Why Star Wars fans should watch White Christmas.

Clerval

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Hey all: this year I've not got much time, and realized that if I were to edit this or to re-write, it would just end up getting a bit unmanageable for a casual forum entry. So, in short, just bumping last year's post....:



I post this annually, usually at work and occasionally to Facebook, etc.
Though I'll miss my at-work theatrical screening this year (eff Disney), thought I'd put this down in front of any fans with the patience to read it. It's the short version.

A few years into the life of broadcast television (following WWII), film production companies desperately needed a way to bring audiences back to theaters, and their solutions relied on technological advances/gimmicks (sound familiar?). Cut through the first few interesting years to 1954. Paramount introduces the first film of their own format with a premiere at Radio City Music Hall, on a special projection system. The film was White Christmas and the format, VistaVision. The film was huge, and though the format's projection system wasn't really adopted, directors loved the visual quality they got in using the format (larger image surface, better resolution, that's the short version, using Eastman Mazda stock). Unfortunately it was expensive. The key issues were that you shot twice the amount of stock and also had to project at twice the normal speed (3 feet per second!). This beat the crap out of projectors in addition to the need for acquiring more raw film, and in short time the cons outweighed the pros. Add on advances in film stocks, and in less than a decade (basically by '61) VistaVision became obsolete.

Fast-forward to 1975. In a small-ish building near the airport in Van Nuys, CA., a group of artists is regularly hanging out (eff me if I'll call it working, though of course it was). The reason for the regular beer-bashes was they were tasked with creating the effects for a pet project of a film-maker who'd had some recent success, cutting through some Hollywood bull**** and sending a project called American Graffiti into the world. This little Lucas kid had some plans. So, the beauty-school rejects in VN were given a wad of cash and some pretty pictures to follow, to see if they could do something with some model kits and things that went boom nicely. One fine day, the clan's chief rubbed his brain cells together real fast and thought about the very real need to do of a lot of optical work that was going to get grainy, quickly, unless a way around grain could be found. One beer molecule more and maybe the oven timer doesn't go ding, but it did. The answer was VistaVision. That larger negative area helped compensate for the grain. Paramount had long given up on the format; the equipment could be bought. Not rented. Bought. Modified. Upgraded. Design and realize one motion-control system (and name it after yourself, natch), adapt the cameras for Nikkor lenses, rub a few sticks together to get some light in the place, and well, lo and behold... May 25, 1977.

So it's not exactly a straight line, but try and tell me White Christmas wasn't responsible for Star Wars and I'll give you at least one funny look. It's likely to be all over on cable starting this weekend, so watch it. May even get you to spare a thought or two on the greatest generation.
 
Last edited:
Very cool!
I just researched the film process and it really was very important to how the effects of Star Wars came out; amazing.

Thanks for the read. I also love White Christmas.:)
 
We wouldn't have this either without him. :)

chloe-dykstra-heroes-of-cosplay.jpg
 
Another reason why you should watch White Christmas: It's either that or the Star Wars Holiday Special. :lol
 
See post 1. :)

I've been writing and re-writing this for... a long time. Sorry folks, not got much time, so just bumping a thread this year. :) Seriously missing our Skywalker screening this year, but caught the film last night and as ever, the connections always pop up in my head, and I wish that I could get some shots of the cameras again.
 
Great thread. Dykstra was clever to think of using it.

Minor nit (and I'm sure you're aware, but for everyone else): it isn't that the negative is huge, because it's still 35mm film. It's that the negative area used by each frame is larger because it moves sideways through the gate rather than vertically.
 
This thread is more than 9 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top