Day of The Locust

[Greg Gross]

Just finished watching The Day of The Locust for the first time. I'm so over-

whelmed by this film at the present time, I have no words to describe it. I

will be using the film as a basis for a presentation in my cinematography class.

Does anybody know what film stocks were used to shoot this film? I would app-

reciate information very much.

 

Greg

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I would assume it was shot on Kodak 5254 (100 ASA), the only stock available at that time. The original 5247 (100 ASA) was introduced in 1974 (According to AC article on "The Towering Inferno", which shot its miniature photography on it) but was pulled out due to some problems and was reintroduced around 1976-1977.

[David Mullen ASC]

I would assume it was shot on Kodak 5254 (100 ASA), the only stock available at that time. The original 5247 (100 ASA) was introduced in 1974 (According to AC article on "The Towering Inferno", which shot its miniature photography on it) but was pulled out due to some problems and was reintroduced around 1976-1977.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, and it's confusing because while Kodak pulled the early version 5247, they sold it in the U.K. which makes it hard to figure which films shot in the U.K. in 1975 used the early 5247 versus 5254. When Chris Challis was shooting "The Deep" in 1976, he was asked by the American producers if he wanted to shoot 5247 or 5254 and I was surprised that 5254 was even an option.

 

The new improved version of 5247 -- the 600 Series -- that replaced 5254 for good came out around August 1976. I had always heard that "Star Wars" was one of the first films shot on 5247 but that would have had to been the early version because they started production in April 1976. By the time "Close Encounters" started production, they couldn't get 5254 except in 65mm, and this upset Spielberg who at the time hated the look of 5247, which he felt was cold and brittle-looking (it was sharper and finer-grained but tended to be more contrasty and saturated than 5254.)

 

Despite all the complaints by American DP's about the early 5247, which is why it was pulled from the market in the U.S. in 1974-75, I don't know how the U.K. DP's felt about it. I know that Unsworth in the "Bridge Too Far" A.C. article said he preferred it over 5254 but I assume he was talking about the improved version (again, it's unclear because I don't know what part of 1976 the movie was shot in). With his heavy use of Fog Filters, he probably liked starting out with a sharper, finer-grained film stock.

 

"Barry Lyndon" was shot on 5254 because it started production in 1973, then halted, and then started again in 1974, so it predated 5247. Alcott said that he liked 5247 but had he shot "Barry Lyndon" in it, he would have had to use a heavier Low-Con filter than the one he did (he shot most of the film with a #3 Low-Con.)

[Ben Schwartz]

I too recently saw DOTL for the 1st time...and it was one of the crummiest looking DVD transfers I've ever seen! Totally inexcusable. Is anyone doing a worse job with DVD's than Paramount? Poor transfers, unreleased classics...they really need to get their sh-t together! :angry:

[Greg Gross]

Hello Ben,

To the contrary, I thought the dvd was fine. I'm a fan of Conrad Hall ASC.

Have you seen Garrett Smith's comments(he's ASC Associate Member) In

January issue of American Cinematographer,page 12. I quote: "I contacted

Conrad more than one year prior to the creation of the master. He was con-

sulted on the entrie process,starting with the creation of a new interpositive

and the selection of the digital colorist."- Garrett Smith

I viewed the dvd on a Sharp Aquos HDTV in 16:9, I enjoyed the film immen-

sely,all lights off in the room,dolby surround. It was my first time to view the

film.

 

Greg Gross

[Ben Schwartz]

Greg,

 

Well, I certainly didn't view the film under the ideal circumstances you did...so maybe your judgment is accurate. But when I viewed it, I found the image to be excessively grainy (perhaps this was Hall's intention?), further marred by some dust and scratches on the print and weak blacks in a few places. Not to mention the complete lack of extras, another reason I find Paramount DVD releases to be subpar.

 

Of course the brilliance of the cinematography still comes through regardless...good luck with your project.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Here is the Chronology of Kodak Motion Picture Films for 1960-1979:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....1.4.28.6&lc=en

 

1974

 

EASTMAN Color Negative II film, 5247. Tungsten, EI 100, Daylight 64. Sharper/finer grain than 5254 (EI 100) (E). Process ECN-2 (new process). EDTA bleach. Paper given 1972 SMPTE.

 

1976

 

EASTMAN Color Negative II film, 7/5247. Tungsten, EI 100 H. Process ECN-2. Modified. Extended latitude and improved flesh tone. First introduced in 1974. EDTA bleach. Discontinued March, 1983.

 

The Kodak website even has the technical data for the later version of 5247, which was replaced by 5248 in the early 1990's:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.12.24.4&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.4.4.24&lc=en

[Greg Gross]

Thank You John,

I appreciate your post on chronology of the Kodak films for that period in

time. I'm going to use The Day of The Locust as a basis for presentation I'm

required to give. This presentation is required in my cinematography class.

I'm really weak on older films so this will be a tremendous help to me.

 

 

Greg Gross

[David Mullen ASC]

Probably more significant than the switch from 5254 to 5247 in the mid 1970's, both 100 ASA, was the original intro of 5254 in 1968, the first 100 ASA color negative movie film -- 50 ASA film had been introduced in 1959, then improved in 1962, so it was almost a decade before the film speed doubled.

 

The introduction of 100 ASA film in 1968, plus the fact that it push-processed well, led to the innnovations in naturalistic low-light shooting in the 1970's, from urban nighttime movies like "Taxi Driver" to the candlelight scenes in "Barry Lyndon."

[Greg Gross]

Okay Ben,

We don't have to agree, no problem. I was really trying to interpet his use

of light,shadows in the film. I did get caught up in the story though as it was

impossible not to get caught up in it. It appeared to me that he either used

overhead lighting or else lights raised on their stands. In the scenes at the

zoo I remember some really contrasty shots(in the sunlight or maybe 10K).

I thought he photographed them well and made them appealing,pleasing. I

observed the fact that he had a unique way of lighting hair,pleasing to me.

I do not think I saw one actor/actress without hair light. You know the man

I quoted, Garrett Smith, he's vice president of digital mastering operations

for Paramount Pictures. He is responsible for all film-to-tape mastering and

quality control for Paramount films. In the 8th edition of the American Cine-

matographer Manual on page 450, he has written an excellent article; HD

Telecine Mastering. I read it this evening. Best regards for your success in

film school and for a bright future in film.

 

Greg Gross