ok so the film is lost for over 75 years.
the person that had the print in his collection
KNEW he had that print.
collectors know what they own...
"oh look, an original camera negative of Citizen Kane!
I had no idea i owned it...."
oh yes you would!
film print collectors have to stop being so selfish
and keeping these things for themselves.
it's pretentious and selfish.
[deleted]
First, thank you PanterRosa for providing the link. I found the documentary very interesting.
...but I do feel that this collector should have turned his films over to a responsible archive long ago. Maybe "selfish" isn't the best word for him, but he was certainly negligent. According to the documentary, the decomposition in that brief section of Beyond the Rocks began fairly recently. In other words, if restoration work had begun just a little sooner, 100% of the print might have been saved in good shape.
It's great that the movie has been rescued, but it can't be said that the collector was acting in the best interests of his collection by allowing it to deteriorate.
[deleted]
Hi there. I just wanted to add that only 20% of the silent films made in 1920 are still in existence. The biggest problem came from the studios- when sound came in, the short-term thinking, money-minded heads of the studios believed that the silents would no longer be worth anything now that sound was the new thing. They threw away silents to save space, they let them decay in vaults for years, and the worst example I know of is that one studio actually used silent films as FUEL when a FIRE was needed in a scene!!!! That truly makes me sick. So just be glad that the man left his lovely film reels to a museum and did not burn them!!!
Mandy
Hi Ama,
I just wanted to say that many films were lost because the film was melted down for it's silver content, not just because it took up too much room, although that certainly was on the studio's minds, as well. Many films before 1950 are also lost because it was thought they would never be shown years later. They were thought to be "old fashioned" and out of date. Now in the age of DVDs, we are rediscovering these masterpieces. Thank God for Turner Classic Movies and the advent of DVDs we get to enjoy them all over again.
He might not have been a real collector, so he might not have known the importance of his collection,
but the friend he gave his films to shortly before he died,
told a journalist from Dutch tv news, that he (the dead man) would probably not have done so, had he known that the friend would hand part of the collection to the Amsterdam Film Museum.
This was, according to the friend, because the dead guy didn't want anybody else to see the films if he himself couldn't make any money from them. So he hid the films away at three different adresses and left them there to rot.
Also worrying:
The friend whom he gave the collection to, didn't hand over all the films - he made a selection to give to the museum.
I do think the original poster was correct. The collector may have been poor, he may have been an old geezer, so what? It doesn't matter. When you have all those films stored away in less than ideal conditions, and you know they aren't being stored properly, and that many will deteriorate or rust away (or worse, be in flammable condition) it is selfish and irresponsible not to call an archive a lot sooner to get the collection handed over to knowledgeable people.
Yes, I know, too many films sit in archives as it is, but still it's better than nothing and at least they will be better cared for until such time as they may or can be transferred digitally for others to enjoy.
Jill
http://www.goldensilents.com
Believe it or not, digitally transferred films don't last as long as the film prints themselves. I belong to the Association of Moving Image Archives, and tests were done that prove that digital beta tapes- the best quality and most expensive form of digital video transfer, can begin their deterioration process after only 10 years, even when stored in the most ideal of conditions. Film elements, on the other hand, can last a lot longer in theirs. In addition, when film deteriorates, one gets lines, faded color, etc, all things that can be fixed digitally. With the other formats, you get glitches that could ruin an entire sequence of film forever.
In short, people need to realize that just because a technology is 'newer' doesn't mean that it should be adapted simply for that reason. Newer isn't always better, as much as we want it to be so.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the basic jist of your statement, I have to disagree that film is the be-all and end-all format for archival purposes. Any analog medium degrades upon being copied, and there is no single way to quantitatively determine deterioration. Yes, film prints are necessary as we cannnot guarantee that our digital copies will last, and yes, in a lot of cases a good print can be somewhat more representative of the original material than a digital master, however an unlimited number of copies can be made time and time again of a digital copy without quality loss - and at a much lesser expense. Years from now, no doubt, digital storage will reach a point where safely and redundantly warehousing petabytes of 4K-scanned film footage will be no more difficult for archives and studios (or, if the 4K television technology in the pipeline catches on, perhaps even private film buffs) than the people today hoarding hundreds of thousands of rare MP3s on their hard drives.
shareI understand your point of view as well...it's just that I think with my brain and not my wallet.
shareMuseums show less than 10% of their collections.
Most of the rest is left to rot. Countless treasures have been donated to museums only to be destroyed by neglect.
Collectors have done more for preserving history than the museums ever have.
Unfortunately, that is true. If it had been left up to the museums we'd only have a tiny fraction of the silent comedies we have, and probably not more than a dozen westerns. The trouble is, archives are mostly run by fundraisers who are clueless about what is significant, and who don't always hire knowledgeable archivists -- even today. Glance over the list of films the AFI is preserving if you don't believe me.
As for the tale about old film being used to make a fire -- baloney. Nitrate film could explode.
[deleted]
"Pretentious and selfish"?? As selfish as DEMANDING that someone who owns the print turn it over because YOU want it?
So rather than be thankful that this odd print was being kept by a collector, that it's been restored, and that you can now SEE it, you're still whining?
Let's think again about who is SELFISH - we certainly know who is STUPID.
I don't know the story behind this film, but if the collector had neglected the print out of selfishness, it's ironic. The film's story is about the selflessness of the three main characters.
... Justin
I feel the same way about Francis Ford Coppola. This man is in possession of the only complete version of "The Cotton Club" in existence. Apparently more than 1 hour is missing from the version that the public has seen. I read in an interview that Coppola screens the movie in his private theater from time to time. I also hear that in it's uncut form, "The Cotton Club" is a true masterpiece. I always wondered why this man won't share his own film with the world...these guys can be so ridiculous.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'