[table of contents | journal index]
The Massive Mess of Mass Memory
Iola Baines and Gwenan Owen
In his autobiography My last breath Luis Buñel wrote "You
have to begin to lose your memory if only in bits and pieces, to realise
memory is what makes our lives. Life without memory is no life at all. Our
memory is what makes our coherence, our reason, our feeling, even our action.
Without it we are nothing."
Our collective memories, our knowledges of the past are derived from many
different sources. The moving image is a particularly potent representation
of the past and as such is a historical source which needs to be handled
with extreme care. If the camera never lies, it certainly does not tell
the whole truth either.....
Film, and in particular fictional film, has been responsible for the creation
and prolongation of many a myth while our own memory of a given historical
event may be heavily influenced by the images which we have seen representing
that event - those images may be fictional representations or non-fictional
images based on a selected reality. If we accept that film archives
are repositories of film as historical document as well as film as
cultural expression then we need to address the issue of what kind
of film is worthy of consideration as a historical document.
In a recent essay, Dr. Heather Norris highlights some of the problems
involved in assessing the value of amateur film as a historical document,
and, as a consequence, in deciding whether or not it deserves to be preserved
as part of a nation or region's filmic heritage. She writes "The transformative
role of the camera can ... have contradictory effects: film through memorialising
a past moment can transform something ephemeral into normality while also
having the potential power to concretise ordinariness into something unique."
This is a comment which we need to bear in mind when we assess the value
of amateur films which are so often thought of as somehow representing a
more authentic past. The oral historian Beth Thomas while recognising
that "one of the strengths of amateur films is that they are generally
made by ordinary people recording events in their own lives...", warns
against over-estimating this "seeming quality of authenticity".
She says ".. for the ethnographer there is a certain ambiguity, for
in choosing to film the significant the film-maker may have omitted to film
what to the ethnographer is of most importance - the mundane details of
everyday existence."
If we return to Bunuel's quotation about memory and if we recognise that
the moving image is a particularly potent representation of the past and
the one that is likely to create most impact in creating our contemporary
collective memory, then it seems to follow that a film archive's responsibility
is to be able to propose to researchers and in particular historians as
wide a spectrum of genres and representations as possible.
The Danish historian Karsten Fledelius points to a growing recognition of
the value of audio-visual material to historical research. He says:
" The value of the audio-visual media both as suppliers of the source
material and as communicators of historical consciousness is much more widely
appreciated by historians today. Recent preference for the 'history of mentalities'
....has led to a broader acceptance of audio-visual media products as valuable
source material for the study of stereoptypes, patterns of perception, ''collective
dreams', political attitudes and rituals, popular culture, images of class
etc. Historians today are much more aware of the impact which film has on
the ordinary public's frame of reference."
As a resource for studying the history of mentalities, film, and in particular
amateur film, is an extremely rich resource. Evaluating amateur footage
is a problem which film archives, and in particular regional archives, are
having to address with increasing regularity. While its place in our national
cinema is increasingly recognised, there are many specific issues and problems
relating to the archiving of amateur film. The following list outlines some
of the specific issues we intend discussing in today's session.
Issues and problems relating to archiving amateur film:
How to locate it; preservation problems; how to catalogue it, acquiring
donor information; its value/danger as evidence, recreating the film experience;
how much has been saved, how much has been lost, will we ever know? its
place in our national cinema.
Our first three film extracts have been chosen to draw attention to some
of the issues involved in creating an archival bank of images which represents
the past in as balanced a way as possible - thus hopefully avoiding the
creation of damaging myths - or at least, providing the material to destroy
or counter them.
We have chosen as our first subject three very different representions of
the Welshman David Lloyd George who became an important historical figure,
not only as Prime Minister of Britain but also as a figure of influence
on the world stage in the first half of the 20th century. Film footage relating
to Lloyd George, who has himself been the subject of many myths, is of obvious
interest to the Wales Film and Television Archive. Our holdings already
include a broad spectrum of images representing the many facets of this
colourful personality.
The first extract is a short clip from the recently discovered feature The
Life Story of David Lloyd George, directed by Maurice Elvey and destined
for the big screen. The film in fact never reached the screen as it was
suppressed by the government just before its release in 1918.
We have chosen this extract as it is a fictional representation of a historical
figure based on, and represented as, reality. These particular images may
appear authentic, but they occur in a film which, as a whole, is a heroic,
rags to riches portrayal of Lloyd George. While this romanticised projection
of Lloyd George is attractive and may stimulate public interest in his career,
it is not a balanced historic representation. Should and can amateur
representations redress the balance, and if so how can this be achieved?
back to table of contents
Our second extract is from The Visit of the Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George
O.M., M.P. to Germany September 2-16, 1936. This film is an amateur
film which was shot by what might be termed as a "privileged amateur".
Lloyd George's private secretary A.J. Sylvester was a keen amateur cinematographer
and, unlike many other amateur film-makers, he was extremely
aware that the events and incidents he was filming were likely to be of
historical significance. The value of the material is enhanced by the existence
of Sylvester's substantial paper archives (Sylvester was a prolific diarist
and author), which have helped enormously in the work of restoring and cataloguing
the film and helped substantiate the evidence provided by it. Unfortunately
this is an exceptional case and most archives have little or no donor information
when they acquire amateur or private footage. The dearth of secondary sources
is a serious problem which can, and undoubtedly has, lead to the unintentional
rejection of valuable or exceptional material.
The value of this particular clip is, to say the least, obvious - one of
the problems facing archivists when they select amateur material for their
collections is having the necessary expertise to recognise the cultural
and historical value of a widely varying range of material, of having the
time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The issue of selection is a very difficult area indeed. While selection
is necessary in order to make the tasks of preservation, cataloguing and
shotlisting manageable and affordable, it also involves making value judgements
about material whose historical worth we may, as archivists, not be fully
qualified to assess.
The quotes below are taken from A.J. Sylvester's diaries and are examples
of the kind of supplementary material which provided additional information
- both historical and technical - when the work of restoring Sylvester's
film of Lloyd George's unofficial visit to Germany in 1936 was undertaken
by our Archive as part of a Lumière funded project.
"Lloyd George came from his interview with Adolf Hitler convinced that
the Führer was a peace loving man, whose purpose was to lead Germany
to a better understanding with Great Britain, that he had no warlike desires
and was not even interested in war..."
" My worry was that the light was failing. We had originally been invited
to be at the house much earlier in the afternoon, then the party had been
postponed for an hour and finally a second postponement until 5 o'clock,
when the light was far from good. However I did my best with my movie camera
and some of the pictures I got were fairly clear"
While the value of this film is not difficult to recognise, what should
concern us is the fate of material whose historical significance is not
so easy to identify, and which is therefore at risk of being rejected, and
as a consequence, lost.
Our third extract, also a filmic representation of Lloyd George, is intended
to draw attention to this kind of material. This extract is to be shown
on video, as for the moment it has not been preserved. Indeed we have not
yet decided whether it merits preservation as part of our collection. The
extract is taken from an amateur film belonging to a collection of films
shot by Dr. John Glyn Jones, a doctor living in Angelsey in North Wales.
Some of the films from this collection have already been preserved as they
represent life in a village community in the 1940s, 50s and 60s as seen
through the eyes of a prominent member of that community. While these images
may not be of a specifically national significance, they do provide a visual
insight into the attitudes, manners and fashions of a period and evoke the
atmosphere of an era. They are an expression of the patterns of perceptions,
rituals and popular culture referred to by Karsten Fledelius.
We have decided to include this short clip for a number of reasons and in
particular because it seems to represent many of the problems related to
amateur material. The collection is typical of the home movie genre in that
technically it is often very poor. It does, however, contain some extremely
illuminating footage and is a goldmine for both social and local historians.
Some arguments for preserving this particular extract might be the following:
- it is part of a collection some of which has already been preserved
- it represents the work of a specific amateur filmmaker whose films are
a portrayal of a particular community in Wales over a specific period of
time
- parts of the collection have already been recognised by experts as providing
valuable evidence for social and local historians
- it shows the way in which Lloyd George was perceived by people in this
community and how he projected himself in such a situation. As such it is
part of the spectrum which makes up our memory bank of images of Lloyd George
Some arguments against preserving this material might be:
- the poor quality of the images
- the absence of any clear narrative
- its historical value is not immediately recognisable, it appears to be
a seemingly insignificant representation of Lloyd George
- the material is not a preservation priority, other more 'valuable' or
'endangered' material may be in more urgent need of attention
- absence of readily available expertise to evaluate the material
- it is primarily of local rather than national interest
- budgetary constraints and considerations
This film was originally filmed on Standard 8 stock. Preservation of small
gauge stock presents a number of problems:
1. Only a limited number of competent laboratories able or willing to work
with the small formats, especially R8 and 9.5.
2. Transfer by 16mm blow up is the only means of preserving small formats.
However this has its drawbacks as it tends to impair already poor images
further. Wet-Gate transfer is essential if good quality dupes are to be
achieved. There are, however, problems with wetgate, for example, liquid
swirl as a result of perforations being so close together.
3. There are increasing difficulties in obtaining consumables and equipment
such as splicers, viewers, and in the case of 9.5 mm, affordable téléciné
machines. Transfer of sound, especially from 9.5 and R8 formats, can be
particuarly difficult, often requiring Home-Made equipment to take the place
of original Replay equipment no longer obtainable.
4. Finally, a high proportion of S8 film stock is Polyester base, if tape
splices are to be avoided the aquisition of an Ultra-Sonic splicer must
be considered. This is a major capital outlay for a small archive.
Cataloguing of amateur films also presents its own set of problems. More
often than not, amateur films acquired have no title, and the cataloguer
therefore has to create one for the catalogue entry, taking care to make
it as descriptive and informative as possible. Unlike professional productions,
the contents of an amateur film will not have come to anyone's attention
through catalogues, filmographies or reviews, therefore the archive's subject-index,
and other indexes, become not merely helpful, but essential as a research
tool.
back to table of contents
With so little available information, how do we tackle the description of
amateur films? How do we identify the people, places and activities represented?
The starting point has to be information gathered from the donor or film-maker.
Such information is not always easy to come by and a failing memory may
not provide the accuracy of information required for effective documentation.
Meticulous filmmakers such as A.J. Sylvester are, unfortunately, the exception
rather than the rule.
The second part of this paper will deal with evaluation and issues of location,
contextualisation and exhibition. In Europe various attempts have been made
to draw attention to the value of private and non-commercial footage. A
lot of useful research into its historical value has been undertaken by
a number of university departments. Klaas-Gert Lugtenborg of the University
of Groningen in the Netherlands is particularly interested in the value
of amateur footage as historical evidence and in particular in the close
link between amateur film and local history and in the role of local history
in refining existing historical generalisations. He points out that amateur
film has often been ignored by historians who considered these films to
be snapshots of the past rather than serious documents worthy of historical
analysis.
The poor academic reputation of the amateur film is, he argues, seriously
compounded by the dearth of material available for study and he insists
upon the need for closer relationships between academic establishments and
regional film archives - Lugtenborg says emphatically that "No research
is possible without a well established and proper archive". He insists
that the reverse is equally true.
His arguments point to the urgent need for film archives to rescue amateur
material. The billion dollar question is HOW!! For if this material remains
untapped as a historical resource, it is also material whose future is seriously
threatened precisely because it is both unidentified and unquantified, while
its value is seriously under-estimated.
For Lugtenborg, the importance of preserving these documents in regional
rather than national archives is closely linked to his argument that these
films are of particular value to the study of local or regional history.
Preserving them in their locality is likely to facilitate research work
undertaken. Establishing the filmmakers' links with a given area may help
to provide a fuller context for the material while it is also likely to
facilitate the identification of the film's contents. The very specific
and localised content of these films means also that exhibiting them in
the locality of their origin may result in:
- a greater public consciousness of the importance of such material
- the discovery of more information which will lead to a better understanding
of the nature of the material
- the possible discovery of other material.
One problem with this is that not all amateur material is suitable for exhibition.
Can we, and is it ethical to, exhibit material which was never intended
for public screening and if so how can it be done effectively so that the
above aims can be achieved?
In our experience, amateur ciné clubs are more likely to be aware
of the value of the material they have produced than home movie makers.
They are also very often understandably possessive of their material and
tend to regard film archives as suspicious establishments whose main aim
is to lock away their films rather than show them. Our responsibility is
to find ways of convincing them that film archives are not against screening
and exhibition and that preservation of material is a means of ensuring
that this happens without threatening the long term survival of their valuable
material. Pro-active exhibition policies and special events which screen
the very varied range of material produced by ciné clubs can help
achieve this sort of understanding and be instrumental in establishing a
relation of trust which is mutually beneficial to both parties.
The European Association for Amateur Film, the AEI, is another example of
partnerships which can be mutually beneficial in the field of amateur film.
The Association's membership is made up of three main groups - film archivists,
television producers and academics - all of whom share an interest in the
preservation and increased visibility of amateur footage. Although the Association
is not without its problems it has supported some valuable work both in
terms of preservation and exhibition. The archives' role within the Association
is particularly important in that they can insist on drawing attention to
preservation issues and to the moral responsibilities attached to using
private material from both an ethical and a legal point of view.
For the moment the Association's membership includes academics and professionals
only; however there is an increasing need for it to broaden its membership
to include ciné clubs and individual filmmakers. The AEI is at present
developing links with AMIA, some of whose members will be attending the
Association's next general assembly at Nancy in France later this year.
One of the disturbing things about amateur films is that we don't and cannot
know what exists, what has been lost or what has been destroyed. Location
of material is ad hoc and often coincidental. The future acquisition and
preservation of such material would seem to depend on
- film archives developing a more pro-active relationship with the public
- the public becoming more aware of the value of amateur films as historical
documents
- a better public understanding of what a film archive actually does
- developing a network of partnerships and associations such as the AEI
has done
Achieving these aims is no easy task in our already severely understaffed
and underfunded establishments. However it would seem that developing pro-active
exhibition and educational strategies is an essential step if film archives
are to locate and preserve amateur films effectively.
Our last two extracts are taken from a non-commercial film called Tir
Na N-Og. This film is currently being restored as part of a Lumière
funded project. Lumière funding is available for restoration projects
involving two or more European Union film archives; in this case we are
collaborating with the Irish Film Archive.
Lumière specifies that material restored through its support must
become increasingly visible or accessible. This criteria encourages archives
to look for imaginative ways of screening their material. This summer we
are hoping to organise a joint screening of Tir Na N-Og at the Galway
Film Festival*, the area in which the film was made. Our aim is to use this
occasion to draw the public's attention to the value of amateur material
and the need to preserve it. Whether or not this screening will help us,
or our collaborators, the Irish Film Archive, identify other material of
interest or learn more about this film depends upon many factors, and in
particular on how receptive the public is to this sort of screening. It
is the sort of gamble necessary with amateur material.
back to table of contents
Tir Na N-Og was filmed in Ireland in the late 1940's by a Welsh trio,
John Roberts Williams, Geoff Charles and Wil Vaughan. It is an important
historical and cultural record of aspects of the Irish way of life of this
period as seen through the eyes of an outsider. The cameraman Geoff Charles
was a photographic journalist who became involved in filmmaking for political
and cultural reasons, and although he was a professional photographer he
was, to all intents and purposes, an amateur filmmaker.
The historical and cultural value of Tir Na N-Og is enhanced by the
existence of an audio tape which records comments made retrospectively by
Geoff Charles during a private screening of the film in the 1980s. In the
recording he makes some interesting remarks about filming techniques, conditions
during filming, the relationship between the Irish hosts and their Welsh
guests, and the concerns of the Catholic Church about the way in which their
society would be represented by this film. The information provided by this
recording gives a new dimension and meaning to the film. The restoration
project involves bringing these two independent sources - film and oral
testimony - together. The next clip will illustrate this.
The second clip is a short extract of out-takes from the same film and includes
some very striking footage which we have chosen to preserve along with the
film. The out-takes argument is one we cannot enter into in detail here,
it is nevertheless an issue which arises when archiving amateur material.
The existence and the quality of these particular out-takes reminds us that
the range of amateur film is indeed very broad and that drawing up watertight
rules and regulations to deal with it is a tall order.
Although we have not dealt here with the massive proliferation of amateur
footage resulting from technological developments such as the camcorder,
we are extremely aware that it is a very real problem for film archivists.
Although we may wish to bury our heads and ignore this problem, which in
archiving terms is frightening, we have to accept that amateur video is
being used increasingly to record civil disobedience and rights campaigns
and as evidence in legal trials, as well as to record the more mundane aspects
of life in our rapidly changing and varied society. As such it is providing
the unofficial but not insignificant voice of our increasingly media-orientated
society. Selecting this material is likely to create nightmares for archivists.
FIAF has provided us with the opportunity to discuss issues relating to
the archiving of amateur film, our next step is perhaps to look at ways
in which FIAF can be of more concrete help to us ensure that amateur film
continues to get the attention it deserves. The two day symposium on the
subject planned for the 1997 FIAF Conference in Colombia is a welcome and
encouraging development.
Amateur film has often been seen as a footnote both in archival and in historical
terms. To conclude, and with reference to this ommission, I would like to
finish with the words of the Dutch historian Susan Aasman: "better
than to speak of footnotes, it is to value amateur film for the different
perspectives it offers, which can raise new questions and therefore provide
new answers. In order to find these answers we have to know what we're looking
for because 'you can't see what you don't know'."
* The Tir na N-Og gamble turned out to be worthwhile. The
first screening of the film was a sell-out and demand to see the film was
such that an extra screening was organised. The importance of showing these
films in their locality was dramatically illustrated when three members
of the O Neachtain family, featured in the film, turned up in the audience*.
This contact with the family means that further contextual documentation
of the film will be possible.
The audience's reaction to Geoff Charles' retrospective voice-over was an
important reminder that memory is of necessity, selective and can be unwittingly
erroneous. Even if a number of his statements were challenged and corrected,
the overall effect of introducing this additional element was to stimulate
active audience response also helpful to the process of further documenting
the film.
The exhibition potential of amateur film is a subject which lends itself
to further discussion. The National Library of Wales recently created a
photographic exhibition of Geoff Charles' work. The WFTVA was able to borrow
this for the Galway festival to complement the Tir Na N-Og screening.
The NLW is now touring this photographic exhibition to various venues in
Wales. Where possible a video monitor is included and Tir Na N-Og is
incorporated in the exhibition creating a very simple form of multi-media
display.
Ioloa Baines et Gwenan Owen entrent en matière avec une citation
de Buñuel - "Vous devez commencer à perdre la mémoire
par petits bouts pour réaliser que c'est la mémoire qui fait
nos vies" - et rappellent ensuite que l'image en mouvement constitue
une représentation particulièrement puissante du passé.
Le cinéma, et le film d'amateur en particulier, reflète la
réalité de manière sélective. Si on le considère
comme source d'histoire, il conviendrait que les archives du film puissent
proposer aux chercheurs et aux historiens un spectre de genres et de
représentations aussi large que possible.
Dans leur exposé, les auteurs abordent les aspects spécifiques
concernant l'archivage du cinéma amateur, à partir d'extraits
de The Life History of David Lloyd George (1918), de Maurice Elvey. The
Visit of Rt Hon. D. Lloyd George O.M., M.P. to Germany, September 2-16,
1936, un extrait sur Lloyd George tourné par John Glyn Jones
et deux extraits de Tir Na N-Og.
Les aspects abordés à partir de ces exemples sont: la localisation
et les problèmes spécifiques de conservation des flms d'amateurs;
le catalogage et l'usage des informations obtenues du donateur; la valeur
et les limites de ces flms; etc.
Et la question demeure: combien de ces films ont été sauvés?
Combien sont perdus,? Et quelle place occupent-ils dans le cinéma
d'un pays?
Confusiones de la memoria colectiva
Iola Baines y Gwenan Owen abordan el tema de la memoria colectiva citando
a Buñuel - 'Se debe comenzar a perder la memoria de a poco para comprender
que es élla la que hace nuestras vidas' - para recalcar luego que
la imagen en movimiento es una representación particularmente significativa
del pasado y que, como tal, constituye una fuente histórica que requiere
un tratamiento de mucha prudencia. Las autoras añaden luego: 'Si
la cámara no miente nunca, tampoco dice toda la verdad'. El cine,
y el film amateur en particular, reflejan la realidad de manera selectiva.
Si se lo considera como fuente historica, convendría que los archivos
cinematográficos puedan ofrecer a los investigadores e historiadores
un espectro de géneros y representaciones lo más amplio posibles.
En su ponencia, los autores abordan aspectos específicos del archivage
del cine amateur basándose sobre fragmentos de The Life History
of David Lloyd George (1918),de Maurice Elvey, The Visit of the Rt
Hon. D. Lloyd George O.M., M.P. to Germany September 2-16, 1936, un fragmento
sobre Lloyd George rodado por John Glyn Jones y dos secuencias de Tir
Na N-Og.
Los temas tratados a partir de estos ejemplos son: la localización
de películas amateur; los problemas de conservación; la catalogación
y recolta de informaciones suministradas por el donante; su valor, sus peligros;
la interacción de la experiencia fílmica; cuánto se
ha recuperado, cuánto se ha perdido? - lo sabremos algún día?
- el lugar del film amateur en el acervo cultural nacional...