David Francis

The 1988 National Film Preservation act was an attempt to pacify a lobby, ably led by Martin Scorsese, which objected to film colorization and the release of edited, cut or materially altered versions of films. The Act called upon the Librarian of Congress, with advice from the specially constituted National Film Preservation Board, to select 25 films each year for inclusion in a National Film Registry. This was intended to increase the public’s awareness of the diversity of American cinema and the importance of film preservation. If a title was chosen for the Registry which had been colorized or materially altered, the Registry version and any copies made from it were required to carry a notice indicating this.

The first list of 25 titles was chosen in 1989 and the original Act expired in 1991 with 75 titles on the Registry list. Nine months later it was renewed. The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. had contested the labelling provisions described above and Scorsese had returned to filmmaking so the 1992 National Film Preservation Act concentrated entirely on film preservation and the selection of 25 film titles a year for inclusion in the National Film Registry. The National Film Preservation Board was amended to include more archival representatives. The definition of films eligible for the Registry was broadened to include shorts, animation, and other films produced outside the studio system. All films, however, still had to be more than ten years old. The new Act also required the Librarian to initiate a study into the current state of film preservation in America and deliver it to Congress by June 26, 1993. He was then required to prepare a national plan based on the study.

The 1988 Act had set the scene for industry/archive co-operation by indicating precisely which organisations should be represented on the National Film Preservation Board and giving them responsibility for advising the Librarian on the preparation of the Study and the Plan. This was certainly the first time film archivists and film industry personnel had been required by law to work together. In fact, the level of co-operation generated in the preparation of the Study surprised everyone. Luckily, the timing for this exercise was perfect. The Federal Communications Commission had announced technology that would allow up to 1,500 more cable channels and the industry realized that every foot of sound film in which it owned copyright was potentially a saleable commodity. In many cases, the only physical materials they possessed have been donated to the four major American film archives.

For their part, the archivists who were dependent on a level of federal funding which had remained basically unchanged for 27 years, had found that the only way they could keep up with nitrate deterioration was to enter into individual funding arrangements with the copyright owners. The chance to get together around a table on an equal footing was, therefore, extremely advantageous.

The Study demonstrated gradually many of the problems which archives had suspected for many years but which they had been unable to quantify. It showed how little of the silent film heritage still existed, but indicated at the same time that a significant proportion of the lost titles still survived in the archives of other countries. It showed that the buying power today of the federal grants given to the Library and allocated to other archives through the AFI/NEA grants program had declined dramatically. It also included the latest findings of research into the long-term stability of film undertaken by the Image Permanence Institute. This showed that nitrate and safety film will last about the same time if stored in similar conditions. The nitrate has deteriorated first simply because it is older. However, the “ vinegar syndrome ” will have an equally devastating impact on safety film collections if we do not store them at the recommended levels of temperature and humidity. In other words, we should put more resources into storage if we want to save a larger proportion of what remains of the nation’s film heritage. This allows us longer to undertake duplication, and if the money available declines as it is almost bound to in real terms, we will be able to preserve more.

The way in which the Study was prepared is interesting. The Library organized two sets of hearings, one in Los Angeles and the other in Washington. All interested parties were invited to make written submissions (which are included in the appendix to the Study), but they were also encouraged to attend one of the hearings and answer questions put by members of the National Film Preservation Board and Library staff. All major studios sent senior executives to testify at the Los Angeles hearings and many ancillary organizations like laboratories, storage companies, were also represented. The archivists, the educators, and the grant administrators were the dominant force in Washington.

The Plan was a simpler affair. It summarized the problems raised in the Study and made recommendations for solving them. The text was agreed by five task forces, each including representatives of the industry, the archives, and the academic community. The recommendations may seem a little bland to some, but we knew from the start that we would never achieve anything if we did not have the consensus of all the parties involved.

Of course, the archivists’ main concern was the lack of funds for film preservation. The industry, on the other hand, felt they were already doing enough by looking after the titles they owned. Clearly, one could not just ask the federal government to foot the entire bill. The solution, an elegant one, was to establish through new legislation, a federally chartered foundation which would have federal dollars available to match private donations. The level of matching funding available would be reconsidered each year, but based on other models like the National Fish and Wildlife Fund, would be increased regularly if more private money was forthcoming.

New legislation is difficult to enact in the best of times so the task forces suggested that we should try to secure political and public interest in the importance of film preservation. A tour of selected National Film Registry titles which visited every state in the nation in 1995-1996, a time when everyone would be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the cinema, was considered the best vehicle. This would allow the public and local and national politicians to see a broad range of important films presented under ideal conditions. Hopefully, the publicity would be cumulative and the media would capture the spirit of this “ Barnum and Bailey ” type operation. The tour would start in Washington in 1995 and the film package would contain 28 features and a dozen shorts. Venues would have a chance of showing a program each night from Friday to Thursday or screening the same number of films during a marathon weekend event. Either way, there would be a spectacular opening night and a closing gala with a local flavour.

The implementation of the other recommendations will, to a large extent, depend on if and how quickly the National Film Preservation Foundation can be established. The body will not only be able to match private funds with federal dollars; it will also be able to allocate monies collected to either private or federal organisations. It will take the broadest view of film preservation. Funds can be allocated, for instance, to build new storage vaults, to undertake research into film deterioration, or even to support the availability of 35mm prints of films which will not be released by the copyright owners. In our definition, access is an important part of preservation. However, you have to undertake the preservation first.

The success of the whole enterprise will obviously depend on how many of the recommendations can be implemented. There are, however, already significant advances. The National Film Registry contains 150 titles. In each case, the copyright owner of a chosen film was asked to deposit an archival quality copy in the Library. With a little encouragement, some companies have interpreted this as master material and have given us a new fine grain or duplicate negative. Nearly everyone has given us at least a new 35mm print. If the copyright owner cannot donate a copy which meets the Registry criteria, then the Board has some federal funds that can be used to restore the titles in question. In exceptional cases, where a filmmaker obviously cannot afford to donate material, Board moneys can be used to buy an appropriate copy at cost. Another surprising result of the legislation is that the Copyright Office can now demand a 35mm black-and-white copy of any colorized film submitted for registration to show that the original version has not been destroyed. Even Scorsese’s original campaign has had positive results.

Whatever else happens, archivists will maintain relations with the film industry. The camaraderie developed during the preparation of the Study and the Plan will almost certainly remain. Archives and industry openly admit their past failures and talk about their recent successes. It is generally accepted that preservation copies made in the 1970’s by the archives and the industry fall far short of today’s standards and that the nitrate originals which are still in good condition may have to be duplicated again. With liquid-gate printers and more sensitive stocks, we can produce copies which approximate the originals far more closely.

Finally, we understand that the Canadians are undertaking a similar study. We would, of course, be happy to advise any other archive that feels that this kind of approach might improve film preservation in their own country.

Le “National Film Presevation Act” de 1988 était destiné à pacifier le “lobby” de Martin Scorsese qui s’opposait à la colorisation et distribution de versions altérées de films. Cet “Act” chargeait la Library of Congress de choisir -suivant l’avis d’un Conseil national de préservation de films - vingt-cinq films par an et de les inclure dans un Registre national de films. Le but était de renforcer la conscience de la diversité du cinéma américain et l’importance de la préservation auprès du public. Si un titre choisi pour ce Registre avait été colorisé ou altéré, cela devait être indiqué sur la copie déposée et sur les copies distribuées.

L’“Act” original devait expirer en 1991 avec 75 titres figurant au Registre créé. La nouvelle loi, l’“Act” de 1992, cette fois-ci influencée par la Motion Picture Association of America, prévoyait un Conseil comprenant davantage de représentants des archives. La définition de films susceptibles d’être inclus dans le Registre fut élargie notamment aux courts-métrages, aux films d’animation et à d’autres films produits en dehors du “studio system”.

Tous les films éligibles pour le Registre devaient cependant dater d’au moins dix ans. Ce nouvel “Act” chargeait la Library of Congress d’entreprendre une étude sur l’état de la préservation de films aux Etats-Unis et de transmettre le résultat au Congrès jusqu’en juin 1993. Un plan national basé sur l’étude devait ensuite être conduit par la Library. L’auteur analyse ensuite en détail les conditions dans lesquelles se sont déroulées les activités de recherche et de mise en oeuvre du plan pour conclure en faisant un bilan positif de l’exercice. En effet, souligne-t-il, “Quoiqu’il arrive, les archivistes vont maintenir leurs relations avec l’industrie du cinéma. L’esprit de camaraderie développé pendant l’étude et la mise en oeuvre du plan subsistera. Les archivistes et les industriels du cinéma admettent ouvertement leurs erreurs passées et parlent de leurs succès plus récents. Il a été admis que les copies de préservation tirées dans les années 70 ne correspondent pas aux standards de qualité exigés aujourd’hui et qu’il faudra peut-être ré-utiliser les originaux en nitrate pour tirer de meilleurs éléments”.

El National Preservation Act: política y preservación en la experiencia de la Library of Congress

El “National Film Presevation Act” de 1988 estaba destinado a apaciguar al “lobby” de Martin Scorsese quién se oponía a la "colorización" y a la exhibición de versiones alteradas de películas. Este “Act” encomendaba a la Library of Congress - siguiendo los criterios de un Consejo nacional de preservación de films - que procediera a la selección de 25 películas por año y que los hiciera ingresar en un Registro nacional de films. El objetivo era de reforzar la conciencia de la diversidad del cine estadounidense y de recalcar la importancia de las actividades de preservación ante el público.

El espíritu de esta primera ley (que se aplicó a unas 75 películas y que venció en 1991) era bastante restrictivo: si una película designada para ingresar en el Registro había sido colorizada o alterada de alguna otra manera, ésto debía figurar en el material depositado y en las copias exhibidas. Las nuevas disposiciones legales, el “Act” de 1992, más influenciadas por la Motion Picture Association of America, preveían un Consejo integrado por sectores diversificados (y más archivos). La definición de películas de más de 10 años de antigüedad aptas para figurar en el Registro fué ampliada (y extendida, por ejemplo a corto-metrajes, películas de animación y producciones exteriores al “studio system”).

El “Act” también encargó a la Library of Congress la realización de un estudio sobre el estado de la preservación de películas en los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, de transmitir los resultados al Congreso hasta junio de 1993 y de ejecutar luego un "Plan Nacional". El autor analiza también las condiciones en las que se desarrollaron las actividades de investigación y de aplicación del plan. Su balance es positivo: "Pase lo que pase, los archiveros seguirán manteniendo las relaciones cordiales entabladas con los industriales del cine. El espíritu de camaradería desarrollado durante los trabajos subsistirá. Ambos admiten abiertamente los errores pasados y prefieren hablar ya de los éxitos conjuntos más recientes. Por ejemplo, los elementos de conservación duplicados en los años 70 ya no corresponden a los estándards de hoy y fué convenido que se deberá re-utilizar los originales de nitrato que se encuentren en buen estado para copiar mejores elementos".