Tweet when did we stop destroying things?

i have heard that even in the seventies they were still doing things like destroying entire network librarys of kinescopes. also that in the 50s technicolor color dumped their priceless early process negatives. etc and on and on.

what i would like to know is when did we realize that even the most undistinguished of efforts are invaluable for their cultural historical significance. or have we?

[Mike Gebert]

The stereo tracks for Michael Mann's Manhunter were thrown out by DeLaurentiis in the 90s.

Does the original, more satirical preview cut of Buckaroo Banzai that Pauline Kael reviewed survive, before the producer recut it to be more of an action film?

Who knows what indie movies of the 80s or 90s will turn out to survive only on VHS or as a master for home video and broadcast.

It hasn't stopped.

What do you mean "We", paleface?

The understanding, realization or perhaps delusion that these things are valuable is still not fully held. In 1910 or so, the people who ran Vitagraph realized their film vault was full and burnt the old films as worthless. One French company held a party and burnt their old films publicly as a guarantee that their films would always be fresh and new. When Forest Ackerman started hauling away secondary materials to fill his garages, he was a nut. When Bob Clampett took home his cels -- recall, if you will, that Chuck Jones got his start as a 'cel washer' since it was cheaper to clean them off and reuse them than to buy new ones -- Clampett was crazy. When William Goetz took over Universal and dumped almost all of the company's silent productions, it was looked on as a sound business decision.

Because it must be remembered that film is not simply high art. It is commercial art, and it costs money to save and preserve old movies. A producer risks money to make a film in the hope that he will show a profit. Is it reasonable to expect him to spend further money to preserve a film with no further perceived commercial value?


Nitratevillains, as a group, think these things worth saving, but it is hardly fair for us to insist that others pay the costs of our beliefs. It would, however, be nice if the rights holders, who stop us because they fear the degradation of their rights on other, commercially viable goods, would ease up a bit.

Bob

Nitratevillains, as a group, think these things worth saving, but it is hardly fair for us to insist that others pay the costs of our beliefs. It would, however, be nice if the rights holders, who stop us because they fear the degradation of their rights on other, commercially viable goods, would ease up a bit.

Bob

Why stop with film? How many of you have thrown out old financial (and other) records? Those records are gold mines for social historians and caches of them are few and far between, mainly because most sane people throw them out.

Fred

[silentfilm]

The destruction is going to continue. Think of how easy it is to delete a hard drive, or throw out magnetic tapes these days.

Don't be fooled into thinking that just because a few are struggling to keep things stable that things aren't still being destroyed. A major studio threw out their three-strip Technicolor nitrate negs in recent years and were left with fading interpositives made. Oops!

I will take the pessimist viewpoint and say that in ten to twenty years, another ten to twenty percent of studio films will be lost, knowingly or not.

Don't be fooled into thinking that just because a few are struggling to keep things stable that things aren't still being destroyed. A major studio threw out their three-strip Technicolor nitrate negs in recent years and were left with fading interpositives made. Oops!

I will take the pessimist viewpoint and say that in ten to twenty years, another ten to twenty percent of studio films will be lost, knowingly or not.

I find that rather comforting, especially if it is product from the last thirty years. What bothers me is that the archives will then be spending already stretched funds to preserve the crap thats coming out today rather than the stuff we like.

In any event, a lot of this stuff is going to outlast us.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Unfortunately, I think the rate of decay is exponential, particularly with the lack of interest that is bred into our society. It's old, so it's obviously no good!

Of course, one wonders what will happen in a hundred years when some archivist sees THE SPIRIT, even after the original comics are long gone, and thus hails it as a masterpiece of the early 21st century.

To those a hundred years from now that may be reading these posts, take note.

Nitratevillains, as a group, think these things worth saving, but it is hardly fair for us to insist that others pay the costs of our beliefs. It would, however, be nice if the rights holders, who stop us because they fear the degradation of their rights on other, commercially viable goods, would ease up a bit.

Bob

Why stop with film? How many of you have thrown out old financial (and other) records? Those records are gold mines for social historians and caches of them are few and far between, mainly because most sane people throw them out.

Fred

Historians have reconstructed entire lives from letters. With the rise of Email this won't happen anymore. Not that it matters to me, but my record for posterity is going to be what ever archives are made of forums like this. A sobering and sickening thought.

Why stop with film? How many of you have thrown out old financial (and other) records? Those records are gold mines for social historians and caches of them are few and far between, mainly because most sane people throw them out.

Fred

Historians have reconstructed entire lives from letters. With the rise of Email this won't happen anymore. Not that it matters to me, but my record for posterity is going to be what ever archives are made of forums like this. A sobering and sickening thought.

Oh my dear. There are far more records on you than you think.

How's your paranoia problem doing, by the way?

Fred

i have heard that even in the seventies they were still doing things like destroying entire network librarys of kinescopes. also that in the 50s technicolor color dumped their priceless early process negatives. etc and on and on.

what i would like to know is when did we realize that even the most undistinguished of efforts are invaluable for their cultural historical significance. or have we?

It's tough to mark off a clear date. By the 50s, people (some of them) were clearly becoming aware of the need to preserve nitrate film, but that didn't stop them from tossing out radio and TV material that were also perceived to have no lasting value. There are only about 13 episodes remaining of the 1971-75 ABC run of "Password", and eight of those are on B&W tape at UCLA, recorded off the air as part of some project. Preservation is equally spotty for many other 50s-70s game shows, and it's even worse with many soap operas from that period (why save the tape when it's never going to air again?). By about the early 80s, network programming appears to be preserved more often than not, but goodness only knows about local programming, even up to the present day. And what about programming in other countries?

Amateur, experimental, or otherwise non-commercial films are at similar risk, even if we might legitimately debate the merits of preserving (say) eight hours of a man sleeping. It's part of the philosophical debate that arises when funds are limited and we lack crystal balls to be certain what future audiences will value.

-Harold

In Cologne, where I work, we just allowed cheapskate subway builders to so undermine the city's main archive building that it collapsed with the loss of two lives and more than a thousand years of city history. Kind of puts LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT into perspective for me.

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1203655

What do you mean "We", paleface?

In 1910 or so, the people who ran Vitagraph realized their film vault was full and burnt the old films as worthless.

Bob

Bob,

That's an interesting take on the July 3rd 1910 fire at the Vitagraph offices! What was your source?

Although my great grandfather, Albert E. Smith, has been accused of being many things including a cheapskate and a master prevaricator, arsonist has not been among them until now...

The daylight fire started within their offices on the first floor above the street in what was then one of New York City's tallest buildings. I don't think he would have put the 150 souls in the building at risk for the sake of a bit of storage space.


Bill

This has to be put in perspective. If a copy of every film made were saved it would have taken acres of warehouses. Archivists (myself included) bemoan the loss of valuable materials but if nothing were ever thrown away there would be huge archival structures the size of Wal-Marts all over the place. The world would look like something in a Fritz Lang nightmare.

It's tough to mark off a clear date. By the 50s, people (some of them) were clearly becoming aware of the need to preserve nitrate film, but that didn't stop them from tossing out radio and TV material that were also perceived to have no lasting value. There are only about 13 episodes remaining of the 1971-75 ABC run of "Password", and eight of those are on B&W tape at UCLA, recorded off the air as part of some project.

Amateur, experimental, or otherwise non-commercial films are at similar risk, even if we might legitimately debate the merits of preserving (say) eight hours of a man sleeping.

-Harold

I question the merit of preserving 13 hours of Password! 13 hours may be too much!

Fred

In Cologne, where I work, we just allowed cheapskate subway builders to so undermine the city's main archive building that it collapsed with the loss of two lives and more than a thousand years of city history. Kind of puts LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT into perspective for me.

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1203655

Indeed.

Fred

[Mike Gebert]

If only we'd lost The Faerie Queen, I would have been spared hours of aggravation in English class.

Barcelona, by the way, wants to dig under Gaudi's Sagrada Familia. Because it's not like tourists go to see that or anything.

If only we'd lost The Faerie Queen, I would have been spared hours of aggravation in English class.

Yeah, why couldn't they lose Sister Carrie while they're at it?

As Eric Stott noted, you can't save everything. The question becomes who decides what to keep. A lot of people would be surprised at how chaotic the situation is for 1970s and 1980s films, and with the subsequent introduction of CGI and digital effects preservation becomes even more difficult.

If only we'd lost The Faerie Queen, I would have been spared hours of aggravation in English class.

They made you read The Faerie Queen? My god, man. That's a human rights violation. Although I know someone who did his Masters on The Faerie Queen, so I guess it's different strokes.

Fred

If only we'd lost The Faerie Queen, I would have been spared hours of aggravation in English class.

Yeah, why couldn't they lose Sister Carrie while they're at it?

As Eric Stott noted, you can't save everything. The question becomes who decides what to keep. A lot of people would be surprised at how chaotic the situation is for 1970s and 1980s films, and with the subsequent introduction of CGI and digital effects preservation becomes even more difficult.

HEY! I like Sister Carrie.

Normally archives are maintained for the use of people who need the records, so that requirement constrains what is kept and what is discarded. That's sort of a different kettle of fish than is preservation, which has a different goal. Not to mention that some things are naturally archivable and others are not; we're rather lucky in that regard as film is preservable and can be stored. I suspect that the future Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates or the Museum of Key Lime Pies will be small, sad ones.

Fred

This has to be put in perspective. If a copy of every film made were saved it would have taken acres of warehouses. Archivists (myself included) bemoan the loss of valuable materials but if nothing were ever thrown away there would be huge archival structures the size of Wal-Marts all over the place. The world would look like something in a Fritz Lang nightmare.

You type that as if it were a bad thing.

I work in a museum and archive which is shoved into an old and irregular building and often resembles the set of Caligari.

Bill B wrote

That's an interesting take on the July 3rd 1910 fire at the Vitagraph offices! What was your source?

Although my great grandfather, Albert E. Smith, has been accused of being many things including a cheapskate and a master prevaricator, arsonist has not been among them until now...

The daylight fire started within their offices on the first floor above the street in what was then one of New York City's tallest buildings. I don't think he would have put the 150 souls in the building at risk for the sake of a bit of storage space.



Somewhere in the back of my mind is the source, sir. I read stuff, I retain it, the titles fall off, sometimes the names swap around. If I am remembering it wrong -- and apparently I am -- I am glad to be corrected.

Bob

I suspect that the future Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates or the Museum of Key Lime Pies will be small, sad ones. Fred

Sometimes, when I look in the mirror, I feel like the "Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates" myself.

If only we'd lost The Faerie Queen, I would have been spared hours of aggravation in English class.

Yeah, why couldn't they lose Sister Carrie while they're at it?

As Eric Stott noted, you can't save everything. The question becomes who decides what to keep. A lot of people would be surprised at how chaotic the situation is for 1970s and 1980s films, and with the subsequent introduction of CGI and digital effects preservation becomes even more difficult.

HEY! I like Sister Carrie.

Normally archives are maintained for the use of people who need the records, so that requirement constrains what is kept and what is discarded. That's sort of a different kettle of fish than is preservation, which has a different goal. Not to mention that some things are naturally archivable and others are not; we're rather lucky in that regard as film is preservable and can be stored. I suspect that the future Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates or the Museum of Key Lime Pies will be small, sad ones.

Fred

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Maybe if they placed it in the midwest of FL? Fat people will always like chocolate !

As for preservation...I kinda like to think in 80 years maybe all these crappy movies will be lost. And no one will care who that terrible Brangelina was (or maybe even know!) Call me short sided if you like but I dont see anyone in the past 20 let alone 30 years probably being of much interest in 100. There are no fine actors like Gloria or Lillian or anyone near as popular as Mary. Everyones boring and bland these days.

I suspect that the future Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates or the Museum of Key Lime Pies will be small, sad ones. Fred

Sometimes, when I look in the mirror, I feel like the "Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates" myself.

Honestly? If you archive rich creamy chocolates they turn white and get all crusty.

[Mike Gebert]

I suspect that the future Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates or the Museum of Key Lime Pies will be small, sad ones.

A chef here in Chicago is opening a Museum of Foie Gras.

If there's one thing I believe, it's that we have NO idea what the future will find fascinating about our time. I mean, look at how completely the social hierarchy of old Hollywood has been overturned-- the things that have lasted among the general public are Warner Brothers cartoons, the Three Stooges, and Karloff and Lugosi, any of which were pretty much at the bottom of the totem pole circa 1935, and would have been beaten to a pulp by Norma Shearer's bodyguards if they'd so much as looked at her.

Alongside the Sight & Sound critics poll in '92, they asked various filmmakers to name their top ten of all time. Both Jackie Chan and Richard Lester, as I recall, named Midnight Run. Yes, that Midnight Run with Robert DeNiro and Charles Grodin. Top ten, next to Kane and Potemkin and Seven Samurai? Yes, indeed. And you know what? 50 years from now, they'll probably be right-- it's a very easygoing, likable example of a quintessential 80s-90s genre (buddy road movie) with two stars who have great chemistry. When they're dead and the whole era is suffused with nostalgia, I bet it will hold up a hell of a lot better than a lot of things that won Oscars. Or something else, equally unlikely-seeming to us right now, will. Because you just never know what will stand out to them about us.

I suspect that the future Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates or the Museum of Key Lime Pies will be small, sad ones. Fred

Sometimes, when I look in the mirror, I feel like the "Archive of Rich, Creamy Dark Chocolates" myself.

Honestly? If you archive rich creamy chocolates they turn white and get all crusty.

Well, that's my point. Rich, creamy chocolates don't survive. Especially not around me. So you're stuck archiving stuff that's archivable, which is not necessarily what was important to the people you're trying to memorialize. Textiles have poor survivability, but everyone wears clothing of some kind or another. Most of those ancient Egyptians didn't give a rat's patootie about the pyramids.

Fred

[Mike Gebert]

Textiles have poor survivability, but everyone wears clothing of some kind or another. Most of those ancient Egyptians didn't give a rat's patootie about the pyramids.

My sister-in-law actually wrote her master's on medieval textiles. Most of the evidence was from stone carvings of royalty in their finery.

Textiles have poor survivability, but everyone wears clothing of some kind or another. Most of those ancient Egyptians didn't give a rat's patootie about the pyramids.

My sister-in-law actually wrote her master's on medieval textiles. Most of the evidence was from stone carvings of royalty in their finery.

For medieval textiles that's about all you have to go on and that information is heavily skewed toward elites. Not everyone wore those strange pointy hats and shoes with curlicue toes. I think there have been some textiles found with bog and ice burials, but even those represent what people were buried in, which was usually "Sunday best."

Film survival seems to be based mainly on serendipity, from what I can tell. Does someone who knows more about it than I do know if there has been any pattern in the types of films that survive and whether that pattern is indicative of viewing habits?

Fred