Film Preservation Study: Los Angeles Public Hearing, February 1993
Film Preservation 1993:
A Study of the Current State of
American Film Preservation
Volume 2: Hearing Before the Panel of the
National Film Preservation Board
Hotel Sofitel Ma Maison
Los Angeles, California
February 12, 1993
June 1993
Report of the Librarian of Congress
Table of Contents
The National Film Preservation Board and its Current Members . .
List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opening Remarks by James Billington, Librarian of Congress . . .
Opening Remarks by Fay Kanin, Chairwoman, NFPB . . . . . . . . .
Statements by:
Michael Friend, Director, Academy Film Archive,
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences . . . . . . . .
Karen Ishizuka, Curator, Photographic and Moving Image
Archive, Japanese American National Museum. . . . . . . . .
Stephen Gong, General Manager, Pacific Film Archive. . . . . .
Robert Rosen, Director, UCLA Film and Television Archive . . .
John Ptak, Interim Director and Co-Chair, NationalCenter for Film and
Video Preservation at the American Film Institute. . . . .
Robert Heiber, President, Chace Productions, Inc.. . . . . . .
Ralph Sargent, President, Film Technology Company, Inc.,
accompanied by Alan Stark, Vice President, Film
Technology Company, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Richard Dayton, President, YCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Matt Rothman, Daily Variety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leonard Maltin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Harrison Ellenshaw, Vice President, Buena Vista Special Effects,
Walt Disney Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roger Bell, Director of Administration, Library Services, Fox
Studios Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gray Ainsworth, Director of Film Operations, MGM WorldwideServices, Metro-
Goldwyn-Mayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Philip E. Murphy, Vice President, Operations, Television Group,Paramount Pictures
Ernest Kirkpatrick, Film Archivist, Republic Pictures. . . . .
William A. Humphrey, Senior Vice President and General Manager,
Sony Pictures Entertainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roger Mayer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Turner
Entertainment Co., accompanied by Richard May, VicePresident, Film
Preservation and Distribution Services,Turner Entertainment Co.
James Watters, Executive Vice President, Studio Operations, Universal City Studios,
accompanied by Dan Slusser, Senior Vice President and General Manager,
Universal City Studios, and Bob O'Neil, Director, Preservation Vault Services,
Universal City Studios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peter Gardiner, Vice President, Operations, Corporate Film
Video Services, Warner Bros.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gregory Luce, representing The Committee for Film Preservation and
Public Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Betsy McLane, Executive Director, International Documentary
Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The National Film Preservation Board
and its Current Members
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Member: Fay Kanin
Alternate: Robert E. Wise
Directors Guild of America
Member: Arthur Hiller
Alternate: Martin Scorsese
The Writers Guild of America
EAST
Member: Jay Presson Allen
WEST
Alternate: Del Reisman
National Society of Film Critics
Member: David Kehr, NY Daily News
Alternate: Julie Salamon, The Wall Street Journal
The Society for Cinema Studies
Member: John Belton
Alternate: Lucy Fischer
The American Film Institute
Member: John Ptak
Alternate: Jill Sackler
The Department of Theater, Film and Television of the College of Fine Arts, University of
California, Los Angeles
Member: Bob Rosen
Alternate: Teshome Gabriel
Department of Film and Television of the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University
Member: Bill Everson
Alternate: William Paul
The University Film and Video Association
Member: Ben Levin
Alternate: Peter Rainer
The Motion Picture Association of America
Member: Jack Valenti
Alternate: Matthew Gerson
The National Association of Broadcasters
Member: Edward O. Fritts
Alternate: Stephen Jacobs
The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers
Member: J. Nicholas Counter III
Alternate: Carol Lombardini
The Screen Actors Guild of America
Member: Roddy McDowall
Alternate: Barry Gordon
The National Association of Theater Owners
Member: Theodore Pedas
Alternate: William F. Kartozian
The American Society of Cinematographers and the International Photographers Guild
Member: Allen Daviau, A. S. C.
Alternate: William A. Fraker, A. S. C.
The United States members of the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF)
Member: Mary Lea Bandy, Museum of Modern Art
Alternate: Jonas Mekas, Anthology Film Archives
At-Large
Member: Roger Mayer, Turner Entertainment Co.
Alternate: Milt Shefter, Miljoy Enterprises
At-Large
Member: John Singleton, New Deal Productions
Alternate: Janet Staiger, University of Texas, Austin List of Abbreviations
AFI American Film Institute
AMC American Movie Classics
AMIA Association of Moving Image Archivists
AMPTP Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASCAP American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
BFI British Film Institute
BMI Broadcast Music, Inc.
CIC Committee for Intercollegiate Cooperation
CINE Council on International Nontheatrical Events
FAAC/TAAC Film Archives Advisory Committee/Television Archives Advisory Cmte.
FIAF Federation Internationale Des Archives Du Film/International Federation
of Film Archives
IFIDA Independent Film Importers and Distributors of America
HDTV high-definition television
IN internegative film
IP interpositive film
IS&T Society for Imaging Science and Technology
LC Library of Congress, Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound
Division
M&E track music and effects sound track
MGM Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
MoMA Museum of Modern Art Dept. of Film
MPAA Motion Picture Association of America
NAMID National Moving Image Database
NAPM National Association of Photographic Manufacturers
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NEA National Endowment for the Arts
NEH National Endowment for the Humanities
NFPB National Film Preservation Board
NHPRC National Historical Publications and Records Commission
OCLC Online Computer Library Center
RH Relative Humidity
RKO Radio-Keith-Orpheum Pictures Corporation
RLIN Research Libraries Information Network
SCS Society for Cinema Studies
SMPTE Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers
UA United Artists
UCLA University of California, Los Angeles, Film and Television Archive
USC University of Southern California School of Cinema-Television
USIA United States Information Agency
YCM yellow, cyan and magenta color film separation records; also L.A. film lab
The Current State of American Film Preservation
-----------
Friday, February 12, 1993
National Film Preservation Board Panel
Hotel Sofitel Ma Maison
Los Angeles, California
The National Film Preservation Board Panel met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., at
the Hotel Sofitel Ma Maison, Opus Ball Room, 8555 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California, to conduct its first public hearing on the current state of American film
preservation, Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian for Collections Services, Library of
Congress, presiding as Panel Moderator.
National Film Preservation Board Panel
James Billington Librarian of Congress
Fay Kanin Chair, NFPB
John Belton Member, NFPB
David Chasman Producer and former industry executive
David Francis Chief, Motion Picture, Broadcasting
and Recorded Sound Division, Library of
Congress
Milt Shefter Alternate Member, NFPB
Proceedings: Morning Session
DR. BILLINGTON: Welcome to the NFPB public hearing. I want to thank you all
for joining us today, for the first of two public meetings on film preservation by the National
Film Preservation Board. These meetings are intended to help us develop a report which we
must deliver to the Congress in June as well as to achieve the historic mission in which we've
been involved for some time: to preserve our film heritage.
In June 1992 Congress reauthorized, as most of you know, the National Film
Preservation Board for four years and asked us to continue performing some of the tasks
which we were already performing, such as selecting 25 culturally, historically or aesthetically
significant films and collecting archival copies of them for a national collection in the Library
of Congress. But the 1992 Act clarified that our principal
mission is film preservation.
Congress asked us to take two steps. First, we were asked to take a snapshot of all the
current activities and issues in our national film preservation efforts across the country and to
report this information to Congress by the end of June 1993. Second, using this report as a
working document, as the basis for further work, we are then to work with all of the relevant
parties to develop a national plan to preserve our film heritage. We will prepare this plan by
the end of 1993.
So today we're embarked on our first task. This is the first major part of that task, as
information gatherers. Last September, the newly reconstituted National Film Preservation
Board decided that we should hold public meetings to discuss our nation's preservation
activities. And these public meetings are a great opportunity, we feel, to air a wide
assortment of issues, to hear from all parts of the film community and to begin to shape
public policy.
Before we start there are two points that are worth underlining, I think. First of all,
we are defining preservation broadly to include the full range of activities required to save
and also to make available America's film heritage.
The second is that Congress asked us to limit our report to film preservation. So we
will put aside and not be involved in questions about television and other video media. Our
report may pave the way for a second report on the important issues involved with the
preservation of television and video materials, but we were not given this mandate from
Congress and we're not charged to address them today or in our June report. And there's
quite enough to do with the subject that we are required to deal with by June.
So today we'll add to our information base with testimony from almost 20 witnesses.
We're doing it in the public forum to encourage discussions of the issues we are now facing.
On February 26, we will hold a similar meeting in Washington at the Library of Congress.
We encourage additional comments from those who are testifying today, and from those of
you in the audience, on any of the subjects before us today.
All written comments must be received to be of use in the study by the Library of
Congress by March 15. Before I call on Fay Kanin, the esteemed Chair of the National Film
Preservation Board, I want to especially thank Annette Melville and Scott Simmon, our
hardworking consultants, who have spent the last few months interviewing many individuals
represented today. They've begun, I think, most auspiciously to research the issues that
confront those charged with preserving film.
And now, it's my great pleasure to turn to the Chairman of our Board, who's done so
much to shape it and give it a sense of direction and purpose, and to bring together the
various elements of the film community to focus on this important national problem. Ms.
Kanin.
CHAIRWOMAN KANIN: Thank you, Dr. Billington. As Chair, I just want to make
a very brief observation, because I know we've got a lot to do today and I'm not going to
take up much time. The number and the diversity of interests that are participating in this
public meeting toward a national plan to preserve film is very exciting for all of us who care
so much about it.
As Dr. Billington said before, it's historic that the Library and the National Film
Preservation Board are able to provide an opportunity for archives, for the major film studios,
for film labs and for the users of film to discuss in an open meeting our mutual interest in
saving the thousands of films that need our attention.
Even before we start today, we've already accomplished something valuable in
bringing us all together and encouraging this dialogue. I, as all of us, look forward to what
we'll be hearing and learning today. Thank you.
MR. TABB: Thank you very much, Fay. I would now like to introduce the other
panelists. You've heard from Dr. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and from Fay Kanin,
who's the Chairman of the Film Board. To Dr. Billington's left is David Francis, the Chief
of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division for the Library of Congress
and at the end, David Chasman, a veteran industry executive. Next to Fay is John Belton,
who is a member of the National Film Preservation Board, representing the Society for
Cinema Studies; Dr. Belton is a professor at Rutgers. Next to him is Milt Shefter, an
alternate at-large member of the Board and President of Miljoy Enterprises, a preservation
consultancy.
I'd like to begin by reviewing some of the procedures we'll be following today. First,
we have organized the speakers into panels so that we can give everyone a chance to testify,
but also keep within the limits of time so that everyone who has prepared a statement will be
able to make it.
The speakers will go in the order that is listed on the charts that we distributed at the
table outside. Generally, people have been organized alphabetically by the organization that
they're representing. With the first panel Mr. Ptak is going to be a little late, so we'll save
him for last.
It is required that everyone speak no more than 10 minutes. We've told everyone this
and if I need to, I will call time and bang on my gong here so we're sure that we don't run
out of time. All written comments today are being transcribed. They will be published as an
appendix to the report that we give to Congress in June.
As the Librarian said, today's hearing is the first of two that we'll be having. The
second is two weeks from today in the Mumford Room at the Library of Congress. The most
important thing, I think, for everyone here to know is that while we may run out of time for
comments here, you are encouraged to think of new things that you would like to have put
into the record. You can put any further questions or comments in writing to the Library of
Congress by March 15. This is a very important deadline to meet. Such comments should be
put in writing and mailed to Mr. Leggett of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded
Sound Division.
All of this information is contained in the photocopy of the notice from the Federal
Register which is on the table outside. If any of you have any questions about that, we'll be
glad to answer them after the morning hearing or this afternoon as well.
Now, I think we should go ahead and begin. The first group of panelists is already at
the table, five representatives of the public film archives. We'll begin with Mr. Friend from
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Statement of Michael Friend, Director, Academy Film Archive, Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences
MR. FRIEND: Thank you and I'd like to thank the panel for giving us the chance to
speak and be represented here. I'm Michael Friend. I'm the Director of the Archive of the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. And I've prepared a statement here which
was largely meant to not replicate things that other people on the panel are going to say, and
it's a statement that probably should come after their statements in logical progression, but I
will be happy to go first here, and it bears on technical issues rather than the reasons why we
do preservation in the first place. And I think my colleagues will speak ably to those issues.
There are a couple of issues that I need to bring up which are highly or at least rather
technical in nature, but which I think need to be considered in the context of a national
preservation plan. I'd like to start by introducing our archive and talking about our work.
The archive of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has existed as a part
of the Academy foundation for over 20 years. As the film collection of the Academy, the
collection was created to serve the work of the Academy and foster the study of the motion
picture as art and as science. The Academy archive now contains approximately 12,000 films
and videotapes of diverse origin.
Early cinema is well represented in the Academy film archive by the paper print
collection preserved by Kemp Niver in conjunction with the Library of Congress, important
collections of film by M_li_s and Lumiere as well as the negatives of Chaplin and Keaton and
other important masters of the American cinema. In addition the collection has extensive
holdings of American silent film from a variety of other sources.
Throughout the years the Academy attempted to collect copies of Academy award
winners and nominees. Although the core of our collection is comprised mainly of motion
picture features, our holdings include a large number of shorts and documentaries. There are
also many films collected for their value as an example of technical achievement in motion
pictures, including the Technicolor collection of prints, guide reels and tests.
Over the years the Academy has received the personal collections of prominent
Hollywood figures such as Hitchcock, Zinnemann, Huston and Peckinpah. These collections
often contain long versions or director's cuts of important motion pictures as well as personal
footage of family and professional life. Much of this material is of great value to scholars
who come to the Academy to study the papers and other documents associated with these
important figures of cinema.
The Academy archives also has the most complete collection of the Academy awards
ceremonies which have been recorded on film, kinescope and various video formats. Our
archive has been a source of programming as well as a preservation facility. Those in the
archival field will remember the Academy's catalytic role in the preservation of the paper
prints, but in addition, our distinguished nitrate collection of M_li_s films was entirely copied
with funds generated internally.
Currently the archive loans prints to a number of institutions including the UCLA Film
and Television Archive, Pacific Film Archive, the Film Department of George Eastman
House, Los Angeles County Art Museum, the British Film Institute, the Cin_math_que
Fran_aise, the Pordenone Film Festival and, of course, the studios.
The Academy archive is located in the Academy Center for Motion Picture Study at
333 South La Cienega Boulevard, and this facility, which is shared with the Academy's
Margaret Herrick Library, contains offices and work spaces for the Academy archives and a
1,500 square foot environmentally controlled storage area that's been stabilized at 50_F and
50% humidity.
The vault houses all of the Academy's nonnitrate preservation material. The Academy
archive is actively involved with other archives directly as well as through the Association of
Moving Image Archivists and the International Federation of Film Archives. Other activities
include work with a number of studios on preservation and documentation projects and
participation in the Film Foundation's technical committees.
Many of the most important issues concerning preservation today are being raised by
our colleagues on this panel. We would like to raise two more less technical issues that
should be taken into consideration in the national preservation plan, and although these
remarks are directed primarily at the preservation of feature motion pictures produced and
distributed by major studios, they also pertain to the preservation of independent films.
The first issue is what is preservation today? When we say films should be preserved
or that a film has been preserved, what do we mean? There are a number of sources that
define preservation in terms of using the original medium engaged for preservation, making
protection and duplicate negative elements and so forth, but there is no commonly accepted
definition of preservation that can serve as the basis for a national preservation plan. If such
a plan is to come into being, and if new programs for the support of preservation of work are
to come into being, we will need clear and unambiguous expression of what we all mean by
the word preservation.
In the archival world we're often confronted with a single, more or less unique
element, a nitrate negative or a print or other element which is the only source for
preservation of the film. In other cases, there are multiple sources for reconstruction of the
film and parts of different prints. Negatives, finegrains, and sound track elements must be
combined to produced a restored original version of a film.
We generally presume that original version to be the longest released version of the
film as indicated by contemporary reviews, studio records, existing film elements, etcetera.
The reconstruction work often requires collaboration of archives, studios, distributors and
collectors. The first great era of film preservation involved duplication of physical materials
that were often the property of the archives and frequently the films being preserved were in
the public domain, such as silent films, whose copyright had expired.
We're now in a new era of preservation. Although there's still a very large amount of
nitrate film to be preserved, the focus of preservation work is shifting from black-and-white
nitrate film to color film on acetate base. Most of the original film elements are still the
property of the studios, and most of the motion pictures being preserved are under copyright
protection and are being exploited in ancillary markets.
In the case of films since about 1950, there has been a proliferation of emulsions,
screen and sound processes--Eastman Color film, Cinemascope film, Techniscope,
VistaVision, 3-D, 65mm processes, Cinerama, magnetic, Dolby and digital sound system
among many others--that make preservation choices much more complicated. Although the
color instability of the Eastman Color process is well known, color separations are not always
made for color films.
Is a film originally released in four channel sound preserved if there is only a
monophonic record of the sound track? Is a VistaVision film preserved if color separations
have not been made from the negative in the original format? We need a definition of the
minimum technical requirement for a film to be considered preserved.
Often preservation elements are made but never tested. When an original element is
destroyed or deteriorates, protection elements are sometimes found to be insufficient to
reproduce the film. Standards should be established for quality control of all phases of
preservation work, including test printing and examination of the sound and picture elements.
Increasingly motion pictures are created to be exhibited in a variety of different
contexts and often a variety of versions. Director's cuts special editions for theatrical, cable
or home market release and other significant variants of the original release version may exist.
A general policy which addresses the preservation of all important versions of a film should
be considered.
If we're going to create a national preservation plan to address the problems of film
preservation, studio production as well as the film produced in other contexts, we need to
define preservation more precisely in terms of standards for image quality, types of elements
needed to protect a particular type of film original and organization, documentation, storage,
maintenance and access to preservation elements.
This forum is not the place to propose such a definition, but the national preservation
plan should support the emergence of standards for film preservation such as those being
studied by the Film Foundation's technical committee and promote the institutionalization of
such standards through such organizations such as SMPTE.
My second issue is the future of preservation. The widespread apprehension of the
physical limitations of film as a support for moving image storage and duplication has led us,
in the archives, to the realization that motion pictures cannot be duplicated beyond a few
generations without drastic and visible loss of image quality.
With the rapid development of electronic imaging sectors of science and industry,
there may come a time when film, including stock, printing and processing facilities and
expertise becomes far less common and far less available than it is today. Unfortunately,
electronic forms of storage appear to be considerably less stable than motion picture film.
There is, in fact, no true preservation medium that will capture all of the information in a film
image and store that information in a recoverable form for an archival period of time.
We submit that any true national preservation plan must include a research component
that is directed towards two goals. The first of these goals should be the identification and
development of technology that allows the scanning of an original motion picture negative or
other film element from film into the digital domain at full resolution, supports the
preservation enhancement of the image and allows the digital image to be transferred back to
film at full resolution and without artifact. Such a system would overcome the inherent
limitation of photomechanical duplication, the analog process, which is the basis of all film
preservation today.
Second, the conceptualization and development of a true archival system for the long
term storage, and I mean more than five hundred years, of conservation of motion pictures
that is highly reliable, economical, relatively universal in terms of technical standards and
deployment, flexible in terms of its ability to be transferred back to film or other media and
low maintenance in terms of storage, environment and other inspection requirements, must be
considered. We do not envision the conversion of every motion picture to this archival
format, only ones that have been identified as having perennial importance.
We do not see the development of these systems as public sector activities, but the
national preservation plan and subsequent initiatives could provide a valuable stimulus and a
forum for the conceptualization and validation of these systems. The work of preservation is
necessarily one of looking to the past and often of adopting tools of the past to recover our
motion picture heritage, but it would be wrong for those responsible for this heritage not to
look now to the future and take into account the immense changes occurring today in the
regime of the moving image.
Those are the issues I hope to present and I hope that you can take them into your
deliberations and thank you for the opportunity.
MR. TABB: Thank you very much, Mr. Friend. We'll next hear from Ms. Ishizuka
from the Japanese American National Museum.
Statement of Karen Ishizuka, Curator, Photographic and Moving Image
Archive, Japanese American National Museum
MS. ISHIZUKA: Good morning. My name is Karen Ishizuka and I'm the Curator of
a relatively small but significant archive, consisting primarily of amateur film footage taken
by Japanese immigrants in the 1920s and 30s and their American born children in the 1940s
and 50s.
What I'd like to speak to today is the significance of amateur film footage, specifically
what is commonly known as home movies, as unique and best surviving records of everyday
life that must be preserved in order to secure a true picture of the multi-cultural reality that is
America.
Until as recently as the 1960s and even 1970s in some parts of the country, activity in
communities of color were not considered particularly newsworthy and therefore, usually went
unreported and, hence, undocumented by the mass media, the chroniclers of modern society.
Not until after the civil rights movement were people of color reflected in newsreels,
advertisements, mainstream feature films, illustrations and commercials in other than
infrequent, often stereotypic and often times racist portrayals.
We have never seen images of America in the early part of the century as lived by
Mexican Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans and other ethnic groups except
as recorded and documented in our family albums and home movies. As such, early home
movies provide the only motion picture documentation of ethnic life from the point of view
of those who lived it.
They provide never-before-seen visions of America and are deserving of our best
preservation efforts. I'd like to tell you a bit about the Photographic and Moving Image
Archive of the Japanese American National Museum as an example of the significance of the
untapped cultural resource of home footage.
I first heard about home movies taken by Japanese immigrants quite by accident while
collecting still photographs and found them about five months later. They turned out to be
twenty-four hundred-foot reels of 16mm black-and-white film taken as early as 1925, which I
think is about a year after Eastman Kodak introduced sixteen millimeter to the public. And
on this early home footage were remarkable documentary images, some we had never even
seen in stills.
There was very complete documentation of his lumber exporting business in the
Pacific Northwest, including cutting the logs, Japanese lumberjacks floating logs down the
Columbia River, loading the big ships and even a trip to the bank to get his business loan.
There were early scenes of Seattle including a busy unlined intersection with vintage
automobiles going every which way and an Independence Day parade featuring World War I
vintage tanks and soldiers.
There were rare interior scenes of a Japanese American bank with Caucasian workers
using upright telephones and Japanese workers calculating figures on an abacus. Clearly,
these were not the endless, seemingly endless, vacations, birthday parties and kids learning to
walk that one usually associates with home movies. These early home movies were clearly
documentary footage of cultural and historical significance.
From then, it seemed like about every fifth person that I talked to either had or knew
of someone who had old home movies. Another collection was taken by a Nisei, a second
generation Japanese American who is now 78 years old. He began taking home movies in
1935 after seeing home footage of a friend of his who had died suddenly in his prime two
years previously.
He told me that when he saw it, he felt miraculously reunited with his friend who he
thought he would never see again and said, if the wonder of film could do this, then he
wanted to do film. He took extensive footage of his community and life before the war. He
was very active with the YMCA and has documentation of Y events in the late thirties. For
you college football fans, he took the Cal-UCLA game of October, 1936.
Then Pearl Harbor was bombed and he was interned. Cameras were considered
contraband. One day he saw his Caucasian foreman with an eight millimeter camera and
mentioned that he wished that he had his camera. When the foreman asked him where it was,
he replied that it was on loan to a friend for the duration of the internment. And so this new
friend of his, knowing that all mail to internees was opened and censored, offered to have the
camera mailed to himself and that he would make sure that my donor got it.
My donor was told to be careful. As he indicated, because he shot the footage in
secret and with the fear of discovery, there are no shots of armed guards, barbed wire fences
or sentry watch towers. He wrote to me the following:
I hope my home movies share with you one aspect of the camp
experience, that is the spirit of the Japanese American community.
Despite the loneliness and despair that enveloped us, we made the bestwe
could with the situation. I hope when you see--when you look at the
scenes of Mochitsuki pipe repairing, dining hall duty and church service,you
look at the spirit of the people. You will see a people trying to
reconstruct a community despite overwhelming obstacles. That, I feel, isthe
essence of these home movies.
We now have approximately 50,000 feet from 30 different collections, black-and-white
and color, 16mm and 8mm, all silent. We have footage from the mid-1920s when Japanese
immigrants were making America their new home and home movies were first introduced, the
1930s when 8mm was introduced and 16mm began phasing out, the 1940s during and after
World War II, the 1950s and 1960s.
We also have some early reel-to-reel half-inch videotape of community events and
speakers during the Asian American movement of the 1970s that was donated from a local
university.
I don't know how much footage is still out there but my guess is that it is a significant
amount. We have not done any active searches and we're still getting collections coming in
or leads to collections to follow up on. And this is just within one ethnic American
community. When you think of all the homemade documentary footage that might be
deteriorating in the garages, attics and basements of African Americans, Hispanics, Filipinos,
Italian Americans and so on, it does represent a large nationwide cultural resource that is, at
the same time, untapped and endangered.
In conclusion, I'm not saying that all home movies should be preserved. Selectivity,
as it is with all film considered for preservation, is key. I am stressing that unless there is
national and professional recognition of the significance of home footage as documents of our
cultural heritage, there won't be any footage to select from. First of all, they are already
limited in number. We have to realize that the majority of the home movies taken in the
1920s and 30's are long gone.
In the past 70 years there have been more opportunities for them not to survive than to
survive, including the Depression, World War II, countless moves from home to home, fits of
spring cleaning, deaths and new generations who have no connection or room for such things.
Secondly, the surviving materials suffer from the same deterioration as other acetate
film and as nonprofessional materials: They have not been well-kept; they have been stored in
the worst conditions, closets, attics, basements; they have not been maintained with an eye for
preservation, being roughly handled and barely, if ever, cleaned, and they have been
periodically subjected to now outdated and ill-working projectors that tear up sprockets and
scratch emulsion.
And lastly, if people don't realize the significance of the old footage they have, if I, as
a professional in the field, don't recognize their significance and if you, as a national body
charged with the overall responsibility of guiding the preservation of our visual cultural
heritage, don't realize the significance, what little there is will be lost forever and once again,
people of color will not have been able to take their rightful place in American history.
Thank you.
MR. TABB: Thank you very much, Ms. Ishizuka. Next, we'll hear from Stephen
Gong of the Pacific Film Archive.
Statement of Stephen Gong, General Manager, Pacific Film Archive
MR. GONG: Thank you very much. It is indeed a privilege to speak to the National
Film Preservation Board. I'm going to speak to the significance of the independent and
experimental film and to suggest some of the factors and obstacles unique to the preservation
of these materials. I'll start by describing the activities of the Pacific Film Archive which is a
curatorial department of the University Art Museum at the University of California at
Berkeley.
We are a film exhibition center and a film study center. We present one of the most
extensive exhibition programs in the country with over 650 film and video screenings
annually to a total audience of more than 55,000. Exhibition programs range from silent
films with live musical accompaniment to premieres of experimental film and video art and
include films from every film-producing country in the world.
In addition, attendance at daytime university classroom screenings numbers about
23,000 students annually and another 10,000 are served through a weekly children's film
series. The film and video collection at the Pacific Film Archive contains more than 6,500
titles with particular strengths in the Japanese film (more than a thousand titles), and in Soviet
film or what we would now categorize Russian, Ukrainian and Georgian cinema, American
independent and experimental film and video, international animation, international features
and historical film of the Bay Area.
Our collection is comprised primarily of film viewing prints in 16 and 35mm rather
than archival masters, although we have notable examples in the latter including the video
master of Media Burn and the notorious California election news which were the fake news
reels from Upton Sinclair's failed 1934 gubernatorial campaign.
The Japanese collection is the largest of its type in the United States and features films
from the 1950s through the 70's largely from the Shochiku, Daiei, Nikkatsu, Toho and Toei
film studios. These collections, along with the Soviet shorts and features and the American
experimental films, are largely unique among American archives and attract researchers
working in these particular areas.
We have a film library and study center which is open to the public and is used
extensively also by the students and faculty of the University of California. Annually, we
serve more than 5,000 researchers. We have 7,000 film posters, 25,000 photographic stills,
over 75,000 clipping files, books and periodicals related to film.
Our films are stored in an off-site vault space of more than 11,500 square feet which
is temperature and humidity controlled, although we must consider it as a cool storage rather
than a true cold storage facility. The Pacific Film Archive is an active participant in the
Association of Moving Image Archivists. We are an associate member of the International
Federation of Film Archives and we've participated in the national moving image data base
and other efforts in the field.
We've identified as our preservation priority the American independent and
experimental film. One reason is because San Francisco has long been a center for the
production, exhibition and study of independent and experimental film. It was the center--it
was the site--for the development of some of the first avant-garde film making.
Our collection. In recent years we have preserved important films by George Kuchar,
Gunvor Nelson, and Chick Strand. Our collection has an emphasis on West Coast avant-
garde films from the 1960s including works by Bruce Baillie, Jordan Belson, Bruce Connor,
Gunvor Nelson, Pat O'Neal and James Whitney, among others. These films were produced
outside of and as an alternative to commercial and theatrical film.
They represent a diversity of film styles and types--documentary, shorts, feature
length. They are distinguished by representing the vision of individual artists. Although
produced on triacetate film, which at one time was of course consider safe and permanent, we
are all now too aware that these materials face preservation problems as severe as those which
confront nitrate film. All film is endangered.
In addition, because of the limited number of prints initially made and the general
inability of the independent film maker to afford duplicate prints or even adequate storage for
their originals, experimental films are at particular risk. There are many cases--all too many
cases--where the film maker shot his film on reversal film and then distributed and showed
that original so there is no negative and there's not even adequate printing material. This is a
particular problem of ours, especially as film stocks change. And our ability to make high
quality reproductions becomes that much harder.
As independent works tend to disappear from distribution more rapidly than films
produced by the entertainment industry, it is consequently these works that are most likely to
be lost unless steps are taken now to insure their preservation.
And so I'd like to just suggest a number of points here that would--suggesting some of
the actions that we should take. First, I'd like to reiterate, however, our belief at the Pacific
Film Archive of the interconnectiveness of collection, preservation, access, exhibition and the
study of film. We believe that all of these activities are equally vital and important to the
activities of the Film Archive and to the broadening of film culture, which is the context
which really will make film preservation a possibility.
The second is that, for practical purposes, proper storage of film and video materials is
the most single most effective way we can safeguard the greatest number of materials in our
possession.
Thirdly, because this material that we are trying to preserve is of relatively low
commercial value, is dispersed and now held by individual filmmakers, we would like to
emphasize the importance of collaborative and cooperative information gathering projects.
We actively take part in projects with the National Movie Image Database, which is part of
the National Center for Film and Video Preservation, in their efforts to survey independent
film distributors, making contact with independent filmmakers, asking them where their
original materials are being held. We are in the first steps of such a project, but it's vitally
important that we understand the nature and extent of this problem.
Fourthly, we would like to urge you to consider tax incentives for the donation of film
materials to film archives, not simply for commercial studios but also for individual artists.
It's a different section of the Tax Code, but we would like filmmakers to be afforded
recognition as artists in the donation of their materials to an archive as much as an art work to
a museum.
Finally, at the last conference of the Association of Moving Image Archivists, I
participated on a panel that discussed estate planning, moving image archives in the age of
AIDS. Although the topic of estate planning is not a new one to the archival field, the
subject has taken on a new urgency at this time, given the size and scope of the AIDS crisis.
As a field we face the specter of a generation of media artists who are dying earlier in their
careers and with film and related materials in states of disarray, without the support structures
and time to organize thoughtful bequest agreements with archives.
Clearly, education of the independent filmmaking community and within the archival
community needs to be accelerated, lest we lose a significant portion of these works for future
generations. I thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share these thoughts with you.
MR. TABB: Thank you, Mr. Gong. Now, we're glad to hear from Bob Rosen, who
is a member of the National Film Preservation Board, representing UCLA.
Statement of Robert Rosen, Director, UCLA Film and Television Archive
MR. ROSEN: The archive at UCLA is a large archive. We have the second largest
holdings in the country after the Library of Congress with about 200,000 film and television
titles, and 27 million feet of newsreel. We have active programs in exhibition, in research, in
preservation; and over the course of the last decade, we have been involved in the
preservation or restoration of more than 1000 titles.
With 47 million feet of nitrate in our vaults, we have some major problems to
confront, given the fact that on the funding side, the funds that come from the extraordinarily
useful AFI/NEA preservation grant bought us in 1980 300,000 feet of nitrate for safety film
preservation. In 1992, indicating a clear curve, it bought us only 65,000 feet of nitrate for
safety film preservation. And this is simply one number to indicate the depth of our problem.
But rather than focus on the specific needs of UCLA or of the larger archives
confronting the problem of nitrate, I would rather speak to some of the requisites for a
comprehensive and effective national plan.
I personally have been involved, and I have a perspective on national planning as a
result of my involvement with the National Film Preservation Board, with the National Center
for Film and Video Preservation at the AFI, as a member of the FIAF Executive Committee
and working as the chair of the Archivists Council of the Film Foundation. So I have tried to
think about what is in the best interest of the field as a whole.
What I would like to do in this small amount of time, is to take five minutes to make
eight points. This means that they're going to sound a little bit dogmatic [Laughter.], but I
hope to get them out there. These points are not the technical requisites for a plan. A plan
will come out of the discussions here; rather, they are requisites for the creation of consensus
building in the complex pluralistic archival world in which we live. So let me just list these
eight points.
The first is what should be saved and the justification for it. My feeling is that in
order to present the most compelling case to the public and to the Congress why film ought to
be saved, it is crucial that the justification pivot around the centrality of moving images to a
wide multiplicity of different sectors of twentieth-century culture. Film is entertainment,
wonderful entertainment, but it is also more than entertainment.
For our century, film is at once an art form, a historical document, a cultural artifact, a
market commodity, a political force and an omnipresent object of popular culture.
Consequently, in answering the questions of what should be prioritized for preservation, who
should do the preservation and how preserved films should be made available, we must take
into account an equally wide array of potential users, including historians, sociologists, film
critics, students of film production, economists, social planners and public policy groups. So
that is overall strategy and justification.
Point two, the national collection. For a plan to succeed, it must be premised on the
fact that the national film collection in the American pluralistic context is held and preserved
at a plurality of institutions, philosophically diverse and geographically dispersed, that work
together in a spirit of cooperation and common purpose. UCLA, Eastman House, the Library
of Congress, the Museum of Modern Art, the AFI, the Academy, the Pacific Film Archive
and a host of other institutions around the country collectively hold and preserve virtually all
of the films presently under the protective umbrella of public institutions.
Consequently, any plan for a national preservation effort must recognize this pluralism
as a point of departure and must focus on means to assist the entire array of participants. In a
real sense, the plan must be for all of us.
Third point, financial plan. The plan must dramatize the scale and urgency of the
problem that we confront. In viewing a hundred million feet of nitrate in the vaults of the
archives alone, in looking at the problem of color preservation, in dealing with the restoration
work required for many classics, and in dealing with the question of new technologies, there
is a vast problem with urgent needs.
There must be a fundraising strategy fully commensurate with the scale of the
problem. I think most of the archivists around the country would say that well-meaning
statements of concern are not enough, consciousness raising is not enough, any number of
bake sales and charitable activities like that are very important but not enough. There must
be a bottom line for the bottom line of the report, in order to satisfy the needs of the
archivists across the country confronting the deterioration of film in their vaults.
Fourth point, what I call art in films. There must be an inclusive approach to
identifying the films necessary to be preserved. Although well-known classics from the major
studios capture popular imagination and obviously must be saved, public governmental
agencies have a special responsibility for saving films held in public institutions that otherwise
would have no commercial support. There are many areas here, but in particular I would
underline endangered newsreels and the documentaries turning to dust in our vaults.
At UCLA we have 25 million feet of invaluable newsreel material owned by the
people of California. This is a public trust. The only people who will pay for this
preservation are the public in some sense. And I think these needs must be given the priority
within any financial plan that is drawn up.
Fifth point, partnership. A truly comprehensive national preservation plan must be
premised on fostering a partnership involving the archives, the movie industry, government,
foundations, the creative community and philanthropic individuals. Strategies--new and
imaginative strategies--must be devised for making that cooperation a winning proposition for
all.
An example, and it's merely one, might be providing tax incentives to producers who
contribute toward the preservation work done jointly with public archives.
Point six, technology. Here I have to echo what Michael Friend said earlier, the
nation's archives must aggressively explore the impact of new entertainment technologies on
the future of preservation. While archivists must remain wary of buying into any quick fix
that will later be regretted, we must be open and receptive to new, even radical, solutions to
old problems.
The digital revolution currently underway is destined to transform the very nature of
media culture and may very well ultimately transform the nature of film preservation. We
should be ready for it.
Point seven, television. This hearing is not about television, but it must be put on the
agenda for the future because television and film and their archival activities are so
intertwined.
Finally, point eight, access. The goals of preservation and access are symbiotically
intertwined. To do preservation without access is to create dead storage. To provide access
without preservation is shortsighted. The case for film preservation is best made when the
public falls in love with images on the screen and realizes the tragedy of what might be lost.
The case for preservation is best made with scholars, when they have easy access to the
results of preservation, in user-friendly study centers.
These are eight elements. They are not all that constitutes a national plan, but I
believe they are minimal requisites for all of us working together. Thank you.
MR. TABB: Thank you very much, Bob. I see our last panelist has just arrived.
John, do you want to come on up to the table? John Ptak, from the National Center for Film
and Video Preservation, had said he would be here by 10:00 o'clock and fortunately got here
just a few minutes early. Catch your breath.
Statement of John Ptak, Interim Director and Co-Chair, National
Center for Film and Video Preservation at the
American Film Institute
MR. PTAK: Good morning. I want to thank you very much for having these
proceedings and for this entire process which I think is certainly a compliment to our
intentions. We have one goal and we're all a part of it and it's good to see you here.
I'll just get right to my prepared statement. The reauthorized National Film
Preservation Act of 1992 represents the first time that a moving image preservation planning
study has been requested directly by Congress. For this reason alone it is an extremely
important piece of legislation that deserves both the strong support and extensive involvement
of the entire moving image archival field.
In order to assist with this national planning initiative, the National Center for Film
and Video Preservation at the American Film Institute would like to provide the National
Film Preservation Board of the Library of Congress with its perspective on this vital matter.
As you may know, the National Center was established in 1984 by the National
Endowment for the Arts and the American Film Institute to serve as a central office for
coordinating American moving image preservation activities on a national scale. With
funding support from the NEA, the Center continues to administer the only federally funded
film preservation grants program, researches and publishes a national filmography through its
AFI Catalog project and acquires film and television programs to add to the over 25,000 titles
in the AFI collection at the Library of Congress and other archives.
To assist with these hearings, the National Center would like to recount the results of a
nationwide preservation needs assessment that it carried out in 1990. The survey was
conducted as part of a national planning document prepared by the Center at that time. The
results yielded a clear consensus regarding a number of principals that the nation's archives
felt should be involved in any national plan for the moving image preservation.
To summarize, any preservation plan should include the following. One, to build upon
the long history of work and relationships within the existing archival community. Two,
bring together all constituencies in the field and provide a structure for their direct
participation in the preparation and implementation of the national plan.
In conducting its survey, the Center identified the following key constituencies of this
archival community: (a) the FIAF-member nitrate archives; (b) historic television collections;
(c) local television news archives; (d) nonfiction and subject-oriented collections from
anthropological, ethnic and natural history collections, U.S. government archives, and
educational, industry, labor, political and urban-life collections; (e) independent avant-garde
and performing arts collections; (f) university-based collections with distinct research and
educational mandates; (g) production and broadcast archives from the commercial film and
television libraries of the major studios, network and independent broadcast and production
communities; and finally (h) commercial stock footage archives.
Three, back to the primary list, it is imperative that this plan continue to emphasize the
concept of a national collection now held at a diverse range of public and private archives
across the country who collectively must share in this responsibility of preserving the national
film heritage.
Four, acknowledge the convergence of film and television/video preservation and the
functional inseparability of the two media within the field. Five, address the well-established
priorities of nitrate and theatrical film preservation while at the same time giving attention to
the less developed area of television and video conservation. Archivists have continually
expressed the belief that one of the major goals of a national preservation plan should be to
provide funding agencies with the information they will need to establish ongoing support for
television and video preservation through programs similar to those already in place for film
preservation.
The National Center recognizes that these hearings reflect the legislation currently
embodied in the National Film Preservation Act of 1992 and are intended to address the needs
of motion picture film preservation. As was noted in the announcement for these hearings,
film is defined as, quote:
...works originally fixed on film stock and excludes works fixed on
videotape or other electronic formats. Therefore, the study will not
concern itself with issues related to the preservation of video or television
materials.
Despite this definition, however, it is important to remember that much of, if not most
of, the nation's historic television production has, in fact, and continues to be, originally
struck and fixed on film. It is the hope of the Center that this study will acknowledge this
fact and pave the way for future action by the National Film Preservation Board and the
Congress to address the extraordinary needs of television preservationists. Not to do so might
exclude some of this country's greatest work produced during the golden years of television,
such as Marty or Requiem for a Heavyweight, to subsequent television events such as Roots,
Holocaust or Lonesome Dove or to such representative modern works in television series such
as Twin Peaks, Northern Exposure and, of course, to recent documentaries of filmmakers such
as Frederick Wiseman.
Back to the important list. Six, determine the overall scope of the problem by
measuring the size of this country's moving image production and holdings. This is
especially important for television and cable production. Seven, address the crucial problem
of the selection of materials to be saved. This can be done through national-level selection
criteria, promoting shared preservation responsibilities by both public archives and producers.
Eight, define the appropriate preservation standards and practices, especially those
relevant to emerging new research on storage temperature and humidity conditions to the
deterioration of acetate film materials and to the conservation of materials on magnetic video
tape and other new optical and digital media.
Nine, solidify cooperation between public archives, industry producers, and rights
holders in order to facilitate preservation and access to the broadest possible range of
materials. This is a crucial component of any national preservation plan. The archives have
worked long and hard for many years to build bridges of trust and collaboration within the
production community. Through the membership of the National Film Preservation Board,
the archives feel they have an extraordinary opportunity to expand and strengthen these
relationships. Ten, and finally, we must articulate the long-term funding needs of this
archival community. We must establish the programs, pass the legislation, and raise the
millions necessary to meet these needs.
The techniques to preserve our moving image heritage are available but the rate of
research, acquisition and preservation must be accelerated. With every passing day archivists
must choose how to invest scarce preservation resources. The process of choosing what to
save is to choose what will also deteriorate and die. Time is, therefore, our greatest enemy.
The National Endowment for the Arts and other government agencies are making vital
contributions to the effort but increased support is crucial. In addition to these ten points,
there are additionally two supplemental points that have been clearly articulated by the
preservation field:
A. A national moving image preservation plan should address the concrete and
specific needs of the field not the often limited assumptions of funding agencies
themselves.
B. Any national plan should be kept as focused and simple as possible and not
burdened with additional bureaucracy. It should keep its sights on the bottom line
which is to develop an immediate agenda with significant preservation dollars
attached.
I'd like to close by stating that the National Center for Film and Video Preservation at
the American Film Institute will continue to offer whatever assistance it can provide to help
the Library and the preservation field achieve the goals of the National Film Preservation Act.
For the past decade, the National Center has been actively involved in developing and
coordinating the national preservation effort. In the process, we have acquired a great deal of
experience in planning and implementing national level preservation initiatives.
The Center continues to serve as secretariat for the Association of Moving Image
Archivists, for the North American FIAF Archives and for the Film Foundation. It is,
therefore, in the unique position of having worked closely with all archival constituencies,
film as well as video, public as well as private. More than any other organization we are
aware of the work and the needs of the field in its entirety. In addition, the National Center
continues to acquire physical holding information from a broad range of film and video
archives across the country for inclusion in the National Moving Image Database.
The gathering and coordinating of this information is a crucial prerequisite to any
comprehensive national program. Currently more than 25 institutions have contributed
collections information to NAMID which now holds over 160,000 records. Included in
NAMID is information on a number of titles already selected by the Librarian for inclusion in
the National Film Registry. As one possible point of collaboration, the National Center could
assist the Librarian in gathering holdings data on all titles included in the Registry. This
information would provide a special focus and foundation within the national preservation
database.
The Library and the National Center could coordinate information sharing on these
titles so as to insure the best surviving materials are always available for preservation. The
National Center would like to thank the Library of Congress for its continued leadership on
behalf of preservation and for the opportunity to provide these recommendations today.
Thank you.
MR. TABB: Thank you, John, and the other panelists as well for your excellent and
concise remarks. At this point, I'd like to turn to my colleagues here on this panel to see if
there are follow-up questions that you would like to ask?
DR. BILLINGTON: Just an informational question on the home movies business
because that seems to me a very interesting and rather neglected aspect of this problem. Is
there any union catalogue of these? Has there been any national inventorying of these at all?
Or is your experience with the Japanese American archive, which I think we all found
fascinating, simply a unique phenomenon? Are there other such archives? Is there any
central database or is information about these archives included in any other central reference
works?
MS. ISHIZUKA: To my knowledge, there is no central data bank specifically
considering home footage. There are archives across the country who are considering home
footage to a greater and greater degree. The National Moving Image data bank at the
National Center is including it in its survey and is quite aware. There are other ethnic
institutions, Jewish museums and institutions that are collecting very actively home movies
from their constituents.
Consciousness, I think, is being raised on different levels. For example, Blackside
(Henry Hampton, who did Eyes on the Prize) is now doing a series on the Great Depression.
He had contacted us and tried to get other footage that shows people of color in the 1920s
and 30's and has found great difficulty in doing so. He actually hoped that he could use
more material that we had because it was one source that he had found.
He did look high and low and was very dismayed at not being able to find footage in
any other archive that reflected just everyday life of different ethnic groups during the time.
DR. BILLINGTON: It seems to me there are two aspects to the problem that you
pointed out. One is the sort of multicultural diverse ethnic community's records, which are
not solely home movies. One of the things that I think has been an interesting discovery on
the film registry is the amount of these [ethnic-audience] films that were also made more or
less commercially. They had commercial release and so forth, but have been generally
neglected. So that's one aspect.
But the other aspect is that the home movie thing--which is not confined to any one
ethnic group or even a variety of them--is a general American and modern phenomenon. And
I wondered whether, internationally or nationally, there's any central, even crude, survey of
what there is. I just think of the closets of America. [Laughter.] I mean, we really have a
potential history bonanza for the twentieth century which I don't think anyone has very much
tapped.
MS. ISHIZUKA: There is a working group of the Association of Moving Image
Archivists that is called right now the Amateur Materials Working Group. Part of that
working group there are people in that are concerned with home movies. I offered at that last
meeting to put together a very initial survey of our membership of what members of the
Association of Moving Image Archivists have home footage in their collection.
I hope that this would be an initial step in trying to at least poll members or member
organizations in the Association as to what they have and what they know of others.
Internationally, however, I understand that the European Community has very much
recognized the importance of home footage and we have Canadian representation on the
Amateur [Materials] Working Group that is collecting more information and, hopefully, we'll
be able to distribute that.
DR. BILLINGTON: Just one last question on this and also for Mr. Gong, perhaps,
because it is related to the independent films you talked about. Do the preservation problems
of home and independent movies differ fundamentally, assuming that we're talking mainly
about the postnitrate films? Do they differ in any fundamental ways, apart from the fact that
they're kept under the worst possible conditions in many cases? Are there any fundamental
differences in the preservation aspects of the home and the independent-type movies?
MR. GONG: As I mentioned, one of the particular aspects different is that you start
further back. You start with a tremendous need and, as you inferred, of not knowing exactly
what was produced. The record for exhibition and for copyright registration might be very
scattered. A filmmaker might have made numerous versions of a work, an important cultural
work, but for which our definition as archivists and catalogers makes our jobs that much
harder.
Also, as I mentioned, just to repeat, we may not know the production history of a
particular title: how many copies were made, where the original is, if the one copy that's now
being distributed and shown by a university in a study center is the sole surviving best copy.
That's going to take a certain amount of time to try to work through, and we, as I said, are at
the beginning stages, but we are trying that whole information gathering before we can even
get to the technological side.
MS. ISHIZUKA: I think that in terms of home footage, the films are subject to the
deterioration that other acetate film is subjected to. We have a lot of vinegar syndrome films
and a lot of deterioration that affects acetate film.
I think because especially they're in the closets of America, they have not been at all
thought of as significant materials that should be preserved, so they are not well handled.
Now, I might add, too, that although I think that home footage is particularly significant for
ethnic communities, it's also significant for, say, the regional histories of the United States
and it has a wider significance than simply ethnic.
MR. TABB: Just jump in with questions.
CHAIRWOMAN KANIN: I think the information we're getting even from our first
panel is remarkable. The problem is staggering as we hear it. Bob, you gave us eight points
of activity. If you were to prioritize that, what would you say is the most important to attack
first?
MR. ROSEN: I'd have difficulty answering that question because all eight come
together. The answer I know all my colleagues across the country would want me to give is
funding, but one of the things we know is that the requisite for funding is clarity, and having
a plan and goals and objectives. So it really all works together.
I would say--and I emphasize this--the present technologies are pretty well known.
There are future technologies that are going to develop as well, but the present technologies
are well known. Wonderful works of restoration are done. The major obstacle standing in
the way, is the means to accomplish those goals.
So I would say, the bottom line still remains the possibility of finding those means.
But again, I realize one has to be realistic. And the only way those means will be found is if
a compelling case can be made on all those other fronts. So, in my mind, those eight points
go together as a whole.
CHAIRWOMAN KANIN: Then "making the case" is probably the most important.
MR. ROSEN: Absolutely.
MR. TABB: John?
MR. BELTON: Yes, I have a series of questions. Maybe I can just sort of follow up
with Ms. Ishizuka on the amateur film area. One of the things that strikes me as very
valuable about what you're doing is that you are having direct contact with the public. And
the public is going to be extremely involved in any kind of preservation policy because
they're actually preserving their own immediate records of their family, and of their
community and of their region.
One of the things that I think concerns me, and I'll ask you a question, is the public
has a perception of preservation, especially through their own home movies, that these films
are somehow preserved when they're transferred to video. Most of us know that this is the
worst possible conception they could have, but it spreads also over into the public's notion of
preservation of commercial films, because if they see a commercial film on videotape, they
think it is preserved.
One of the things that I think is important about making an outreach to people who
have amateur films and to the public is to educate them about what exactly preservation
involves and entails, especially if they're talking about their own family records. I guess the
question I have is with your relationship with the public. Is there any kind of financial
collaboration? Do the owners of this material help finance your efforts? And is this a model
that perhaps could be employed for the actual preservation of home movies instead of just
transferring them onto video which is what you're doing? Is there some kind of
private/public collaboration going on?
MS. ISHIZUKA: Yes, I think that's definitely a possibility. At the museum we have
been striving toward that, some with success, some with no success. For example, I received,
I think it was 20 rolls of footage from the Sacramento area. It was from a 1929 Boy Scout
troop, complete with parade and on the steps of the capitol and they were making a goodwill
tour to Japan.
This is something that we felt was important enough for us to consider preserving.
We did not have the funds at that point. I worked with the donor and I worked for a
donation to--and this gets to that second stage that you're talking about--at least to get a very
good telecine [transfer] onto digital tape, a copy, so that I could make him a very good
enhanced quality videotape.
So we have worked with some success. I have worked with other donors, for
example, who simply either do not have the means to do this or do not feel that this is
something that they want to put their funds into. I think there are lots of possibilities for
public and private funding on this.
We have, for example, produced a three-screen video installation that features some of
the video-transferred film, and it is part of the installation at the exhibit at the museum at this
point. You know, this touches on access and provides some public education of the
significance of this material. These types of spinoff projects, I think, can help in the whole
public and private responsibility of preserving these materials.
MR. FRANCIS: I share Mr. Rosen's views and I would like to ask him a specific
question. With the Hearst Metrotone collection, basically, do you differentiate between the
commercial user and the private user and do you make a charge for a commercial user which
takes into account the costs of preserving the material or storing the material? And do you,
separately from that, make a copyright charge, because I understand you have copyright in the
collection as well?
I'd like to know, is there a reaction if you do it, and if you think there's any way in
which this could be expanded to other areas of collections?
MR. ROSEN: It's a very interesting and complex question you're posing.
Specifically, responding to the newsreel material in which we do have a copyright, when we
do license it for commercial purposes in a competitive way with comparable houses outside,
one goal, of course, is to generate income that goes back into the maintenance and
preservation of the collection.
But the larger question you pose is: Can archives have some kind of an entrepreneurial
attitude toward the holdings? One approaches that with enormous care, because with most of
the materials you're holding, you don't in fact own them or own the copyright on them, but
rather you are entrusted to make preservation materials to pass on to the future, and to
provide access to scholars and researchers and the public for purposes of study.
So you do not in any way want to compromise the distance that you have put between
your educational activities and your commercial activities. But in those areas where archives
clearly have the rights, I think it is incumbent upon the archives, given the urgency of the
necessity for funding to do preservation work, to try to use those materials to generate as
much income as possible.
MR. FRANCIS: Do you mind if I just follow that up just one moment, because I was
assuming you had very real costs looking after material, even if you don't own the copyright
and I felt that it was reasonable to pass on some of those costs to the commercial user. Do
you do that? Do you only charge a copyright fee or a facility fee?
MR. ROSEN: No, we don't. But I think again, you propose a good point, and this
refers back to my point about partnership. One of the things that is clear is that all of it, the
maintenance, conservation and ultimately preservation of these materials is a coming together
of the public institutions and private interests, as well as foundations and others. Beginning to
reconfigure what the appropriate contributions are for each of those participants toward those
common goals ought to be on the agenda for discussion.
MR. CHASMAN: Well, this is tied up with the copyright question. My informational
question was: Of the 12,000 photographs and 50,000 feet of film that you control, what's the
copyright status?
MS. ISHIZUKA: We do have agreements of deposit and deeds of gift that include
copyright transfer. We have not, at this point--it is a complex question. They have granted
us copyright and yet we know that, because of rights of privacy because these are personal
artifacts, that we are charged with a great responsibility in terms of our use of that copyright.
In many cases there are other family members or other people who hold those same
images. They may have, in the past, loaned or given copies to other educational institutions,
production companies, whatever. So that's basically where it is. We do have legal deeds of
gift and agreements of deposit, however, on all of the holdings.
MR. TABB: We'll take one more question. Milt, did you have a question?
MR. SHEFTER: Thank you. My thanks from the panel for all of your input which is
very helpful to us. I'd like to direct this question to John and Bob. You both, in your
proposals, have suggested that a national collection be housed at a diverse group of
cooperating archives. Now in preservation, we have a concept of protection by separation in
which we take individual elements from a title and place them in diverse geographical
locations to avoid total loss because of natural or man-made disaster.
Are you proposing this for elements or are you only addressing the issue of exhibition
prints?
MR. ROSEN: No, I think the question of protecting the different elements and
situating them differently is a very good one; but I think what we're talking about is more on
a national basis, that we have different institutions, some in museums, some in educational
settings, some in the context of governmental agencies, some in the area related to the
industry. Each collects in its own way. Each has excellent staff, and the whole question is
how to share the responsibility in a nonduplicative way for the holding of those materials and
for the preservation work itself. So essentially, referring to the national collection and the
responsibility for preserving the national collection as a collaborative enterprise, I am
speaking more fundamentally to that issue.
MR. SHEFTER: And where would you see the coordination of this activity?
MR. ROSEN: Well, this is one of the reasons I'm very optimistic about these
hearings. Up through now, that cooperation has come about in large part because the archives
have found it in each of their own self-interests to work together. And through the
International Federation of Film Archives, as the major nitrate-holding archives, we meet on
an ongoing regular basis to avoid duplication.
Through some of the activities of the National Center for Film and Video Preservation,
there has been some useful coordination that has gone on. And conceivably coming out of
this national plan, maybe new structures and new directions will emerge, and we might move
and might go in that direction.
So this is something to be talked about, but I would say the desire to have that happen
has already been evidenced by the practice of the last twenty years.
MR. TABB: John, did you want to follow up?
MR. PTAK: As Bob said and I completely agree, it's not the intent in what we're
saying to usurp any local identity whatsoever, neither the Center nor the AFI for that matter.
It exists merely to coordinate and reflect the field as a whole. I think that the mandate of the
Center, quite frankly, has been to exercise that with its entire existence. That's why the AFI
was established in the late sixties. It is definitely not to usurp any local identity, but to
provide the facility to reflect our national identity.
MR. SHEFTER: Would you see the National Center as the coordinating body for this
diverse national collection, diversely located national collection?
MR. PTAK: Absolutely, unless there's some reason to create yet another bureaucracy.
[Laughter.]
MR. TABB: Mr. Friend, did you want to respond to this in anyway?
MR. FRIEND: I've always felt very comfortable with having a plurality of archives,
each pursuing their own interest and each maintaining their own collections as best they can.
I don't think we need a bureaucracy to maintain or develop that. What we need is a national
preservation plan to get support for that plurality of institutions.
We have had over the years a number of voluntary organizations which have helped us
to coordinate our activities. The AFI has participated in that, but I don't think that there's
any particular centrality to any group and I wouldn't want to see the establishment of any
kind of centrality. I would rather see a conceptual plan put forth by the National Film
Preservation Act group, which can be funded very well by a variety of sources, both public
and private, and which funding can be directed primarily to the archives that are doing
preservation.
I think that bureaucracies are the death of preservation. They have been in the past
and they will continue to be in the future.
MR. TABB: I want to thank all the panelists both for your prepared remarks as well
as your responsiveness to our panelists' questions. We'll now take about a five minute break
while the next panel comes to the table. Thank you.
[A short recess was taken.]
MR. TABB: Are we ready? Please take your seats. Before the next panel begins, I
want to say how much we appreciate having such a large audience here today. We'd very
much like to know who is here, so we've put a sign-in sheet on the table just outside this
room. We'd be happy for you to put down your name and your organization, if you wouldn't
mind doing that.
We're now ready to start with the next panel: representatives of film laboratories
specializing in preservation work. We'll begin with Robert Heiber from Chace Productions.
Statement of Robert Heiber, President, Chace Productions, Inc.
MR. HEIBER: Mr. Tabb and esteemed panel members, thank you for inviting me to
share my views on the national film preservation policy. I'll keep my remarks brief because
my expertise is more towards the practical realities of film preservation instead of the
theoretical or aesthetic aspects of this very complex issue.
Chace Productions has over 10 years experience in restoring literally the complete span
of sound on motion picture films. Rick Chace, our founder, developed and specialized many
specialized and proprietary pieces of equipment which we have used successfully on films like
Coquette, On the Waterfront, The Ten Commandments and Rebel Without a Cause.
The underlying or common thread of our restoration work is that it's almost
exclusively done for the major studios which are finding new commercial life for their films
and this is, perhaps, the good news. The bad, of course, is that the studios are only a small
portion of our collective film heritage.
In my written remarks, I've indicated that the studios are actively and aggressively
protecting their film assets. And so, perhaps, they should not be given as much assistance as
some of the financially less able institutions. I'd like to temper that position a bit by adding
that while the studios may not need the monetary incentives to protect their films, they do
need to be given some form of credit, compensation and/or recognition for the work that they
are doing.
But I still believe that more assistant be given to financially strapped and traditionally
underfunded film archives. From our experience, basically, a film archive is a storage and
cataloging entity. Literally, the amounts of material they are asked to care for taxes their
ability to do preservation and/or restoration work except on a very selected and limited basis.
Therefore, assistance needs to be given for both storage, which is a large problem due to the
enormous costs of creating a proper environment of low temperature and low humidity, and
for restoration.
However, the ultimate solution rests in developing new technology which will create
more permanent film elements which require less costly controlled storage conditions. So, as
I view it, our national policy should create a stream of funds to be used both short term, to
address storage and rejuvenation efforts, and long term towards research and development of
these new materials which require less expensive storage conditions.
In my written remarks I emphasize that Chace's expertise is in audio and not auditing.
So the creation of this formula to produce revenue I'll have to leave to you experts, but the
bottom line is that the entertainment industry today is a multi-billion dollar industry. And so
today's entertainment should somehow be able to find a way to fund our past motion picture
history.
Finally, whatever our plan is to be, the first part is to set a hard and firm time table to
develop and implement this national policy. I think all of us here agree that time is of the
essence. It would be a terrible shame to discover that a long and lengthy legislative process
had outlived the film elements that it was designed to protect. And so on that note, I will
conclude my remarks. Thank you very much.
MR. TABB: Thank you. Mr. Sargent?
Statement of Ralph Sargent, President, Film Technology Company, Inc.,
accompanied by Alan Stark, Vice President, Film
Technology Company, Inc.
MR. SARGENT: Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, since our written submission to
this panel has already outlined the historical facts and developmental philosophy relating to
Film Technology Company, Incorporated, I would like to concentrate today on an expansion
of the implications of the final paragraph of our written submission and for that reason, I will
include it here.
Film Technology has done, is doing now and looks to the futureto
do more archival motion picture work. Though we have done work formany
nonprofit and governmental agencies, we have never looked to these
organizations for direct underwriting of our facilities or services.
Rather, in this regard, what would be of more direct benefit to us and tothe
field, in general, is this: That organizations which undertake the
underwriting and/or contracting for archival materials take a more realisticview
of their field; that their work is not the ordinary but the
extraordinary; that ordinary facilities have neither the equipment nor
enthusiasm for this type of work and their equipment, procedures and
results are organized around the mass market and are priced accordingly.
Archival work is none of these. It requires patience, precision, attentionto
detail and enthusiasm for the subject that can boggle the mind and to a
greater extent burden the pocketbook. It is time that archival
organizations be properly funded to do the job right and that they, inturn,
give the archival laboratory the greatest possible freedom to do itsjob
and in this way we mean the elimination of artificial price
competitiveness between the ordinary commercial laboratory pretendingto do
archival work and the laboratory that is dedicated to truly satisfyingthe
demands of the archival world. Without a realistic view of what
archival quality means, and what is financially required to produce it, an
archives' new materials and the laboratories that produce them aren'tworth
anything.
I have already cited the fact that large and mid-sized commercial labs seek to derive
the bulk of their profits from volume release printing. This is a given in the business.
Release prints are to the motion picture business what razor blades are to the shaving
business, a wonderful self-destroying product. If a film goes to wide release, more and more
prints are needed. If a projectionist mangles a print, a replacement is needed and so on.
Volume is the key to profits. Preprint materials needed to produce those release prints
are a form of buried cost to the distributor as major labs essentially fold the cost of preprint
into the release printing cost, if the order is big enough. So if an archive attempts to deal
with a lab with this mindset, the usual answer is, "Don't bother us, we're too busy with such
and such feature."
On the other hand, if a mid-sized lab is having some slack time, it's not unheard of for
management to suggest that the lab seek to do some archival or preservation work to fill the
gap. They put out a bid which is way below that of an experienced preservation lab and get
the job. All of a sudden, the people down below are stuck with a project for which they are
not equipped, either mechanically or experiencially.
The film comes over from the archive and the lab prep person doesn't know what he
or she is looking at. The original could be safety or nonsafety in various stages of
decomposition or have often more or less severe mechanical problems. The lab may not even
have shrinkage gauges to measure shrinkage, much less printers that can handle shrunken
film.
Sound may be a problem which must be dealt with if the archives so wish, to counter
undesirable effects built in by previous mishandlings and inattentive rerecordings. And this lab
lets the existing track slide by because its people can't hear anything wrong much less have
any means to do something about it and so on. The product of this approach to preservation
can be quite unimpressive if not downright disastrous.
It is against this type of operation that the true archival lab often has had to bid when
the inquiry came from the inexperienced archive or governmental agency requesting an
estimate.
The key to avoiding the previously described situation is really experience, experience
on both the part the buyer as well as the seller. If the buying organization has the experience
to know what type and condition of material it seeks to duplicate and preserve, and couples
that with the knowledge of what can realistically be accomplished in the duplication process,
then it will not use the hypothetical lab described above. Rather the archival organization can
approach an experienced lab as a partner in preservation, an extension of its own facilities,
and work out the best approach tailored on a film-by-film basis to make the materials it
needs.
The next logical question is, what does this degree of specialization cost? The answer
is: If you only look at charges being based directly on footage, the charges are remarkably
similar to commercial labs located within the same geographical area. (It is true that East
Coast laboratories have historically had an edge on prices in all phases of the business. Then
again, we on the West Coast think we do it better.) The real difference comes with the
amount of effort and charges for preparation or prep work and other a la carte services. If
the customer walks in with a film in which every splice is falling apart or if there are many
broken or completely missing perforations or some other structural problem, then it's going to
take some time to get the film mechanically ready for printing. This time is chargeable and is
in addition to the per-foot charge.
Labor for conforming picture and track, marking off sections for paper-to-paper
printing and other similar work is also chargeable. At Film Technology Company,
Incorporated, an analysis of some of our more recent projects shows that labor-related charges
and other extras vary widely for individual projects. We have found that per-foot prices
historically charged by commercial laboratories as well as those listed in the price schedules
of preservation laboratories was not a true measure of the cost for film preservation.
We have sampled a variety of black-and-white projects that Film Technology has done
over the past few years to look at the additional charges for various processes, techniques and
technical labor required to produce well restored archival quality materials. Of 25 projects
sampled, we found additional charges ranging between 2 and 31% of the per-foot charges.
There does not appear to be any correlation between the gross footage and extra charges.
To assume that special handling charges can be extrapolated as a fixed percentage of
gross footage submitted to the laboratory may be totally erroneous. It is our opinion that the
wide project-by-project variation in non-per-foot charges is directly related to the widely
varying condition of original film elements and the efforts to produce quality restorations. An
awareness of this on the part of archivists, archival laboratories and those funding archival
activities is most important.
Finally, I would like to address what we feel is a fundamental misconception of our
business as it presently stands. Many archives and their funding agencies have the mistaken
notion that somehow we or other preservation laboratories are operating at full capacity and
therefore, do not have the time for their work or that more labs are needed to fulfill the
demand there is out there. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We, at Film Tech, have been asked what we need to do to increase our capacity to do
more preservation projects. The immediate answer is: "Nothing". We have the plant,
equipment and people to do 50% percent more work without changing a thing other than
striving for a steadier work flow. Recent work has come in waves. Lots of work all of a
sudden, then periods of no orders. Steadier, more consistent ordering would definitely result
in more productivity.
From a federal funding standpoint, two year granting cycles for archives along the
lines of funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting might help alleviate the situation.
To increase production beyond the point already described would entail adding more staff
with no additional outlay for equipment of facilities. We've been running approximately one-
and-a-half shifts per day and this obviously, could be doubled.
Our theoretical facility capacity is probably two-and-a-half to three times what we are
doing now. We would be ecstatic to reach that level of productivity. All we need is the
demand. Thank you for your attention.
MR. TABB: Thank you, Mr. Sargent. Mr. Stark, did you have anything you wanted
to add? All right, fine, we'll go on then to Mr. Dayton.
Statement of Richard Dayton, President, YCM
MR. DAYTON: I'd like to thank Annette Melville and the members of the panel for
inviting me here to comment on the subject of film preservation. I'll make my remarks brief
in the interest of questions. As a teenager, I was interested in motion pictures and the method
by which they were manufactured. Having worked as a film inspector, a negative cutter,
developer, control department head of various companies, I was exposed to a great many
techniques and methods.
For over 30 years I have seen the changes in technology and its effect on preservation
and restoration of motion pictures. Television in the 1950s brought about the distribution of a
great many films in 16mm in a level of quality considered quite acceptable. These copies
were often manufactured directly from 35mm nitrate negatives. Later as distribution grew
wider, 35mm finegrain master positives were used to make 16mm negatives for printing.
Had these 35mm elements not been saved, good quality copies could not have been
made. With the increased interest in older films over the years better quality copies were
needed. 35mm prints were often shown in Filmex and other venues whenever possible.
Original prints or carefully made new ones were warmly received.
With the advent of distribution by means of videotape to television facilities, 16mm
materials tended to become substandard. Revised quality standards demanded a return to the
original material. Again, this meant using 35mm elements, very often nitrate, whenever
possible. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of saving these original elements.
What is considered acceptable quality at one point in time may be considered quite
poor at a later date. If original nitrate elements are discarded after copying, these images and
sounds may never know the benefit of future technology. Only in the last 30 years have we
come to expect the advantages of wetgate printing, computer-designed lenses, T-grain
technology, LAD or laboratory density standards, digital sound processing, etc. Also the
quality of lab work particularly with respect to older films has improved substantially.
If a reel of film is definitely deteriorating, and none of it can be saved then, yes, it
should be disposed of. It is my understanding that the only element in nitrate film that is
harmful to the environment other than its flammable properties and gases, is possibly the
metal reel, plastic core or container. I'd like to think there might be a new solution to the
currently expensive manner in which nitrate film is disposed. I know in the thirties it was
quite often disposed of in the ocean at night when no one was looking, and I am told that in
many ways that this, although it sounds horrific, is not necessarily all that bad environmentally.
Another point I'd like to address is that even though the current buzz words are
digital, HDTV and so forth, the long term preservation of film images and sound is still safer
on film. We and other facilities have many many times successfully retrieved high quality
color images from separation master positives or negatives.
Separation master positives, however, are not often checked back to an internegative to
confirm their quality. We have uncovered instances where defects have not been detected--
two yellow records and no magenta, two cyan records and no magenta, replacement section
cut-in cyan for magenta, magenta for cyan and so on.
We've also manufactured new separation master positives from color negatives or
separation negatives. These are tailored to be composited back to the current film stocks
available at this time. As for sound records on film, I can say that as technology changes and
improves new ways of transferring audio are continuing to surface. Saving original elements
will allow the possibility of a better result at some future date.
MR. TABB: All right, thank you. Follow-up questions?
MR. SHEFTER: Gentlemen, this panel has received preliminary information from
some users that capacity is an issue. Mr. Sargent, you stated this morning that capacity is not
an issue and I'd like the panel to put on statesmen-like hats and speak for the industry, if you
can. Is there capacity to handle the time-consuming, nonproductive work of film preservation
today? Is it available today or do we have to wait three months for you to build it if the
business is there?
MR. SARGENT: It's there today. I can say that unequivocally. Now, if, in fact, you
were to immediately double the demand, yes, we would have to bring in additional people
and train them. But in terms of going 50% up, we can handle it. I'm speaking for Film
Technology Co., Inc..
MR. DAYTON: No, I agree with you. In fact, I think if you could, as Mr. Sargent
said, anticipate a general flow of work, other than that sporadic sort of thing, it's a lot easier
to enlarge and plan ahead. I know handling nitrate is more difficult because we're really only
allowed so many rolls and so many cans at one time in a facility, even though we have
sprinklers and all this sort of stuff. It is a problem of traveling back and forth to vaults and
so forth, the handling, etc., because vaults are closing down, not opening.
MR. HEIBER: I don't see any problem from our standpoint or in the audio domain in
terms of capacity to handle more archival restoration work. I'm a little bit curious to find out
where you get your information that there's a shortfall in capacity actually.
MR. SHEFTER: I'm only here to ask. I can't answer, sorry. [Laughter.]
CHAIRWOMAN KANIN: It goes one way. [Laughter.]
DR. BILLINGTON: The vaults closing, could you expand on that? You said vaults
are closing.
MR. DAYTON: Well, I know of some vaults that were located on the land of a
laboratory in Los Angeles that were torn down to make room for other space. They were
their own vaults and used for their own purposes, but because they dealt so little in nitrate
they tore them down. And the building restrictions for new vaults are much different than in
the thirties. I think that whatever studios hold nitrate vaults, it seems the general trend is to
clear them out and close them down.
CHAIRWOMAN KANIN: You said there were difficulties in selecting a good lab,
that sometimes mistakes are made in selecting a lab that doesn't do good work. Would it be
helpful for users of labs to have a set of guidelines of things for them to demand or ask for or
recognize in the selection of a lab?
MR. STARK: I agree with you. I'm a member of the AMIA organization also and,
within that group, the constant question that keep coming up, particularly from smaller
archives is: "We need more technical information. We need to educate ourselves." It's a very
important issue.
MR. BELTON: This morning Michael Friend was actually framing the whole issue of
what is preservation: What does it constitute? I didn't assume that he meant that if you have
certain preprint elements and they're preserved, you can say: "It's been preserved." From
what Mr. Dayton and Mr. Sargent have been saying, I'm wondering whether this is the case.
In other words, if a studio had preprint elements from a new film and it's not been
done at a kind of archival lab but they just have preprint elements, does this necessarily mean
that the studio's material is preserved? And if an archival lab were to take these preprint
elements what would they be able to do with them?
MR. SARGENT: I think that, in fact, most of my remarks were not directed at the
major studios because they generally protect their materials very well. I think that what I'm
aiming at are, in fact, institutional archives and archives which deal with nonentertainment
films, also. A present-day studio that is making new materials can, of course, deal with
standard commercial laboratories. That is precisely what they're for.
But when you back away 30 or 40 or 50 years from today's production, then all of a
sudden, you have to examine what do you have and approach it in a much more labor-
intensive way than a modern lab would do with a current picture. I'm trying to make a
distinction between currently produced pictures and pictures that have existed for a
considerable period of time.
MR. TABB: David Francis.
MR. FRANCIS: I don't think anyone's mentioned the question of preservation
standards. I think that it's very important that everyone involved in preservation has them. I
wondered whether the group of speakers here and other people who are actual specialists in
film preservation could help devise a set of standards which we should be working towards
and also possibly advise anyone who's using your facilities if the request they're making is
not meeting those standards?
MR. SARGENT: We do that now.
MR. FRANCIS: I see.
MR. SARGENT: We certainly have customers who come to us and say, "We want to
do X, Y and Z", and if we don't agree in terms of producing what we would consider to be
proper archival material, we will point that out to them. They're the boss, of course; they've
got certain specific goals. If they don't want to go to that particular extreme, then that's their
choice.
But also we do have to ask the question, do you intend to push this beyond what
standards FIAF is setting, and what their recommendations are, or would you fold their work
into this report?
MR. FRANCIS: Well, I would also be very interested in your views about existing
standards and about the standards imposed or suggested by FIAF. I would be very interested
to know if you agree with them or not. It just seems we must have standards that we're
working towards.
Okay, there are times when you can't meet those standards, but you want to know
you're not meeting them. You want to be able to have a way of testing that the work that is
being done meets those standards. I was asking your advice as to whether there was any way
that we could go further towards establishing a set of standards that everyone could be
working towards. And those have to be realistic standards, because you can never finish
preservation. You can go on doing more and more work and making something better and
better. You have to find some level which is reasonable and attainable.
MR. DAYTON: For YCM, we continue to try to upgrade and improve methods of
doing things and even though we're keeping abreast of current standards. Whenever we can,
we will do things differently if they are for the better. So what was standard and acceptable
10, 15 years ago is not necessarily what I would consider standard or acceptable today.
MR. SARGENT: It's an interesting point because I think that both SMPTE and the
other standards organizations tend to always follow in the wake of what is going on in terms
of progress. And we were talking earlier, I think, John Belton and I, about how, in fact, the
SMPTE hasn't appeared to publish any articles or very few articles in the most recent year
pertaining to motion pictures, per se. The proportion of motion picture-related articles versus
video-related articles is almost 99 to 1, let's say, and the standards seem to go accordingly.
So what you're asking here is whether or not we have to be our own vanguard and the
answer is "Yes, we must be." I think your request would be an interesting one to pursue.
But standards also have a way of stopping progress, too.
MR. HEIBER: I think I'd just like to add, I think probably if you would like to say,
"This work will be funded if it's done to a given standard," you could set up a technically
correct minimum standard. I don't think you would ever want to stop anyone from pushing
the envelope. And I think really what we said today is we don't know where we're going to
be going in the future. Is it going to be digital optical technology for a storage medium? Is
it going to be some other form or way of preserving this stuff?
I think you have to say, "Well, here's what we can do today and this will a good base,
cornerstone. It should be preserved on ESTAR film, polyester film; it should have X type of
noise reduction for talking, sound; that's our minimum." You could certainly exceed it, but if
you meet these minimum requirements, then you're fulfilling your duty to be technically
correct.
Then you come into the total subjective portion of the material and then it's a question
of artistic taste and what you're trying to achieve. And I don't think you can set any
standards for that.
MR. TABB: David.
MR. CHASMAN: This seems like a fundamental question but are there uniform
criteria for storage conditions for film or does it vary from lab to lab and from vault to vault?
MR. SARGENT: There are certain suggestions in that regard but those have changed
over the years. There are standards now which were considered fairly--
MR. CHASMAN: Is there any continuing research into that particular aspect of the--
MR. SARGENT: Yes, sir, but not within our organizations but at the Permanence
Institute in Rochester and so forth. They are the ones who have really looked into it more so
than us. We are on the producing end of the materials as opposed to the warehousing.
MR. CHASMAN: Okay.
MR. TABB: John.
MR. BELTON: I'd like to follow up on the standards question. If I understand the
discussion, if a group sets a certain level of standards and since you work on the basis of
clients or a relationship, and the client cannot really afford to preserve according to those
standards, does where standards are set really impact seriously on whether films get
preserved? Or are we taking a risk if we set the standards too high? If there's a plan that has
that absolute [set of standards]--you know, a preserved film that is going to qualify for a tax
incentive or a tax credit or something has to be this, that and the other thing--I think we're
asking for someone to eventually be spending $30,000-40,000 for a simple color film? Is this
a danger?
MR. HEIBER: Yes, I think it is. I mean, obviously some preservation is better than
no preservation. So you don't want to say, "If you can't meet these criteria, you get no credit
whatsoever or no value for what you've done." And obviously, you may just see someone
who will say, "Well, forget it, I'm not going to do it." That serves no one's purpose.
So it's a very, very fine line. I mean, we're moving into an area which becomes very
difficult, I would think, to legislate and it needs, I think, a more broad blanket policy.
Whatever you do is going to be appreciated and valued.
MR. STARK: Those decisions are being made on a routine basis by the smaller
institutions today. Some of our clients, who, again, are smaller institutions, really have severe
funding problems and generally they have two goals. One is preservation; the other is access
and exhibition. And their general mode of exhibition is via video because they have a
mandate in their institution to accomplish this.
And they will go in that direction and perhaps do only a film-to-tape transfer simply
for that purpose and put the film back on the shelf and say: "Well, we may have to deal with
the preservation aspect later, but we have at least accomplished this." It's driven totally by
dollars.
MR. SARGENT: Something else, too, about the materials that are produced. It's only
recently that Eastman Kodak, for example, is heading in the direction of commercializing
polyester-based intermediate films in black-and-white, even though they've been pushed for
20 years in this regard and that materials of that kind were available on special order. It was
always an impediment to doing that sort of thing, but now they are definitely doing it.
That, as one of the requirements, I think is fundamental. I don't know anybody here
who would argue with me, but I'm willing to listen. There is the question of residual
chemistry within the film when it's finished. Those are given standards that we work to now.
I mean, we definitely make every effort to keep that sort of thing under control.
Beyond that, what are we talking about? Are we talking about steadiness, resolution,
certain contrast levels and so forth, fixed standards for what constitutes a fine grain versus a
dupe negative and so forth? I would point out though that one of the wonderful things about
motion picture film in the last hundred years is its great elasticity to deal with a wide variety
of applications and to try and nail this down to something as specific as what I've just said,
takes away that elasticity.
So it's a question of what are the standards. You know, what is it that you're really
talking about to really nail what constitutes archival materials? It's in some ways like certain
other things: I know it when I see it.
CHAIRMAN KANIN: This is for Mr. Dayton. I noticed in some of the material that
was provided for us that you were suggesting that it was valuable to preserve nitrate film for
later use. It says that it would, in some instances, provide better quality source information.
And that amazed me because we've all thought once nitrate has changed to safety--it's put on
safety--we should get rid of the nitrate. Your suggestion is that we hang on to it. So we still
keep having the problem of storing nitrate.
MR. DAYTON: I would think so, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN KANIN: From your suggestion.
MR. SARGENT: Can I add to that?
CHAIRWOMAN KANIN: Yes.
MR. SARGENT: Such as in the case of the video business, the technology is moving
rapidly in that regard. And what was considered a reasonable transfer, in fact, an excellent
transfer, five years ago today is not. To compare the two side-by-side, the faults and
omissions of five years ago stand out like sore thumbs.
I agree with Richard on this one, that the same is true in the motion picture business.
Things get better and better. The materials and the machines that we do this work on get
better and better. As long as that foundation of the original nitrate stays around, then you can
go back and do it again as that technology improves. I don't agree with kissing it off at one
point.
MR. HEIBER: Yes, I don't think there's a facility out here that would ever
recommend to a client once something is preserved, no matter what condition the original
element was in, "Okay, it's okay to throw it away now." None of us say that. Of course, this
is why you end up with an enormous storage problem, because here you are saying: "Let's
make a protection copy. Now, we [client] have a good safety and now you're [lab] telling
me, don't throw away this thing we just started from."
And yet I would say "don't," because as we all know the technology will be advanced.
Who knows what we'll be able to resurrect from it in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. So, yes,
you end up with kind of a dual standard. Yes, we've protected it; now it's safe. But no,
keep all the old stuff that's shrinking and falling apart because who knows how much better
we can do it in the future. It's a very difficult--
CHAIRWOMAN KANIN: The storage problem just--
MR. HEIBER: It's not going to go away. I think maybe it would be, again as some
of the computer technologies evolved a way of condensing and doing a less costly controlled
storage environment for some of it. And then still an expensive and controlled environment
for the rest of it, because that's the problem with the film elements. They're wonderful,
they're durable, they're very accessible, and they're universal in their use, but they're not
permanent. That's the problem.
DR. BILLINGTON: What role do storage conditions play in national planning? If
that's the consensus of views, that you have to keep the original even if you're transferring it,
this is a pretty massive storage problem. You're saying vaults are being plowed under, even
though the need for them seems to be recognized by the same panel that's reporting the vaults
are being discarded.
Is there some role for the Film Board in this? And then I have one other question.
MR. SARGENT: You're talking about setting standards, vault standards, really?
DR. BILLINGTON: Well, just the minimal standard, just to make sure they exist.
MR. HEIBER: I mean, obviously the creation of some kind of national repository for
materials, for the vaulting material of proper temperature and humidity control which right
now is around 20 to 30% humidity and around 0_C is what's recommended. You can see that
that's very expensive and I don't think you'd want to locate that facility in Florida. But it
would be wonderful to put that into the pie; to say, yes, there will be a national repository
that will handle this.
The nitrate storage has become one of an environmental concern. And so, you know,
which lucky state gets it? [Laughter.] No one likes wants hazardous waste. How do you
figure out the solution to that?
DR. BILLINGTON: Let me ask another question. You know, realistically at some
point we're going to have to deal with priorities rather than an endless inventory of problems.
For you as professionals who work directly with a wide variety of material--leaving apart the
judgments about what ought to be preserved because of its content--in terms of form, in terms
of the material, what kinds of materials are in the most immediate need? What are the
highest immediate priorities for just the physical preservation of the material?
Could you give me some sort of classification, you know, first, second, third; I mean,
some sense of order of priority? I have talked with a number of people who are interested in
this, and it seems like we get an undifferentiated laundry list of needs that goes on and on. If
you're going to deal with people--anybody, public, private, or whatever--who must pay, you
need some kind of prioritized list. I'm interested in your sense of what are the most
immediate needs.
I know this is a very difficult problem, just in preserving the physical materials.
MR. SARGENT: I'll speak to black-and-white. You speak to color. Obviously
where possible the original negatives, but in lieu of that, you have to march down the
generational chain--finegrain positives from those dupe negatives and so forth. But I think the
key is generational. Wherever you can identify an original camera negative, for example,
that's where you start and you go on from there.
And in that regard, I still say that properly made polyester-based materials right now
offer the best hope for duplicate materials of whatever generation you select. But if you can't
go that far, get back in the chain as far as you can.
MR. DAYTON: I agree with that. The color, at least nitrate color, is all basically
black-and-white film anyway in the form of three separations. So it is a situation again where
you certainly want to go back to the original negative or the earliest generation of the element
that is available and transfer from that, assuming it is a good one. In fact, sometimes, you
know, it's kind of a subject-by-subject case.
Many times what is considered a second generation element made in 1930 might not
be anywhere near as good as something made in 1946 from the same material, but with the
better technology at that time. Also the opposite could be true as well. It's a difficult choice-
-really there's no rule to go by. You have to examine the material and make the best
judgment.
MR. HEIBER: If I could just add to that. As a policy among ourselves as facilities,
that's really exactly it: Look at what are all the materials and go to whatever the best original
element is for manufacture of subsequent elements. I think if you preserve that one element,
and if you have had every element to examine, you can say conclusively, "This is the best
element." I think then you've done your duty to preserve that one project and you can go on.
And as you say, you have to be able to set a criteria. You can't copy everything.
And you can't save every possible thing. You can save it, but you don't necessarily have to
preserve everything if you've made that very scientific research of what is the best element
for manufacturing.
MR. FRANCIS: This isn't really a technical question and it's probably not the ideal
place to ask it, but I cannot resist because in your letter to the Board, you said two things.
You said:
Will the studios be able to renovate their entire film inventories in a time
expedient fashion? ...Will every film in a studio's collection be considered
commercially desirable? The answer to both questions, in my opinion, is
optimistically, yes.
Now, that is a fairly strong statement. I wondered why you felt this. If that is going
to be the case, it's obviously very important that it is reflected in the national plan.
MR. HEIBER: Well, what we've seen in the types of projects that we've been asked
to remaster is that you can't rule out anymore what might or might not be a commercially
viable project. And so because the studios are very, very protective now of their own assets;
I mean, these are gold mines for the studios. They have well-implemented procedure--or
they're all developing them now--to go and examine every element they have. If they see
that it is in need of restoration or preservation, most of them are preserving it because they
just don't know when they may be able to sell it.
So that's a giant driving force and you certainly are not going to let any more of these
little nuggets of gold be lost to history. So I think because of the enormous demand for this
material, the studios are being responsible in protecting it primarily for financial reasons. I
am optimistic. I mean, I would like to think that they will all be saved in time. The studios
have enormous film inventories but they're all working real hard as far as we can tell to
protect them.
MR. TABB: John?
MR. BELTON: Yes, Mr. Heiber again. I have sort of a real interest in sound, and as
I understand it, there is digital technology for preserving film sound. What are your feelings
about this? How do you prefer to preserve sound tracks independently of film? Do you
prefer to use digital technology or analog?
MR. HEIBER: Well, right now our facility does not recommend digital preservation
of audio primarily because there are no standards in the digital world for that preservation.
And primarily looking in the long-term view, we recommend to our clients that the analog
preservation with the proper noise reduction is probably more useful in the short term.
We've examined some things for digital preservation, optical digital preservation of
audio. Again, it goes back to a film-base medium which still requires the controlled storage
conditions. Even though we've looked at some data that suggests the reels will last for 800
years or longer, which is certainly a lot longer than we could expect many things to last right
now and you and I would never have to worry about it, it still requires that very expensive,
controlled-storage conditioned environment which is going to be the continuing cost of a film
preservation plan.
So at this point in time, you might say we're a little bit on the sideline. We do digital
restoration work at our facility. It's done very carefully and really kind of, you might say,
with analog ears because there is a desire still to have the warmth and the richness of that
kind of audio processing. The future is where the exciting breakthrough technology is
coming. At our company we're developing proprietary equipment ourselves to use computers
to do some of this interpolation work in restoration.
MR. TABB: One last question from Milt.
MR. SHEFTER: We've kind of touched on this but I'd like to get the response of the
whole panel on the film support or base material. Nitrate, as we all know, is very
unpredictable. We don't know how long it's going to last or when it's going to start
deteriorating. Up to recent times it was general policy to transfer it to safety film and that
was cellulose acetate. And now we have the vinegar syndrome which may or may not be
Chicken Little. I'd like to hear your opinion on whether acetate is no longer the safety stock
for preservation. And without being repetitive, Ralph, your feelings on polyester.
MR. SARGENT: Well, first on the question of triacetate film, we have run into a
considerable amount of it which is, in fact, not suffering the years well. Certainly 16mm and
8mm films which have been stored in high humidity, in high temperature areas, Hawaii,
Florida and so forth, have very poor survival characteristics. We've also seen deterioration in
35mm film that has been kept in Hollywood vaults.
So we're not out of the woods on that one. It is a real problem. Now, as far as
polyester is concerned, we've got an experience here of 20 to 30 years with that material. As
a motion picture base, certainly it's been in use for that period of time. Those films hold up
very well and on a comparative basis, if you went down through all the physical
characteristics the films are put through, there is no doubt that polyester based material is far
superior to both nitrate and safety triacetate films in its characteristics and in its expected
longevity. There is no question about that. I don't know that you want to get much more
technical on that score.
MR. DAYTON: I just wanted to add that at the moment we're in a bit of a problem
with Eastman Kodak, our supplier of intermediate black-and-white film. They put out a flyer
about a month-and-a-half ago announcing the availability of finegrain duplicating positive film
on ESTAR base and duplicating negative film on ESTAR base. But the sales office and the
representatives say that these are not available yet. So this is a problem because 90% of the
preservation work that I do--and I'm sure that Ralph does--goes on these stocks and the film
base polyester is not yet available. You cannot buy this film yet.
MR. SARGENT: We have heard, in fact, that AGFA in Europe is probably going to
discontinue the manufacture of these intermediate materials on a triacetate base but that
discontinuation is also occurring because of environmental laws relating to the manufacture of
the base stock. Europe appears to be much tighter on this score than we do in this country.
So if they [AGFA] come into this country on a big scale, commercially a big scale,
with dupe negative, finegrain stocks and so forth on polyester base, it's going to force Kodak
to really move along and not send out these little letters that say, "Whoops, we've got a
problem."
MR. STARK: I might add one minor comment to this--talking about myths and
another subject earlier. Polyester has somewhat of a myth, too, in terms of people saying,
"Laboratories do not like to deal with this base." Speaking |
