# 'I don't watch old movies.' **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 29, 2006, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601 "2006-09-29T12:50:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/41 "2006-09-29T19:52:22Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] There were naturalistic actors before Brando. See John Garfield, Louise Brooks, Montgomery Clift, Barbara Stanwyck, Fredric March. [/QUOTE] Thanks, **Walloon** and **Eve**. I love watching movies and I’m trying to learn a lot more about the art. ---
**Author:** ![Achren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/898d66/32.png) [@Achren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achren)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/42 "2006-09-29T19:59:22Z")
My parents like old movies, so do I. However, I’ve moved into liking silent movies…them not so much. I recommended Sunrise and they couldn’t finish it. _sigh_ FTR, I’m 25 and have always liked the old movies. (My great-great-grandmother would play the piano at showings during the silent film era. I just think that’s neat!) ---
**Author:** ![Miss\_Mapp](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miss_mapp/32/369_2.png) [@Miss\_Mapp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miss_Mapp)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/43 "2006-09-29T20:36:39Z")
It’s not only young people who will express a disdain for black and white. On one of my mom and dad’s visits, when they were looking through my DVD collection, they both said something along the lines of “Why do you buy these old black and white movies?” The movies they were specifically referring to were _All About Eve_ and _Sunset Blvd_. I suspect this is because they came of age in the '50s, when TV was beginning to threaten the movie theaters, and they were sold the idea that really good movies were not the b&w ones that fit on a TV screen, but could only be seen in glorious Technicolor, Cinemascope, and stereophonic sound. Looking over my DVD/video collection, I would say I’ve got a decent representation of every decade from the 1930s to date, plus a couple of silents. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/44 "2006-09-29T20:44:58Z")
[QUOTE=kingpengvin] I don’t buy the “we are more sophisticated these days…” Argument. It is just our self absorbed egotism that makes us believe that slick production values make us more sophisticated as film makers and by default an audience. [/QUOTE] We are more sophisticated in our expectation of high production values. A plastic flying saucer on wires was fine for audiences 50 years ago but today we’ve come to expect almost photorealistic effects. And it’s to be expected that after years of MTV editing style, we find the pacing of many old movies slow and boring. ---
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/45 "2006-09-29T21:07:36Z")
[QUOTE=Asimovian] IShe also got me to watch Young Frankenstein. [/QUOTE] Gawd! I still think of that as recent! How old is “old”? “Old” movies for me are from the 40’s or before. Of course, I grew up with old movies on television. When we first had television in the early 50’s, aside from half-hour dramas made for TV, most of what was on was variety (vaudeville in a can) and old movies. It didn’t matter whether the films were shot in B&W or not (most of them were) because there was no color TV until about 1960. Everything we saw was in black and white. There were some pretty corny films, I agree, but I still regard \*Gone With The Wind \* as a great film (released in 1939). The original version of \*Born Yesterday \* with Judy Holiday, Broderick Crawford and William Holden I think was superior in every way to the fairly recent version with Melanie Griffith, John Goodman and Don Johnson. The only thing it lacked was color film. There was plenty of color in the movie itself. I think the re-making of old and in some cases classic films is too bad. I’ve never seen a remake that was better than the original, or even as good. So it’s “new.” So what? There have been at least two remakes of _Mutiny On The Bounty_, but while they offered color and improved special effects, they didn’t have Charles Laughton’s venomous Captain Bligh. A recent remake of \*Moby Dick \* starring Patrick Stewart was excellent . . . if you had not seen the (1960’s ?) version with Gregory Peck. That was such a good film it seemed a waste to re-shoot it, no matter how good the recent actors were. And _King Kong_. I watched the most recent remake of King Kong a few months ago, then got a copy of the 1930’s original and watched it at home . . . for about the twentieth time. It is still better paced if not better acted. The new one had some great special effects, but the original still ain’t bad. And it doesn’t last more than three freaking hours! The whole topic is subjective, of course, but I think if you don’t watch old movies you are missing out. It’s like refusing to read Steinbeck because he’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/46 "2006-09-29T21:10:23Z")
I love the ‘time machine’ aspect, too. In _It Happened One Night_, Claudette Colbert’s character’s father drives up in an antique automobile, and you have to remind yourself, “That’s not an antique automobile, that’s what a very rich man drove at that time!” It’s a mind-blower. ---
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/47 "2006-09-29T21:20:38Z")
[QUOTE=Eve] …Though, true, he is no Lean Harlowe . . . [/QUOTE] This made me laugh out loud. . . and I’m reading it in a library! ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/48 "2006-09-29T21:22:35Z")
I work in a video store. I’m the resident “old movie” guy. Nonetheless, I rarely choose an old movie to play in-the-store. Modern movies are mostly about the gotcha moment; they play well as background because they lunge for your attention every few seconds. Most of the older movies that have passed the test of time as great movies reward closer attention; today’s audiences are spoiled by movies that do most of the work for them. This expectation of audience attention is what some people refer, mistakenly, as “boring.” Fifteen years ago, I told a friend that I didn’t like old movies. I thought, technology improves over time, right? I wouldn’t want old medication, right? Things get better over time. What’s different about movies? I mean, I liked movies, but mostly didn’t seek out older movies. Then this paper’s Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote a snarky [article](http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/100best.html) in response to the AFI’s “stultifyingly vacuous” list of 100 Greatest American Movies, in which he offered an alternate 100. I started checking them off my list. When I began, I had only seen 17. Today, I’ve seen all but 12 titles that have not ever been released in any form. Along the way, I saw some life-changing masterpieces that just \*happened \* to be old. Nowadays, if I have two movies I have to watch tonight because my TiVo is swallowing its tail, I’ll choose the black and white over the color, and any movie made in the 1930s over any other period. My lifetime topten list currently includes three silent films. My point? Mainly, that it’s a matter of ignorance vs. education. Spend some time with some great old movies, and eventually you’ll figure out why they’ve lasted. (A thought: aren’t the people who are more likely to look down on old movies in favor of new, pretty much the same people who might tend to look down on modern art in favor of the old masters? Just a thought.) ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/49 "2006-09-29T21:24:52Z")
[QUOTE=kingpengvin] I don’t buy the “we are more sophisticated these days…” Argument. It is just our self absorbed egotism that makes us believe that slick production values make us more sophisticated as film makers and by default an audience. People have been bombarded with high paced quick cuts and explosions every few seconds we expect everything to move that fast. Like a bunch of squirming kids in the backseat of a car on a long trip. Patience and focus are sophisticated not a short attention span. [/QUOTE] Do we have to be limited to two points of view in discussing how the world is changed - "You kids today . . . " versus “That’s boring, grampa!” Please. That’s silly. See, I have a suspicion that there’s more to people’s preferences regarding fast-paced media then just that us kids today have no attention span because we see too many of them whatchamacallit music videos on the MTV with all the drugs and naked ladies. One thing that I’ve noticed - and perhaps it’s not true; maybe it’s just my observation bias, but I suspect there’s more to it than that - I think people from my parents’ generation are simply slower at processing information. I’ve particularly noticed this when my parents or people their age use computers; when I’m looking at a window, it takes a fraction of a second for me to evaluate the image and determine what the important parts are, while my parents spend several times as long having to examine each item in the window. (My father is a computer programmer by trade; he’s certainly not unfamiliar with computers.) I’ve seen the same thing in other folks their age - it’s not just the aftereffects of their hippie years, because it seems to be true of everyone I know over forty. To a lesser extent, I’ve noticed that people that age seem to find it harder to notice all the details on a TV or movie image - something that happens briefly on one side of the screen might be quite obvious to me, while older people seem to miss it entirely (that phenomenon, though, I’ve only had the opportunity to observe in my parents.) I’ve noticed that sort of thing in a lot of situations. I wonder if, far from just making us numb and desperate for the next stimulation, computers and fast-paced TV shows have actually enabled people who grew up with them to become more adept at quickly sorting through information presented visually, and immediately discarding the irrelevant parts. It’s only a suspicion, but it seems to me that scenes that people my age find interesting are overwhelming to folks my parents’ age. I wonder how much our experience of the world is different because of our exposure to video games and TV. (I know that one partial explanation that has been offered for the gradual rise in IQ scores over time is that young people are more adept at certain kinds of visual reasoning as a result of playing video games, so certainly other people have considered this sort of idea.) If that’s the case, then a movie that is sedately-paced to my parents might be mind-numbingly slow to me - if I analyze each scene that much more quickly, then the next scene seems to take that much longer to appear. I wonder if anyone’s done analyses to see how the actual pacing, shot-by-shot, of recent films compares with old films. I wonder if films that are usually regarded as pretty slow-paced today might have been regarded as normal or fast-paced fifty years ago. That’s not a result of “shrinking attention spans”, just a change in the way we process information. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/50 "2006-09-29T21:27:49Z")
Incidentally, does anyone know about the comparative lengths of movies released over the years? It’s my impression, at least, that a lot more really long films are released nowadays. If that’s the case, it would certainly contradict assertions about shrinking attention spans. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/51 "2006-09-29T21:28:00Z")
As far as stylization and genre conventions, that too is in the eye of the beholder. You don’t roll your eyes at Shakespeare, or Kabuki, or whatever; you accept that it’s working within a particular identifiable style. John Ford’s western are a vast and deep as anything Shakespeare ever did, and they’re not even quite as stylized. But because today’s audiences are working from the currently fashionable “style” of painstaking verisimilitude, they dismiss rather than adjust. Many of you forgive genre conventions is SF and mystery novels; you just get used to them. Or, you decide that you trust the author/artist, and willingly go along for the ride. This is suspension of disbelief, and a modern audience needs to be well practiced in it to take a film (or any work) from a period of different fashions of style on its own terms. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/52 "2006-09-29T21:28:13Z")
[QUOTE=msmith537] We are more sophisticated in our expectation of high production values. A plastic flying saucer on wires was fine for audiences 50 years ago but today we’ve come to expect almost photorealistic effects. And it’s to be expected that after years of MTV editing style, we find the pacing of many old movies slow and boring. [/QUOTE] You see, the problem is that both “needs” are associated with children. Attraction to shiny objects, short attention spans. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/53 "2006-09-29T21:33:40Z")
[QUOTE=kingpengvin] People have been bombarded with high paced quick cuts and explosions every few seconds we expect everything to move that fast. Like a bunch of squirming kids in the backseat of a car on a long trip. Patience and focus are sophisticated not a short attention span. [/QUOTE] None of my friends (save one) have the patience to watch the original _Starsky and Hutch_ show - which was considered to be extremely action packed for its time. The plot lines are just too slow-moving for people raised during the wham-bam-blam action-movie heyday of the 80s and 90s. I don’t mind the slow pacing, but most of my friends get bored quickly when Soul and Glaser are on the screen. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/54 "2006-09-29T21:39:12Z")
[QUOTE=PoorYorick] Thanks, **Walloon** and **Eve**. I love watching movies and I’m trying to learn a lot more about the art. [/QUOTE] How to phrase this so as NOT to piss off two Dopers who I respect immensely? A lot of it isn’t art. A lot of it is. It is unquestionable that the film industry is just that- an industry. A perusal of some books on film history from say, 1900-1930 will show you just how much of an industry it is. Nothing has changed. Just as the filler, bottom-of-the-double bill shows that were cranked out like ground meat served their purpose in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s and 50’s, so today are many feature films shot only to go “straight to video” as we say in the business. That’s okay. Not everything is brilliant dialogue, witty and subtle performances framed by astonishingly elegant lighting, amazing camerawork and beautiful music. A lot of B&W films are no more or less mediocre than a lot of the offerings today on cable or at Blockbuster. The difference is that back then, pre- t.v., cable and Blockbuster, the more banal and basic features were cranked out, printed and released. Double-features were very much the norm on weekends ( and, I suspect though have not researched it, on some weeknights if the community would support that kind of booking ). There would be the headliner picture- titles that have been mentioned in this thread and hundreds, **hundreds** of other wonderful pictures. Then, the bottom of the bill would run. Well, that’s okay too- everyone gets a start somewhere, from actors to writers. My point is that nothing has changed. The outlets surely have but the bell curve of art to shit hasn’t. It never will. I’m a professional cinematograher and- unlike either **Walloon** and **Eve** - I can tell you that I myself have worked on a handful of straight-to-video feature films shot on the East Coast. It doesn’t mean they are of no value, but trust me - plenty of them are not art. Just so we are being honest, and clear. Black and white does not automatically equal art. It just means that at the time, that is how films were being shot. When **does** it equal art? When it is a conscious choice AND the choice pays off. I am not sure that any DVD or LaserDisk can do justice to either **Young Frankenstein** or **Manhattan** , but if they are screened in your city and the prints are fresh, or at least in reasonable shape, hike on over and take a look at more modern-day black and white. Pure art. 🙂 Then again, if a good film print of **M** is screened, my god- go see it. How utterly frightening. And perfect. Cartooniverse ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/55 "2006-09-29T21:51:20Z")
[QUOTE=Excalibre] Incidentally, does anyone know about the comparative lengths of movies released over the years? It’s my impression, at least, that a lot more really long films are released nowadays. If that’s the case, it would certainly contradict assertions about shrinking attention spans. [/QUOTE] Not necessarily. The incessant need to cut rapidly _within_ scenes, as in _Moulin Rouge!_, even when it works against the mood of the scene (e.g., Satine’s death) is every bit as much the symptom of shrinking attention spans. It’s like when you’re watching a little child and you have to jingle your keys, and make funny faces and loud noises in desparate attempts to keep its attention. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/56 "2006-09-29T21:53:24Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] Not necessarily. The incessant need to cut rapidly _within_ scenes, as in _Moulin Rouge!_, even when it works against the mood of the scene (e.g., Satine’s death) is every bit as much the symptom of shrinking attention spans. It’s like when you’re watching a little child and you have to jingle your keys, and make funny faces and loud noises in desparate attempts to keep its attention. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Yes, thank you for that. Now, do you actually know the answer to the question I asked? ---
**Author:** ![GargoyleWB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gargoylewb/32/199_2.png) [@GargoyleWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GargoyleWB)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/57 "2006-09-29T22:04:19Z")
I will admit that, having finally seen Casablanca for the first time, I couldn’t take the classic “hill of beans” speech seriously…my first thought was: “…But this is our hill…and these are our beans…” -Lt Frank Drebin ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/58 "2006-09-29T22:15:52Z")
Yes, I do, and I’ve answered this question more than once on these boards. The average running times of Best Picture Academy Award nominees: 1935: 110 minutes 1945: 118 minutes 1955: 110 minutes 1965: 153 minutes 1975: 145 minutes 1985: 133 minutes 1995: 130 minutes 2005: 137 minutes ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/59 "2006-09-30T01:40:52Z")
Re: Slower pace. An old bull and a young bull were standing on a hill, when they spied a herd of heifers. The young bull says, ‘Hey, let’s run down and screw one of those cows!’ The old bull says, ‘No, let’s _walk_ down and screw them all.’ A movie is like food. You can get something fast and wolf it down. Instant gratification, and possibly a sugar rush. But a good meal is meant to be savoured. One can enjoy an action-packed film with dazzling images and fast cuts; or one can enjoy the interplay of the actors and a well-written script. Both can be enjoyable, but many people seem to have lost the ability to savour. Re: Old vs. young. It seems to me that the larger percentage of people who won’t watch an old or B&W film are younger. But I haven’t taken a survey. FWIW my sister, who won’t watch B&W films, is in her mid-50s. Re: Classic crap. Some posters have pointed out that many, if not the majority, of old films weren’t really all that good. But there are many, many of which have been mentioned here, that have withstood the test of time. We tend to see the _good_ old films more often than the bad ones. In August my g/f and I went to Movies In The Park (or whatever they called it). We saw _The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre_, _From Here To Eternity_, _Forbidden Planet_, and _Bringing Up Baby_. (Actually, we walked out of the last one because of all of the technical glitches with the DVD player, and because some rude people came late and blocked our view.) I’ve seen _Sierra Madre_ a few times. Not really one of my favourites, but not bad. I often buy films I like, and I don’t have this one. My g/f didn’t care for it. She enjoyed _From Here To Eternity_ very much. Me? Eh. I’ve seen it before, and I’ve seen better. She liked _Forbidden Planet_. Now _there’s_ a classic of the genre! _Bringing Up Baby_ may be her favourite film. I liked what I saw of it. So even amongst the ‘classics’, some people like them and some people don’t. But I’ll at least give some films a go, while others will dismiss them out of hand. But then, I grew up watching _The Little Rascals_ and _The Familiy Film Festival_ on TV. Having been exposed to old films early on, I’m more likely to watch them. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601/60 "2006-09-30T02:20:56Z")
I’d like to second **Archive Guy** ’s excellent comments about the importance of seeing films in theaters. If you ever have a chance to see any classic film in a theater, whether you’ve seen it before or not, go to the theater. This almost certainly explains **Max the Vool** ’s indifference to _Lawrence of Arabia_ (as **kingpengvin** pointed out). I’d like to mention an aspect of cinema that is essentially lost: nitrate prints. Even if you go see _Casablanca_ or _Grand Hotel_ in a theater (much better than watching on TV), you will still not be getting the complete experience. The print you will see (assuming you’re not in a digital theater :eek: ) will be safety film, not nitrate stock, as most films were pre-1951 or so. So what, you may ask. B&W is B&W, isn’t it? As anyone who has ever seen nitrate will tell you, no it isn’t! I’ve seen a handful of nitrate prints, and there’s a beautiful, silvery shimmering quality to a nitrate image that is just missing from ordinary safety film. At the risk of overhyping it, it’s just magical. Unfortunately, nitrate had an unfortunate tendency to burst into flame (hence the need to replace it with “safety film”) and to deteriorate as it aged. A by-product of the aging process: little puddles of nitroglycerine! So the number of nitrate prints in good condition is vanishingly small, and the special requirements for projecting them are quite onerous: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Today nitrate film projection is usually highly regulated and requires extensive precautionary measures including extra projectionist health and safety training. Additionally, projectors certified to run nitrate films have many containment strategies in effect. Among them, this includes the chambering of both the feed and takeup reels in thick metal covers with small slits to allow the film to run through. Furthermore, the projector is modified to accommodate several fire extinguishers with nozzles all aimed directly at the film gate; the extinguishers automatically trigger if a piece of flammable fabric placed near the gate starts to burn. While this triggering would likely damage or destroy a significant portion of the projection components, it would prevent a devastating fire which almost certainly would cause far greater damage. I saw a few nitrate prints at the AFI in Washington, DC, theater when it was still located in the Kennedy Center. As you may have divined, the experience was quite memorable. Of course, within the next few years, we’ll be mourning the death of analog film as digital cinema becomes widespread. Just another reason for us old fogeys to say “Sic transit gloria mundi.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-watch-old-movies/374601.md?page=4)