Tweet Films held in private collection

Okay, let's everybody take it down a few notches.

The problem, Norman, is that I think you imagine a state of affairs in which Obscure Film X is highly sought after and sneaky collector snatches it out from under the nose of someone more likely to share it with you, a well-funded institution which would make it available to everyone.

Except maybe in a few cases— like Detlaff and Frankenstein— something more like the opposite is the reality. Collector finds the thing no one wants. Often collectors work with institutions and studios to make things available— there's the example right now where the Vitaphone Project is working with Warners right now to preserve the earliest Three Stooges film, which a collector turned out to have in Australia and alerted them to. But that's the Stooges, bigger than Garbo. Most things are obscure for good reason, and nobody wants them, there is no deep-pocketed Santa for most of them, not even Hef.

So the collector isn't the last obstacle in front of their being shared— he's more likely to be the first line of defense against it vanishing forever. He cares because he's the only one who cares. And that's without getting into the problem of studios which have been known to seize things collectors had even when the collector has the only one, and so on.

You want to see the rare things collectors have? Do you go to any of the conventions? Cinefest is coming right up and there's no end of things there that some collector has saved and some archive has put money into fixing up. Then there's Cinevent and Cinesation and Cinecon and Pordenone and so on. Not only can you see the saved things, you can talk to the people involved in it, you can even fund the restoration of this or that. There's no hidden cabal, it's right there happy to chat with you— and share with you.

No, I don't. I know all of those things, and like I already wrote I don't have any beef with collectors, except when they are arrogant and presumptuous. The examples that you give are the opposite too: At those fests the films are for the public the way they were meant to be. But this system that you've just described can be a pain if you are for example looking for 1 particular film.
I agree that lack of funds is the issue, not surprisingly. (No, I haven't funded anything, but I have seen to it that the nitrate I found one day got a good home.)
But I also think there may be a small number of people who simply get off on having something others don't ("I don't want to lend"). I've heard stories of people who had been holding on to some shows, whose next of kin tossed their collection in the garbage can the week after they died...

[Mike Gebert]

But this system that you've just described can be a pain if you are for example looking for 1 particular film.

Yes, life is like that. What else is there to say?

Le Maison de Mystere is coming out on blu-ray in the next couple of months. That was on my "no effin' way I'll ever see THAT" list, and soon it'll be on my shelf. Glass half full.

But this system that you've just described can be a pain if you are for example looking for 1 particular film.

Yes, life is like that. What else is there to say?

Le Maison de Mystere is coming out on blu-ray in the next couple of months. That was on my "no effin' way I'll ever see THAT" list, and soon it'll be on my shelf. Glass half full.

Bit of a truism, but yes, if you must, that happens all the time and not just with films. I just think the people who are truly hoarders are despicable (only them, not the others).

About the other truism: The glass is twice as large as it needs to be, besides, the upper half is filled with air, and who can live without air?

But this system that you've just described can be a pain if you are for example looking for 1 particular film.

Yes, life is like that. What else is there to say?

Le Maison de Mystere is coming out on blu-ray in the next couple of months. That was on my "no effin' way I'll ever see THAT" list, and soon it'll be on my shelf. Glass half full.

Bit of a truism, but yes, if you must, that happens all the time and not just with films. I just think the people who are truly hoarders are despicable (only them, not the others).

About the other truism: The glass is twice as large as it needs to be, besides, the upper half is filled with air, and who can live without air?

All of which reminds me of the Gary Larsen "The Far Side" cartoon that I still have posted on my wall. It shows "The four basic personality types".

First person: "The glass is half full!"
Second person: "The glass is half empty!"
Third person: "Half full! ... No, wait! Half empty! ... No,half ... What was the question?"
Fourth person: "Hey! I ordered a cheeseburger!"


Jim

I think the image of the shadowy, selfish collector propagated by people such as McIntyre diverts attention from the real problem. There are still far too many vintage films in which the copyright is owned by a person (usually a corporate one) who is not making, nor intends to make any use of it. There are many instances of legal rights which lapse by reason of desuetude and, in my opinion, this should be added to them.

I realise the analogy is not exact but no-one would seriously suggest that a collector who, at his/her own time and expense, has unearthed a Renaissance masterpiece or a first edition of The Great Gatsby should be compelled to hand it over.

I think the image of the shadowy, selfish collector propagated by people such as McIntyre diverts attention from the real problem. There are still far too many vintage films in which the copyright is owned by a person (usually a corporate one) who is not making, nor intends to make any use of it. There are many instances of legal rights which lapse by reason of desuetude and, in my opinion, this should be added to them.

I realise the analogy is not exact but no-one would seriously suggest that a collector who, at his/her own time and expense, has unearthed a Renaissance masterpiece or a first edition of The Great Gatsby should be compelled to hand it over.

Just to be provocative ... What if it was the only surviving copy of Gatsby? Or of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band?

Jim

I'm reminded, Jim, of the reporter interviewing an Occupy Wall Street guy who said there should be no such thing as private property. "So I can just take your Ipad?" "That's personal property."

To be provocative, mind if I go through your house and take stuff that's valuable?

Bob

I'm reminded, Jim, of the reporter interviewing an Occupy Wall Street guy who said there should be no such thing as private property. "So I can just take your Ipad?" "That's personal property."

To be provocative, mind if I go through your house and take stuff that's valuable?

Bob

You would emerge empty-handed!

Jim

A valid point. I'm not a collector so perhaps my view is overly romanticised but my experience is that a large majority of collectors (large enough anyway to render the problem de mimimis) would be only too pleased to receive an offer from a reputable source to take the necessary preservation steps.

A film's purpose is to be seen by a large number of people. If it's not available to be seen due to the efforts of a hoarder, it's not only failing to serve its purpose, it's being actively prevented from doing so, and it might as well be lost.

[Christopher Jacobs]

All of which reminds me of the Gary Larsen "The Far Side" cartoon that I still have posted on my wall. It shows "The four basic personality types".

First person: "The glass is half full!"
Second person: "The glass is half empty!"
Third person: "Half full! ... No, wait! Half empty! ... No,half ... What was the question?"
Fourth person: "Hey! I ordered a cheeseburger!"


Jim

And then there would be a fifth person who examines the glass and takes a sip:
"Wait a minute. This is just water! So, like, what's the big deal all about?"
And finishes drinking the water.

To the general public, a collector is just some crazy eccentric with "just some old movie. So, like what's the big deal all about?"

A valid point. I'm not a collector so perhaps my view is overly romanticised but my experience is that a large majority of collectors (large enough anyway to render the problem de mimimis) would be only too pleased to receive an offer from a reputable source to take the necessary preservation steps.

Despite my earlier remarks there may be very little "hiding" going on. I was told that many collectors lent their Doctor Who episodes selflessly to the BBC for recovery. And the rumours about people clutching yet more missing episodes are very often just rumours.

A film's purpose is to be seen by a large number of people. If it's not available to be seen due to the efforts of a hoarder, it's not only failing to serve its purpose, it's being actively prevented from doing so, and it might as well be lost.

I often feel this way--and not always so much toward other collectors, who I deal with or know of by being one myself--but about films in some archives. The policies put in place by some archives or sometimes even the donors make access close to impossible, or prohibitively expensive. This is sometimes understandable, though, given that in some cases an archive needs to put forth such high restrictions in order to try and fund itself should an interested researcher/distributor come along and want to copy a film. The sad fact is archives need money to stay afloat, from wherever they can get it, and most researchers and even distributors don’t have a fraction of the cash involved for accessing, copying, and restoring films. In the worst case scenarios, there are no terms written down that you can ask for, and you have to play games and do some brown-nosing, oftentimes with no success. It’s not fair to the films at all. I think we all naturally feel like archives and collectors should just “bend the rules” for that one film (or fifty!) that we want to see/copy.

In the end, it all really depends on which archive or collector has or winds up with a film. That’s usually all it takes to determine accessibility. Some are greedy, snooty, snobby and spiteful and others are just lovely but poor. Cash? As I just suggested, that plays an important part in the end, too, even with those who want to share their films. Archives need to pay their employees. Collectors/historians who are not independently wealthy, aren’t lucky enough to work in the field but have spent a lifetime saving film also need to eat lunch sometimes.