TIFFANY-STAHL:- DESTRUCTION OF NEGATIVES

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

Researching the output of this minor film company, I came across the information that MGM acquired the original negatives and used them in the burning of Atlanta in GONE WITH THE WIND. As this was a Selznick production, could this be just a myth? As well as an act of cultural vandalism it seems terribly wasteful from a financial point of view. Certainly a lot of their output seems to survive in indifferent condition and is hard to evaluate fairly, but it seems an appalling thing to do.

Of course, films were bought up when remade (MGM and GASLIGHT, Mamoulian's DR JEKYLL, for example) and negatives reputedly destroyed and there is the case of a huge quantity of nitrate film being destroyed in FOR THE TERM OF HIS NATURAL LIFE (1928). It's one thing to destroy worn-out or unusable films when good material survives, but this seems particularly unthinking. One might weigh in against the quality of the films, but surely one should leave this to future generations...

[boblipton]

Here you show some cognitive dissonance: you accept the legend, even though it was a Selznick production and not an MGM one, which means it doesn't make any sense. What would MGM be doing with Tiffany-Stahl negatives?

The confusion indicates the lack of reality. Selznick was leasing space from RKO, not MGM. The deal with MGM was for talent (Gable, Fleming, maybe Cukor) and in return MGM got the releasing rights for the film. They burned old sets from RKO lots to stand in for Atlanta. Lots of wood there and if they wanted it to burn faster, there was always gasoline. I've seen nitrate burn. It goes up like flash paper.

These myths survive because they fit our conceptions: evil businessmen, interested only in profit destroying works of art to assert their control; which, of course, is why Mayer sabotaged Gilbert's career while the man had the most extravagant contract in Hollywood: we'll make more money by producing flops!

I'm reminded of one of Goldwyn's attempts to lure great writers to script films, create great works of art and raise the view of the fillums. He approached George Bernard Shaw, who responded "The trouble, Mr. Goldwyn, is that you're only interested in art, while I only care about money." Next time you hear a story that supports your view of How Things Really Are .... disbelieve it.

Bob

[Jim Reid]

Even if it did happen, it wouldn't surprise me. Many studio execs only saw the profit potential of the films they owned. From the coming of sound until the coming of television, it would take someone who was extremely forward-looking to see any value in the silent library, other than selling rights for remakes.

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

If I had 'believed' what I'd read about the burning of these negatives I would hardly have asked for confirmation! I just found the information (on Wikipedia - not a 100% reliable source!) contradictory and confusing and was seeking proper information on the subject. Before that I was searching to see if there were any books on the studio's history and the fate of its negatives, prints and other materials. It would seem more likely that original materials would be lost due to bad storage, accidents, etc., though good storage for nitrate was presumably expensive. And studios would produce enough rubbish suitable for burning without having to dip into their archives.

My most likely source would be a book covering smaller companies as a group, though I do have a couple on Monogram and Republic. Perhaps someone out there could suggest one. Possibly from McFarland or Scarecrow...

[missdupont]

I can tell you that story is definitely not true. I was research assistant for the documentary, MAKING OF A LEGEND: GONE WITH THE WIND, as well as the David O. Selznick biography, SHOWMAN, and there is nothing in the papers about him acquiring the Tiffany-Stahl archive to include in the burning of Atlanta. There's plenty about how to plan the event and which sets to burn, etc., but nothing about the films. Selznick went into great detail about everything, so another Wikipedia myth shot down.

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

Thanks, missdupont, for the update. I had heard / read of the destruction of the Gate from KING KONG, etc., and other sets for the Burning of Atlanta. And of course sets take up space and are expensive to maintain. It did seem ridiculous to buy up negatives and then to destroy them. Understandable to withdraw prints temporarily when a remake is due, but destruction only makes sense when the material is beyond salvage.

I've found at least two inaccurate Wikipedia articles (KATHLEEN MAVOURNEEN, 1937 and Arlene Dahl) in the last week alone, and I'm sure there are plenty more out there ripe for discovery!

[coolcatdaddy]

You have to remember the time period we're dealing with here. In the 30s and 40s, the transition to sound had made any silent film and many early silents unmarketable. Television was really only in its infancy and no one could see any commercial use for silent pictures.

At that time, people in the film business looked at it much like live theater - a film was exhibited as an "event". Once exhibition was done, it was on to the next production. You might have a revival of a really popular movie from a few years ago, but that was about it.

So, with that in mind, think about sitting on hundreds or thousands of reels of flammable film with no commercial value except for the story and script rights for remakes, stock footage of buffalo stampedes or steamships, and the silver content of the films themselves. What would you have done?

Movies didn't have value beyond their original exhibition run until television created a demand for content - and enough financial incentive from sponsors - to trot out old productions for a new life. Even then, no one was interested in silents except for Chaplin's works and some of the icons of the era like Valentino that older fans still remembered.

You have to remember how much life changed after 1930. The fashions and attitudes in 20s films were quite quaint and old-fashioned in the hard-boiled, post-War 40s and 50s. Kids and young adults then looked at the silents much the same way that kids today look at 80s tv shows like "Knight Rider" and "Miami Vice" or movies like "Xanadu".

[momsne]

The book "Scarlett, Rhett And A Cast Of Thousands" (1978) gives the technical details of how special effects supervisor Lee Zavitz set up the system that controlled the burning of the Atlanta set (on page 151 of the trade paperback edition). Zavitz "laid two contiguous networks of pipes among the old sets at three levels. . .and fitted them at regular intervals with sprinklers. A composite of 20 percent rock gas and 80 percent distillate would be pumped through one network of pipes and ignited. To control the flames, the flow of liquid was turned off and doused with a mixture of water and extinguishing solution from the other network. To boost the flames, the process was reversed. The flow was regulated from a console, like a small piano keyboard, which Selznick insisted on operating himself. It consisted of three rows of pushbuttons - one for each level of pipe - which turned on and off specific parts of the sprinkler system."

[sepiatone]

You have to remember the time period we're dealing with here. In the 30s and 40s, the transition to sound had made any silent film and many early silents unmarketable. Television was really only in its infancy and no one could see any commercial use for silent pictures.

At that time, people in the film business looked at it much like live theater - a film was exhibited as an "event". Once exhibition was done, it was on to the next production. You might have a revival of a really popular movie from a few years ago, but that was about it.

So, with that in mind, think about sitting on hundreds or thousands of reels of flammable film with no commercial value except for the story and script rights for remakes, stock footage of buffalo stampedes or steamships, and the silver content of the films themselves. What would you have done?

Movies didn't have value beyond their original exhibition run until television created a demand for content - and enough financial incentive from sponsors - to trot out old productions for a new life. Even then, no one was interested in silents except for Chaplin's works and some of the icons of the era like Valentino that older fans still remembered.

You have to remember how much life changed after 1930. The fashions and attitudes in 20s films were quite quaint and old-fashioned in the hard-boiled, post-War 40s and 50s. Kids and young adults then looked at the silents much the same way that kids today look at 80s tv shows like "Knight Rider" and "Miami Vice" or movies like "Xanadu".

it's not always about commercial value or pertaining just to silent in the talkie era. A sound film let's say the sought after "Convention City", 1933, would be no longer commercial post-1934 because of the Pre-Code content. If things were just about commercialbility then why have so many of Mary Pickford's silents survived long after her star waned, especially the Paramount made material from the 1914-18 period. An even more clearer comparison would be the almost complete survival rate of the Swanson-DeMille dramas from the early 20s compared to that of the near complete loss rate for the Swanson-Sam Wood dramas from the same period. Why a lopsided comparison, because DeMille like Pickford took an early interest in saving his own work for posterity and esoteric value, more than likely in no regards for commercial value. Lillian Gish as bright as she was refused to remake "Way Down East" for LB Mayer because she felt she could not make the film any better than what she accomplished in 1920 for DW Griffith. She could have taken Mayer's cash to remake an old melodrama and not cared for what the box office receipts of the talkie would be.

[ClayKing]

Movies didn't have value beyond their original exhibition run until television created a demand for content - and enough financial incentive from sponsors - to trot out old productions for a new life. Even then, no one was interested in silents except for Chaplin's works and some of the icons of the era like Valentino that older fans still remembered.

I grew up in New York City, and in the early fifties silent comedy shorts and Paul Terry cartoons with music tracks were a staple of some afternoon kiddy shows. So there was a brief afterlife for some silent material.

[coolcatdaddy]

Silent shorts were, of course, used on "Howdy Doody", starting in 1949. And, yes, some folks in the industry that had control of their work went out of their way to save it, but the studio heads probably didn't see the point with run-of-the-mill programmers that they ground out, week after week. What they saved was selective, probably based on what they might trot out for excerpts for anniversaries or use as "blueprints" in later sound or color/widescreen remakes.

I'm a big collector of old time radio and that situation was even worse. When technology for recording radio programs became cheap and commonplace, the networks recorded extensively for reference by producers and sponsors. However, the contracts for the shows were a mess between talent, craft unions, networks, producers and sponsors - all the legal stuff to be sorted out when rebroadcasting or making further use of the shows made them commercially worthless, even though there was a "nostalgia" market that emerged for it in the late 60s and early 70s. Discs of shows were tossed or donated to institutions and they remain in a kind of copyright and legal limbo.

Our broadcasting heritage is really scattered to the four winds. Some well known personalities or producers kept libraries of their shows. Some wound up at the Library of Congress or other institutions. A few have been kept by the networks. Still others float among collectors. A great deal was just tossed, the discs used for scrap drives during the war or stripped of lacquer for recoating in the 40s and 50s. The kind of restorations done on film from original master elements or low generation prints just isn't possible with much of this material.

[Jack Theakston]

Just a coda on the now-debunked "burning of nitrate" theory here—nitrate burns at such an uncontrollable rate, and with such outpouring of poison gas that it seems exceedingly unlikely that any studio would use it in pyrotechnical use. Danger aside, the amount of smoke that it puts out simply does not lend itself to photographic effects.