Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

OldMort

^^^ Yes it does to some extent, but that could also be said of any photographic endeavor in those days.

 

Remember, "I hope they came out?"

 

A lot of things could always go wrong using emulsion film.

 

Regardless,  Patterson is to be commended for his effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill
1 hour ago, MIB said:

^^^^ That seemingly gives some context to comments to the effect that they weren't sure what they got, if anything, until they saw the developed film.

 

MIB

Many of the video and digital photography generation don't realize that shooting film, you never know exactly what you got until the film is processed. There's no "instant replay" to check footage. All traditional filmmaking practice is grounded in the necessity of doing multiple takes to increase the prospect of getting a good one. Even after shooting what appeared in the viewfinder as "perfect" the common practice was "Let's do one more, for protection." As a veteran filmmaker in the 1960's and 70's, I have seen many examples of disappointment when looking at footage and finding something went wrong, and the footage isn't usable.

 

This issue is one of the most compelling practices of filmmaking that needs to be factored into any discussion of Roger's behavior at Bluff creek, especially for those who suspect or advocate for a staged filming (aka "a hoax"). usually isn't though, from my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ Interesting.   I hadn't really thought about that.  (The sum of my first-hand experience doing movies on film was filming whitewater hydroplane races in the probably early 1970s with my grandma's 8mm camera.   And as a side comment, it would be cool to have those films and the earlier ones 'cause I think there was a lot of family history captured on 8mm.)     So .. anyway .. would it be reasonable to say that if it were a hoax, you'd reasonably expect they'd film it several times, thus there should be, or at least could be, other versions of the same event filmed in case the primary one did not turn out?   Or am I reading too much into it?

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

You are correct. If it were a staged filming, a hoax, as sure as Roger knew how to operate the camera. he'd have to know you never shoot one take and pack it in and go home.  So there definitely would have been other takes of the encounter, if it were staged.

 

And you don't know which is the good take until all are processed, so that presented another challenge, how you process several rolls with the same staged encounter, and keep the lab technicians from seeing the multiple takes on several reels (because they will examine the film after processing to insure the film isn't scratched). So the solution for a hoaxer is shoot Ektachrome, not Kodachrome, and send one roll each to multiple labs (there were many labs processing Ektachrome, and precious few processing Kodachrome). Can't easily do that with Kodachrome. So Roger, the supposed hoaxer, would have shot Ektachrome, not Kodachrome. But he didn't. And he didn't hoax what he filmed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
3 hours ago, MIB said:

^^^^ Interesting.   I hadn't really thought about that.  (The sum of my first-hand experience doing movies on film was filming whitewater hydroplane races in the probably early 1970s with my grandma's 8mm camera.   And as a side comment, it would be cool to have those films and the earlier ones 'cause I think there was a lot of family history captured on 8mm.)     So .. anyway .. would it be reasonable to say that if it were a hoax, you'd reasonably expect they'd film it several times, thus there should be, or at least could be, other versions of the same event filmed in case the primary one did not turn out?   Or am I reading too much into it?

 

MIB


...And multiple films would need to be developed somewhere, either one development run of multiple Rolls or multiple development of multiple rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Bill said:

And he didn't hoax what he filmed.

 

That part has never been in any doubt for me.   I had not seen the PGF 'til about 2011.   I saw a very huge male in 1976 (best guess) and a late juvenile / early adolescent in 2013.    Patty is not exactly like either but she is exactly what I would expect for the female equivalent for the big one and exactly what I would expect for the mother of the younger one.   Not the same color, but correct proportions, correct build.    The suggestion that two broke rodeo cowboys .. or even Hollywood of the time .. could make a costume / suit that would allow a wearer to do what I saw that big guy do is just simply ridiculous ... out of the question.

Edited by MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
On 6/6/2020 at 1:52 PM, Bill said:

All traditional filmmaking practice is grounded in the necessity of doing multiple takes to increase the prospect of getting a good one. Even after shooting what appeared in the viewfinder as "perfect" the common practice was "Let's do one more, for protection."

 

Except Patterson wasn't shooting Citizen Kane, Bill. Nothing had to be "perfect."

 

In this instance all that mattered was that something was captured on film, something so fleeting and unique that it would mystify the public to this day.

 

With all due respect, I'm not convinced that "traditional film making practice" applies to what was basically a home movie effort by a reasonably competent amateur camera man. 

 

Can we even say with certainty that it was Patterson behind the camera? Provenance?

 

Do it's imperfections diminish the film or add to its authenticity?

 

To me that's still a matter of our own subjective frame of reference or personal opinion.

 

With no disrespect to you personally, I am of the opinion that examining the PGF primarily through the lens of Hollywood can sometimes be a double edged sword. 

 

I still find this amateur film inconclusive at best. I remain open to being convinced...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mort:

 

I certainly respect your differing opinion. But you're looking at the topic from the outside, and I'm looking at the topic from years of hands-on working operating a camera, not big hollywood, but low (or no) budget student filmmaking, and even at this low level, some things were deeply ingrained in the camera operator as necessary for any kind of success. The next step down, true "home movies", actually don't try to tell a story so much as just document some event. As soon as you intend to tell a story (as a hoaxer would), then there is a higher concern for getting at least one good take of each planned shot in the storytelling sequence. That usually brings in some disciplined filmmaking procedure, such as extra takes for protection, or coverage for editing options.

 

But some issues are quite subjective, I grant you. I've explained my position quite thoroughly in my book, and so I've made my presentation of how I feel this film needs to be evaluated. But I likewise remain open to different approaches to analyzing this film.

 

You bring up an interesting question in wondering if we can be certain Roger was behind the camera. I personally like taking the position that the camera operator is unknown, and analyze the film truly on it's own merit, irrespective of the identity of the operator. So I'll be glad to go there if others wanted to.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
Posted (edited)

Thanks for your fair response, Bill.

 

In analyzing Patterson's prior filming efforts did you find them to be just "home movies" ( merely documenting a place or event) or was there ever an element of story telling involved as well?

 

Any instances of more than one take of a sequence or subject on record? 

 

Or is the footage too incomplete to determine this?

 

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlobSquatch

I would imagine that it was unethical to comment on the pictures or film that regular folk brought in as we did in the day.

If you had footage of crazy stuff like bigfoot or ufos in 196x this would be met at the counter with "That will be $9.99 outta 20? Ok, and little else. Now internally they may have been like "woah, what's that!?" but that "behavior" would not be known to the customer even today if you want to be thought of as a good service place. Walgreen's could tell some stories I imagine.

 

That said, That person might still be out there. Bring em in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mort:

 

In some of Roger's documentary footage, there are examples of "coverage" multiple takes of a scene, with varied angles sometimes, for editing potential. But a lot of it is just filler he might want to edit into some story, to be determined later in the editing room. But truthfully, I didn't document his footage scene by scene to see where he shot multiples and where he didn't. I might have to review it one day with that in mind. Good suggestion. The doc reel has 650 feet of footage, so there's some potential to evaluate this. Next time I go to my storage, I might try to find the reel and bring it out.

 

I can tell you Roger shot a lot of Ektachrome, preferred by pros intending to edit and print a copy of the edit, he used an Angenieux 12-120 zoom lens on his camera (a serious professional lens I've used myself in my student film experience) and a tripod (most home movie makers don't bother).

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
33 minutes ago, Bill said:

Angenieux 12-120 zoom lens

What camera did Roger have with the Angenieux zoom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch

when is someone gonna release Patterson's Bigfoot Documentary on DVD that was in the theatres back in the 1970's?? It took 40+ years for a decent copy of Boggy Creek to get released... on Blu-ray...

 

I bought 3 different dvd releases of Boggy Creek and only 1 was watchable, each were obvious dubs from VHS tapes and put out by companies similar to BijouFlix and Cheezy Flicks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Catmandoo:

 

The footage with the 12-120 zoom doesn't have any camera ID markings, so I can't determine what the camera was. The most likely options would have been a Bolex, an Eclair NPR, or an Arriflex S (the 100' load version). And somewhere in the past I came across some mention Roger had used an Arriflex, but I can't confirm that.

 

Sackscratch:

 

The theatrical documentary is still partially "lost". One copy of reel one surfaced a few years ago, and some DVD's were made and sold of that, but the second reel of the theater program is still missing. So nobody has a complete theatrical showing program at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bill said:

Next time I go to my storage, I might try to find the reel and bring it out.

 

Thanks for the info Bill.

 

I hope you can keep us posted if indeed you are ever able to delve into this footage.

 

I realize that its probably a pretty large project with more rabbit holes along the road.

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...