Tweet when did we stop destroying things?

My impression is that whatever becomes obsolete is the quickest to go. Short films from 1900-1910 do show up, but merely because of the sheer number in which they were produced (and in some cases like Edison and Biograph, a stroke of luck has saved nearly the entire library). Many of them were forgotten, however, when features became the norm, particularly narrative shorts-- travelogues and comedies and the like could be re-issued on a less conspicuous basis.

Likewise, when sound came in, the market for silent pictures, no matter how good, became practically none. We love them, but to this day, they still remain a niche product.

When wide-screens became popular in the early '50s, re-issues of Academy-ratio films steadily declined. Films that previously didn't make much money now had no chance.

And today, with the majority of households teaching their kids that "old is bad" and since there are hardly any channels running anything made before 1990 in general, this generation is probably going to kill any and all interest in these old films.

My impression is that whatever becomes obsolete is the quickest to go. Short films from 1900-1910 do show up, but merely because of the sheer number in which they were produced (and in some cases like Edison and Biograph, a stroke of luck has saved nearly the entire library). Many of them were forgotten, however, when features became the norm, particularly narrative shorts-- travelogues and comedies and the like could be re-issued on a less conspicuous basis.

Likewise, when sound came in, the market for silent pictures, no matter how good, became practically none. We love them, but to this day, they still remain a niche product.

When wide-screens became popular in the early '50s, re-issues of Academy-ratio films steadily declined. Films that previously didn't make much money now had no chance.

And today, with the majority of households teaching their kids that "old is bad" and since there are hardly any channels running anything made before 1990 in general, this generation is probably going to kill any and all interest in these old films.

Scary thought: I once got in an argument with a self proclaimed actress over who was the most beautiful actress ever. I knew silent films wouldnt stand a chance so I said Garbo of course. She didnt know who Garbo was (she was roughly my age). Her answer to most beautiful: foot faced Sarah Jessica Parker

My impression is that whatever becomes obsolete is the quickest to go. Short films from 1900-1910 do show up, but merely because of the sheer number in which they were produced (and in some cases like Edison and Biograph, a stroke of luck has saved nearly the entire library). Many of them were forgotten, however, when features became the norm, particularly narrative shorts-- travelogues and comedies and the like could be re-issued on a less conspicuous basis.

Likewise, when sound came in, the market for silent pictures, no matter how good, became practically none. We love them, but to this day, they still remain a niche product.

When wide-screens became popular in the early '50s, re-issues of Academy-ratio films steadily declined. Films that previously didn't make much money now had no chance.

And today, with the majority of households teaching their kids that "old is bad" and since there are hardly any channels running anything made before 1990 in general, this generation is probably going to kill any and all interest in these old films.

If that is the case, then if you archive films because of their perceived quality, you have a problem (and not just because the definition of quality is likely to change radically from generation to generation). If you're archiving films because they are a reflection of viewing habits, then you're swimming in gravy.

Fred
(Who would cheerfully nuke Antonioni's entire canon were it to threaten the last copy of Real Genius...or The Hours.)

What I didn't mention is that there always tends to be some sort of a revival if the material is good. At that point, any given commodity will be saved-- or what's left of it.

The problem is that between that interim period (which can be upwards to 40-50 years), much is lost, except for the few that hang onto it because they understand its significance. Artwork collecting is very much the same.

Unlike most artwork, though, film is very sensitive to its environment. Many collectors of film understand this and tailor their storage to fit the needs, while others don't. Large archives can, but because of the mass of film that is being stored, it's more difficult to keep track of everything.

What I didn't mention is that there always tends to be some sort of a revival if the material is good. At that point, any given commodity will be saved-- or what's left of it.

Yes, over the short (100+ year) history of film that is true (although I'd quibble about the quality, often what's revived is Le Bad Cinema). However, I'm still anxiously awaiting the massive groundswell of nostalgia for Welsh Cynghanedd poetry. If film is replaced as a popular storytelling medium, and it looks like it already has been replaced by gaming, eventually there might be only a few not-overly-representative-of-anything examples left. When I say "eventually" I mean "500 years." In 500 years, "film" as a whole may be nothing but a footnote.

I'm not coming out against film preservation, here. I'm just musing on variables like survivability and the limitations of the historical and archaeological record.

Fred

But who knows if in even ten years there won't be a fine long-term storage medium?

Relevance also has everything to do with why something is popular or not. A Norma Shearer melodrama from the '30s is less relevant than a stylized Universal horror film from the '30s, and that's why the latter is more recognized (although the monster boom of the '50s and '60s, forever imbibing Baby Boomers with the material didn't hurt, either).

The difference I would like to think today is that as a society, there are people that are actively looking for long-term storage, whereas people 100+ years ago seemingly had little agenda to do so past your occasional time capsule (an intriguing fad). The problem, as you pointed out, is that these things aren't though of in terms of what will be interesting to future generations, but what are simply relevant to our own.

My impression is that whatever becomes obsolete is the quickest to go. Short films from 1900-1910 do show up, but merely because of the sheer number in which they were produced (and in some cases like Edison and Biograph, a stroke of luck has saved nearly the entire library). Many of them were forgotten, however, when features became the norm, particularly narrative shorts-- travelogues and comedies and the like could be re-issued on a less conspicuous basis.

I think what has survived is far more arbitrary than one would think, and has a lot more to do with how various producers treated not only their backlog of prints, but their distribution as well. Therefore, a lot of MGM silents survived in -house because they made more effort to keep and preserve them, but because they so carefully made sure their distribution prints were returned, that few are found outside of their vaults. however, a lot of independent film has survived for exactly the opposite reason, they did not get their prints returned to them in many cases, and those have turned up in all sorts of places since. For years, our whole historical idea of what was or wasn't important in silent film was skewed by what was or wasn't available, and frankly, a lot of it still is.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

I think what has survived is far more arbitrary than one would think, and has a lot more to do with how various producers treated not only their backlog of prints, but their distribution as well. Therefore, a lot of MGM silents survived in -house because they made more effort to keep and preserve them, but because they so carefully made sure their distribution prints were returned, that few are found outside of their vaults. however, a lot of independent film has survived for exactly the opposite reason, they did not get their prints returned to them in many cases, and those have turned up in all sorts of places since. For years, our whole historical idea of what was or wasn't important in silent film was skewed by what was or wasn't available, and frankly, a lot of it still is.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Which sorta confirms what I was thinking, that what contemporary audiences thought about what they were seeing may be quite different than what we think they saw, or what we see. At least we have things like Exhibitors Whosis that help to put what's left into perspective.

I suspect that it doesn't matter what form of media storage you put this stuff into. Eventually your warehouse is gonna get earthquaked.

Fred

Which sorta confirms what I was thinking, that what contemporary audiences thought about what they were seeing may be quite different than what we think they saw, or what we see. At least we have things like Exhibitors Whosis that help to put what's left into perspective.

Not only that contemporary audiences thought differently, but that that audience's opinion changed from region to region. In the smaller towns, Hoot Gibson was a bigger draw than Greta Garbo.

I suspect that it doesn't matter what form of media storage you put this stuff into. Eventually your warehouse is gonna get earthquaked.

Fred

Or your Country gets bombed, the reason there are a lot more missing films everywhere else apart from the US.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

"Midnight Run", I think is a pretty great film. Very entertaining.

I strongly suspect that in popular music of recent years will be decimated by the unstable medium it is stored on - computer hard drives and optical digital discs, in the same way that old movies were decimated by nitrate rot. In addition to the actual medium being not terribly robust, there's also the factor of it being difficult to extract the information from it without extremely specialised equipment. Moreso in the case of popular art being stored as computer files, because in that case there's the likelyhood/near certainty of file types and the operating systems needed to replay them becoming obsolete.

I envision the discographies of even major acts, say, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin or U2 looking like the Pauline Frederick filmography on Greta de Groat's website.

IIRC back in the late 1970s Martin Scorsese and other directors became concerned over the deterioration of relatively recent color films. That was one of the reasons that he filmed "Raging Bull" in black-and white.

Their efforts really started the modern preservation and restoration of films. The introduction of the DVD in 1997 has led to many films undergoing restoration.

Scary thought: I once got in an argument with a self proclaimed actress over who was the most beautiful actress ever. I knew silent films wouldnt stand a chance so I said Garbo of course. She didnt know who Garbo was (she was roughly my age). Her answer to most beautiful: foot faced Sarah Jessica Parker

SJP is an excellent example of what glam makeup and wardrobe can do. I'll give her credit for one thing: she's had a nose job but a fairly subtle one, could have been a great deal worse. but Beautiful? I'd take Norma Shearer in a bad wig any day.