1934 Warner , Burbank Nitrate Fire

[sepiatone]

what info is there on Warner Brother's Burbank fire of 1934? A source said a lot of inherited Vitagraph product as well as early Warner and First National material was lost.

[David Pierce]

what info is there on Warner Brother's Burbank fire of 1934? A source said a lot of inherited Vitagraph product as well as early Warner and First National material was lost.

I discuss that fire in my article "The legion of the condemned: why American silent films perished," published in Film History in 1997.

The Los Angeles Times covered the fire, and noted the loss of Vitagraph and other early films. The Glendale paper specified that they were prints.

Warner stored their negatives on the east coast, and they were not at risk from this fire.

David Pierce
Media History Digital Library
http://www.mediahistoryproject.org" target="_blank" target="_blank

[sethb]

This was a very interesting and informative (although heartbreaking) article, and I urge you to read it if you haven't already done so.

One aspect of the preservation situation that I didn't see discussed in the article was the copyright requirements of the Library of Congress. I believe that until recently, U.S. copyright law required the submission of two copies of a work to be deposited with the Library of Congress in order for a copyright to be issued. (In fact, in the early 1900's, some producers submitted paper copies of their films to comply with the requirement, and that is how they have survived to the present day.)

If LOC had had the resources to store even a small part of the film studios' immense output, many more films might have been saved. However, I believe that early on, the studios worked out some arrangement whereby the required film copies were returned to the studios after the copyright was issued. This is pretty ironic, since most of the studios eventually gave whatever was left of their nitrate holdings to the LOC anyway --- but not before much of it had decomposed or been destroyed. SETH

[boblipton]

Although the Nitratevillains who work at the LoC may comment at some length, the LoC lacked the ability to store nitrate for most of the studio era. In addition, the paper prints were submitted because until the Teens, film was not copyrightable. Paper prints were a kludge, to submit a paper copy to comply with the laws of the period. Some studios continued to submit paper prints a bit longer out of habit.

Bob

[sethb]

Bob -- I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on the LOC with my post. I did say "If LOC had had the resources . . . .," knowing full well that they did not until fairly recently. It was more a comment on a very short-sighted Congressional policy and a lack of funding by Congress for film preservation during most of the 20th century.

I hope this clarifies any concerns. SETH

[sepiatone]

My thanks to you all for the responses. Much appreciated.

[sepiatone]

My thanks again to David for linking that article from 1997. I just reread it again.

Here's a similar outlook from January 2015, on the fate of lost films:
https://silentology.wordpress.com/2015/ ... come-lost/" target="_blank