The Sounds of Silence

The projector I was planning on using for screening Alfred Hitchcock’s “Foreign Correspondent” wasn’t quite right. The night before, as my “Star Wars” reel reached its finish the projector lamp went out. After some fiddling around, I realized the bulb was good but its fitting had a loose contact. Now every projectionist carries spares in the event of failures during screenings. These spares vary from projector to projector. Extra bulbs are mandatory, some projectors require a spare set of drive belts, perhaps a spare exciter lamp if the film uses optical sound, and so on. No one had ever advised me on stocking an extra bulb fitting.

I spent the entire day of the screening trying to fix this problem. Of course, I couldn’t. If blame games are to be played, there are some usual suspects. I bought the projector three months ago, so the seller has to be excused from any nefarious plotting. Since I’m the only one operating the projector, I am a suspect. However, the detective in charge of the investigation is always innocent. Finally, my wife is often watching films with me but suspecting her could have repercussions. So, I blame – the softest target - Murphy’s Laws and must move on.

Fortunately, I have a spare projector. Unfortunately, it is silent. Would people be up for a silent film?

“Are you up for a silent movie, honey?”, asked a man to his accompanying lady friend. She said, “I was really looking forward to watching Hitchcock.” Hmmm.......

When we projectionists speak of films, we often ask each other if the silent era will ever return. Roger Ebert suspects “The Artist” of winning the Oscar for Best Picture this year. It was successful at the Golden Globes last week. The way I saw it, tonight was an opportunity for a couple of silent films to sneak in through the back door.

“What silent films do you have?”, inquired a lady. Here was a chance to employ my foot-in the-(back)-door technique. “We could watch Douglas Fairbanks in the original Zorro, Rudolph Valentino in Son of the Sheik, the old Lost World, or Griffith’s Judith of Bethulia.”, I said.

“I’d love to watch Valentino.”, the lady said. Two other ladies said they’d like to watch something by Griffith. The back door was ajar and the silent films ran right in. I’d open with an abridgement of “Son of the Sheikh”, followed by “Judith of Bethulia”.

I threaded up the first reel on my Keystone K-100 with some apprehension. Now, I have not heard much about this projector. Projectionists I know don’t speak much about it. However, I like it. You see, unlike some of the more popular film projectors, this one requires film to be threaded manually. So, if the audience is to enjoy a movie, the projectionist must thread the film expertly. On my Keystone, a tightly looped film results in a jittery image. So, manually threading films is an art that takes some practice.

Rudolph Valentino and Wilma Banky wowed the small audience of seven. Maybe the threading was good? At the end of the first reel, there was a humorous inquiry about the working of the second reel. After the second reel, the seven ladies in the audience were generous in their applause. Perhaps the ladies appreciated - not the film, not the projectionist’s work – but Rudolph Valentino. In the 1920s, he enjoyed great popularity among the ladies. It is believed that the release of “Son of the Sheik” was arranged to coincide with his funeral, and that this association made the film a commercial success.

While the first screening was of an artist’s last, the second was of a first by the Biograph Company. “Judith of Bethulia” is directed by a silent era great, D.W. Griffith, and is the Biograph Company’s first full-feature. Griffith is known for “Birth of a Nation” and “Intolerance”, even this lesser known film is a spectacle. The audience members seemed to be awed by the scale of the production. One lady spoke of the difficulty in constructing the huge wall from whose battlements the Assyrian soldiers fought off King Nebuchadnezzar’s soldiers.

As the projectionist, one question remained. “Did you like the pictures? Enjoy the silence?” Pat came a reply, “Well, the film is a hundred years old!” Yes, they had felt like I did when I first saw the same films. Like me, they had heard the sounds of silence.

Star Wars Digest on Super 8mm

Niles or Blackhawk, film or stream

Last night, we watched The Lost World (1925) on my Keystone K-100 R8 film projector. That this is a story by Arthur Conan Doyle interested me because, I've recently read Arthur & George, on the life of Conan Doyle, and his The Hound of the Baskervilles. A story of dinosaurs existing in a place lost somewhere, seemed uncharacteristic of Doyle. We were looking forward to this movie, until the film began. This print by Niles Films has a rather soft focus, which is disappointing. Take a look.

I was disheartened. So much so that in a few minutes, I threaded up the first reel of Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ by Blackhawk Films. Perhaps the pictures don't do justice to the print, but trust me it is excellent.

Is there a good Niles print? After a series of soft focus prints from Niles, I am considering purchasing only Blackhawk films in future. Is this a bad idea?

In times of multitudinous modern movie watching options, I seem to have picked the most testing one - films. It seems like some prints were made to test my faith in film. Last night, while watching The Lost World, I looked at the projector behind me, a Keystone K-100. In the dark screening room, the film projector had a glow like some Film God. And every God needs a disciple to spread his gospel.

Pad up, ... sorry, pack up

Where shall I start? India's whitewash in New Zealand before the World Cup in South Africa? India's repeated failures in Sri Lanka? India not being to win a series against South Africa at home? Losing four wickets in ten balls (?) in the SCG? Then blaming Australia's cricketing spirit for the loss? India drawing matches with Harbhajan's batting against New Zealand at home? Batsman unable to chase to 185 runs in 48 overs? Then calling off a run chase with 85 to win from 90 balls? Settling for a "draw" against the same team with a series lead of 2-0 in the final test match? The most recent six straight overseas losses?

An avid cricket enthusiast should have no problem recalling each of the aforementioned situations. Considering the history of Team India since the 1999-2000 tour of Australia, I have decided to stop following cricket. After the second test match in Sydney, I've decided not to follow cricket, at least, until Dravid and Tendulkar retire. I have some respect for Laxman without whose knocks in South Africa and Sri Lanka, we'd have lost that misnomer - number one ranking - much earlier. However, it's time for Laxman to stop showing up for work. As for the two highest accumulators of runs in the history of test cricket, they just haven't been able to take this team forward. Twelve years ago, the very same batsmen were the reason behind a series whitewash in Australia. Today, they, and vicariously us, stare at the same fate. Yes, runs were scored. The true question is how many were scored when the stakes were high.

The last year has been the best to observe Australian cricket. This was a team supposed to be rebuilding, recovering from retirements. Despite fielding "weak teams", they were never whitewashed. Even in the last two Ashes series, they drew and won test matches. Comparing the Indian and the Australian cricket teams I get only answer. Our lows are lower than theirs, their highs higher than ours.

If you accept that we aren't a good team, we can discuss the reason. If you are willing to accept it, the reason for our failure is batting. Our strength is our weakness. Our batting heroes have the real culprits of all series overseas. Twice against West Indies, our batting was the reason we couldn't win. We lost a test series in Sri Lanka, where except Sehwag, the batting collectively failed. Our batsman presented Murali a soaring send-off. The same group let us down on the very first day at Centurion, and the final day at the SCG. The same group is the reason for the whitewash in England and the same looming outcome of the ongoing test series.

Last week, I just gave up. What is the reason for Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman to play the remaining two test matches in Australia? The best outcome is a draw already, we did that under Ganguly. Another possible scoreline is 2-1, a result eked out with the leadership and tenacity of Kumble. I can't applaud a ton of tons which is the only motivation against retirement. I can't watch a series of dead bat defensive shots which only serve to boost the tally of most balls faced in test cricket. I refuse to watch another comeback from a batsman who has constantly played for his place. Although these sub-plots add drama to the sport, the story in the bigger picture has stagnated, or to quote Ganguly "taken a step backward."

I once heard Ian Chappell say that for the batting greats that India has, they don't have much to show for it in terms of wins. Shouldn't the parsimonious victories add a doubt to the greatness of these batsmen?

Can you believe l wrote so much about a sport I no longer follow?

My Man Godfrey (1936) on Super 8 Niles Films