News Review - Film's true superheroes

More than a reflection of society and culture, moving images are primary documents that can serve a wide range of research purposes. The director Sydney Pollack has said that cinema is “the most vivid and valuable record of who we were and what we were, and what we thought and what we believed. And it continues to be that.” As our culture is increasingly shaped by visual images in the digital age, historians may soon rely on moving images as much as on the printed word to understand 21st century culture. In a sense, by relying more and more on moving images to understand the times in which we live, society is increasingly reverting back to its roots grounded in oral tradition.

Whether it’s classic Hollywood feature films, 20th century newsreels, documentaries, classic television or home movies of Billy’s fifth birthday, it is important to preserve our visual heritage." 

This quote, from the AMIA’s (The Association of Moving Image Archivists) homepage, asserts the still underappreciated importance of film preservation. Without the work and knowledge base that film archivists and film preservationists possess, we would lose invaluable visual documents that are indispensable for current and future generations.

This article hopes to draw readers’ attentions to the incredible work that film’s true superheroes do, often without a hint of recognition.

We will start by looking at an exciting online wiki project; that among other things, is attempting to identify a plethora of films that remain nameless. Slate recently drew attention to their project.

But if you find one of those rusting, unlabeled canisters ... then what?

It's a question that drives the extraordinary German site Lost Films. Begun in December 2008 by the Berlin museum Deutsche Kinemathek, it's a collaborative effort with other archives that now encompasses an astonishing range of films: The more than 4,000 movies listed as M.I.A. range from an actual jazz-era version of The Great Gatsby(1926) to a re-enactment of The Battle of Gettysburg (1913) staged while the veterans were still alive. But even more curious is the site's "Identify" section—an open call to other museums and the public to I.D. films that sometimes survive without title cards, without canister labels, without so much as a cast or director or country of origin.

"For a working film archive, unidentified films pose a much more urgent question," explains Kinemathek staffer Oliver Hanley in an e-mail. Not knowing what scripts or other contextual materials to consult makes these orphans nearly impossible to preserve properly. As Hanley notes, "To the public, it renders them lost already."

One cannot speak highly enough of this project as it attempting to bring together the vast knowledge base of film lovers and historians the world over, to help identify films that have been forgotten for vast periods of time as well as hunting down the thousands of films that we have records of but are now missing. Take a look at this page, which has pictures from a variety of films; you never know, you might help preserve a film by identifying a film that no-one before you has been able to name. Furthermore, here is more information about how you can contribute towards this important project.

The next piece concerns perhaps the most important part of the film preservation process: the pain-staking restoration of classic film. This in-depth piece from DemocratandChronicle.com, which I implore you to read in its entirety, takes an in depth look at George Eastman House:

George Eastman House helps preserve and repair these tattered objects, often more than a century old. Its six film technicians restore up to 200 films annually. Their quiet rescue mission reaches Hollywood studios and film archives around the world.

"Last year, we could have circled the Earth with that footage," says Edward Stratmann, associate curator of motion pictures.

The museum revives many films at their last gasp. An estimated 90 percent of silent-era movies already have vanished. Others are dying "the death of 1,000 cuts" with tears, stains and fading.

"It we don't act, sometimes it might be too late," says Caroline Frick Page, curator for the motion picture department.

When they do act — on rare screen tests for Gone With the Wind (1939), for example, or the first full-length movie of Huckleberry Finn (1920) — a part of film or art history is saved both for posterity and practical use. The Eastman House gets constant inquiries from studios looking to make DVDs from restored prints.

The museum also is training the next generation of preservation experts through two pioneering programs.

The L. Jeffrey Selznick School of Film Preservation, launched in 1996, has trained more than 130 motion picture archivists in 19 countries. Its dozen incoming students each year will learn how to preserve and restore movies, engaging in lab work and archiving courses. It offers both master's and certificate programs.”

George Eastman House not only restores up to 200 films a year, but they have also trained more than 130 motion picture archivists in 19 countries. Having complained in an earlier article about what I perceived as a lack of initiative and awareness when it came to film preservation and film restoration, it is delightful to learn of the indispensable work that one institution is partaking in to ensure that these important visual documents are not consigned to history. The fact that they are training archivists in countries which may have a far inferior knowledge base when it comes to film preservation can only bode well for the survival of early film in unheralded parts of the world.  

As with almost every conceivable topic one can imagine, there is a wealth of information available in regards to film preservation available online, that we can use to deepen our knowledge and understanding of the field. For example, over at the Film Archive Forum , there is some extremely useful information on the topic, for example:

Preservation copies

Additionally, due to the fragility of film and video, it is often necessary to make copies for preservation purposes. This may be e.g. to transfer from nitrate to ‘safety’ film, to transfer from acetate ‘safety’ film which is suffering acetic deterioration (commonly called) Vinegar Syndrome) or to retrieve content from obsolete formats. In this case, the new copy should also be treated as a master, replacing or supplementing the original. Wherever possible, any new master replacing an original should be on an appropriate format eg a new master from a title originating on film should usually also be on film of an equivalent format, even though the viewing copy may be video or digital. A new master taken from an obsolete format should be on to a current format of equivalent or greater quality

I was unaware that preservation copies of fragile films and videos are made for preservation purposes. If we increase our basic knowledge of the basics of film preservation, not only can we increase our understanding of the methodology behind the field, but hopefully such knowledge will encourage more people to go into the field as well argue its cause when it comes to ensuring that film preservationists receive more funds.

If you share my interest in this field, please retweet, facebook, digg or whatever method you use to increase awareness in regards to this article and more importantly, this often overlooked aspect of the film business. Also, if you have any links or information which you would care to share in regards to this field, please post a comment below.

To conclude, here is another excerpt from the DemorcratandChronicle piece:

... Restoration work tends to be anonymous, intensely technical and glacially slow. It demands Sitzfleisch: German slang for gluing your backside to a seat for hours at a time.

"Today, a polyester film base can last up to 500 years — longer than any CD," Haidet says. "We don't get our names attached to this work: it's a group effort. But I feel that we're doing something for posterity."

  

News Review - The Death of British Cinema? UK Film Council is scrapped by the British Govt.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “a creative economy is the fuel of magnificence.” Yesterday’s announcement that the Tory government is abolishing the U.K. Film Council confirms the suspicion that many of us Brits have in regards to their complete inability to support the arts and therefore understand Emerson’s astute point. The arts are one of Britain’s strongest exports, and as one of the articles from below will point out, the UKFC has seen the films they have invested money in over the last decade make an average profit of 400%. The UKFC has financially backed films with an array of diversity: Gosford Park, Streetdance 3D, The Constant Gardener, Bend it Like Beckham, Bright Star, etc.

We were willing to throw money at banks which were haemorrhaging money, but we can no longer provide what is a paltry sum in terms of the government’s annual budget for a public body that was and is a terrific financial success? If you think that government’s decision is incorrect, then please sign this petition and get your friends to do so as well.

This decision could also be a bellwether for Britain's long term future as a major economy. Whereas India are spending $140 million to restore their classic films, the British government can no longer afford to spend £15 million a year to help produce current films. Could this be the beginning of the end for British cinema?  

The decision is short-sighted and foolish; it will have devastating effects for the long term future of an already dwindling British Industry – in 2003 there were 74 independent features made in the UK, last year there were only 40.

Best For Film set up the petition, and they go into more details in regards to the figures, thus demonstrating the buffoonery of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

The UK film industry is one of our few sectors which has enjoyed consistent growth throughout the recession. Last year, its contribution to the economy was an extraordinary £4.3 billion – an increase of 50% on 2000, the year the UKFC was formed. UKFC-funded films have grossed in excess of £700 million worldwide, and its investments garner an average profit of 400%. Sorry, I’ll say that again – FOUR HUNDRED PER CENT. That’s £5 for every £1 you spend, and I defy any of Jeremy Hunt’s colleagues in the state-owned banks to offer us as good a rate.

Incredibly, the UKFC manages all this on a budget of only £15 million a year, much of which is money drawn from the countrywide tax on hope which is the National Lottery. This is compared to the £12 million being spent on the Pope’s controversial UK visit later this year, or the £7 billion which it’s costing us to host the Olympics – at its present budget, that’s enough money to run the UKFC for almost 467 years. Jeremy Hunt’s claims that destroying the UKFC was a cost-cutting measure are clearly specious, betraying his motives to be ideological rather than financial; for unclear reasons of its own, in attacking both the Film Council and the licence fee which funds the BBC the Conservative Party is holding a knife to the throat of contemporary British culture.

The article is absolutely correct to call out Jeremy Hunt’s claim that ‘destroying the UKFC was a cost-cutting measure’. The figures do not lie and it begs the question as to why they are demolishing such a profitable organisation. It may well be that they are making cuts for the sake of making cuts, because the sum invested in the UKFC will not help our economic recovery. Or perhaps David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ involves a world where we are all volunteers and none of us are artists?

                                          Jeremy Hunt - the man who could be responsible for destroying the British      film industry.

The Telegraph reports Mike Leigh’s outrage at the decision:

Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, said that the abolition of the council would wipe out a layer of bureaucracy and ensure ''greater value for money''.

But Leigh, whose credits include Happy-Go-Lucky and Vera Drake, described the decision as "extremely worrying" and "totally out of the blue".

He said: "It's very hard to know what they are actually going to sustain and what they will abandon. It really is no way to operate.

''It's like if they suddenly said: 'We're abolishing the NHS' ... It's totally out of order.''

The UK Film Council was created in 2000, and has invested more than £160 million of Lottery funding into more than 900 films which has helped generate over £700 million at the worldwide box office.

It receives £30 million a year of Lottery money and around £25.5 million from the Government. 

Leigh calls out another one of Hunt’s hollow phrases as it is unclear to all of us how the government will proceed and exactly how they intend to get a better return than they are already receiving.

Andrew Pulver describes the move  as both a ‘hammer blow’ and ‘tragically naive’. His article is well worth reading in its entirety:

It was nothing short of a hammer blow. This morning, word came through of John Woodward's email to UK Film Council staff informing them that the government was planning to shut them down. Then the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) confirmed it in a written statement at lunchtime. I was genuinely shocked. It felt like I'd nipped out for 10 minutes to get a pie and while I was out they closed the British film industry...

I can't help feeling that this is a tragically naive decision by the government. I've spent a significant amount of my time as a Guardian film journalist reporting on the various attempts to disburse lottery funding, which began in the mid-1990s. To summarise: first it was directly administered by the Arts Council, on a project-by-project basis, in the same way as theatre shows or brass bands. This setup was clearly inadequate– for keeping out both naive amateurs who wasted the money and smart operators who just ripped them off. In 1997 the franchise system was dreamed up. This meant established outfits would band together, offer a slate of projects, and be given a large amount of money. That system proved unwieldy and unworkable. It was quietly abandoned when the Film Council was set up in 2000 to operate like a mini studio, allowed to invest in big films (Gosford Park, The Constant Gardener) and also help out with small (Better Things, Red Road), as well as funding ancillary activities like the Independent Cinema Office, print and advertising assistance, and digital projection. The Film Council was essentially the most sophisticated method found so far to deal with the lottery money, and I simply don't believe any existing body will do a better job.

If the system returns to films being approved on a case by case basis it will surely once again prove to be inadequate. The lack of a concrete proposal for a replacement for the UKFC is of great concern.

The BBC makes clear that although the BFI may be asked to do the UKFC’s work, they may not have the capacity to do so:

What remains unclear, however, is who or what will distribute lottery money after its proposed closure in 2012.

The British Film Institute, the organisation charged with preserving and promoting the nation's film and television heritage, would seem the most likely candidate.

The body is directly funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and was mentioned by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt as he made Monday's announcement.

Last year it was reported the BFI and UK Film Council might merge in order to create what the DCMS called "a streamlined organisation".

Some at the BFI were said to be unhappy with the proposals, concerned they might come off worse were the bodies to combine operations.

Earlier this year the BFI lost the £45m funding it had been promised by the last government for a new film centre on London's South Bank.

How equipped is the BFI to take on the complex and time-consuming business of distributing public funds to film producers?

But damage will be done, and what’s most at risk is the continued existence of film in the UK, not as an entertainment medium but as a practised artform. Specifically, the prospects for British film-makers with ambitions to create truly great cinema seem very bleak indeed...

Yet Daniel Trilling of The Guardian suggests the decision to scrap the UKFC is a good idea:

We should not, though, let the shock of this announcement stop us seeing the shortcomings as well as the successes of the movie-making culture fostered by the UKFC in its 10 years of existence. A key element of Labour's arts programme, the organisation took its structural cue from the City, with executive salaries well above the industry norm. Using a mix of lottery money and direct government subsidy, the UKFC has spent more than £300m – and the tax credit system it promoted has indeed enabled a commercial renaissance.

...According to the critic and producer Colin MacCabe, the UKFC's "aggressive commercial strategy" has frequently stifled creativity. Organisations like the British Film Institute Production Board, which funded experimental films, were abolished to make way for it, and the UKFC has often insisted on having the final cut on films it funds.

The past decade has not been a creative desert – Andrea Arnold's Fish Tank and Steve McQueen's Hunger are wonderful examples of daring British films with political bite and potential mass appeal. But the praise deservedly showered on their directors also serves as a reminder that others have been allowed to fall by the wayside. 

In the long run, this week's announcement could be good news for British film. Money is likely to be tighter, but there is an opportunity at least to rethink what kind of films we want to emerge from Britain in the years to come. It is encouraging that the government is now looking to work directly with the BFI, whose chair, Greg Dyke, has already fought hard to maintain the independence of his organisation.

If only he had seen this excellent graphic on his own website, the main thrust of his argument, that the UKFC has somehow ‘stifled creativity’, he would recognise the diversity and quality of the films that they have backed is an impressive showing. When he states that ‘there is an opportunity at least to rethink what kind of films we want to emerge from Britain in the years to come’; this vague, non-committal phrase may as well have been uttered by Hunt.

Perhaps he should read Sight and Sound’s take on the matter, which makes clear just how much damage the scrapping of the UKFC could do to the British film industry:

But damage will be done, and what’s most at risk is the continued existence of film in the UK, not as an entertainment medium but as a practised artform. Specifically, the prospects for British film-makers with ambitions to create truly great cinema seem very bleak indeed...

And what the statistical yearbook tells us is that the independent film sector in the UK – the proving ground for all young film-makers – is under increasing pressure. Where there were 74 independent features made in 2003, in 2009 there were just 40. You might say that’s natural during a recession, but then the industry is wrongly seen as recession-proof – and the R&D side of it is most emphatically not. Given the apparent success of our industrial activity, it is remarkable how very few new directorial talents have been nurtured here in the past decade. Where are the new Shane Meadowses and Lynne Ramsays, let alone the new Ridley Scotts? The answer is, of course, that they’re out there, but they haven’t had the chances to develop that their forebears enjoyed...

The final sentence puts the whole discussion into perspective – where will the next important British director emerge from? Where will the next Hitchock, Nolan or David Lean hone his craft?

News Review - 80% of European silent films have been lost - this figure will increase...

“I read the news today, oh boy” sang John Lennon 43 years ago. Having researched the following story, I share his sentiments. It is not only estimated that 80 percent of European silent films are lost; poor preservation awareness may mean that this number increases significantly.

Unfortunately, the story has been ignored by the majority of the mainstream media (who clearly needed to write 10,000+ pieces in Inception this week), and there are only two sources for this depressing story. 


Please tweet, facebook or email this story to any friends or colleagues who have a fondness for classic film. Only with greater awareness of the matter can the necessary solutions be reached.

The EU Observer tells us (I am going to dissect the article paragraph by paragraph, as there is a lot to digest): 

Some 80 percent of European silent films are estimated to have been lost, and, due to legal challenges, even modern digital technology may not be sufficient to prevent something similar happening to other types of film, the European Commission has warned in a new report...

This news comes as quite a surprise. As reported in an earlier News Review article, it had previously been suggested that fifty percent of silent films were missing. Now this article only concerns European films, so the Americans and Asian countries may have done a much better job than the Europeans, but surely not to such a large extent? Will the figure for global films now be revised to be closer to 80% than 50%? A quote from the Irish Times piece below suggests the problem, and perhaps figure, is indeed universal.

Given that up until World War One, France was the global city for film, it would be helpful to know how many French silent films are estimated to have been lost.

Only Latvia and Denmark have so far developed film digitisation strategies covering the whole national heritage. Hungary has decided to digitise only a hundred of its movies. Less then a third of member states currently collect digital material in the way they do analogue material, the report shows...

Have Latvia and Denmark been able to develop ‘film digitisation strategies covering the whole national heritage’ because their archives only contain a small portion of the films the French or the Italians do, or can their strategy be shared with other European countries to aid them with their film preservation efforts.

It is shocking to learn that over two thirds of member states are not collecting digital material in the way they collect analogue material. A potential solution to both problems would be to establish a European centre for film preservation. This would allow the restoration process to be synergised, lower costs and hopefully provide film archivists a more substantial voice than they currently have.

All early films by Fritz Lang, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau or Georg Wilhelm Pabst are believed to be lost, along with hundreds of others from the end of the 19th century.

This piece of information seems incredulous. Given that many of the earliest filmmakers’ work survives (e.g. The Lumiere Brothers, Méliès and Edison), it seems strange that the early films of directors working twenty years later have all been lost. Was the problem specific to German film preservation or perhaps that particular era? Either way, it is quite distressing news to learn.

According to the commission, the problem with rescuing the films lies in the lack of a new approach to preserving ageing movie tapes. Conservation of old film in sealed boxes cannot guarantee preservation for future generations. In the digital age, a new access model is needed, the commission says. However, questions about how to store and preserve digital material remain unanswered...

Why do questions about storage and digital material remain unanswered? What are the current solutions being proposed, and what are their shortfalls? Is this problem unique to cinema, or can we look to America or perhaps India, with their promise to spend $140m restoring their classic films. Perhaps an annual conference involving film preservationists would kick start the process and ensure that such an important question does not remain unanswered.

Simple digitalisation is not enough, according to Mr Koerber.

"We need to keep the analogue masters intact in case one has to come back to them. The need for this is certain, as distribution channels and technologies are changing rapidly, and re-digitalisation with better resolution and better technologies in the future should be allowed as a option," he said.

How do we make this happen, and more importantly, how much will it cost if it was implemented throughout Europe?

Beyond the technological issues, legal difficulties also constrain the effective use of and access to old films. There are several different regimes under which EU member states collect, preserve, restore and share their national film collections.

Simple administrative costs and the time needed to clear the rights often prevent the institutions from providing access to archive material. Some member states would welcome EU intervention on the question of copyright, the report from the commission says.

The solution again has to be scrapping the different regimes and agreeing on one system. And EU intervention is absolutely crucial to allow the importance of preservation to supersede film rights, administrative costs and other such unnecessary burdens.

Film industry professionals themselves can also present an obstacle, Mr Koerber thinks.

"Many producers, especially the smaller units, have no means, no understanding of and no strategy for long term archiving," he said, adding: "It is an important political task to bring producers and archives closer and make them work together."

The Irish Times is the only major publication that I could find that reported the above matter and added some important pieces of information, such as the problem of nitrate and what the process would ultimately cost:

The loss of silent movies was not confined to Europe and most American films from the same era have also disappeared, Mr Koerber says.

“It’s universal. It has to do with the fact that there were no archives,” he said.

“It’s a fact of life. People don’t keep things. They get lost. It’s not only true for silent movies. The early 1930s is very bad because it was before the first archiving.

“The early 1950s is a problem period because not everything was well organised, for obvious reasons.”

Research cited in Ms Kroes’s report says the biggest cause of the disappearance of silent movies was systematic destruction by studios, who feared piracy and considered films to be of little value beyond their theatrical run.

Neither did studios want to bear the expense of storing nitrate, the standard film stock until the introduction of acetate-based film in 1949.

Nitrate film was susceptible to fire – and decomposed if not stored in the right conditions.

Ms Kroes said digital technology can help rescue Europe’s “fragile” film heritage, adding that the preservation process needed to be improved to achieve optimum results.

Legal issues and administrative costs prevented the full exploitation of films and related material for educational and cultural use, she said.

But digital archiving is expensive. Mr Koerber suggests it would cost €500 – €600 million to save the entire backlog of German film and television, and as much as $2 billion (€1.58 billion) to safely secure the backlog of global film.

“That’s high enough to deter anyone from thinking further about it.”

The studios’ short-sightedness was farcical. They destroyed the film rather than allowing it to be preserved, they would made a lot more money in the long term. Some may come to the defence of the studios by correctly pointing out that until the rental system began (around 1912); film was either recorded over or destroyed. However, any film that came after the rental system began would not be allowed to utilise this excuse.

What is of fundamental importance now, is that we find a way to raise the money necessary to preserve silent film. This article suggests that $2bn is required to safely secure the backlog of film. Mr. Kroeber suggests that this deters anyone from thinking about it, but as previously mentioned, the Indian government is going to spend $140m to restore classic Indian films, 2,500 of which are silent films.

As we are in the midst of a global recession, it is highly unlikely that over governments will follow suit. This becomes depressingly obvious when we see the BFI having to ask the public to raise £1m to preserve nine of Hitchcock’s earlier films .

The public alone will not come close to raising the necessary money. Therefore, my suggestion would to get the major governments to agree to a 1% tax on all film revenue. I unfortunately have not been able to track down a specific figure for cinema’s global revenue – but I am sure that such a tax would help raise the money sooner rather than later. Modern day film owes a great deal to classic film, both artistically and technologically, and this is the least they could do to ensure that we do not unnecessarily lose any more films.

What are your thoughts on this matter? Does this news upset you as much as it upsets me? Do you have any potential solutions for this very expensive problem?

News Review - Indian Govt. to spend $140 million dollars restoring classic movies

There has been an incredibly exciting film restoration news story that has broken over the last few days; the Indian Government has announced plans to restore 2,500 films, of which 1,450 are silent, at a cost of around $140 million.

This is a far bigger story than the news of 75 films being found in New Zealand and sent to America for restoration - yet all I have been able to find so far in regards to this story in the British and American media is a few paragraphs on the story in The Telegraph.

The Times of India provides us with more substantial details (for those interested in converting the numbers, a crore is 10 million):

Great celluloid classics like Mrinal Sen's `Antareen', Mani Kaul's `Nazar' and Bimal Roy's `Do Dooni Char' will soon come alive in their pristine glory under the National Film Heritage Mission. 

The Mission, being established by the I&B ministry with a corpus of Rs 660 crore, will digitise, restore and preserve prints from films belonging to not just the National Film Archives but also the Children's Film Society of India, Films Division and NFDC.

Significantly, rare archival footage and documentaries on leaders like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose and others associated with the freedom movement, that have decomposed due to neglect or wear and tear, will also be restored and digitised.

The scheme envisages preservation of the invaluable film heritage of the country that is presently lying with various government agencies and private bodies in the country. Sources said that the authorities have now been tasked with preparing a detailed project report.

The Films Division plans to restore a total of 2,500 films, of which 1,450 belong to the `silent era' and 200 that are on video format. Shockingly, there are almost 200 films (400 reels of 4,000 minutes' duration) that have decomposed due to fungal infection and will require digital restoration at a cost of Rs 30 crore.

1,450 silent films - that is earth-shattering, ground breaking news. How many silent films have in survived in total, surely this gargantuan restoration process will provide a substantial addition to the silent film oeuvre? And how many Indian silent films exist? 

The non-fiction footage of the great Indian leaders is another mouth watering prospect. I wish we could have more specific details in regards all the films that they plan to restore, but that would require 2,500 separate entries!

The only saddening news is the fact that 4,000 minutes of film have decomposed to due to fungal infection. That is pretty shocking to hear, I hope that this is not a problem shared by other countries. Even if Governments/Film Organisations are not restoring certain films, they should at least store them in a safe manner.

India Glitz adds some further details, as well as highlighting what appears to be U-turn in policy from the Indian government in regards to film preservation:

The scheme envisages preservation of the invaluable film heritage of the country that is presently lying with various government agencies and private bodies in the country. Sources said that the authorities have now been tasked with preparing a detailed project report. Restoration can be an expensive process with a single film running up a cost of Rs 8 lakh-Rs 10 lakh. Added to that is the cost to digitise films so that they can be seen and used by generations to come. "It is a major challenge to use technology that will allow us to use digitally restored material for commercial purposes. We also hope to webcast digitised and restored films," the source said.

NFAI that has a collection of 6,000 films has already restored 48 films and digitised 148 others in 2009-2010.

Besides some efforts by Doordarshan and NFAI, the government involvement in archival of films has so far been minimal. Some films have been restored by producers or major production houses as people realise the importance of preserving visual history. But in most cases producers do not see the immediate value of either providing the Archives with a copy of the master print or preserving their own films because of a general lack of awareness and resources.

I would hypothesise that as the Indian economy continues to grow at a considerable rate, the Indian government is attempting to follow America's lead and establish itself as both an economic and cultural superpower. This restoration process will retroactively assert Indian cinema as a cinematic force that has rivalled America's dominance of the medium from the early silent days (we should not forget that before World War One, French Cinema was the dominant force of cinema). In an ideal world, this would set off a classic and silent film preservation race (as opposed to an arms race!) and we would see various countries deciding to restore all of the great films that are lying in their vaults. Film goers of the world unite!

  

My posts are rarely as hyperbolic and exclamation mark ridden as this, but I am genuinely gob smacked at the enormity of this news. I am also saddened that it has as yet received little if no coverage in the British and American press. News reporting has become increasingly globalised over the last twenty years, yet film reporting remains Hollywood-centric. 

News Review - A number of lost silent films found in New Zealand

News review is a new feature that Film: Ab Initio will be running. It will allow this blog to share any news that is relevant to this project (particularly if the news may result in new films being added to the list) and also look at the various pieces of information coming from different sources in regards to that particular story.

Various sources yesterday reported the exciting news that a whole host of lost movies have been found in the New Zealand Film Archive, 75 of which are being returned to the United States' National Film Preservation board.

The New York Times tells us:

The films came to light early in 2009, when Brian Meacham, a preservationist for the Los Angeles archive of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, dropped in on colleagues at the New Zealand Film Archive in Wellington during a vacation.

“The conversation inevitably turned to what films we held in our collection,” recalled Steve Russell, the New Zealand archive’s manager of corporate services. “Brian was not surprisingly excited to learn the Film Archive held a number of non-New Zealand titles, primarily early nitrate films, including a substantial number of American films. We offered to compile a list of the U.S. material, and it was a short step to here.” Many foreign films remained in New Zealand after their commercial lives were over because the studios didn’t think the return shipping was worth the expense. “It’s one of the rare cases where the tyranny of distance has worked in our and the films’ favor,” Mr. Russell said.

Because of the importance of the John Ford film, “Upstream” — a backstage drama from 1927, a year that was a turning point in the development of one of America’s greatest filmmakers — it is being copied to modern safety film stock in a New Zealand laboratory, rather than risk loss or further damage in transit.

Although Ford was already famous as a director of epic westerns like “The Iron Horse”(1925) and “Three Bad Men” (1926), “Upstream” appears to be his first film reflecting the influence of the German director F. W. Murnau, who had arrived at Ford’s studio, Fox, in 1926 to begin work on his American masterpiece, “Sunrise.” From Murnau, Ford learned the use of forced perspectives and chiaroscuro lighting, techniques Ford would use to complement his own more direct, naturalistic style.

Richard Abel, a professor of film studies at the University of Michigan and an authority on early cinema, was one of the experts called in by the National Film Preservation Board to evaluate the inventory and establish priorities for films to be returned. “ ‘Upstream’ was an obvious choice,” Mr. Abel said, “and I suggested strongly that they do ‘Dolly of the Dailies’ with Mary Fuller, because there’s very little that survives of her films. But we were also looking to fill in gaps, which is why many of the early westerns were chosen.”

John Ford’s Upstream appears to be an integral part of his oeuvre, so its discovery must be celebrated. It should be interesting to see to what extent it reveals Murnau’s influence over Ford. One hopes that it will get some sort of cinematic release, but I will be more than happy if it is released on DVD.

The Los Angeles Times provides details of much the restoration will cost as well as providing the tragic background of just how many films from the silent era have been lost:

These films, which will cost more than $500,000 to preserve, are being divided among the five major American silent film archives: the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the George Eastman House, the Library of Congress, the Museum of Modern Art and the UCLA Film & Television Archive.

Very few films from the silent era still exist, says Annette Melville, director of the National Film Preservation Foundation, the nonprofit charitable affiliate of the National Film Preservation Board of the Library of Congress. "We know looking at the feature films only about 20% exist," she says. "We think fewer of the shorter films survive. Our major job is to give out grants to American archives to save their films."

The New Zealand partnership is part of a current trend of "film repatriation," in which movies are returned to the country of origin. Three years ago, the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia and the NFPF worked to bring back films considered lost in the U.S., using copies made for the Australian archive. The same is holding true with New Zealand.

It is incredibly sad to learn that only 20% of feature films exist and that even fewer shorter films survive. It makes this discovery all the more important and raises prospects of similar finds being made elsewhere.

It would have been helpful to have been given a rough estimate of the timetable of how long the restoration will take. Does the restoration time differ for each film or can you make a calculation of how long the process will take if you know how long the film is?

Variety provide us with a partial list of the films that will be restored:

• "The Active Life of Dolly of the Dailies," Episode 5, "The Chinese Fan" (Edison Manufacturing Co., 1914). In this episode of the famous serial (previously entirely lost in the United States), ace woman reporter Dolly Desmond, played by Mary Fuller, rescues the editor's daughter from kidnappers and gets the scoop. In the early 1910s, on-going serial narratives starring intrepid heroines lured female moviegoers back to the theater week after week.
• "The Better Man" (Vitagraph Company of America, 1912), a Western in which a Mexican American outlaw proves himself the better man. This film will be preserved through funds raised in February by the "For the Love of Film" Blogathon.
• "The Big Show" (Miller Brothers Productions, 1926), the only surviving fiction film made by the famous Oklahoma-based Wild West Show managed by the Miller Brothers. The film showcases performances by many of the troupe's performers as well as its owner, Col. Joseph Miller.
• "Billy and his Pal" (George Méliès / American Wild West Film Company, 1911), a Western filmed in San Antonio, Texas, and the earliest surviving film featuring Francis Ford. The actor-director introduced the movie business to his younger brother, John, who soon blossomed as director. Released in New Zealand as Bobby and his Pal.
• "Birth of a Hat" (Stetson Company, 1920), an industrial short illustrating how Stetson makes its hats.
• "The Diver" (Kalem Company, 1916), a documentary showing how to set underwater explosives.
• "Fordson Tractors" (Ford Motor Co., 1918), an industrial film promoting the all-purpose tractor introduced by Henry Ford & Son in 1917.
• "The Girl Stage Driver" (Éclair-Universal, 1914), an early Western filmed in Tucson, Arizona. American-made Westerns were in demand by movie audiences around the globe and helped establish the United States as the major film-exporting nation by the late 1910s.
• "Idle Wives" (Universal Moving Pictures, 1916), the first reel of a Lois Weber feature in which a film inspires three sets of moviegoers to remake their lives. More of the film exists at the Library of Congress.
• International Newsreel (ca.1926), newsreel including five stories from the United States and abroad. By the late 1910s, newsreels became a regular part of the movie program. Because the footage was usually cut up and reused, very few newsreels from the silent era survive in complete form.
• "Kick Me Again" (Universal Pictures / Bluebird Comedies, 1925), a short comedy with Hungarian silent star Charles Puffy. As America became the center of world film production in the 1920s, European actors, such as Puffy, came to Hollywood to build their careers.
• "Little Brother" (Thanhouser Film Corporation, 1913), one of two one-reelers from New York's Thanhouser Company repatriated through the project.
• "Lyman Howe's Ride on a Runaway Train" (Lyman H. Howe Films, 1921), a thrill-packed short entertainment that was accompanied by sound discs which survive at the Library of Congress.
• "Mary of the Movies" (Columbia Pictures, 1923), Hollywood comedy about a young woman seeking stardom in the movies. This first surviving film from Columbia Pictures exists in an incomplete copy.
• "Maytime" (B.P. Schulberg Productions, 1923), a feature with Clara Bow in an early role. Nitrate deterioration has reached the point where "blooms" are starting to eat away at the emulsion.
• "Midnight Madness" (DeMille Pictures, 1928), comedy starring Clive Brook as a millionaire who decides to teach his golddigging fiancée a lesson.
• "Run 'Em Ragged" (Rolin Films, 1920), a short featuring slapstick comedian Snub Pollard.
• "The Sergeant" (Selig Polyscope, 1910), a Western filmed in Yosemite Valley when the area was managed by the U.S. Army. This film will be preserved through funds raised in February by the "For the Love of Film" Blogathon.
• Trailer for "Strong Boy" (Fox Film Corporation, 1929), a "lost" feature directed by John Ford and starring Victor McLaglen as a courageous baggage handler who thwarts a holdup. No other moving images from this film survive.
• "Upstream" (Fox Film Corporation, 1927), a feature directed by four-time Academy Award winner John Ford. Only 15% of the silent-era films by the celebrated director are known to survive. This tale of backstage romance stars Nancy Nash and Earle Foxe.
• "Why Husbands Flirt" (Christie Comedies, 1918), one of the nine short comedies that will be preserved through this project.
• "The Woman Hater" (Power Picture Plays, 1910), a one-reel comedy starring serial queen Pearl White.
• "Won in a Closet" (Keystone Film Company, 1914), the first surviving movie directed by and starring Mabel Normand. Released in New Zealand as Won in a Cupboard.

I would like to single out a few films on this list, but the truth is I have the intention of watching every single one of them! The importance of restoring these films cannot be overstated and I hope that this news encourages archives from other countries to find and return equivalent treasures.

Are there any lost silent films that you are hoping will be discovered? Perhaps we can make a list of the most desired lost silent films... 

Finally, filmpreservation.org have uploaded two clips from The Sergeant (1910), the first film to be preserved from the New Zealand Archive. They are well worth watching.