- A film may have been deliberately cut by official censorship at some point in its history.

- Distributors or producers may have sought to second-guess the official censor or to avoid a possible public outcry by making their own cuts in a film before releasing it to a new audience.

- The film may be shortened or altered on release (or re-release) to respond to the comments of critics or preview audiences.

- The film may be shortened to suit the convenience of cinema programming; in many countries, the pressure of advertising breaks makes such mutilation still more common in films broadcast on commercial television.

- The film may be incomplete through accidental loss or damage or - in the case of older film - because of physical deterioration in the film stock.

- Material from a private collector may have suffered a kind of "non-accidental" damage: he or she may have removed parts of a film (this is particularly likely where titles and credits are concerned) to conceal its identity when its acquisition by that collector had not been, perhaps, entirely legal.

- Film taken over from commercial libraries may reflect another kind of incompleteness: pieces may have been cut from original films for re-sale or re-use in other compilations, or to keep a film "topical".

- The picture component of a film may be incomplete if it has been doctored for presentation in a format other than its original one - examples include silent film transferred on sound machinery; academy frame pictures trimmed top and bottom to give a wide-screen effect; wide-screen pictures trimmed at the sides (or "pan and scan" transferred) to fit a different ratio such as that of the domestic television screen, and so on.

- The archive itself may have contributed to a film's incompleteness: many archives have at some point followed selection policies including (for example) preserving the image but not the commentary for newsreels, etc.

It must be noted that there is also a reverse problem. Films exist - and indeed archives play their part in this process - that might be called more complete than the original version. "Director's Cuts", "De Luxe Editions", "Export Versions" and archive restorations are all among the phenomena that result in versions of films longer than those originally released. For the sake of convenience, this paper will continue to talk primarily about "incompleteness", but many of the points raised would apply with equal force to the opposite problem, for which perhaps an agreed term needs to be coined.

The question of incompleteness raises a number of questions for the archival cataloguer. At a simple level, he or she will be aware that the fact that the print viewed for cataloguing purposes was incomplete does not automatically mean that the archive's best or preservation copy of that film shares the same status. The cataloguer will explore the relationship of the screened print to all other material: it is when the best or preservation copy of the film is itself not complete that these issues become important. At that level, we may begin to ask ourselves the following kind of questions. To what extent should the catalogue reflect the incompleteness of a film ? How easy is it to gauge "completeness" anyway ? And how can completeness or its opposite be most usefully described ? This paper explores some of these topics, but does not offer definitive answers.

It has long been the position of FIAF and its Cataloguing Commission that, to reflect the international nature of the film medium, the primary identification of a film for cataloguing purposes - in no matter which country the film is being catalogued - should be the original title of that film in its country of origin. This principle has meant that the cataloguing of film in film archives has always involved a mixture of a description of the film that was originally made with a description of the copy or copies of the film actually held in the archive.

Leaving out of consideration in this paper the more complex issues involved in the FIAF position (what is an original title ? what is the country of origin of an international production ? and so on), the principle itself here seems to be the important thing. Once the position has been established that the film held is named by reference to the film as it was originally released, it would seem logical to say that the cataloguer should also describe for the reader of the catalogue the extent to which the film held conforms to or differs from the film as it was originally released. The possibility of the film being shorter than that original version is clearly an important aspect of that description.

Like many statements of principle, this one is easily said but considerably more difficult to put into practice. Certain kinds of incompleteness are simple to reflect in the cataloguing process. If the archive is missing one or more reels of a multi-reel film, or if the soundtrack is not held, or if the whole title and credit sequence has been excised from the copy held, the omission is easy to spot and easy to describe. On the other hand, a minor cut consequent on physical damage or deterioration may be equally easy to spot, but raises the question of whether such damage needs to be described - at least in the context of a catalogue description as distinct from the archive's technical records: might it not be assumed that an archive film user (while hoping to find a film in the best possible condition) will accept minor incidental damage in the same way as the user of a book library will tolerate discoloured paper or a broken binding of a rare old publication?

A further layer of complexity is the kind of "fuzzy censorship" that blurs an issue without cutting it: a recently-published book(NO1) points out not only that the British version of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves suffered eleven actual cuts in its opening sequence but also that a rather more decorous "Blimey !" was substituted for Will Scarlett's original expletive at the point where Robin has himself catapulted over the castle walls. Such cleaning-up of language is common practice in Britain, especially in films shown on television, where it is often quite laughable, but it is not the only kind of cut-free censorship that has been practised. Others described in the same book include requests for the reprinting of certain scenes to make the precise nature of the action more difficult to follow, or the body parts on display less visible, and so on. A purist might say that these changes are a form of incompleteness, but their identification and description would be a hard task for the innocent cataloguer.

The above considerations formed the background to the circulation of a questionnaire in 1992 (I apologise to those who responded to that questionnaire for my failure to report on it earlier). The questionnaire asked FIAF affiliates whether their film catalogue described the completeness of a film (or copy of a film); whether they had a written rule controlling the procedure to be used for such description; how completeness was indicated; and what was the standard against which completeness was judged. Apart from the first two, the questions did not require that only one answer could apply - in other words, archives could indicate that they used more than one descriptive method, or more than one gauge of completeness. The results may be summarised as follows:

- 37 archives replied, of which 34 stated that they did describe the completeness of a film when they catalogued it.

- Of the 34 archives which did describe completeness, there was an almost exactly even split on the question of whether or not the archive had a written rule explaining how to describe completeness: 16 archives had a rule, 18 did not.

- Of methods used to describe completeness, 28 archives reported that they used, in the questionnaire's words, "a kind of fraction (3 reels out of 4)": that is, they addressed the form of incompleteness, missing reels, which is both the most obvious and the easiest to describe. Only 2 archives indicated that they reported a percentage of completeness. 22 respondents stated that they described completeness in a textual note.

- In terms of the standard used to judge completeness, the most commonly used (indicated by 22 archives) was that of comparison with the most complete copy held by the archive itself. 19 archives indicated adherence to the FIAF principle of comparison to the original release in the country of origin, while 18 referred (or referred also) to the original release in the country of the archive. Only 7 indicated the attempt to take into account the intentions of the director ("if known to be different from the original release").

Respondents were asked to comment on the subject if they wished: many took up the invitation, and raised the issues mentioned in the preamble to this paper. Several pointed out the difficulty of establishing an appropriate standard for "completeness", and almost as many pointed out that variant versions could be longer as well as shorter than the "original".

Another point raised by more than one respondent was the difference between an accidentally incomplete copy of a film, a copy deliberately shortened, an intentional extract of a film (for example, one prepared for study purposes), an accidental extract or fragment (such as an isolated reel of a longer film), and a self-contained segment of a film (such as a single story from a newsreel issue). The need to cover trims, out-takes, rushes, trailers, screen-tests and other forms of "extra" material possibly relating to an identified film (whether complete or not - indeed, whether the completed film was held in the archive or not) was also raised by several people. One recommendation which the reading of these comments readily suggests is the desirability of formulating an agreed terminology for this range of material: I was myself occasionally uncertain as to the differences or similarities between different kinds of "associated" material referred to by different respondents.

I hope it will not be considered an unjust conclusion to say that the responses to this questionnaire indicate that FIAF archives are aware of the desirability of describing completeness, but that apart from the relatively easy question of gross incompleteness (missing reels) few of them have evolved a methodology for doing so. As a result, it may be questioned whether we are always providing the users of our catalogues with the best possible level of information. A policy of openness about the state of the material we hold, even when it is less than perfect, will in the long run help the community of archivists and researchers ensure that our knowledge of film history is as well-developed as it can be. Beyond that, our ability to preserve and restore the films that make up that history will also benefit from the fullest possible knowledge about the completeness of the material that survives.

The following observations are offered as a first step in discussing whether or how these improvements might be sought.

- FIAF archives cataloguing their own national production or assisting in the production of national filmographies have a particular responsibility to research and publish precise information on the length of the "original" version, which may then be used by other FIAF archives to explore the completeness of copies of that film held elsewhere. If there is a possibility of ambiguity, it should also be clear which version they have chosen to regard as the "original".

- The same archives should also record details of other versions which, in their opinion, should be recognised as legitimate alternatives that are nonetheless not the "original" version - the syndrome of "Director's cuts" or "export versions" might be addressed in this way - carefully noting the lengths of such recognised versions and the differences between them and the original.

- In the same way, FIAF archives cataloguing a film which constitutes the official version for their country of a film from another source (whether its length and content are determined by the censorship authority or by the distributor) should research and make clear any differences between this and the "original" version, supplying as much detail as possible.

- The cascade of information that will result from such efforts will help other archives - not to mention film restorers and scholars - to evaluate the nature of "complete" and "incomplete" copies wherever they are held, and to explore and explain the nature and background to those that are incomplete.

- FIAF archives should try to formulate a terminology that would help to define the nature and extent of incompleteness in a film. Each archive could develop its own, but obviously an agreed standard would be preferable. Perhaps this is a future project for the Cataloguing

- an indication of whether the incompleteness is deliberate or the result of accident (loss or damage); if the result is of deliberate action, then it should indicate the reason (censorship, re-release, extracting etc);

- an indication of whether the incompleteness is such as seriously to impair a viewer's intellectual and/or aesthetic appreciation of the film (on the analogy used earlier, a library book remains readable with certain kinds of damage, but not with others); topics for consideration in this area should include incorrect presentation formats etc;

- a methodology for handling films that are "more complete" than the original to which they are referred;

- an agreed terminology for material associated with a given film (eg rushes, trims, out-takes, screen-tests etc).

- The catalogue description for a film which is known or suspected to be incomplete should clearly indicate the extent of the archive's knowledge or suspicions of any cuts in a prominent part of the catalogue record.

- Any indication of incompleteness given in a catalogue entry should indicate the basis for comparison. Only in the case of extreme incompleteness (i.e. missing reels) is such a statement likely to be self-explanatory.

- It is of course assumed that any work along these lines will be undertaken within the framework of recommendations already included in The FIAF Cataloguing Rules for Film Archives (Saur 1991). The Rules cover the basic topic of completeness under point 5.3.2 of chapter 5 (Physical description). Suggestions for notes on (in)completeness are included under point 7.2.10.3 of chapter 7 (Notes). Point 1.4.3 (Additions to titles) of chapter 1 (Title and statement of responsibility area) includes some suggested additions to titles to indicate certain kinds of incomplete copies and associated materials.

It will be held, with some justification, that the suggestions just made represent an unrealistic ideal, as much of the information will be difficult to research and provide. This is accepted, but there is no harm in stating an optimum policy, even if one must acknowledge the practical difficulties of living up to it. To revert to the opening remarks of this paper, film is a uniquely international medium within which it is nonetheless likely for a single film to be represented, in the archives of the world, in a very large number of local variations. It is at least part of the role of the cataloguer to make it easier for his fellow archivists and others in the film world to explore and understand the range of those variations.

“Où est le reste de moi-même?” : le problème du catalogue incomplet En raison de la nature spécifique du cinéma et de la manière dont les collections se sont constituées, la question du catalogue incomplet pose de nombreux problèmes au catalogueur. Toute archive de films sait que l’information concernant sa collection est incomplète. D’ailleurs, le cas extrême opposé -où l’on enregistre plus d’information que ne comporte l’original- existe également, quoique moins souvent, et pose des problèmes similaires.

Diverses causes peuvent être à l’origine du caractère lacunaire de ces informations. En voici les plus évidentes:

- censure officielle,
- censure opérée par le producteur et/ou le distributeur,
- modification ou raccourcissement, lors du lancement, en vue de satisfaire la critique d’un public déterminé,
- modification en vue d’une programmation commerciale ou d’une émission de télévision,
- perte partielle, dommage partiel, dégradation physique,
- dommages non accidentels, tels que la suppression de génériques, voire de titres,
- modification du film en vue de sa revente ou de sa réutilisation,
- altération de l’image lors d’un transfert à un autre format que l’original (du muet au sonore, de l’Academy au “Super 35”, le “pan and scan”, etc.).
- conservation incomplète par les archives (par exemple des actualités dont on n’aurait pas conservé les commentaires).

Le caractère complet ou incomplet soulève un certain nombre de questions chez le catalogueur. S’agit-il d’un film plus ou moins complet que l’élément de conservation du même document déjà existant dans l’archive? S’il est plus complet, sa description exhaustive devient plus importante et on est en droit de se poser des questions plus complexes:

- le catalogue doit-il refléter le caractère incomplet d’un film? Si oui, dans quelle mesure?
- comment décrire utilement le caractère complet ou incomplet d’un film?

L’enquête menée par la Commission de Catalogage auprès des affiliés de la FIAF, montre que les nombreux cas d’espèce existent et que les solutions apportées à ce genre de questions peuvent varier cas par cas. Il a été généralement admis que le titre original et le pays d’origine d’un film constituent deux données essentielles du catalogage de celui-ci. Qu’en est-il de son métrage ? Il semblerait normal que la longueur originale soit également un élément primordial de l’information qu’une archive possède sur un film. Or, il est difficile pour le catalogueur qui se trouve devant un film plus court que l’original de traiter l’information manquante d’une manière utile.

Quelques éléments de l’enquête menée par la Commission de catalogage, permettent d’affirmer qu’il y a lieu d'améliorer les méthodes de catalogage appliquées. Une série de recommandations préconisent, notamment que:

- les archives chargées de cataloguer leur production nationale (ou d’établir leur filmographie nationale) se voient aussi confier la responsabilité de rechercher et publier la longueur exacte de la version originale.
- ces mêmes archives réunissent les détails sur des versions différentes que l’originale mais considérées comme légitimes (“Directors cuts”, versions destinées à l’exploitation, etc.).
- les modifications subies par des films d’une source différente, dictées par la censure ou par le distributeur, fassent l’objet de recherches et soient signalées dans le catalogue.
- les archives de la FIAF s’efforcent d’élaborer une terminologie commune permettant aux affiliés d’évaluer l’étendue et la nature des altérations d’un film.
- les films soupçonnés d’être incomplets fassent l’objet d’une information la plus complète possible à ce sujet.
- le caractère incomplet d’un film soit étudié en relation avec des éléments de comparaison établis au préalable.
- les travaux de catalogage soient conduits dans le cadre des “Règles de catalogage de la FIAF” rééditées par Saur en 1991. (Une version française publiée par AFNOR existe depuis 1994)

Il n’y a certainement pas de mal, conclut Roger Smither, à définir une politique de catalogage optimale. Le rôle du catalogueur est aussi celui d’ouvrir la voie à ses collègues et à ceux qui souhaitent explorer les différences existant dans ce domaine d’un pays à l’autre.

Las características del cine y la manera en que las colecciones de filmes se han ido constituyendo, hacen que la cuestion del catálogo incompleto plantéen numerosos problemas al catalogador. En todo archivo existe conciencia de que la información sobre su colección es incompleta. Asimismo, el caso opuesto, en el que la informción de que se dispone es más extensa que la del original, también existe e implica el mismo tipo de problemas.

El carácter incompleto de estas informaciones puede deberse a causas diversas. Las más obvias son:

-la censura oficial,
-la censura del productor y/o del distribuidor,
-la alteración operada en ocasión del lanzamiento para satisfacer a un público determinado,
-la modificación en vista de una programación comercial o de una difusión de televisión,
-la pérdida o destrucción parcial, degradación física,
-los daños no accidentales, tales como la supresión de títulos,
-la alteración de la imágen en el cambio de un formato a otro que el original (del mudo al sonoro, del “Academy” al “Super 35”, el “Pan and Scan”, etc.),
-la conservación incompleta (por ejemplo la de noticiosos de los que no se conservaron los comentarios o las distintas versiones).

El carácter completo o incompleto de un documento plantea cuestiones de diversa índole al catalogador:

¿Se trata de una película más completa que el elemento ya conservado en el archivo? ¿Si tal es el caso, su descripción exaustiva será necesaria y planteará cuestiones más complejas: -¿debe el catálogo reflejar el carácter incompleto de una película? En caso afirmativo, ¿hasta qué punto?

¿Cómo describir el carácter completo o incompleto de una película de la manera más útil?

La encuesta llevada a cabo por la Comisión de catalogación con los afiliados de la FIAF muestra que las cuestiones y las respuestas varían de un caso a otro.

Se admite generalmente que el título original y el país de orígen de una película constituyen dos elementos esenciales de la catálogación de la misma. También parecería que el metraje original debería ser un elemento importante de la información sobre una película. Sin embargo resulta difícil para el catalogador que se encuentra ante una película más corta que el original de tratar la información faltante de manera útil.

De la encuesta se desprende, en particular, una primera serie de recomendaciones tendientes a mejorar los métodos de catalogación empleados:

-que los archivos que tienen a cargo la catalogación de su producción nacional (o que deben establecer la filmografía nacional) también deban investigar y dar a conocimiento el metraje exacto de la versión original.
-que esos mismos archivos reunan también los datos sobre las versiones distintas que la original pero consideradas como “legítimas”, tales como los “Directors Cuts” las versiones “especiales” destinadas a la explotación, etc.
-que las modificaciones sufridas de afuera (dictadas por la censura o por el distribuidor) sean investigadas y mencionadas en el catálogo
-que los archivos de la FIAF elaboren una terminología común que permitiera definir la importancia y la naturaleza de las alteraciones de una película.
-que los filmes presuntamente incompletos fueran descriptos de la manera más exhaustiva en lo que respecta a lo que falta,
-que los filmes incompletos sean estudiados en base a datos comparativos preestablecidos,
-que las tareas de catalogación sean realizadas en el marco de la “Reglas de catalogación de la FIAF” (reeditadas por Saur en 1991)

No hace ciertamente daño, concluye Roger Smither, en definir una política de catalogación óptima. El rol del catalogador es también el de abrir el camino a sus colegas así como a los que deseen explorar las diferencias que existen de un país a otro.