Why Are Films Listed As "Lost?"
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:25 am
I have never quite understood why popular or successful film titles, from any time from about 1930 onward, are now listed as "lost" or missing.
For instance "Convention City (c1933)" appears to have no surviving elements; not one reel.
How could any popular film--totally vanish--not exist, at least in part (a few reels)? Wouldn't a collector somewhere,
have a copy. Wouldn't an actor's, director's producer's estate--have a copy? Wouldn't they have kept at least, a
favorite reel/ or scene? For example, Chaplin and Harold Lloyd preserved films beautifully, that are now nearly a hundred years old.
How about worldwide film archives? And I assume wealthy people had their own home projection
equipment in the 1930's-40's. Wouldn't some of their holdings be preserved?
There must be some good essays on this topic. I'd love to read them.
For instance "Convention City (c1933)" appears to have no surviving elements; not one reel.
How could any popular film--totally vanish--not exist, at least in part (a few reels)? Wouldn't a collector somewhere,
have a copy. Wouldn't an actor's, director's producer's estate--have a copy? Wouldn't they have kept at least, a
favorite reel/ or scene? For example, Chaplin and Harold Lloyd preserved films beautifully, that are now nearly a hundred years old.
How about worldwide film archives? And I assume wealthy people had their own home projection
equipment in the 1930's-40's. Wouldn't some of their holdings be preserved?
There must be some good essays on this topic. I'd love to read them.