Claire by Milford Thomas

[Phototone]

Just was watching my DVD of Claire. It has charm, certainly, and I commend the Director for using vintage equipment to shoot, but really, do we really need the pulsating density and weaving and bobbing of the picture, as if the film was a bad copy? We all know that Silent Films -when new- were rock steady and had excellent exposure values with very little pulsation of density. For me, these "technical flaws" get in the way of the "good stuff", the beauty of the visuals, otherwise.
The opening credits are not level, also.

[luciano]

.

[Christopher Jacobs]

Not, necessarily. Most silent films of the 20's were processed on turning racks, where the film would go in and out of the processing liquid, therefor causing the pulsation of the picture density. Sometimes, though, films kept their density relatively perfect throughout, except for the parts where the film didn't dry evenly. Over time, the parts that didn't dry evenly would wear faster after being run on a projector for a month or so, causing it to have a pulsating effect. As for the scratches and flicker, that was certainly not the case for a silent film when it was brand new. I once had the privilege to crank (on an original carbon arc, hand-crank 1909 projector) a beautiful nitrate print of Buster Keaton’s “One Week”. The print had rarely been run, and after comparing it to “Claire”, I’d say that the print of “One Week” came out in 1st place!

Films that had very slight density pulsation also might be barely noticeable by viewers on a new print, but modern copies of copies of copies of copies increase the contrast with each duplication and intensify the slightest pulsations to look more extreme, besides increasing contrast and graininess.

Bobbing and weaving, unsteady images, etc., are more likely projector (or possibly printer) problems, or an old shrunken print, rather than inherent to the original film when new. Scratches and dirt, of course, only come from constant wear and/or improper print/negative handling.