course, I’m not saying that it is always bad. But, it’s expected and predictable to some degree. Once you see a remake of a film you already know, do you think about how the whole story of that idea will be done again?

Of course, there are so many original ideas out there. For example, Disney’s new films Tomorrowland and Inside-Out are great examples of completely original ideas. But, it seems as if we only see those maybe three or four times a year.

Why did this happen? Well it is most likely that Hollywood has been overdone many times. There are literally thousands of films out there that we can watch. Funny enough you can say. In a way, Hollywood has been overused. Some people may argue that these reboot sequels are actually good. They continue a story, explore character development. There is a good side. We know the characters. We love them. They practically have become members of our families.

But, you might ask yourself, why don’t we just create new ideas? Is it because it’s quicker, safer and easier to pump out a film that already has a set of characters that are already tested? It take so much longer to make an original film then to make a reboot or a continuation. I mean, it takes a few months just to create the idea of a film.

I think its time that we say goodbye to all these reboot, sequels, epilogues and prologues. It is time for some original ideas instead of Star Wars Episode 8th, 9th and 10th.  Everybody loves Star Wars but it’s time for something new. The same goes for all these superhero movies. We all know how Super Heroes Ant-Man: Captain America would end. Take Headshot.GerrySM.jpgsomething like Inside Out. Nobody knew how that would end. Or Tomorrowland - that has a complete surprise ending. These films are actually entertaining because you’re waiting for something you don’t expect.

Sometimes it’s nice to continue the story, to get to know the characters in the world they live in, but sometimes enough is enough.

Sofia Vergara, Highest Paid TV Actress by Brianna Hope Beaton

June 2nd, 2015

Sofia Vergara is the star of one of the hit TV shows, Modern Family.  At 42, she is on top of the world with everything she has going.  She earned a total of $140 million dollars from June 2013 to June 2014. It is reported that she earns $325,000 per episode but also earns income with her endorsements.  She is the face of Diet Pepsi, Cover Girl, Head & Shoulders and the co-founder of Latin World Entertainment.

Sofia was born, July 10, 1972 in Barranquilla, Colombia by her mother, Margarita and her Father Julio.  She attended a private bilingual Spanish/English school and studied dentistry.  She was discovered by a photographer and it led to many jobs in the modeling and television industry. From 1995 to 1998, Sofia co-hosted a travel show, Fuera de Serie which gave her exposure in the United States.  The exposure led to a film roles and a TV series.  She faced many hardships during her days in Colombia and even after becoming a TV star.  She divorced and became a single parent.  In addition to this, she was diagnosed with cancer but, after being treated has had a full recovery.  She has received four Emmy nominationBriannaHopeBeaton2.jpgs for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series.  She has one Son, Manolo, and they reside in Los Angeles, California.

Sofia is great at what she does.  She has great comedic timing and always brings out the best in her characters. One of my favorite quotes by Sofia is “I guess at the end of the day, all women like to be appreciated and treated with respect and kindness.”

Early Stages of Color in Film (Part 2) by Keefer C. Blakeslee

May 26th, 2015

 I would like to continue this fascinating history of color in film by introducing the innovations from Technicolor. Since they’ve a lot of history as well, I will keep it brief. The following quoted material has been gleaned from: http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-history-and-science-of-color-film-from-isaac-newton-to-the-coen-brothers/

“There are two ways to create color: The additive system is where primary colored lights are added together to create white light. The other system is the subtractive system where primary colors (cyan, magenta and yellow) are subtracted from white light to create black.”

“The Technicolor Company was founded in 1915 to exploit a two-color additive process. Their first film was an utter failure so they changed direction and started working on a two color subtractive process. The new process, patented in 1922, used a beam splitter in the camera to split the light onto two black and white film stocks. The resulting dyed positive images would be cemented together for a final color positive image which could be played back in standard projectors with no special equipment.”

In 1932, Technicolor perfected the three strip system. Using a beam splitter they captured light onto three pieces of film. Using this new process, they showcased the film Becky Sharp. This was Technicolor’s first feature film. Later, they completed The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind.

“In the 1990s, many filmmakers explored different lab processes such as bleach bypass to create unique film tones. Moving into the 2000s, computers became powerful enough to handle entire films. Digital intermediaries came into use – a process of scanning a film frame by frame into a computer to be digitally manipulated.” As they say, the rest is history.

There is so much information about color in film that I can’t tell you everything without making this blog boring. If you want to learn more, you can find many websites that share the whole history.

I took you on this journey to give you a reality of how far we’ve come in making films. Back in the early 1900s you were luck to get color in your film. When Technicolor stepped in with its innovative ideas, we finally had a way to film movies in color. When I look at films throughout history I’m amazed to see drastic changes in the quality of these films. People are still finding new ways to capture stories and make them into movies. Whether it’s live-action or animation, color is used to create breath-taking visuals.

Just because we now have the power of color doesn’t mean we should neglect black and white films. While I love color in film and the optics created with it, there is something about black and white that sticks in my brain. Why? Because most of the classic films were done in black and white? Or, is it that black and white formed the original faces of films? While both of these are true, I believe I have an answer. Well not me, but film critic, Roger Ebert. I’ve read his memoir, Life Itself, so many times and there is a section (Chapter 21: My New Job, Pg. 159) where he talks about color in film.

“Color is sometimes too realistic and distracting. It projects superfluous emotional cues… Black and white (or, Keefer.2014.5.jpgmore accurately, silver and white) creates a mysterious dream state, a world of form and gesture. Try this. If you have wedding photographs of your parents and grandparents, chances are your parents are in color and your grandparents are in black and white. Put the two side by side and consider them honestly. Your grandparents look timeless. Your parents look goofy. Go outside at dusk, when day light is diffused. Shoot some natural-light portraits of a friend in black and white. Ask yourself if this friend, who has always looked ordinary in every color photograph you’ve ever taken, does not, in black and white, take on an aura of mystery. The same happens in the movies.”

The word is, timeless. I agree and disagree with Ebert. I don’t believe color is distracting. I feel like color can also create a dream state. The Grand Budapest Hotel with its vibrant colors transports you into another world. Where I do agree with Ebert is the timeless and mystery aspect of black and white films. A bit of a pet peeve of mine is when a studio decides to take a classic black and white film and add color. I feel like it looses its agelessness. While I am happy with the evolution of color in film just remember that black and white are colors too.

Films vs. Movies by Willie Jones

May 14th, 2015

Lawrence_Of_Arabia.jpg“Are they not the same thing?” you may ask, as you read the title of my blog. The answer is yes - and no. By literal definition, yes, they are the same thing. But in connotation, they are not. There Will be Blood is a film. Guardians of the Galaxy is a movie. A film is something with substance and has a more artful approach to its filmmaking and construction. Whereas a movie is more about pure entertainment and allows for a more (and I don’t mean this in a bad way) mindless viewing experience. There’s no thinking involved. You can sit back and just watch.

It is an everlasting debate between the movie-buff and the movie goer. The movie buff is the one who movie goers call “pretentious” and “snobby.” You know, the ones who think Pi and The Third Man are masterpieces. The movie goer is the one that movie buffs call “impatient” and “unappreciative.” They’re the people who find Transformers and Guardians of the Galaxy to be masterpieces. Demographically, it could be a battle of old (The Third Man) against the young (Guardians of the Galaxy).

It’s funny I say that because, I speak on behalf of the movie buff. I would like to begin by saying that blockbusters are essential to the cinematic cannon. They provide good fun and relief from heavy dramas or intellectual satirical comedies. The explosions, familiar plots, predicable stories and cool one-liners provide a comforting convention that we can rely on for entertainment. Yet, they are also our biggest epidemic.

We are in an age where the re-make, sequel, prequel and adaptation rule in the world of cinema. They are what the masses flock to see. They make the perfect date night movie, or Friday night reliever. Billions of dollars are made by these films and, that is fine. At least, it was. It was back in the early days of Spielberg, when the likes of Amadeus and Raging Bull could still be appreciated. That’s not the case today.

My complaint is that the films that will last are not being appreciated by mass audiences. The Best Picture winning film is no longer among the highest grossing. The masses no longer have the patience or will to sit and watch a film that has something to say and has a unique and artistic way to say it. Lawrence of Arabia, one of the greatest movies to ever grace the silver screen, was the highest grossing picture of 1962 and the Best Picture winner of the year. That film would not even be made today. A four-hour epic about T.E Lawrence’s experiences in the Arabian Peninsula during World War I starring an unknown in the lead wouldn’t get a pass in today’s producer’s office Even with a big named star attached, it probably still wouldn’t be made or would be cut down significantly.

The thing is, people in the 60s were accustomed to sitting through a motion picture that gave them an experience of something that goes beyond a couple hours of mindless entertainment. They wanted something with substance. They ALLOWED themselves to open up and take in whatever ideas the film was expressing or, to study the situations and characters that they could relate to.

I feel that movie goers fail to realize that films can change lives. A character study such as Birdman has the ability to cause self-reflection or self-realization and place a mirror to you. Is that pretentious? No, it is simply true. It is deep, it requires thinking and an open mind. Films can take society to the forefront of judgment and commentary, providing people with information and influencing debate that might even affect society itself. Is that, too, too pretentious? Again, I don’t think so. I think it is plausible and very possible. 

The Tree of Life is one of the greatest movies of all-time, quite easily in my top ten film of all-times. Many critics and movie aficionados agree with that assessment. Yet, the masses were not interested in it and still do not care for it. Yet, The Tree of Life is an exploration of life from a spiritual and chronological point of view. It is something that could change one’s perspective on life itself. Even with Brad Pitt and Sean Penn in the lead roles, this film barely made half of its budget domestically although it did well overseas. No one nowadays has the patience to sit through 140 minutes of visually stimulating and philosophically intriguing pieces of art. They want their explosions and predictable hero films.

If our society were to fall and, all our successors had to learn about our life, our past, our ideas, and intellect, would you rather us be represented by Two Women or Spider-Man? If people allow themselves to, they could be affected by these films. Then they wouldn’t complain about the Academy being “pretentious” or “stuck up,” they’d see where the Academy and movie buffs are coming from. Even the old black and white films are better than a lot of the modern movies. Give me Duck Soup over Pineapple Express. Why? Because Duck Soup is smart, witty and funny. Pineapple Express is funny in its own right, but it’s not nearly as smart as Duck Soup. Intelligence is something to appreciate more than brash comedies. The old films were intelligent. They presented themes like sex, prejudice and injustice with class and brains. That’s why most older films are considered…films.

I can respect modern films that approach these things with explicit examination if they have artistic intent like Shame or Blue Valentine. But films like Fast and Furious 7 with random shots of skin and butts, that use sex and things like that for commerciality, aren’t going to last. There will be another one just like it next year or next month. But there will never be another 8 1/, or Ladri di Biciclette.

Our transition to this period of cinema is one brought about us by more industrialization, technology and an incWillie1.jpgreased appeal in popular culture. Spielberg began it with Jaw  and Lucas cemented it with Star Wars. Now that’s all we see.

My wish and desire is to see films like The Last Emperor become popular again. I’d like to be able to say that our current place in cinematic history is a good one, but it isn’t. Movie goers who think of us as “pretentious.” “old-fashioned,” and “boring” will continue to have a closed mind. They won’t care because they don’t take cinema seriously and only see it as mindless entertainment. But cinema is much more than that. Like Salvatore in Cinema Paradiso, an evening in a theater can be life changing. It can open one’s eyes or change an opinion or teach a lesson or incite an exploration of society or self. It is a powerful medium that is now being taken less and less seriously. That is why I believe artistic filmmakers make films more for their contemporaries than for the masses. And that’s a theory I will talk about more in my next blog.

Thank you for reading. Willie Jones

 

 

Summer Blockbusters by Raven Devanney

May 7th, 2015

SumerMovies.2015.jpgThere’s cause for celebration because most of us are entering the final few weeks of the school year! And you know what that means - barbecues by the pool, lying on the beach, hanging out with friends and of course, summer blockbusters!

Summer is one of the biggest times of year for the movie industry. However, it isn’t always as successful as we hope. 2014 had the worst summer movie record in eight years with box office receipts down 30%. But there is still hope! Earlier this year, the market began picking back up in preparation for the 87th annual Oscars, with moviegoers everywhere hitting the theaters to catch up on the latest nominees for the awards.

With summer right around the corner, buzz surrounding upcoming films is visible all over social media. Pitch Perfect 2 is rolling into theaters on May 15th and I personally cannot wait to catch all the hilarity and breath-taking musical numbers that this film has in store. In 2012, Pitch Perfect slowly grossed $113m worldwide and had strong DVD sales, earning $135M in physical and digital sales. Forbes predicts that the sequel to this beloved film will earn even more revenue since it has gained such a large following over the years.

Spy, starring the hilarious Melissa McCarthy is set to hit theaters on June 5th - another comedy that I am very much looking forward to. This is the third movie that Melissa and Paul Feig have done together since Bridesmaids and received outstanding reviews after it was screened at South by Southwest a few months ago. RavenHeadshotLR.jpg

Jurassic World
follows close behind Spy with a release date of June 12th. Starring Chris Pratt and directed by Colin Trevorrow, this story takes place 22 years after Jurassic Park and features a luxury resort and theme park that has been built on the island. It will be interesting to see how this film works out since Steven Spielberg, Jurassic Park’s original mastermind and director, will not be behind this project. Rumors of the movie have been going on for the past 14 years and the anticipation is sure to result in a very successful turnout for the film.

We are entering a busy time in the industry and many of the films set to hit the big screen make for a very promising summer. There are over 30 features film making their debut this summer, so make sure to check out as many as you can!

Early Stages of Color in Film By Keefer C. Blakeslee

May 2nd, 2015

The evolution of film is a vast subject. Whether it’s the development of technology, writing or performance by actors its growth continues to this day. I want to focus on a aspect of film that we take for granted but is a defining step in today’s modern film. That is the addition of color!

Today, color in films is nothing special but, back in the early 1900s it was revolutionary. Since the history of color in motion pictures has a long but fascinating timeline, I’m going to split this blog into two parts. In this blog I will be tackling the early stages of adding color.

If you asked people what the first movie filmed in color was, people would usually say, The Wizard of Oz. However, that was not the first colored film. That title goes to, Annabelle, Serpentine Dance by legendary film maker George Melies released in 1895. Melies hired people to hand paint his films, frame by frame, and this introduced the world to color. This led to people in the film industry creating different methods of adding color to their films.

Here are several techniques* that film makers have used:

Tinting: One of the earlier and widespread techniques used to apply color to film. The positive print is immersed into a variety of dye baths, scene by scene.

Toning: This is not the simple immersion of a film into a dye bath but involves a chemical reaction converting the silver image. There were two chemical recipes available for toning, either a one-bath or a two-bath process.

Stenciling: This method required manual cutting frame by frame. Usually the number of colors applied ranged from three to six. The process was highly improved by the introduction of a cutting machine. For every color, the stencil print was fed in register with the positive print into a printing machine where the acid dye was applied by a Keefer.2014.5.jpgcontinuous velvet band. Several hundred women performed the exacting task at the Pathé workshop in Vincennes.

These methods created early colored films and worked for some time. However, these methods were done after the film was made. And, they took a lot of time, patients, and money.

How did we move on to filming movies in color? Join me in the next blog and I will tell you.

*information comes from http://zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/ 

Kid movie news & Free DVDs:
Join KIDS FIRST! on Twitter Join KIDS FIRST! on Pinterest Join KIDS FIRST! on Facebook
Loading Search...