mrow

Today we saw The Aviator, in a full house. I liked it. I knew it would be long, though I did not warn my wife about that or she would not have gone (don't tell). The story moves right along for the most part - - the cutting is very good (as expected) but I feel Mr. Scorsese could have lost 15 or 20 minutes easily, with no loss of story. I also appreciate the reluctance to do so. I am, however, a little frayed with overly used digital special effects, and I do wonder how an old school Scorsese-type would be persuaded to choose this path during the storyboard process. I feel we are now crossing the line, with directors choosing this method over other available effects. The process is just not 100% right. The impossible "camera" angles are distracting (to my taste, irritating), violating all sorts of physics laws which causes an observant person to instantly question the process of placing animations in serious films, and it therefore becomes a dead giveaway: he knows he is viewing a cartoon. It reminds me of the early days of S-T-E-R-E-O, very few younger people would understand this concept. I think James Cameron gets it but who knows for sure. Digital animations were probably required for this; I am suggesting that some moderation of it and additional use of models might make sense.

This would be my prime criticism then, that the effects are in your face; they are anything but subtle in certain scenes. This was true with the other film I saw this weekend (The Flight of The Phoenix), there's relatively little in the way of special effects differences between them. I am witnessing this on an increasing level. All that said, The Aviator visuals are nonetheless impressive (some great plane crashes), and the storytelling, though very good, is artsy. I give the effort a must-see, on balance. This film looks very modern but handles the period feel with brilliance; it is indeed slick. The score and adaptations (Howard Shore) are fitting but not something I'd want to own beyond a possible DVD of the film itself, later on. And you have this: after seeing the film, there is little doubt in your mind who Hughes was, or what sorts of things cranked his gear. -- Don Forbes

It was a good payoff; the print was as perfect as could be expected and the Pacific Cinerama theater is in top form. Seating was fine (it's reserved, so you know ahead where you'll be. Because you're looking at three separate 35mm projections, the sum total of the three result in a very large, clear and bright picture, just as good as a 70mm film, and perhaps better in some respects. The prints were vivid and sharp.

At the Dome, a theater executive came out to discuss the film and the theater history with the audience just prior to the start of the picture; he spoke for 10-15 minutes discussing the pros and cons of the process, why it wasn't practical to continue making films this way etc. One of the plus aspects is that with the small lenses they used, the focus was fixed and any object from 2 ft to infinity was always in focus (therefore, all the scenery was sharp except for certain single-camera and process shots). One of the downside aspects is that extreme closeups are not possible in Cinerama, and he said that the directors hated that. Then he tells inside trivia about the film, how it includes about a minute of footage from two other films (one was The Alamo) because the scenes fit perfectly in the storyline. He also mentioned that back in the 1960's it took 5 people to run the show: three projectors, the 35mm sound projector and one master projectionist - total of 5. The gentleman said that today, with all the modern technological improvements, they were now able to produce the identical result -- with just 5 projectionists! In other words, nothing had changed. Another reason the process could not survive. Got a big laugh. He then introduced each projectionist to the audience.

Anyway, the whole thing came off without a hitch and I had forgotten much of the film's vivid details and incredible scenery, so it was very much like seeing it for the first time. I had not seen it in Cinerama ever, and when I did see a blended 35mm print in a local Edwards theater back in '64, it was somewhat of a disappointment. The magnetic 6-track sound was on still another 35mm film strip, so 4 separate strips are actually required to comprise the presentation). The sound was fine - clear and sharp - with lots of separation in the six channels, but it was not as boomy as the sound we hear in today's pics. For anyone interested in what it might have been like to see a state-of-the-art presentation in the early 1960's, this presents a magnificent opportunity, and the film is a trip. --- DFR

I first saw the film at age 15 in Pacific's Cinerama Dome (Hollywood) along with many others about my age, I'm sure. The film premiered there. I had never seen anything like it but later when I recounted the experience to friends who did not have the opportunity of seeing it in that grand theater and the 70mm state-of-the-art presentation but rather in the local 35mm movie house (the best Orange County had to offer at the time), much of the impact was lost. I am sure my hapless storytelling ability didn't help. Anyway, this is definitely a film that needs the big screen presentation for the larger than life stars and storyline. Now finally, IAMMMMW has been restored and so has the Cinerama Dome - better than ever, so they say - and the two are once again going to be brought together (this October), including the long missing yet infamous police-calls intermission. Yes, the film is slapstick and corny and maybe some of the shtick won't quite work in today's truly Mad Mad world but I'm still betting audiences will once again roll in the aisle as they did for a brief time in Hollywood, 1963. I will send in a report.