Film Preservation Book PDF

Film preservation : competing definitions of value, use, and practice
/ Karen F. Gracy.
Gracy, Karen F.
Chicago, IL : The Society of American Archivists, 2007.
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015071156411
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives

http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#cc-by-nd-4.0
This work is protected by copyright law (which includes

certain exceptions to the rights of the copyright holder
that users may make, such as fair use where applicable
under U.S. law) but made available under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license. You must
attribute this work in the manner specified by the author
or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they
endorse you or your use of the work). Only verbatim
copies of this work may be made, distributed, displayed,
and performed, not derivative works based upon it.
Please check the terms of the specific Creative Commons
license as indicated at the item level. For details, see
the full license deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0.
n
^f5!55^*^
■ Iu J "IW* Ml|71
ompeting Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
KAREN F. GRACY
FILM
PRESERVATION
Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
KAREN F. GRACY
Univ«»v -Michigan
SOCIETY OF
American
Archivists
CHICAGO
The Society of American Archivists
527 South Wells Street, Fifth Floor
Chicago, IL 60607 USA
312/922-0140 Fax 312/347-1452
www.archivists.org
© 2007 by the Society of American Archivists.

All Rights Reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gracy, Karen F.
Film preservation : competing definitions of value, use, and
practice / Karen F. Gracy.

p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-931666-24-5 (alk. paper)
1. Motion picture film— Preservation. 2. Film archives. I. Title.
TR886.3.G73 2007
778.5'8-dc22
2006103305
Graphic design by Matt Dufek, dufekdesign@yahoo.com.

Fonts: Adobe Caslon (text and footnotes); City (heads)
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations •
v
Chapter 1
An Introduction to the Field of Film Preservation

in the United States •
i
Chapter 2
Birth and Development of Film Archives and the Film
Preservation Movement •
17
Chapter 3
The Economics of Film Preservation •
45
Chapter 4
Film Archives as Cultural Institutions •
57
Chapter 5
The Social Economy of Film Preservation:
Implementing a Bourdieuvian Framework •
85
Chapter G
Documenting the Process of Film Preservation •

97
Chapter 7
The Definition of Preservation •
141
Chapter 8
Power and Authority in Film Preservation •
169
Chapter 9
Evolution of the Field of Moving Image Archiving •
203
Appendices
I: A Case Study in Archival Ethnography •
221
II: Genealogy of Hollywood Studios and

Disposition of Film Libraries • 251
III: Evolving Definitions of Preservation,
Conservation, and Restoration • 259
•
Bibliography 265
Index • 277
Illustrations
Figure 5.1
The field of cultural production •
86
Figure 5.2
The field of American film preservation in the 1990s
•
91
Figure G.l
Steps in preserving a film
•
99
Figure 6.2
Step 1: Selecting a film for preservation •
101
Figure 6.3
Step 2: Procuring funds and/or resources •
105
Figure 6.4
Step 3: Inspecting and inventorying a film •
no
Figure 6.5
Step 4: Preparing a film for laboratory work
•
119
Figure 6.6
Step 5: Duplicating a film at the laboratory •
124
Figure 6.7
•
Step 6: Storing the master elements and access copies 129
Figure 6.8
Step 7: Cataloging the new master elements and access copies •
131
Figure 6.9
Step 8: Providing access to the preserved film •
133
Figure 9.1
The field of American film preservation, 2000-2020 •
208
An Introduction to the Field of Film
Preservation in the United States
In the last few decades, moving images have become more and more
recognized as both an artistic medium and an instrument for docu
menting the history and culture of our society. In its landmark 1980
resolution, "Recommendation for the Safeguarding and Preservation
of Moving Images," the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (unesco) declared that "moving images are an
expression of the cultural identity of peoples, and because of their
educational, cultural, artistic, scientific and historical value, form an
integral part of cultural heritage."1 This declaration has
a nation's
been reaffirmed through unesco's inclusion of moving images as part

of its Memory of the World Programme, begun in 1995.2 More
recently, the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (ifla), echoed the unesco statement in its Guidelines for
Audiovisual and Multimedia Materials in Libraries and Archives, assert
ing that "audiovisual media part of our cultural heritage, carrying
are a
a huge amount of information that needs to be preserved for future
use."3 These statements show how the cultural heritage community
considers motion pictures to be in the same category as more tradi

tional assets such as buildings, paintings, other beaux arts objects, as
well as books and archival collections.4
The struggle to secure film's place as part of the world's cultural

heritage has taken place over many years, almost since the invention
of film. The oft-cited 1898 essay of Polish cinematographer Boleslas
Matuzewski, "A New Source of History," shows that the interest in
keeping film as a record of historical events and world culture sur
faced quickly.5 The first film archives in Europe and the United States
2 Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
were founded by the 1930s, as the motion picture industry was making
the transition from silent to sound film production.6 Film archives
were brought into existence because certain individuals shared the
opinion that film was worth saving, that it was not merely a bit of
entertainment to be enjoyed and forgotten. Film aficionados began to
worry about the fate of silent films, especially since many of them
were quickly destroyed by studios who assumed that the films' value
was nil after "talkies" became the new industry standard for feature
films.7, 8 This initial scramble to protect films from annihilation at the
hands of studios gradually developed into a fight to save film from
another threat — its susceptibility to decay.9
Motion picture film is medium; its lifespan is consider
a fragile
ably shorter than older, paper-based communication media. Hence,

the phrase "nitrate won't wait" became the rallying cry for archivists
concerned with salvaging the first six decades of American film.10
Even "safety" film (film with an acetate substrate), manufactured for
industry use from 1951 to the present, is vulnerable to decomposition.
Indeed, the physical structure of motion picture film carries within it
the seeds of its own destruction, and poor storage conditions acceler
ate its deterioration.
In its most general definition, film preservation is the effort to
keep a film in a viewable form. However, within the field of film
archiving, when archivists talk of a film having been preserved, they
usually mean that a series of procedures has been performed which
ensures that a film is "(1) viewable in its original format with its full
visual and aural values retained, and (2) protected for the future by
'preprint' material through which subsequent viewing copies can be
created."11 Very few films have been preserved according to this
archival definition, as the costs are prohibitive and the work is time-
consuming. In the last decade, many film archives have expanded
their definition of preservation to include the production of cata
loging records (both local holdings in individual institutions and
compendia such as the American Film Institute's catalog of motion
pictures produced in the United States) and providing access to the
film as essential components of the film preservation process.12
Film archives have long held film preservation to be their most
important goal. In fact, it is their dedication to preservation that dis
An Introduction to the Field of Film Preservation in the United States 3
tinguishes film archives from film libraries, which focus primarily on

film rental or licensing. The latter may participate in preservation
activities on occasion, but their primary activities are largely commer
cial in nature. Many for-profit organizations use the word "archive" in
their names, muddying the waters somewhat, but in order to qualify
for institutional membership in the International Federation of Film
Archives (fiaf), an archive must refrain from either commercially
exploiting the copyrighted films under its care or making copies for
purposes other than preservation. For the purposes of this book, when
I use the term "film archive," I am referring to noncommercial institu
tions whose primary goal is preservation.
Film archives and commercial film libraries represent only two
participants in the cultural field of film preservation. Many for-profit
organizations play an important role in preservation activities.
Studios and independent production companies often hold the copy
right on the material in question, and must be consulted before films
are shown or copied —for any purpose, including the purpose of
preservation. Film archives also have ties to almost every aspect of the
motion picture industry, being dependent upon goods and services
from film manufacturers, film laboratories, post-production facilities,
and equipment manufacturers.
Until recently, film archives occupied a sphere distinct from other
archives, museums, and libraries. As "new kids on the block," in com
parison to many other kinds of cultural institutions, film archives
have faced the kinds of challenges common for new cultural institu
tions — obtainingfunding for operating budgets, facilities and equip
ment, and qualified staff — as well as cultivating trust relationships
with the film industry and potential donors. Most film archives have
positioned themselves within larger organizations, such as universi
ties, government agencies, corporations, or other major cultural insti
tutions (e.g., archives and museums), as it is simpler to start as a small
department, and grow from that sheltered position rather than to
build afree-standing organization from the bottom up.
Even with such cautious beginnings, film archives have struggled
to survive and grow. As might be expected, film archives must compete
for funding with other departments of their parent organizations, with
other film archives, and with other cultural institutions. To make mat
ters even more difficult, the immense costs of film preservation present
almost insurmountable difficulties to archives.13 Laboratory costs
alone can quickly add up to tens of thousands of dollars for the preser
vation of a single film.
Although funding sources created exclusively for film preservation
exist, film archives have of necessity become extremely creative in this
lean economic environment. In some cases, they have become partially
self-sustaining through the licensing of materials that are in the public
domain or, in rare instances, of films for which they own the copyright.
They have also sought funding from large grant-making foundations
and individual patrons who have a special interest in film.
Film archives' isolation from other institutions is becoming a
thing of past, as they have begun to form alliances with other
archives, libraries, and museums involved in the preservation move
ment and its closely related counterpart, the cultural heritage move
ment. The individual problems of disparate institutions have become
universal concerns as they all engage in the endeavor of designing and
building digital libraries.14
Studying the World of Film Preservation

As the above description indicates, film archiving is coming into its
own as a separate field. Yet, there are few resources or studies of this
field. The literature of moving archiving is sparse, limited
image
largely to a few historical overviews, reports on recent projects in the
professional literature, and specialized technical information on
preservation and restoration processes. Written in response to this
paucity of information, this book represents an attempt to study film
preservation in action.
I was
drawn to this world initially through my professional expe
riences. Eventually, I began to look beyond the myriad technical
details of film with the goal of piecing together a com
preservation
plete picture of the field. This representation necessarily encom
passes some historical information and recent statistics; however, the
main focus was on finding way to represent the workings of the
a
field as a separate social universe, with its own structure, dynamics,

and conventions.
Background for the Study

Two main sections form the core argument of this book. The first sec
tion, which includes chapters 2, 3, and 4, contains what I consider to

be the essential historical, economic, and theoretical frameworks that
sustain film archiving and preservation work. Chapter 2, "Birth and
Development of Film Archives and the Film Preservation
Movement," delves further into the history of the film archive and
archival profession, describes the major players in the world of film
preservation, and looks at the particular interpretation of preservation
as it applies to film. In chapter 3 ("The Economics of Film Preserv
ation"), the focus is on the motion picture industry and its connection
to film preservation work. Rather than giving an overview of the
entire industry, which is beyond the scope of this book, this chapter
focuses on the fiscal exigencies of the film business, particularly the
intellectual property issues that affect this industry. This assessment
serves as a prelude to a discussion of the relationship between film
archives and the motion picture industry, an association that hinges
largely upon the false dichotomy between film as an art form and film
as acommodity. This chapter concludes with a critique of the eco
nomic approach to valuation as merely one possible method of
appraising the value of cultural objects. Chapter 4 builds upon this
argument, exploring the relationship between film archives and other
cultural institutions by looking at the schism separating the high and
popular arts. Whereas many cultural institutions have traditionally
been associated with the high arts, film archives deal with a popular
cultural form and thus confound the status hierarchy found within what
Pierre Bourdieu has characterized as the "field of cultural production."15
During the course of this discussion, I suggest that discourse analysis
may be the only way to make sense of the conflicting narratives of
value that are presented by the commercial and noncommercial
interests involved in film preservation.
The Social Economy of Film Preservation

After giving the reader background on the major players, economic
trends, and sociocultural imperatives of the field of film preservation, I
present the theoretical framework underpinning this book in chapter 5.
B Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
In this chapter, I outline the structures of the relationships among

participants in the field of film preservation, describe processes of
interaction, and suggest possible effects of those structures and
processes. My analysis of film preservation and film archiving is heav
of social theorist Pierre Bourdieu, particu
by
ily
influenced the work

larly his work on cultural institutions. In his discussion of "the field of
cultural production," Bourdieu pointed out that an institution defines
itself through its authority to "consecrate certain type of work." By
a
consecration, he means having the authority to define and control the
activities that take place within the field. Thus, in the field of cultural
production, institutions such as libraries and archives in part perform
this consecrating function and serve as legitimizing agents, deciding,
for example, which institutions qualify as archives, what qualifies
someone to be an archivist, and how preservation should be practiced.
These cultural institutions tend to be particularly occupied with the
maintenance of the status quo (also known as the "hierarchy of rela
tions") among participants in the field, as the power to control cul

tural heritage stewardship embedded in this hierarchical structure.
is
The field of cultural production differentiates itself from other

by
fields functioning inversely. By and large, cultural heritage institu

tions value symbolic goods over economic goods, collectively dis
avowing commercial interests and profits. Museums, libraries, and
archives collect and preserve cultural heritage for the primary purpose
that important to save certain of human endeavor for
artifacts
is
it
future generations; the collection, preservation, and dissemination of

what they term cultural heritage constitutes the symbolic trade in
which they participate. In theory, these institutions do not allow the
motive of profit generation to affect their decisions and actions, as
that would dilute their prestige and position within the field. Thus, as
power within the field of cultural production inversely related to
is
economic considerations, the field operates as "the economic field

reversed." The film archive, however, provides an example of cul
a
tural institution that does not sustain the symbolic goods economy in
this way, or as effectively as other institutions. Increasingly the film
archive shares and often cedes its authority as legitimizing agent
a
over preserved and restored films (what one might call its "product")
to large-scale producers, such as studios who control, primarily
through the assertion of intellectual property rights, a large portion of

the material from which archives make their product. The film
archive must make concessions to the media industry to ensure its
continued viability, thus it often cedes its authority over many aspects
of archival work, including decisions about selection, preservation,
and access to film heritage.
The question then arises: without the exclusive authority to con
trol the work of film preservation and restoration, what are the ulti
mate consequences for the cultural imperatives of preservation and
access to moving images? This study presents the argument that
within the field of cultural production, film preservation is becoming

a type of work controlled more by the market for economic goods
than that for symbolic goods; moving images will be preserved and
made available only as the mass market will bear the costs of such
activities. It is increasingly likely that the film archive will evolve into
a new type of institution — a hybrid which no longer preserves films
according to its own criteria but must strike a balance between pre
serving films which interest only a limited audience of archivists,
scholars, and aficionados, and saving films which hold appeal for the
general public while being lucrative for the studios.
Ultimately, the film archive may serve as a harbinger for the evo
lution of other cultural institutions into quasi-commercial roles, as
their authority as legitimizing agents is also challenged by large-scale
of expertise. By leveraging intellec
producers in their respective areas
tual property rights and technological innovations, mass producers of
cultural information may overtake the authority of libraries, muse
ums, and archives to function as legitimizing agents in the work of
producing cultural heritage.
Data Collection and Analysis

Where might one look for evidence of changes in the balance of power
among mass-production and limited-production cultural stakehold
ers? Although quantitative economic and production data such as
market share, number of films or amount of footage preserved, or

other indicators of film preservation activity can be somewhat useful, I
believe that the analytic framework advanced by Bourdieu raises ques
tions about using such criteria to explain the workings of the field.
Because much of the "cultural capital" in film preservation is symbolic,

the study needed to include institutional, social, and other measures of
the practices of film archiving. I felt that I was most likely to obtain
such data by looking for systematic patterns and themes embedded
within institutional processes and practices. By identifying and
describing such patterns and themes, and comparing them among
institutions, both commercial and noncommercial, I suspected that I
might find evidence of a shift in power within the field of film preser
vation in favor of a more commercial orientation.
My approach in collecting data was largely qualitative in nature. In
this study I employed
combination of fieldwork, in-depth interview
a
ing, and focus group interviewing to examine film preservation

processes and practices in both commercial and noncommercial set
tings. Because I was juxtaposing the positions of mass-production and
limited-production stakeholders (i.e., commercial and noncommercial
organizations), my subjects were chosen with an eye toward represent
ing as many players in the field as was practical. I preferred to use a
fieldwork and interviewing approach rather than a more broad survey
method, because the former is better suited to uncovering patterns and
systemic phenomena within institutional settings than the latter.
I used a three-pronged approach in collecting data. First, I gath
ered ethnographic fieldwork data, in order to record day-to-day inci
dents and interactions in the two organizations which may shed light
on how institutional practices and formations are invoked, sustained,
or repudiated. Second, I conducted in-depth interviews that allowed
me to test assumptions and conclusions that I drew about institu
tional norms and practices. Third, I held focus groups in order to
explore issues facing the field as a whole. This last data collection
method opportunity to compare practices and policies
gave me the
among different institutions.
Ethnographic Methods and Archives.
For those readers unfamiliar with ethnography, a definition of the

methodology is in order. It is a form of inquiry which falls under the
larger category of qualitative research, which is "a process of enquiry
that draws data from the context in which events occur, in an attempt
to describe these occurrences, as a means of determining the process
in which events are embedded and the perspectives of those partici

pating in the events, using induction to derive possible explanations
based on observed phenomena."16 The hallmark of ethnography is the
position of the researcher vis-a-vis the phenomena being studied. By
"collecting data 'in the field,' being out among the subjects of one's
research, becoming immersed in their milieu, and seeing events and
activities as they see them," ethnographers have the opportunity to
identify, analyze, and articulate the "insider" (emic) perspective. "
Ethnographic fieldwork is especially well-suited for studying socio-
cultural phenomena such as structures, processes, and interactions
among members of a defined community. It is helpful for uncovering
is,
and collecting data on tacit knowledge, that unstated practices and
norms shared among community members. The ethnographic
approach combines number of qualitative data collection tech
a
niques, including participant observation and in-depth interviewing,

but may also be used in conjunction with other approaches, such as
it
focus group interviewing, content/document analysis, discourse

analysis, kinesics (the study of body and/or proxemics
movements),
(the study of people's use of space), in order to obtain further insights
or validation of hypotheses generated through fieldwork.
Ethnography has been described as both "theoretical orienta
a
tion" and "philosophical paradigm," in addition to methodology.18

a
Its roots lay in the field of anthropology, where there long tradition
is
a
of researchers who spend much of their life abroad, living with and
studying non-Western cultures Margaret Mead). More recently,
la
(a
anthropologists, sociologists, and others have applied

ethnographic
methods to wider range of "cultures," including those found within
a
urban environments, organizations, and modern work cultures. This

expansion of the ethnographic agenda reflects new understanding of
a
culture and community. In some cases, ethnographers can be said to

virtue of studying certain peo
by
have "created" community "simply

a
by
ple and implying that the links he or she has perceived among them
constitute society."19 In that vein, this text makes the assumption that
a
the archival environment does in fact encompass cultural dimension,

a
and that worthy of study in this manner.

is
it
What then the meaning of "archival The author

is
ethnography"?
offers the following definition:
f
Archival ethnography is a form of naturalistic inquiry which posi

tions the researcher within an archival environment to gain the cul
tural perspective of those responsible for the creation, collection,
care, and use of records.
A corollary to the above definition is the concept that creators of doc

uments, users of documents, and archivists form a community of
practice
—the archival environment — for which social interaction cre
ates meaning and defines values.20 Archival ethnography may be prac
ticed in a variety of environments — any social space where the
creation, maintenance, or use of archival records forms a locus of
interest and activity.
In this instance, the subject of my study is the community of film
preservationists who care for and preserve motion pictures. As a
researcher, my main goals were to map the terrain of film preservation
by identifying the commercial and noncommercial stakeholders of
the field, looking at how work is accomplished, defining systems of
value in the community, and examining relationships among the
archivists, archives, studios, and film laboratories which populate this
landscape. As I delved into this world, I became interested in the par
ticulars of how work was accomplished, shared meanings and points
of disjuncture in the definition of preservation work, and the ways in
which authority and power over preservation decisions are wielded by
individuals and institutions within their particular spheres of influ
ence. I found that much of the work that occurs in film preservation
is not recorded — nor is it validated — through the following of profes
sional dictum. Additionally, very few archives have extensive manuals
of local practice and policy. Thus, my only option for gathering data
on the workings of film archives and film archivists was to put myself
in their midst where possible or to otherwise in engage them in con
versations about their work through the methods of in-depth and
focus group interviewing, when participant observation was not wel
come or convenient.
Ethnographic Narratives of the World of Film Preservation.
In chapters 6, 7, and 8 I present three thematic narratives, which draw

upon the data gathered through ethnographic fieldwork and inter
viewing. The narrative format allowed me to explain phenomena by

combining fieldnote and interview excerpts with analytic commen
tary. As a number of ethnographers have pointed out, this format is
more conducive to reporting findings from ethnographic studies than
the traditional method of presentation common in quantitative and
many other kinds of qualitative research (in which researchers sepa
rate summaries of data from their analyses).21
To summarize briefly, chapter 6 analyzes the process of preserving
a film, looking particularly at the decision points in each step and
using certain incidents from my fieldwork to illustrate how and why
participants choose to act in the ways that they do. Chapter 7 looks
closely at how participants in the field use the word "preservation" to
define their work and their institutions. Chapter 8 examines the
authority of film archivists to make preservation decisions. These
chapters represent the core categories that emerged from data analysis.
Readers should note that ethnographic writing embraces the use
of first-person narration. This stylistic decision reflects standard
ethnographic practice whereby the discussion of methodology used in
a study is self-reflexive. As Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw state, "In pre
senting their methods, ethnographers seek to depict the varied quali

ties of their participation and their awareness of both the advantages
and constraints of their roles in a specific setting."22 This approach
runs counter to classic academic prose, which refrains from first-per
son narrative under the assumption that it connotes a lack of objectiv
As ethnographic research embraces the possibility of multiple and
ity.
perhaps conflicting descriptions of the same reality, the use of an
omniscient narrative voice runs counter to this objective.
Readers may also note that I refer to archivists who participated
in this study by name. All names employed in chapters 6, 7, and 8 to
refer to individuals and institutions are pseudonyms, however, used to
protect their anonymity and assure the confidentiality of this
research. On a number of occasions I use four asterisks (****) to indi
cate a name or identifying information that has been suppressed.
Boundaries and Limitations of This Study

International readers may notice that I have focused primarily on the
relationship between major United States film archives and the
/
motion picture industry. Film archives and film industries outside of

the United States were excluded from my study, as I felt that they are
enmeshed in different social, cultural, and political spheres of interac
tion. Although they often share similar issues and concerns with
American film archives, they do not have the same competitive rela
tionship with the film industry of their own countries, mainly because
their archival activities receive much more governmental support than
United States archives. In addition, a number of countries have
deposit laws that require production companies to donate one or
more copies of a film with the national archive in order to obtain
copyright protection.23
The field of television and video preservation is another area that
was not broached in this book. Although some participants in the
field of film preservation have begun to speak of themselves as being
preservers of all moving images, not just film, my study did not
directly deal with the issues surrounding other forms of image preser
vation. Television and video preservation, although closely allied with
the film preservation movement, should be considered to be a separate
field, a fact that the Library of Congress acknowledged in 1996 when
it published a study exploring the state of television preservation in
the United States.24
Last, this study does not aim to provide a wide-ranging theory for
the functioning of all cultural institutions, or even all institutions par
ticipating in film preservation. Generalizations about the field of film
preservation based on a case study involving two institutions would
be tenuous at best. However, I believe that the theoretical framework
that guides this research is sound, and can be successfully transferred
to other settings. Future research using this framework will give
investigators the opportunity to test the external validity of my find
ings. Readers with additional questions about the methods used in
this study, as well as questions of validity, are directed to appendix I,
"A Case Study in Archival Ethnography."
Chapter 1 Notes
1 UNESCO, Recommendation for the Safekeeping and Preservation of Moving Images, 1 980,
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=131398cURL_DO=DO_TOPIC8cURL_
SECTION=201.html (accessed March 3, 2006).
2 One of the primary objectives of Memory of the World Programme is preservation, specif
ically "to ensure the preservation by the most appropriate means of documentary heritage
which has world significance and to encourage the preservation of documentary heritage
which has national and regional significance." UNESCO, Memory of the World Programme:
General Guidelines to Safeguard Documentary Heritage (1995), CII-95/WS/11,
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/mdm/administ/pdf/MOW_FIN.PDF (accessed March
3, 2006). http://www.unesco.org/webworld/mdm/administ/pdf/MOW_FIN.PDF
3 IFLA Audiovisual and Multimedia Section, Guidelines for Audiovisual and Multimedia
Materials in Libraries and Archives (March 2004), http://www.ifla.org/VII/s35/pubs/
avm-guidelines04.htm (accessed March 7, 2006).
4 Tom McGreevey and Joanne L. Yeck, "Saving the Movies: America's Most Popular Art
Form," in Our Movie Heritage (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1997), 17-28.
5 Boleslas Matuzewski, Une Nouvelle Source de VHistoire: Creation d'un Depot de
Cinematographic Historique (Paris, 1898).
6 Reichsfilmarchiv (Berlin, 1935), the Museum of Modern Art Film Library (New York,
1935), the National Film Library (London, 1935), and the Cinematheque Francaise (Paris,
1936) comprised the "Big Four," the founders of the International Federation of Film
Archives. See Penelope Houston, Keepers of the Frame: The Film Archives (London: British
Film Institute, 1994), 18.
7 Paolo Cherchi Usai, Director of the National Screen and Sound Archive of Australia,
notes that the first film archives were founded and sustained by a number of individuals
devoted to saving film including Henri Langlois in France, Ernest Lindgren in Great
Britain, Jacques Ledoux in Belgium, Iris Barry and James Card in the United States,
Mario Ferrari and Maria Adriana Prolo in Italy, Einar Laurizen in Sweden, and a host of
anonymous collectors. He states that "in those days, the only way of prevailing over the
general indifference [to cinema] was by relying on one's initiative: collect films from every
where, store them somewhere, ensure, somehow, that they would survive, screen them. If it
were not for the sacrifices made by many an unknown Langlois and by anonymous collec
tors possessed by the nitrate demon, we would have very little to see today." Paolo Cherchi
Usai, Burning Passions: An Introduction to the Study of Silent Cinema (London: British Film
Institute, 1994), 25.
8 Iris Barry, first curator of the film library at the Museum of Modern Art in New York,
notes that "it was, I think, the advent of the talkies and — by that time — their prevalence
which had slowly made us realize what we lacked or had lost. True enough, we had seen,
heard, and rejoiced in Public Enemy, the first husky words of Garbo in Anna Christie. Yet
something, not only of technique, seemed missing. Should we never again experience the
same pleasure that Intolerance, Moana, or Greed had given with their combination of elo
quent silence, visual excitement, and that hallucinatory 'real' music from 'real' orchestras in
the movie theaters which buoyed them up and drifted us with them into bliss? No question
but that had furnished an experience different in kind. But the silent films and the orches
tras had vanished forever and when could one hope to see even the best of the early talkies
again? How could movies be taken seriously if they were to remain so ephemeral, so lack
ing in pride of ancestry or of tradition?" Iris Barry, "The Film Library and How It Grew,"
Film Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1969): 20.
9 The 1993 government study of the state of American film preservation notes that in the last
two decades, archivists have devoted most of their attention to copying unstable nitrate stock
onto more durable, "safety" stock. Library of Congress, Film Preservation 1993: A Study of the
Current State ofAmerican Film Preservation (Washington: Library of Congress, 1993), 1:5.
10 According to Anthony Slide, the phrase was "originally coined in the late 1960s by Sam
Kula, archivist at the American Film Institute from the summer of 1968 to the summer
of 1973, in the form of 'Nitrate Will Not Wait.' Australian film archivists went one word
better and adopted the term, 'Nitrate Won't Wait.' In 1973, a new American Film Institute
archivist, Lawrence F. Karr, decided to adopt the Australian version of the phrase for the
American film preservation movement." See Slide, Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film
Preservation in the United States (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1992), 1.
11 Library of Congress, Film Preservation 1993, 1:5.
12 The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures Produced in the United States
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971- ).
13 Slide cites the generally accepted estimates of costs for film preservation: "It costs approxi
mately $15,000 to preserve one 35 mm black-and-white feature film and between $30,000
and $60,000 to preserve an average 35 mm color feature film." These figures do not
include the costs for staff, equipment, and supplies necessary to prepare film for laboratory
duplication, nor do they include costs for cataloging and exhibition once the film has been
preserved and a viewing print made. Anthony Slide, "The Challenge of Film Preservation
in the 1990s," Advances in Preservation and Access, ed. Barbra Buckner Higginbotham
(Medford, N.J. : Learned Information, 1995), 2: 281 .
14 A prime example of such partnership may be found in the Moving Image Collections
(MIC) project, funded by the National Science Foundation, which "documents moving
image collections around the world through a catalog of titles and directory of reposito
ries," and "provides a technology base and informational resources to support research, col
laboration, preservation, and education for archivists, exhibitors, educators, and the general
public," and is "a portal for integrating moving images into 21st Century education." See
the project website for more details: http://mic.imtc.gatech.edu/.
15 Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1993).
16 G.E. Gorman and Peter Clayton, Qualitative Research for the
Information Professional: A
Practical Handbook (London: Library Association Publishing, 1997), 23.
17 Ibid., 66.
18 Barbara Tedlock, "Ethnography and Ethnographic Representation," in Handbook of

Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2000), 455.
19 Michael V. Angrosino and Kimberly A. Mays de Perez, "Rethinking Observation: From
Method to Context," in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin
and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2000), 682.
20 According to Etienne Wenger, "a community of practice defines itself along three dimen
sions: what it is about — its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by
its members; how it functions — mutual engagement that bind members together into a
social entity; [and] what capability it has produced — the shared repertoire of communal
resources (routines, sensibilities, artefacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have devel
oped over time." See Etienne Wenger, "Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social
System," Systems Thinker (June 1998), <http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/
cop/lss.shtml> (accessed September 11,2005).
21 Emerson et al. explain the difference between analytic arguments and thematic narratives
thus: "Writing a thematic narrative differs fundamentally from writing an analytic argu
ment, both in the process of putting that text together and in the structure of the final text.
Structurally, in a text which presents a logical argument, the author sets forth a formal the
sis or proposition in the introduction as a stance to be argued, then develops each analytic
point with evidence logically following from and clearly supporting the propositional the
sis. In contrast, an ethnographic story proceeds through an intellectual examination of evi
dence to eventually reach its contributing central idea. While a thematic narrative begins
by stating a main idea or thesis, it progresses toward fuller elaboration of this idea through
out the paper. Indeed, the more precise, fuller statement of the thesis is often most effec
tively presented at the end of the story, in a conclusion to the paper." Robert M. Emerson,
Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1995), 170-71.
22 Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, 203.
23 It would be difficult to pass legislation in United States requiring deposit of films for two
reasons: first, the output of the Hollywood film industry is so vast that no one institution
could hope to manage it given the resources they currently command; and second, the
United States has no designated "national" film archive. For a more information about the
legal framework in which film archives in other countries operate, see Birgit Kofler, Legal
Questions Facing Audiovisual Archives (Paris: UNESCO, 1991).
24 Library of Congress, Television Preservation 1997: A Report on the Current State ofAmerican
Television and Video Preservation (Washington: Library of Congress, 1998).
Birth and Development of Film Archives
and the Film Preservation Movement
This chapter will introduce the historical and professional context for
understanding how film archives developed and function, including
information about the film preservation movement, the professional
community, and participants and interests in the field of film preser
vation. Additionally, a preliminary definition of film preservation
based on historical practice is provided, and the section concludes by
considering the changes wrought by digital technologies to film pro
duction, distribution, exhibition, and ultimately, archiving and preser
vation. Readers should note that this chapter serves primarily as an
overview to provide context for understanding the development of
the field, rather than a definitive history of film archives or the film
preservation movement. Readers seeking more in-depth discussion of
how these archives developed should consult the work of Anthony
Slide or Penelope Houston, who have written histories of the film
archive movement.1
The Work of Film Preservation: Film Archives

and Film Archivists
In the United States, film preservationwork is accomplished in a
variety of institutions and organizations, by both for-profit corpora
tions and nonprofit cultural institutions such as libraries, archives,
and museums. Among all of these institutions and organizations, a
small subset refers to themselves as "film archives." The first film
archives did not actually call themselves archives, instead coining
terms such as cinematheque, or by merely appending the
ovfilmoteca,
word film to institutional monikers, creating entities such as the film
library, film museum, or film institute. These different designations

were joined under the general category of film archive when the
International Federation of Film Archives (fiaf) was formed in 1938.
Following the creation of fiaf, as national and regional archives were

founded and sought acceptance as members of the organization, the
use of the word common, although most
archive became more
French- and Spanish-speaking countries preferred to call themselves
cinematheques or filmotecas, perhaps due to their emphasis on exhibi
tion, as well as collection and preservation.
By calling themselves archives, many of these newly created insti
tutions were apparentiy trying to associate themselves with other
kinds of archives. However, the definition of archives provided by
Richard Pearce-Moses shows that film archives do not have much in
common with manuscript and document archives:
Archives:
Materials created or received by a person, family, or organization,
public or private, in the conduct of their affairs and preserved
because of the enduring value contained in the information they
contain or as evidence of the functions and responsibilities of their
creator, especially those materials maintained using the principles
of provenance, original order, and collective control; permanent
records.2
As Slide has correctly pointed out, "quite obviously, film meets no

such definition, unless one is willing to define the entire motion pic
ture industry as a corporation or organization."3 In many ways, com
mercially produced films defy classification as records in the sense
used above —they are not the by-products of the process of filmmak
ing in the same way as paper and electronic records. Rather, films are
manufactured commodities whose value can be multi-faceted.4
Ernst Lindgren, first curator of Britain's National Film Library,
objected to the use of the word archive, saying that it "rings with a
deathly sound in the world of cinema, which is so young and vital and
dynamic, eager for the future and impatient of the past; . . . there is no
reason why a film archive should be a mausoleum."5 However, despite
Lindgren's misgivings about using the term, it was appropriate for the
tenor of the times. Houston remarks, "To maintain an often precari
Birth and Development of Film Archives and the Film Preservation Movement 19
ous and difficult relationship with the film industry, the archives had
to demonstrate their distance from the profit motive, from any sug
gestion that they might intend to lend out films for money. They
chose a name which suggested solidity and safe-keeping."6 The term
"film archive" arose more from a desire to create an image of stability
than from an aspiration to describe an institutional mission.
The creation of fiaf contributed to that image of stability, due to
its strict edict against commercial use of copyrighted films held by
member archives.7 fiaf also fostered a spirit of international coopera
tion, which helped unify archives behind the common purpose of film
preservation. A film archive must consider preservation to be its top
priority, and thus, if an organization does not preserve films, it is not
an archive.8 This distinction
film archives apart from other types
sets
of organizations that have film holdings, such as film libraries and

collections of moving images within all types of libraries and tradi
tional archives.9 More recently, archivists such as Ray Edmondson
have suggested that preservation is itself "not an end in itself but a
means to an end, which is permanent accessibility," and that preserva
tion is just one of a range of activities in which archives should
engage, the others being collecting, managing, and promoting.10
While this refinement certainly gives a more complete picture of
the functions of the film archive, the perceived emphasis on preserva
tion, in rhetoric and in practice, sets film archives apart from other
cultural institutions such as libraries, museums, and traditional
archives. Although these three institutions strongly emphasize
preservation as a part of their regular activities, film archives have
come to view preservation as their raison d'etre, perhaps because much
of the material in their collections is on deteriorating nitrate or
acetate film stock. Historically, nitrate has made its own imperative —
if untended, nitrate decomposes powder that retains no
into a red
trace of what it once contained. The more recent recognition that

acetate-based film, which was originally invented as a non-flammable
replacement for nitrate, also deteriorates under adverse conditions
lends even more urgency to the preservation imperative. Many films
once considered "preserved" when they were first transferred from
nitrate to acetate must now be retransferred to the more stable estar
(polyester-based) stock if the acetate copies show signs of deteriora
tion (this kind of decomposition is known as vinegar syndrome). The

artifact and its physical state have come to define the institution,
more than any other aspect of the work.
A Definition of Film Preservation

I have stressed the importance of the activity of preservation for film
archives, but what exactly do I mean by the term film preservation} It is
a complex and multi-faceted concept, encompassing many processes
and practices that have developed over several decades. The discussion
below serves as an introduction to basic issues and definitions that will
be explored more fully in chapter 7, "The Definition of Preservation."
Film preservation has roots and ties to the preservation move
ment, a phenomenon that aims to find and safeguard tangible objects
of "cultural heritage," those artifacts which are deemed representative
of human endeavor. Film preservation has had a parallel history to the
preservation movement for paper-based library and archival holdings,
although it is a latecomer — it is only when film began to be consid
ered partof "culture" that it was deemed worthy of preservation (the
emergence of popular culture and media studies as legitimate fields of
research has greatly added to the legitimacy of moving images as part
of our cultural legacy). As with the nascent field of library and
archival preservation fifty years ago, in recent years moving image
archivists have publicized the key issues and developed an infrastruc
ture to support preservation work.
Because film preservation is tied to the larger cultural heritage
movement, it has certain similarities in terminology and practice with
other preservation traditions in libraries, museums, and archives. A
comparison of several definitions of preservation found in those tra
ditions shows how a concept such as preservation can be reshaped to
fit the needs of a particular group. John Feather, Graham Matthews,
and Paul Eden define preservation as "the managerial, financial and
technical issues involved in preserving library materials in all for
mats — and/or their information content — so as to maximize life."11
Pearce-Moses gives a similar definition, describing preservation as
"the act of keeping from harm, injury, decay, or destruction, especially
through noninvasive treatment." 12
Feather, et al.'s definition of
preservation originates from within the field of library and informa
tion science, while the Pearce-Moses definition is taken from tradi

tions of archival science.
These definitions convey the idea that preservation sustains the
life and usefulness of cultural heritage objects. Differences between
the two definitions concern the ultimate objective of preservation; for
Feather, et al., preservation strives to preserve materials "so as to max
imize life," while Pearce-Moses refers to preservation as a method to
keep materials from "harm, injury, decay, or destruction." The latter
also mentions "treatment" of the physical objects, which could, in
fact, be considered a secondary definition of preservation: the first
being preservation as a complex of many practices and policies, and
the second being the actual physical work done on the object.
Having reviewed two definitions of preservation from these two
cognate fields, I now turn to the concept of film preservation. How is
preservation defined within the field of film archives? The literature
of film preservation of preservation has
reveals that the definition
actually been a subject of debate in the last two decades. The word
preservation once meant solely the physical process of preserving: "In
casual language and traditional practice, 'preservation' has been syn
onymous with duplication. 'Has the film been preserved?' a question
still often asked of archivists, is understood to mean, 'Has the film
been copied onto newer film stock?'"13 This early definition was mod
ified film archivists began to refine that initial idea (while still
as
focusing on the physical procedures associated with preservation):

"While preservation can be thought of as any effort to keep a film in
a viewable form, most archivists consider film preserved only when
a
it is both viewable in its original format with its full visual and
(i)
by
aural values retained, and (2) protected for the future 'preprint'
material through which subsequent viewing copies can be created."14
Mary Lea Bandy of the Museum of Modern Art in New York
suggested definition of preservation that more closely approximates
a
the library and archival definitions, in that she sees preservation as

a
collection of activities, not just the physical preservation techniques

themselves. She states,
requires great research and plan

It
Preservation
is
complex process.
a
ning to locate and acquire film materials; inspect and analyze their
condition; catalog historical and condition data; assemble materials

for copying or restoration in labs and supervise the various stages of
work; provide proper storage, handling, and access; and make prints
for public viewing. That is what preservation is all about.15
This definition provides a cue to changing attitudes towards film

preservation in general. In 1993, the Library of Congress conducted a
national survey of film preservation with the aim of providing a
national plan for action. When the national plan was published, it was
entitled "Redefining Film Preservation," thus formally codifying a shift
within the field from a narrower to a broader meaning of the process.
Although the aim of the plan was prescriptive as well as descriptive,
evidence shows that the field has come to see preservation as a holistic
process, rather than just a particular activity. This evolution in fact
echoes similar changes in the library, museum, and archival worlds.
Two related terms, restoration and conservation, are often con
fused with preservation. Restoration goes beyond the physical copy
ing of surviving material into reconstruction of the most authentic
version of a film. Ideally, restoration work includes comparing all sur
viving material on a given title, consulting printed records of the pro
duction and exhibition history, and then making decisions regarding
the film's "original" state.16
Also distinguishable from preservation is conservation, which
requires no physical copying, only the decision to treat film material
with greater care because of its perceived use as a future preservation
source.17Conservation is also sometimes called "passive preservation."

Storing film in temperature- and humidity-controlled conditions and
disallowing screening or other reference use represent the most com
mon actions taken to conserve a film.
Henceforth, when I refer to film preservation, I mean the multi
ple processes, both physical and intellectual, that are used by archives
and libraries to maintain access to a film: collection, physical preser
vation techniques, cataloging, transfer to film and video, and exhibi
tion. Otherwise, I will specify when reference to the physical
procedures of preservation rather than preservation as the full spec
trum of activities is intended. I will further explore the nuances of the
term preservation as it is used in day-to-day work by practitioners in
chapter "The Definition of Preservation." For those readers inter

7,
ested in comparing definitions of preservation, conservation, and

restoration across the allied fields of libraries, archives, and film
archives (including how those definitions have changed over time),
please consult appendix III, "Evolving Definitions of Preservation,
Conservation, and Restoration."
Participants and Interests in the Field

of Film Preservation
The field of film preservation can be seen as part of a larger sphere of

activity known as the preservation of cultural
Although the heritage.
roots of film preservation can be found in the philanthropic deeds of
public sector organizations and altruistically-minded private individ
uals and organizations, the commercial sector grows increasingly
interested in participating in film preservation activities. What is in
fact at stake for these varied commercial and public interests?
The wide range of interests in film preservation mirrors the infra
structure of the network of cultural institutions in the United States,
and it reflects the structure of the film industry itself. As film archives
become concerned with not only the physical preservation of the
object at hand, but also access to that object through cataloging, dis
tribution, and exhibition, they begin to step on the toes of an industry
that claims its exclusive right to distribute and exhibit (and profit
from) its properly. What film archivists call "cultural heritage," copy
right holders call intellectual property, and those films are, to the dis
may of many film archivists, fully protected under copyright law.
Below, I have identified the participants, both major and minor,
in the field of film preservation. As Bourdieu has stated, "There is no
other criterion of membership of a field, than the objective fact of
producing effects in it."18 Hence, I have cast my net widely in identi
fying the significant players in order to include any organizations that
have influence over film preservation through their institutional and
economic practices.
As a starting point, I consulted the 1993 report published by the
Library of Congress on the state of film preservation in the United
States, which identified the eight major players in the field. These
participants include commercial and nonprofit organizations. To
this list, I have added three additional stakeholders who also play an
important role.
1. Studios with Large Film Libraries (including Disney, Paramount, Republic,

Turner, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros.)
The interest of studios in film preservation is a relatively recent phe
nomenon, which can be traced directly to the establishment of ancil

lary markets such as home video and dvd sales and rentals, as well as
cable television and pay-per-view. When studios saw that their prod
uct could have shelf life beyond the initial and second-run distribu
a
tion cycle, their interest in film preservation was considerably

heightened. With the successful re-releases of restored titles (such as
the Star Wars trilogy, which netted revenues equal to summer block
buster totals), the studios received bottom-line proof that film preser
vation could be immensely profitable.19 Even though studios seem to
have embraced the rhetoric of cultural heritage preservation in their
public dealings, it remains to be seen whether the commitment of the
private sector to film preservation will be extended in the future to
protect less commercially viable titles. In the words of the Library of
Congress report, "Will the secondary markets stimulate high-quality
preservation of all studio-held films, including newsreels, shorts, and
B-pictures? While industry sources see that potential, others wonder
if efforts will be extended beyond the more commercially viable titles
and urge public-private programs to verify the quality of preservation
materials for privately owned American film titles."20
2. Independent Producers and Distributors
In comparison to studios, the independents have few or no resources

to deal with preservation needs and concerns. The Library of
Congress points out that the major problems in preserving independ
ent films include a lack of education among filmmakers about the
preservation needs of their work, and a lack of "the resources and
organizational continuity to mount the aggressive assetprotection
programs of the larger studios."21 Yet, the spectrum of United States
film heritage would not be complete without the inclusion of the
work of independent filmmakers. Several distributors, such as Kino
and Milestone Films, have specialized in the distribution of impor
tant independent films. Still, many independent films remain out of

reach to the public because there is no distribution mechanism, and
without any revenue stream to provide for their "care and feeding,"
their owners cannot afford to care for them.
3. Stock Footage Libraries
Stock footage houses often own unique industrial, educational, or

advertising films, and although their interests are primarily commer
cial, many of these companies are conscious of the rarity of their
material and make some effort toward preservation (although their
standards of preservation may differ from nonprofit institutions). The
Library of Congress report notes that
Stock footage libraries have, in some cases, the only known copy of
films of historical interest and fill a special niche by their documen
tation of regional lifestyles, popular pastimes, and daily life and
work — activities generally considered too ordinary for national
newsreels but whose documentation has increased in value over
time. As market-driven operations, such businesses pay for their
own preservation work and generally give priority to the most sal
able footage.22
Once again, selection of films for preservation often is directed more

by perceived potential for reuse rather than by cultural imperatives.
4. Large Public/Nonprofit Archives (Academy Film Archive, the Museum

of Modern Art, the International Museum of Photography at George
Eastman House, the UCLA Film and Television Archive, Library of

Congress, National Archives and Records Administration)
Although nonprofit film archives embrace the notion of film as cul
tural heritage, they cannot avoid legal and economic realities, mainly
that the material in their possession is not always their own to dupli
cate, distribute, and exhibit as other cultural institutions do. The edicts
of copyright law tightly control the disposition of most feature films
produced in the last seventy-five years. Often, archives must pay exhi
bition copyright owners in order to show films that they them
fees to
selves have preserved. Most American nonprofit archives find

themselves in the unfortunate situation of not being allowed to par
2B Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
tially recoup the costs of preservation through exhibition fees (as other
nonprofit cultural institutions do through admission fees). Coupled
with the continually shrinking pool of federal monies for film preser
vation, the situation seems particularly challenging for nonprofits.
However, some archives have learned to play the copyright game
to their own advantage with films that are either in the public domain
or films for which they have gained the copyright. Many archives
have exploited their resources by operating as stock footage houses —
licensing certain film material to studios, independent production
companies, and television networks. For example, the ucla Film and
Television Archive, which owns the copyright to the Hearst
Metrotone Newsreel Collection, has licensed footage from that col
lection since 1984. Many archives have also released preserved public
domain films on videotape, laser disc, and dvd, although these
releases have netted minimal profits.
A recent change in copyright law may give archives more latitude
in the future to preserve "orphan works." For those films that are
technically under copyright, but for which the copyright owner can
no longer be found, archives have now been given increased powers to
make copies for preservation and access purposes. The passage of the
Preservation of Orphan Works Act in 2005, which I will discuss fur
ther in chapter 3, represents a rare victory for cultural institutions in
the copyright battles that have played out in the last decade.
5. Specialist Archives
Specialist archives "acquire and preserve films relating to a specific

subject, region, ethnic group, or genre."23 Included in this category are
such institutions as the American Archives of Factual Film,
Anthology Film Archives, the Human Studies Archive at the
Smithsonian, Northeast Historic Film, and the Pacific Film Archive.
Specialist archives collect independent, documentary, ethnographic,
and avant-garde film, and gather source materials in support of film
and cultural studies. Preservation is not always the highest priority for
these institutions because of their emphasis on access activities such
as exhibitions to the public and screenings for scholars and artists;

however, they are an invaluable source for noncommercial and foreign
films. In the last few years, the collections of these smaller archives
have received additional attention from film scholars, historians,

archivists, and others, as the academic world has begun to discover
the valueof noncommercial film. The Orphan Film Symposium, a
prime example of this interest, showcases such "neglected media arti
facts." M In the four years of its existence, it has become a nexus for
the study and appreciation of the orphan film, in all its many forms.
G. Public Institutions with Small Film Collections
The Library of Congress report says, "Hundreds of government

offices, historical societies, museums, universities, libraries, and non
profit associations hold films scattered among their own organiza
tional records or among collections of personal papers and educational
resources. Just how many public institutions hold the best surviving
copies of films of historic or cultural interest is difficult to say."25 Yet
these institutions may prove to be the best source for amateur footage,
locally produced films, and other moving images not easily accessed
through other sources. The National Film Preservation Board has
recommended that future preservation funding target these nonfic-
tion holdings, which have little or no commercial value, but have been
identified as having cultural and historical value.26
7. Collectors
Collectors are the most difficult- to-define players in the field of film
preservation. Are they pirates (as the studios see them), hoarders (as
many archives see them), or last-minute saviors of films thought lost

forever?Many archives have their roots in the passionate commit
ment of a collector — the Cinematheque Francaise, founded by Henri
Langlois, and the film collection at the George Eastman House,
founded by James Card, being the two most famous examples.27 Paolo
Cherchi Usai, former senior curator of the motion picture collections
at the George Eastman House and current director of the National
Screen and Sound Archive of Australia, notes that
Collectors are a secretive breed. They do not trust publicity and

prefer sometimes to die with their possessions rather than abandon
them to what they consider to be an impersonal structure, lacking
the enthusiasm and the protective instinct which made it possible
to save the films. Consequently, all the surviving silent films are not
to be found exclusively in the organisational structures called film
archives: these are only the relatively better-known sector of a vast,
mostly unexplored corpus.28
The case of the collector who donated a copy of Richard III (1912 —
now the earliest extant feature film) to the American Film Institute in
1996 shows that even today collectors can play an important
— if
erratic — role in film preservation.29
8. Foreign Archives (which may hold films of United States origin)
Foreign archives often own copies of American films from the silent
era and early sound period that no longer exist in any form, print or
pre-print, in the United States. These archives would like to negotiate
with American archives for repatriation of these films to the United
States, but fear legal action from corporate copyright holders because
the films are often illegal copies.30
9. Cable Television Networks (especially those whose programming relies
largely on "classic" movies, such as American Movie Classics, Fox Movie

Channel, or Turner Classic Movies)
Cable television, with its voracious appetite for material to fill its pro
gramming schedules, has a large interest in continuing to have access
to America's film heritage. As the public becomes more sophisticated
about the visual and sound qualities of films shown on television,
cable networks have begun to see the benefits of supporting film
preservation efforts.31 For almost a decade, amc associated itself
closely with film preservation activities. Beginning in 1993, it held an
annual telethon to raise funds for preservation. The proceeds from the
telethon went to leading United States film archives, including
George Eastman House, the Library of Congress, the Museum of
Modern Art, and the ucla Film and Television Archive. Slide
described the lackluster results of the first telethon as "abysmal," rais
ing less than half of the estimated take of $30o,ooo.32 In subsequent
years, however, amc raised over two million dollars for film preserva
tion through the festival and other fundraising activities.33 This com
mitment to supporting film preservation activities helped to increase
public awareness of the film preservation imperative.
10. The United States Government, Particularly the National Endowment

for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and National
Film Preservation Foundation
The federal government has had limited but crucial role in support
a
ing film preservation in the United States in the last three decades.
The American Film Institute-National Endowment for the Arts
Film Preservation Program, a peer-reviewed subgrant program of the
nea, subsidized laboratory costs for copying deteriorating film onto
new stock for a number of years. In order to qualify for support, appli
cants needed to meet stringent requirements. Archives were asked to
"demonstrate the cultural value and rarity of the films proposed for
copying, give evidence of sound implementation plan (including
a
laboratory estimates), and match the federal money with local funds
on at least a one-to-one basis."34
Between 1968 and 1978, the afi-nea program allocated over $3.7
million to its preservation program. During this period, allocations
increased steadily, from only $168,592 in 1968 to $630,000 in 1978.
Between 1979 and 1992, however, the program suffered from being
underfunded and was subjected to the indignities of frequent cuts,
despite the seemingly unassailable value of such a program. The total
amount allocated to the program was frozen at $500,000 in 1985, and
was cut to $350,000 by 1992. Although this amount might appear to
be adequate, when one considers that a single feature film can cost
anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000 to preserve, the amount seems
paltry.35 In addition, laboratory costs have more than doubled in the
last two decades — making the same grant amount achieve half as
much as it once did.36
In 1995, federal funding for film preservation was cut off com
pletely as a result of the severe budget cuts inflicted upon the
National Endowment for the Arts by Congress. The outcry from
the archival community was such that the nea allowed archives to
apply directly to the program for grants. Nevertheless, many
archives were forced to scramble for funding from other sources,
mostly private. The one bright spot in federal funding was the
National Endowment for the Humanities, which in 1993 began to
give grants to preserve nonfiction film.
To provide a new source of funding for nonprofit film archives, in
1996 Congress passed the National Film Preservation Act. In addi

tion to providing funding for the implementation of the recommen

dations of the National Film Preservation Plan, the law established
the private sector National Film Preservation Foundation (nfpf).
This foundation, modeled on the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, uses a limited amount of
matching funds as
federal
leverage for raising private sector funds, both of which are used to
fund grants for film preservation activities. Unfortunately, the appro
priations made by Congress (a maximum of $250,000 annually) did
not actually begin until the year 2000.37 The nfpf has been a very suc
cessful program, garnering bipartisan support when few other pieces
of appropriation legislation were able to do so. Its funding has been
consistently renewed, and in funding for the nfpf was reautho
2005,
rized at the level of $530,000, ensuring that the organization will con
tinue its work through 2009.
Professionals in the archival community who felt that film preser
vation had unfairly been caught in the crossfire of the furor over con
troversial nea grants considered the establishment the National Film
Preservation Foundation to be an attempt to redress the damage
inflicted by the nea cuts. In the last decade, it has certainly become
the most important source of funding for preservation of motion pic
tures, giving opportunities to smaller archives and other cultural insti
tutions that may not have been eligible for funding under nea
criteria. Nevertheless, with the large proportion of federal funding
going to those films in the public domain, the government has made
the decision to push the responsibility for preserving most of
America's film heritage onto its creators and copyright holders. As
the national plan for film preservation states, "Profit-making entities
have the primary responsibility to preserve their own product and
should contribute to public institutions for work done on their behalf."38
1 1. The American Public
The public has little direct control over film preservation, except
through governmental representation, but the indirect effects of the
public on film preservation are quite powerful. The public supports film
preservation activities through donations, ticket sales, video and dvd
rentals, and purchases of preserved and restored films. In fact, the bur
geoning dvd market seems to be spurred in part by an increased interest
in older films (approximately forty percent of all dvd releases are "library
titles").39 The imminent introduction of high-definition dvd formats
(Blu-Ray and hd-dvd) may continue to spur interest in older titles.
The public also reaps rewards from film preservation funded by
federal monies. The Library of Congress report states that "expendi
ture of tax dollars on film preservation implies a wide public benefit
from the activity. And indeed those benefits aresignificant, because
public funding assures that at least a portion of what is saved as collec
tive visual memory is not purely determined by commercial markets."40
Finally, it is important to remember that many members of the
general public are also filmmakers or possess family history recorded
on film. The burgeoning response to Home Movie Day, a grassroots
movement started in 2002 by group of film archivists who were con
a
cerned about the lack of attention paid to the preservation of amateur

film, exemplifies the public's interest in their private history. In only
three years, this international celebration has grown to forty-two
locations and has spawned a nonprofit organization, the Center for
Home Movies. Home movies still do not have much respect in the
academic world, but the public, along with those archivists who are
beginning to cultivate an appreciation for amateur film, have encour
aged a home movie renaissance.41
Current and Future Challenges of Film Archiving Work

For the most part, film archives in the United States lack sufficient
funding, staff, facilities, and equipment to accomplish the gargantuan
task to which they have dedicated themselves. Film preservation is
many times more expensive than preservation of other cultural mate
rial. When one considers that large archives in the United States such
as the Library of Congress and the ucla Film and Television Archive
hold 400,000 and 225,000 titles respectively, the costs for preserving
the feature films holdings alone are staggering. Even smaller institu
tions such George Eastman House (22,000 titles) and the
as the
Pacific Film Archive (9,000 titles) have many more titles to preserve
than current funding levels will permit.42 In addition, many archives
hold unique films such as newsreels, amateur films, documentaries,
avant-garde films, and other non-feature material that also demand
attention from the preservation staff and funding for laboratory work.
In 1993, the Library of Congress report on the state of film preserva

tion in the United States said that "the defining problem for public
archive [film] preservation programs is funding. . . . While the federal
institutions support most preservation copying internally, MoMA
[Museum of Modern Art], ucla, and geh [George Eastman House]
are heavily on outside fund-raising and piece together
dependent
their preservation budgets from many sources. . . . With federal grants
and state arts council support decreasing, these archives are increas
ingly turning to high profile preservation projects to generate income
for more routine work."43
Smaller, specialist archives and other institutions which may have
holdings in moving image formats do not have even those "high-pro
file" projects to depend upon for preservation funding, since they
often collect rare nonfeature material on small gauge stock (8 mm,
Super 8, and 16 mm), much of it on reversal or independent
stock,44
and avant-garde titles that have dropped out of distribution.
Last, there are untold numbers of public institutions outside the
mainstream of film including public libraries, historical
archiving,
societies, museums, and nonprofit associations, which have collec
tions of films that could be considered of archival value. Besides not
having the technical knowledge necessary to preserve film, these
institutions rarely have sufficient funding to support preservation
efforts.45 In 1999, the Association of Research Libraries reported that
103 member institutions owned 1,335,441 film and video items, which
gives a preliminary indication of the vast quantity of moving image
material outside of those institutions most closely affiliated with the
film and television archive community. **
Print materials have received
the lion's share of interest and funding in most research institutions,
most likely because books, journals, and other paper-based items are
seen as most central to their institutional missions. It is difficult to
justify the added expense of film preservation to budgets that are
already stretched to the limit by the costs of preserving paper-based
collections, not to mention the amounts being invested in digitization
projects. However, as university professors embrace new media in
their teaching and research, and as today's students are increasingly
more visually literate, libraries are beginning to focus increasing
attention on moving image holdings.
While these institutions need funding for film preservation work,

they also require trained staff. Unfortunately, the number of profes
sionals in film preservation is still quite small.
Among the informa
tion professions, film archiving currently ranks as one of the most
esoteric. In the United States today, there are fewer film archivists
than librarians, archivists, or museum professionals, and much of the
recondite work of film preservation is accomplished only in a few key
locations such as Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, d.c.
metro areas.47'48'49 Much film preservation work is centered in major
metropolitan areas because a large proportion of film production
work occurs in or close to those cities.50
Undoubtedly, film archives and collections need more staff mem
bers with an adequate background to accomplish the tasks of film
preservation. As recently as ten years ago, budding film archivists did
not learned their craft in books or in an academic program. Instead,
they entered into an apprenticeship at a film archive or laboratory,
learning preservation techniques from experienced professionals.
Until recently, the prevailing attitude was that this sort of knowledge
could not be solely grasped through formal education; rather,
archivists had to learn preservation by sharpening their sensory per
ceptions of the material and machinery involved, and through a pro
gressive absorption of complex techniques. Experts have pointed out,
however, "preservation has matured and technology [has] grown more
complex, [thus] ad hoc instruction is no longer adequate."51 The 1994
report, Redefining Film Preservation, recommended that a master's
degree program in film preservation be established, and since that

time, two programs have been launched: in 2002, ucla established
the Moving Image Archival Studies degree, co-sponsored through
the Department of Film, Television, and Digital Media Studies, the
Department of Information Studies, and the ucla Film and
Television Archive; in 2003, the Moving Image Archiving and
Preservation degree program at the Tisch School of the Arts at New
York University welcomed its first students. In addition to these two
programs, the L.Jeffrey Selznick School of Film Preservation, located
at the George Eastman House, offers a third educational option. This
institution began to offer a certificate in film preservation to students
with bachelor's degrees in 1996; 52 in 2005, geh (in collaboration with
the Department of English at the University of Rochester) launched

a master's degree program in film and media preservation.
Despite this progress on the educational front, information about
the profession of film archiving has been sparse and hard to obtain,
aside from the occasional mention in the general press or in scholarly
film journals. Anyone seeking information about moving image
archiving and preservation issues should consult The Moving Image, a
journal established by the Association of Moving Image Archivists,
which began publication in 2001. The amia Newsletter is also a valu
able resource that conveys information about association activities
and provides updates on current issues of interest, such as cutting-
edge technological developments, current research projects, and legal
issues affecting preservation and access to moving images.
Digital Filmmaking and Its Implications for

Film Preservation
In the twentieth century, the profession of film archiving concen
trated its energies toward the care of physical objects, i.e., the films
themselves. As we contemplate the next century, there is no doubt
that the future of filmmaking will be a digital one. This transition
promises to have a profound effect on many aspects of film preserva
tion work. Today, most film archivists occasionally resort to digital
techniques to repair damage that cannot be ameliorated through
hands-on and photochemical means. In the future, however, most
archivists will be working with films that originate in digital form and
must be preserved digitally.
In the last fifteen years, more and more aspects of film production
have shifted to the digital realm. Post-production activities such as
editing and special effects were among the first activities to make the
transition. Animation filmmakers were also "early adopters" of digital
production techniques. More recently, prototype high-definition dig
ital camcorders have allowed filmmakers to experiment with digital
video technology. The advantages of digital production are numerous,
especially for special effects-laden films. High-profile digital film
making projects have included George Lucas' Star Wars Episode II
and Episode III, Robert Rodriguez's Sin City, and Bryan Singer's
upcoming Superman Returns. Many independent filmmakers such as
the Dogme-affiliated Mike Figgis and Lars von Trier have also
adopted digital moving image technologies in the last few years,
employing "prosumer" formats such as DigiBeta and Mini dv.
What will spur the widespread acceptance of digital filmmaking
as the new industry standard? In the simplest terms, for digital film
making to succeed there must be workable digital methods of not
only production, but distribution and exhibition as well. At this point,
distributors —i.e., the studios — must supply theaters with 35 mm
prints. Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on
release prints, studios would like to be able to distribute their films
digitally, by sending films directly to theaters using satellites or high
speed fiber optic networks. Proponents of digital distribution and
projection argue that adopting digital formats will provide many cost
benefits by:
•
Removing the main source of picture degradation over time
(traditional projection gradually wears out 35 mm prints by

adding scratches and dirt);
•
Reducing distribution costs (both production of prints and
shipping), and;
•
Increasing flexibility and freedom in programming (theaters
will no longer be restricted to showing just the blockbusters in
order to break even).
There are anumber of reasons, however, why the next phase in

this digital revolution will not happen as quickly as production has
"gone digital." First, a number of digital formats are competing to be
the new standard. Until an industry standard emerges, a process that
could take at least a decade,digital distribution and exhibition will
continue to be limited to a small number of cinemas in major metro
politan areas.53 Also, studios are wary of the security issues involved in
digital distribution —piracy of films over networks would run ram
pant without secure servers and encryption technology, and even with
those precautions security could not be guaranteed. Finally, theater
chains have been resistant to convert to digital projection. The costs
to convert from a traditional 35 mm platter projection system to an
all-digital projection system are currently estimated at $150,000 per
screen. Financially strapped exhibitors have little cash to invest in

new projection systems right now — in 2000 and 2001, ten theater
chains, including industry giants such as Loews, United Artists, and
Carmike, filed for bankruptcy due to over-expansion and decreasing
profits from ticket sales.54 Although Technicolor Digital Cinema (a
joint venture of Technicolor and QualComm) offered to underwrite
the costs of converting 1,000 theaters to digital projection systems,
this gesture did not encourage the majority of exhibitors to immedi
ately jump on the digital cinema bandwagon.55 One can trace much of
the exhibitors' hesitation to fears not only of cost, but also of adopting
a technology before industry standards for digital projection were in
place. Their fears may well have been justified, as it was not until 2005
that the Digital Cinema Initiative, the intrastudio consortium created
to establish digital projection standards, announced that it had com
pleted its work.56
Despite these initial roadblocks, it seems evident that the transition
to digital distribution and projection is progressing slowly but surely, if
not as soon as was first predicted by its proponents. At some point in
the near future, many, if not will be produced, distributed,
most films
and exhibited digitally. The field of film preservation will soon need to
consider the ramifications of trying to preserve digital films.
At this writing, most film archivists have little or no practical
experience with preserving digital formats, particularly those who
work in the noncommercial sector. Some organizations may be begin
ning to collect some materials stored digitally (on either magnetic
disks or tape), but preservation actions have largely consisted of trying
to keep those materials stored in the correct environmental condi
tions. If they
want to continue to take an active role in saving moving
image cultural heritage, however, it is crucial for film archivists to
familiarize themselves with the myriad difficulties of preserving digi
tal moving images. With the exception of the Library of Congress,
few archives have any sort of long-range plan for the preservation of
digital materials, outside of those commercial organizations that have
put in place digital asset management systems.57
Digital moving images new challenges for film
represent
archivists. Howard Besser has identified five difficulties to ensuring
the longevity of such digital objects: problems of viewing, scrambling,
inter-relation, custodianship, and translation.58 It is interesting to look

at these problems as they affect the future of digital film preservation.
1. The Viewing Problem (obsolete formats)
Film archivists, unlike television archivists, have had the luxury of

fairly stable image formats up until now. 35 mm film has been the
industry standard for over one hundred years, and 16 mm and 8 mm,
though not as viable as they once were, are still accessible formats
because viewing equipment is still widely available for them. Digital
formats show no such signs of stability, however. In the last fifteen
years there have been over twenty-five different professional, indus
trial, educational, and consumer digital moving image formats. The
rate of obsolescence for these formats guarantees that most of the
moving images captured with earlier technology (such as the di, D2,
D3, UniHi, and dct formats) will be lost unless they can be migrated
to another more recent format.
2. The Scrambling Problem (compression and encryption formats)
Because of storage constraints and narrow bandwidth, most of the

moving image file formats promoted commercially use compression
schemes to reduce the size of data files. Lossy compression, in which
some amount of image data is discarded during the compression
process, is considered unacceptable by most archivists for the purposes
of preserving moving images. Unfortunately, for archivists, many digi
tal moving images have been stored in lossy compression formats. Few
archives, outside of the studios, will be able to store uncompressed
moving images until costs of storage come down considerably.
Another problem is encryption. Encryption schemes are used by
commercial interests to protect files from being accessed without
authorization. Without the key to the encryption scheme, future users
may be unable to access many moving image files. As Besser points
out, "It's difficult to believe that all the pieces of a complex container
architecture (which rely both on encryption and on the continuing

existence of an authority that can approve a payment transaction and
release the appropriate key to decrypt the file) will survive long enough
to ensure access to a digital file for more than a decade."59 Both com
pression and encryption present potential barriers to preservation.
3. The Inter-relation Problem
Motion pictures are composite artifacts. Filmmakers combine shots

into sequences, then add soundtracks, titles, and special effects. The
production and distribution of film generates many inter-related ele
ments: camera negative, work prints, sound negatives, fine grains,
duplicate negatives, answer prints, and projection prints are just a few
of the possible elements that are generated when a film is made.
Archivists familiar with these many generations and pieces of
are
film, because they are always in search of the earliest generation of

material from which to preserve. Digital filmmaking will add even
more components to the filmmaking process, and the relationship
among these components will not be as easy to discern as with film.
To properly identify the different pieces that make up the final ver
sion of a film, and place them in context with other parts, archivists
will need to create systems that use complex metadata schemas. To
take a classic example that illustrates the importance of metadata,
consider when production companies began to use videotape for the
post-production of television series. Those companies aired final ver
sions of episodes on tape, and never bothered to cut the negative of
the original film to match the editing of the taped version. They also
did not bother to keep a record of their edls (editing decision lists).
Today, the videotapes of the final versions are deteriorating, but when
the companies went back to the film to preserve the episodes they
realized that they had no idea how to reconstruct it from the uncut
negatives. These sorts of problems will continue unless metadata such
as edls are kept.
4. The Custodial Problem
Who will take responsibility for the care of digital moving images?
Copyright holders now expected to take responsibility for the
are
preservation of their motion pictures. Given the proprietary attitude

displayed by copyright holders in the digital realm (for example, the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act), it is unlikely that most main
stream Hollywood films will ever become a large part of noncommer
cial archive collections in digital form (unless "hard copies" of the
films are placed there on deposit as part of a strategy of geographic
separation).60 The natural role of noncommercial archives may likely

be as for the "orphans" of the digital world — those films
repositories
which have been abandoned by their copyright owner.
Moving image archivists will need to be much more proactive in
developing and maintaining digital collections than they have had to
be with film collections because of the difficulties of ensuring the
authenticity of digital files. Besser states that "when works are subject
to repeated acts of refreshing as most approaches to digital longevity
propose. . . , these traditional ways of ensuring authenticity break
down. Files repeatedly copied to new strata face the likelihood that
changes will be introduced into these files, and we know little about
how to control mutability across repeated refreshments."61 Film
archivists who want to restore a particular version of the film will
want to know that they have "uncorrupted" versions of the digital files
used to make the film, thus they will have to devise ways in which to
guarantee that the chain of custody, and thus the authenticity of the
film, has not been broken.62
5. The Translation Problem
Film archivists have been dealing with the problems of translating

film to other formats for many years. When videotape became a
widely-used consumer format, many film archivists and scholars
roundly condemned its use as a substitute for the original films
because of its of the original image and its inability to
degradation
accurately reproduce the colors of the original.63 Michael Friend has
commented that
Preservation is not just a technical activity. Although the primary

element of preservation work is the film, archivists are also con
cerned with the context, the culture of cinema. Film preservation
ists must be concerned not just with the absolute quality of the
image, but with its authenticity, with the presentation of the film
image in conditions which approximate the ideal viewing ambient
of the historical motion picture. Therefore, film preservation is not
just the retention of an image, or an acceptable or approximate
image, but requires the production of a historical image (the origi
nal image, as a correlate of the original viewing experience and
medium). While new media such as video are extremely important
tools for access and increasingly for preservation, the motion picture
archivist must be able to show film, in a theater, to an audience.64
Archivists likely to have the same reaction to films migrated to

are
digital formats that they did to video. And even for films that origi
nate in a digital format, one must consider the purpose for which the
film was created: feature films are usually made to be shown in a the
ater. Although archivists understand the importance of digital for

mats for increasing films that may otherwise never be
access to rare
seen by users, they also remain committed to preserving the context

in which they must be seen. This stance may become more difficult to
maintain over the long-term, as consumer preference to see films at
home on dvd and other digital formats shapes film production and
distribution practices.65
Chapter 2 Notes
1 Anthony Slide, Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United States
(Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1992); Penelope Houston, Keepers of the Frame: The Film
Archives (London: British Film Institute, 1994).
2 Richard Pearce-Moses, A Glossary ofArchival and Records Terminology (Chicago: Society of
American Archivists, 2005), 30. See also Bellardo's definition: "The documents created or
received and accumulated by a person or organization in the course of the conduct of affairs,
and preserved because of their continuing value. Historically, the term referred more narrowly
to the noncurrent records of an organization or institution preserved because of their contin
uing value." Lewis J. Bell ardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo, A Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript
Curators, and Records Managers (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1992), 3.
3 Slide, Nitrate Won't Wait, x.

4 It can be argued that filmic artifacts received in archives and special collections as a part of
larger collections of papers and other media should be treated as archival records in the
Pearce-Moses definition of the word, but institutions must be careful so that these moving
images are in fact "by-products" and not "products" in their own right. To use a somewhat
silly example: would an archive receiving the papers of a "widget" factory consider the
widgets themselves as archival records? Probably not, although many archives have
nonetheless accepted such products in their collections with great regularity.
5 Ernst Lindgren, "The Importance of Film Archives," Penguin Film Review 5 (1948): 47.
6 Houston, Keepers of the Frame, 2-3.
7 FIAF, Statuts et Reglement Interieur [Constitution and Internal Rules] (n.p.: FIAF, 1968), 3.
8 FIAF, "Code of Ethics," http://www.fiafnet.org/uk/members/ethics.cfm (accessed March
7, 2006). See also Karen F. Gracy, "Film and Television Preservation Concerns Come of
Age: An In-Depth Report on the Second Preservation Intensive Institute," Library Hi
Tech News 117 (1994): 1.
9 The term "film library" is often used in the commercial sector to denote either studio or
stock footage collections. In the noncommercial sector, the term is usually used to denote
circulating collections, e.g., the Museum of Modern Art's Circulating Film Library.
10 Ray Edmondson, Audiovisual Archiving: Philosophy and Principles (Paris: UNESCO, 2004), 24.
11 John Feather, Graham Matthews, and Paul Eden, Preservation Management: Policies and
Practices in British Libraries (Aldershot, England: Gower, 1996), 5.
12 Pearce-Moses, A Glossary ofArchival and Records Terminology, 304-305. See also Bellardo
and Bellardo, who define preservation as "the totality of processes and operations involved
in the stabilization and protection of documents against damage or deterioration and in
the treatment of damaged or deteriorated documents. Preservation may also include the
transfer of information to another medium, such as microfilm." {A Glossary for Archivists,
Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers, p. 3).
13 Library of Congress, Redefining Film Preservation: A National Plan (Washington: Library
of Congress, 1994), 5.
14 Library of Congress, Film Preservation 1993: A Study of the Current State ofAmerican Film
Preservation (Washington: Library of Congress, 1993), 1:5.
15 Tom McGreevey and Joanne L. Yeck, Our Movie Heritage (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press, 1997), 115.
17 Ibid.
1 8 Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1993), 42.
19 For an overview of profits made on rereleases of classic Hollywood films in the 1990s, see
Karen F. Gracy, "Coming Again to a Theater Near You: The Lucrative Business of
Recycling American Film Heritage," Stanford Humanities Review 7, no.2 (1999): 180-91.
20 Library of Congress, Film Preservation 1993, 1:19-20.
21 Ibid., 1:20.
22 Ibid., 1:22.
23 Ibid., 1:28.
24 The Orphan Film Symposium website, which includes some conference proceedings, may
be found at: http://www.sc.edu/filmsymposium/.

26 Library of Congress, Redefining Film Preservation, 25-26.
27 For more information on these archive founders, consult the following works: Richard
Roud, A Passion for Films: Henri Langlois and the Cinematheque Francaise (New York
Viking Press, 1983; Reprint, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999); and,
James Card, Seductive Cinema: The Art of Silent Film (New York: Knopf, 1994).
28 Paolo Cherchi Usai, Burning Passions: An Introduction to the Study of Silent Cinema
(London: British Film Institute, 1994), 23-25.
29 Association of Moving Image Archivists, "Preservation Projects, Discoveries, and
Rereleases," AMIA Newsletter 35 (1997): 2.
30 Library of Congress, Film Preservation 1993, 1:16-32.

31 See statement by Josh Sapan, President of American Movie Classics, in Library of
Congress, Film Preservation 1993, 4:12-19.
32 It was hoped that the public and the film industry would each contribute $150,000, but
the industry fell far short of this goal, with only $5,000 in contributions in comparison to
$115,000 from the public. See Anthony Slide, "The Challenge of Film Preservation in the
1990s," in Advances in Preservation and Access, ed. Barbra Buckner Higginbotham
(Medford, N.J.: Learned Information, 1995), 2:280.
33 Susan King, "Gaining Ground in Film's Reel War," Los Angeles Times, June 16,2000,
Home ed., section F, p. 2.

35 These figures are for restoration using photochemical means; digital restoration, whereby
each frame of the film is scanned and corrected, would cost between $75,000 and
$250,000. Debra Kaufman, "Fine Prints," The Hollywood Reporter, Dec. 16, 2003, Lexis-
Nexis, via University of Pittsburgh Digital Library, http://www.library.pitt.edu/.
36 For a comprehensive review of federal funding for film preservation before the establishment
of the National Film Preservation Foundation, consult Sarah Ziebell Mann, "American
Moving Image Preservation, 1967-1987" (masters thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2000).
37 Steven Leggett, "Landmark Film Preservation Bill Becomes Law," AMIA Newsletter 34
(1996): 1.
38 Library of Congress, Redefining Film Preservation, 22.
39 Ray Zone, "Films With a Future," The Hollywood Reporter, 20 Nov. 2000, S-9.
41 Thomas Doherty, "No Longer Home Movies," Chronicle of Higher Education 52, no. 2
(Sept. 2, 2005), Bll, http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i02/02b01101.htm (Sept.7, 2005).
42 Figures taken from Appendix A of Abigail Leab Martin, ed.,AMIA Compendium of
Moving Image Cataloging Practice (Los Angeles: Association of Moving Image Archivists;
Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2001), 187-215.
44 Reversal stock is a type of film which is often used in 8 and 16 mm filmmaking. Unlike
regular camera stock, when reversal stock is developed the result is a positive print ready
for projection, not a negative.
46 Stephen G. Nichols and Abby Smith, The Evidence in Hand: Report of the Task Force on the
Artifact in Library Collections (Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information
Resources, 2001), 100.
47 In the United States and Canada, film archivists number fewer than 1000 practitioners,
according to 2005 membership statistics from the Association of Moving Image Archivists.
48 Statistics gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that in 2002, approximately
22,000 individuals held jobs as archivists, curators, or museum technicians; roughly
167,000 were employed as librarians. See United States, Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook (Washington: Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2004), http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos068.htm.
49 The film laboratories of the Library of Congress and the National Archives and Records
Administration are currently located in Dayton, Ohio, but the Library is building a new
facility in Culpeper, Virginia, the National Audiovisual Conservation Center, which is due
to open in 2006.
50 Several of the larger archives, such as the Museum of Modern Art and the Library of
Congress, have built or used storage facilities outside metropolitan areas due to municipal
regulations barring the storage of nitrate film within city limits.
51 Library of Congress, Redefining Film Preservation: A National Plan, 18.
52 See Paolo Cherchi Usai, "First School of Film Preservation Opens," AMIA Newsletter 34
(1996): 10.
53 As of this writing, only about one hundred movie screens have been converted to digital
projection out of the approximately 35,000 screens in the United States. Michael Hiltzik,
"Digital Projection: Cost Vs. Clarity," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 1, 2005, C1.
54 Elwin Green, "Big Screen Boom Goes Bust," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 4, 2005, C1.
55 Carl DiOrio, "Techies Pitching 'Digital-For-A-Dime,'" Daily Variety, Mar. 8, 2001, 1.
56 See Digital Cinema Initiatives, Digital Cinema System Specification, version 1 (Hollywood,
Calif: Digital Cinema Initiatives, 2005), http://www.dcimovies.com/DCI_Digital_
Cinema_System_Spec_vl.pdf (accessed September 5, 2005).
57 For more information on the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Digital
Preservation Project, which encompasses the Library of Congress' research to develop pro
totypes for repositories of digital moving images and other types of digital material, please
consult the following website: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/.
58 Howard Besser, "Digital Longevity," in Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool
ed. Maxine Sitts (Andover, Mass.: Northeast Document
for Preservation and Access,
Conservation Center, 2000), 155-66.
59 Besser, "Digital Longevity," 158-59.
60 See chapter 7 for a definition of geographic separation.

61 Besser, "Digital Longevity," 161.
62 I am assuming that archivists would not be interested in "bootleg" copies of films (a pre
sumption that may in fact be incorrect).
63 John Beltonet al., "Statement on the Use of Video in the Classroom by the Society for
Cinema Studies Task Force on Film Integrity," Cinema Journal 30, no. 4 (1991): 3-6.
64 Michael Friend, "Film/Digital/Film,"/oarn<»/o/"F<7m Preservation 50 (1995): 44.
65 Anthony Breznican and Gary Strauss, "Where Have All the Moviegoers Gone?" USA
Today,]xme 23,2005, 1D; Sean Smith, "Coming to a Theater Near You," Newsweek.,
August 8, 2005, 52.
The Economics of Film Preservation
Raymond Borde, of the Cinematheque de Toulouse, once said that

"les cinematheques s'emploient a conserve ce que l'industrie du film
s'emploie a detruire."1 In this succinct statement, Borde sums up the
tensions between the film industry and film archives. In the eyes of
the studios, films are only physical manifestations of intellectual
property, aproperty that owners can dispose of as they see fit. In the
past, that properly was destroyed, rather than left to fall in the hands
of "pirates," archivists apparently being confused with black-market
thieves. Studios did not distinguish between archivists and collectors,
since many of the first film archivists were past collectors and tended
to maintain relations with that community.
For most of the past seventy years, the motion picture industry
has treated film archives with a certain amount of suspicion. In the
early years of their existence, archives encountered great difficulty in
their attempts to procure materials directly from the studios.
Hollywood was reluctant to give copies of films to archives for several
reasons, all of which revolve around the concern about losing control
over their intellectual properly. Most simply, they feared that archives
would become lax about the films in their possession, cheerfully mak
ing copies for anybody who might ask for them. Although the rela
tionship between the studios and archives has warmed considerably
in the last decade, due largely to the necessity for cooperation among
them to accomplish organizational preservation goals, it is clear that
studios intend to maintain tight control over those films for which
they hold the rights.
Public Culture, Private Property2

The motion picture industry functions as a part of the market for
information-based goods. It controls access to filmed entertainment
through multiple distribution channels. Theater exhibition, videocas-

sette rentals and sales, pay-per-view, cable television, and broadcast
television provide the main sources of revenue for this industry. As
Ronald Bettig points out, "due to the peculiar nature of information
and cultural commodities, markets for information-based goods and
services are inefficient and prone to failure."3 Bettig, citing W. Curtiss
Priest, calls this problem of the intellectual property market, "inap-
propriability," whereby "property owners have difficulty 'receiving the
full market compensation for the creation of information due to the
problem of exclusion'"4 (exclusion being defined as the act of restrict
ing access to information to those individuals who are willing to com
pensate the owner for such access).5
Referring to the work of Nicholas Garnham,6 Bettig identifies
five strategies ("mechanisms") that intellectual property owners use to
deal with the problem of "exclusion" in marketing informational
goods. These strategies are:
1. Copyright
2. Control of access to consumption at the direct point of sale
(e.g., the box office)
3. Built-in obsolescence through the manipulation of time
4. Bundling (e.g., creation, packaging, and sale of audiences to
advertisers)
5. State patronage
Bettig notes that
the evolution of these mechanisms represents the filmed entertain

ment industry's private efforts to incorporate various communica
tions technologies (i.e., television, cable television, videocassettes,
into its marketing structure. However, in each case
and satellites)
government-defined and -mandated copyrights and related 'neigh
boring' rights serve as the guarantee upon which private mecha
nisms are built. Copyright laws therefore serve to regulate the flow
of communications and information through various industry sec
tor and communications hardware. Copy, distribution, and per
formance rights permit the transfer of ownership claims and
thereby facilitate the realization of exchange value from informa
tional and cultural commodities. The critical moment in this
The Economics of Film Preservation 47
process ... is when new technologies for embodying and distribut

ing intellectual and artistic creativity are introduced, and, in turn,
generate struggles over who should be able [to] reap the benefits
from their use — actual creators, copyright owners, or consumers.7
Motion picture copyright holders react to new technologies by

extending the power of the mechanisms for exclusion, which gives
them the opportunity to use new technologies "in a marketing
sequence that permits them to squeeze the most revenue out of each
use of its product."8 Although initially threatened by such technolo
gies as television, cable television, and the videocassette recorder,
copyright holders eventually used these technologies to increase their
profits. By the 1990s, Hollywood began to collect more profit from
ancillary markets than they did from theatrical release revenues.9
Content owners have focused their attention recently on defining
their rights in the face of digital technology Digital (the 1998
Millennium Copyright Act), as well as on the extension of term of
copyright protection (the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act). The
latter legislation has direct implications for cultural institutions such
as film archives. Copyright term extension allows owners to take
advantage of another aspect of informational and cultural commodi
ties — what Bettig calls its "nondepletability." Briefly, "nondepletabil-
ity" means that "information is not depleted when it is consumed,
unlike other raw materials such as oil or coal."10-11 Owners can "recycle"
filmed entertainment through ancillary markets, often by releasing
multiple versions of the same product. Thus, consumers can buy the
initial release of a video or dvd, or if they wait a little while, the
"director's cut" will come out soon enough.12 As long as they can find
someone to pay for the privilege of viewing or re-viewing the product,
they can generate a profit. Additionally, because the marginal costs of
reproducing and distributing information and cultural products
approach zero (origination costs being high in comparison to repro
duction and distribution costs), media capitalists can benefit from
economies of scale in the production and distribution of such goods.
Ted Turner put it in the most crude of terms: after acquiring the mgm
film library, he commented, "we've got Spencer Tracy and Jimmy
Cagney working for us from the grave."13
It is in the best interests of owners to maintain a copyright on

their products for as long as possible, because they will be able to col
lect revenues on those products as long as they are perceived to be a
commodity by consumers. However, it was not always the case that

owners saw films as having "nondepletability." Before the era of tele
vision, cable, and vcrs, studios were convinced that most films were
worthless after their run in theaters ended. Hence, they often destroyed
prints, keeping only the original negatives and master positives, on
the off-chance that they might be needed in the future, and not tak
ing expert care of what they did retain. In particular, silent films were
held in such disregard that little remains of the original production
elements, which were either destroyed or allowed to disintegrate.
When film archives began to ask for copies of films that were no
longer in distribution, studios were suspicious. What did the archives
want to do with these films? Iris Barry visited Hollywood in 1935 to
ask the major Hollywood studios if they would donate films to the
newly-created Film Library of the Museum of Modern Art. She
relates that
This visit proved vastly agreeable but was, in a sense, a wild goose
chase. We soon realized that, perhaps understandably, no one there
cared a button about "old" films, not even his own last-but-one, but
was solely concerned with his new film now in prospect. Some
thought we wanted to do good to long-suffering children by show
ing them things like The Lost World, which of course was not the
Some certainly thought that we stood for some kind of racket.
case.
And what was "modern art"? The days were still distant when to
have a Rouault in the drawing-room became a "must." That the
Museum of Modern Art ardently desired Buster Keaton's The
Navigator seemed very odd.14
She later realized that "the way ... lay not through Hollywood
but through New York, where real control of the industry resided in
the hands of the big corporations, the lawyers, the banks."15
Eventually, Barry obtained prints from the studios, but their use was
governed by a strict contract, which allowed only non-profit screen
ings of the deposited films.
In the late fifties through the seventies, studios came to trust
archives as repositories for their older films. This change in attitude
had more to do with the rising costs of storing nitrate film than with
a desire to enrich the collections of film archives. Studios began to
deposit portions of their film libraries in archives, but they did not
sign over their copyright. Essentially, the studios relieved themselves
of the financial burdens of maintaining the material objects — the
films themselves — while retaining their rights over the intellectual
content of those objects. It is doubly ironic to note that the public is
picking up the tab for much of the upkeep on this private property.16
Deposit agreements also affect archives' preservation programs.

When archives began to tackle the problem of preservation, they ran
afoul of copyright restrictions that did not allow them to copy
deposited films for the purposes of preservation. The 1976 Copyright
Act articulated "fair use" provisions for archives copying deteriorating
films for preservation purposes,17 but access —increasingly considered
a part of the preservation process
—is
still restricted to on-site study
for copyrighted films. Archives must obtain the permission of copy
right owners before exhibiting films, even those for which they have
spent many thousands of dollars preserving. In recent years, some, but
not all, copyright owners have begun to help pay for the costs of stor
age as archives renegotiate deposit agreements.18
Because intellectual property issues pose so many pitfalls for film
archives, the Library of Congress recommends that federal film
preservationfunding be allocated toward preserving "orphan films":
"works without clearly defined owners or belonging to commercial
interests unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their long-term
care."19 This recommendation has benefits and drawbacks. Archives
can thus preserve otherwise neglected cultural heritage, but adopting
such a policy will leave preservation of most commercial material up to
the whims of copyright holders, who may have different standards and
priorities for preservation than archives. The recent passage of the
Preservation of Orphan Works Act, part of the Family Entertainment
and Copyright Act of 2005, grants cultural institutions additional
power to preserve orphan works. However, film archives and others
will still face significant roadblocks to saving many of these works, as
the guidelines for determining the status of orphan works (i.e., due
diligence) and for compensating owners if the use of a copyrighted
work is contested, have only recently been addressed by the U.S.

Copyright Office; they have not yet resulted in new legislation as of

this writing.20 Until these suggestions are codified into law, most insti
tutions will refrain from "putting their necks out" to preserve works
with questionable copyright status. As American University copyright
scholar Peter Jaszi has commented, "One of the main findings that
emerged from conversations with prospective users of 'orphan work' is
that the main bottleneck to making these available lies not with indi
vidual artists or scholars, but with so-called gatekeepers. These risk-
averse institutional actors have more to lose, in economic and
reputational terms, than do individuals from a choice to use a work

without explicit authorization. As a result, gatekeepers tend to
embrace the cautious rule of 'Just say no.'"
21
To sum up the economic realities of the relationship between the

motion picture industry and film archive, I return to Bettig, who
states that
given that economies of scale and scope, strong copyright-based

control of derivative uses, and the inherent uncertainty and risk in
producing information and cultural products all enhance the ten
dency toward concentration, it is clear that social efficiency, in
terms of access to and use of informational and cultural products, is
indeed threatened by private intellectual property rights.22
In simpler terms, copyright holders desire to control when, where, and

how their moving images are viewed, and as a result, intellectual and
artistic creativity diminishes. Cultural institutions traditionally aid
individuals in gaining works, but the restrictions imposed by
access to
the content industry inhibit them to a great degree from providing

adequate access to heritage, especially moving image heritage.
The Market for Cultural Objects

I have focusedin the above section on intellectual property, but I
would like to open up the discussion to look at a more general prob
lem with the economic system of equating price and value for cultural
objects. Although I give a brief overview of the traditional market-
driven approach to the valuation of cultural heritage below, I am
particularly interested in looking at recent scholarship that calls neo-
classic economics into question as the ideal method for determining
the value of culture.
In the area of cultural economics, there have been two major

strands of theory on the valuation of culture. The first school of
thought aligns itself closely with neoclassical economics, and pro
motes the concepts of market and supply and demand as the ideal
methods for determining the value of cultural objects. Adherents to

this school believe that value is extrinsic to the object, and that price
is the best indicator of aesthetic value. One of the most prominent
proponents of this view, William D. Grampp, states that
An object— good, service, or whatever— has economic value if it

yields utility. If it is a work of art, the utility is aesthetic. If it is
something else, it yields another kind of utility, and that utility is its
economic value. To say that aesthetic value is "consistent" with eco
nomic value is to say no more than that the particular comes within
the general, or that aesthetic value is a formof economic value just
as every other form of value is.23
Grampp refuses to grant aesthetic value any special status, insisting

that the market is indeed the best arbiter of value.
The above stance reflects a definition of value which is termed
"utilitarian" or "instrumental," i.e., "that quality of thing according to
which it is thought as being more or less desirable, useful, and impor
tant Here the value of art is always related to specific purposes or
. . .
uses, which lie outside the realm of art or aesthetic experience."24 The
economic or market value of art — the price an individual is willing to
pay for an artwork
— can be seen as an instance of the instrumental
meaning of value.
The emphasis on utility would appear to be in direct opposition
to what has been called the "aesthetic" meaning of value, i.e., "that
which is desirable or worthy of esteem for its own sake."25 In this
for the purposes of contemplation and
sense, art objects exist solely
appreciation; any consideration of its worth in economic terms sullies

the value of the aesthetic experience.
Antoon Van den Braembussche describes these two seemingly
opposing definitions as a false binarism, preferring to see them as
only two competing discourses among many other possibilities.26 By
moving beyond the "either/or" argument between art as a commodity
or as a priceless aesthetic experience, we can begin to see value as
merely a construct that is reliant upon many factors.

This development represents a new trend in cultural economics:
the consideration of "intangible" elements in defining value. According
to Arjo Klamer,
one reason for not taking the neoclassical road is that in the end it
may turn out to be unable to incorporate the cultural dimension and
so will fail us in providing an understanding of how collectives come
to adopt objects and subjects as part of their cultural heritage.27
In its emphasis on the tangible products of cultural activity, econom

ics has for the most part ignored the web of relationships that influ
ences the production of value.
To illustrate his point, Klamer uses the example of the movement
to preserve windmills in the Netherlands. It may surprise many read
ers tofind out in fact that the mills were not considered part of Dutch
cultural heritage until quite recently. In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century, most Dutch people thought of windmills as out
moded technology that had outlived its usefulness. Embracing wind
mills as a symbol of the Netherlands came about after World War II,
when led by the Dutch Mill Society succeeded in having
a campaign
the mills declared national monuments. By the late twentieth century,

the windmill had come to be as identifiable with the Netherlands as
the Eiffel Tower is to Paris.

Klamer points out that this story of the Dutch windmills con
tains a particular discourse on value. The utility of the mills to gener
ate power and aid production of goods was not important in modern
times, since the Netherlands had adopted newer technologies to do
these tasks. The Dutch were persuaded to symbolic value of see the
the windmills because it was presented as a part of their national

identity. As Klamer puts "The Dutch taste for mills was not
it,
given. People needed to be persuaded not to let the mills go, but to
make an effort on their behalf. They needed to learn to see that the
mills beautiful and therefore worth saving even that will
if
are are
slow the pace of progress."28 One could write similar story for the
a
reassessment of the value of motion pictures, and the budding film

preservation movement.
In his work Klamer emphasizes social values, being informed

largely by anthropological definitions of culture. He is especially con
cerned with what he calls "reciprocity," whereby individuals cultivate
relationships that do not depend upon quidpro quo. Refuting the neo
classical emphasis on individual action and the "moment of choice,"
(the moment when a valuation is made) he suggests that economists

should begin to look at collective action and the "process of delibera
tion," whereby notions of value develop and are sustained.
As one might imagine, Klamer 's suggestions for abandoning neo
classical economics are not embraced by the more traditional scholars
in cultural economics. Ruth Towse accuses him of trying to "throw
out the baby with the bath water," and maintains that the success of
the neoclassical paradigm can be attributed in large part to its predic
tive power. She scoffs that "it has avoided breast-beating over 'intrinsic'
value by equating market price with value. That is not always com
fortable to live with when applied to life and death, love and art."29
If Towse is averse to Klamer 's suggestions that economists should
reconsider their definition of culture and embrace multiple notions of
value, she is probably equally disinclined to find favor with the
Marxist perspectives of postmodern scholars such as David Ruccio,
Julie Graham, and Jack Amariglio, who go one step further. They
suggest that economists need to completely sever the connection
between value and reality, proclaiming that
value has no universal ontological referent . . . The idea that all so-
called economic or aesthetic events must either reduce to or contain
a value component is often defended on the grounds that value is
universal and ubiquitous in the sense that it is given to discourse by
the objects or subjects themselves. The "naturalness" of value is then
proposed as stemming from either its objectivity or subjectivity.
These positions are precisely ones we wish to elude in theorizing
value as discursive.30
The authors explain that certain discourses on value, most promi-

nently the economic and aesthetic varieties, have been useful for the
purpose of ensuring the stability of institutional structures. Thus cul
tural institutions have tended to embrace particular discourses as part
of their efforts to reify the dominant paradigm.

In of heritage conservation, with which one can align the

the area
film preservation movement, a number of scholars have encouraged a
critique of the aesthetic discourse that has been the dominant force
guiding conservation and restoration decisions. For example, David
Throsby encourages museum professionals to see value as multidi
mensional. He articulates a range of values to consider, including aes
thetic value (beauty, harmony), spiritual value (understanding,
enlightenment, insight), social value (connection with others, a sense
of identity), historical value (connection with the past), and symbolic
value (repository or conveyor of meaning).31 Throsby admits, how
ever, that it is difficult to establish the criteria for evaluating each
component within this range.
Susan Pearce goes even farther in her critique, suggesting that
cultural heritage is "constructed" —a
process of selection of those
objects which reflect particular ideologies.
Cultural heritage is cognitively constructed, as an external expres

sion of identity, operating in a range of ways and levels. It is a social
fact, and like all social facts, it is both passive and active. Its passiv
ity rests in its role as an arena of selection: most elements (of what
ever kind) do not make it into the heritage zone. Its activeness lies
in its influence: once particular elements are established as heritage,
they have a life of their own that affects people's minds and that
consequently affects their choices.32
In Pearce's view, which echoes the work of Mary Douglas on institu

tions, cultural heritage practices are those regulatory procedures that
reinforce identity, i.e., social classifications.33 Any individual or organ
ization that intends to be considered part of the cultural heritage
movement must reflect the status quo (the "hierarchy of relations"),
not challenge it. In future chapters, I will delve into the consequences
of this requirement for film archives, as they vie for position in the
cultural heritage field.
With this brief examination of both mainstream economic theory
of the
it,
and attempts to refute hope to have shown the inadequacy

I
economic explanation of how cultural resources, and indeed informa

tion goods in general, are valued. The following chapter will attempt
to delve further into the "symbolic economy" of the field of film
preservation, looking particularly at the initial instability of film

archives within the hierarchy of cultural institutions, and examining
the process by which archives have legitimated their position. As a
counterpoint to the above discussion of economic worth, I will also
look at the concept of value as it is applied to the process of appraisal
in the archival profession. In this realm, discussions over value reveal
similar arguments over whether value is either intrinsic or extrinsic,
leading to challenges of long-held notions about the objectivity of the
archival endeavor.
Chapter 3 Notes
1 "Film archives try to preserve what the film industry tries to destroy." Raymond Borde, Les
Cinematheques (Paris: Editions L'Age d'Homme, 1983), 15.
2 The author is indebted to Ronald V. Bettig's Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of
Intellectual Property (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996) for much of his discussion of
the economics of the motion picture industry.
3 Bettig, Copyrighting Culture, 80.

4 W. Curtiss Priest, The Character of Information: Characteristics and Properties of Information
Related to Issues Concerning Intellectual Property (Washington: Office of Technology
Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1985), 17. Cited in Bettig, Copyrighting Culture, 80. Nicholas
Garnham, Capitalism and Communication (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990), 40. Cited in
Bettig, Copyrighting Culture, 80.
5 One might say that archives that possess and exhibit prints of studio-owned films repre
sent a threat to studios' ability to exclude non-paying consumers.
6 Garnham, Capitalism and Communication.

8 Ibid., 94.
9 Janet Wasko, Hollywood in the Information Age (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), 3.
11 Braman discusses the "nondepletability" of information in "Defining Information: An

Approach for Policymakers," Telecommunications Policy 13, no. 3 (1989): 233-42.
12 Shapiro and Varian call this strategy for marketing information goods "versioning." See
Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian, "Versioning: The Smart Way to Sell Information,"
Harvard Business Review 76, no. 6 (1998): 106-14.
13 Stratford P. Sherman, "Ted Turner: Back From the Brink," Fortune, July 7, 1986, 28. Cited
in Bettig, Copyrighting Culture, 98.
14 Iris Barry, "The Film Library and How It Grew," Film Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1969): 22.
15 Ibid., 23.
16 Library of Congress, Film Preservation: A Study of the Current State ofAmerican Film
Preservation (Washington: Library of Congress, 1993) 1:53.
17 Ibid., 1:32.

of Congress, 1994)25.
19 Ibid.
20 Report on Orphan Works (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Copyright Office, 2006),
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf (accessed March 10, 2006).
SB Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
21 Bill Holland, "Orphan Songs," Billboard, May 14, 2005, Lexis-Nexis, via University of
Pittsburgh Digital Library, http://www.library.pitt.edu/.
23 William D. Grampp, Pricing the Priceless: Art, Artists, and Economics (New York: Basic,
1989), 21.
24 Antoon Van den Braembussche, "The Value of Art: A Philosophical Perspective," in The
Value of Culture: On the Relationship between Economics and Arts, ed. Arjo Klamer
(Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996), 35.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Arjo Klamer, "The Value of Cultural Heritage," in Economic Perspectives on Cultural
Heritage, ed. Michael Hutter and Ilde Rizzo (New York: St. Martin's, 1997), 77.
28 Ibid., 82.
29 Ruth Towse, "Market Value and Artists' Earnings," in The Value of Culture: On the
Relationship between Economics and Arts, ed. Arjo Klamer (Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 1996), 97.
30 David Ruccio, Julie Graham, and Jack Amariglio, "The Good, the Bad, and the Different':
Reflections on Economic and Aesthetic Value," in The Value of Culture: On the Relationship
between Economics and Arts, ed. Arjo Klamer (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press,
1996), 56-57.
31 David Throsby, "Economic and Cultural Value in the Work of Creative Artists," in Values
and Heritage Conservation, eds. Erica Avrami, Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre (Los
Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2000), 29.
32 Susan M. Pearce, "The Making of Cultural Heritage," in Values and Heritage Conservation,
eds. Erica Avrami, Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre (Los Angeles: Getty
Conservation Institute, 2000), 59.
33 Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1986).
Film Archives as Cultural Institutions
The recognition that film archives are in fact cultural institutions in

the same league as libraries, museums, and traditional archives did
not occur immediately after they first appeared in the 1930s. Rather,
this appreciation for film archives developed over several decades.
Many factors, both economic and social, have factored into this
process. This chapter considers this process carefully by first defining
the nature of cultural institutions as a whole, and then by placing film
archives within that tradition.
A Definition of Cultural Institution

The concept of cultural institution draws upon two strands of social
theory, one that examines the evolution of the meaning of culture,
and the other which establishes how institutions develop and func
tion in society. Clearly, the term cultural institution is an amalgama
tion of those two separate concepts, but as the definitions of culture
and institution can be ambiguous and multi-faceted, so too can be the
concept of the cultural institution. By exploring the diverse nuances
of meaning implied by the constituting terms, one may arrive at an
operational definition for cultural institutions that provides cues for
the identification of such social structures.
To begin, I shall endeavor to articulate the meaning of culture as
is suggested by the words cultural institution. Any attempt to define

culture is bound to be frustrating. A survey of literature shows that
there is little consensus among social theorists about the definitionof
the concept. Over the course of the last four centuries, the meaning of
the word has evolved from a merely descriptive term, to one which is
loaded with value judgments, and lastly, to a concept which encom
passes an entire theoretical paradigm. Robert Bocock has provided a
helpful historical overview of the development of the word:1'2

1. In the fifteenth century, culture referred to the cultivation of

crops or the tending of animals. Although this meaning has
largely disappeared from common usage, even today this defi
nition is used in the biological and medical sciences to refer to
the practice of growing microorganisms such as bacteria in a
controlled environment (e.g., a yogurt culture).
2. In the early sixteenth century, the word culture came to be used

to refer to the cultivation of the human mind. Over the course
of the next two centuries, its meaning acquired overtones of
class, and divisions between high and low culture began to
appear. Indeed, many people use this definition in an evaluative
way, rather than just a descriptive sense. For example, to call
someone "cultured" generally means that that person is knowl
edgeable about what is considered to be high culture. In this
way, taste and culture are closely related concepts.
of culture and hierarchy is a problematic
However, the alliance
one, since it has the effect of reifying social categories, and
dehistoricizing cultural categorization practices. Such historians
as Lawrence Levine have critiqued this unthinking marriage of
culture and hierarchy. In his study about the status of Shake

speare in nineteenth and twentieth century societies, Levine
found that Shakespeare, an icon of elite culture, was once
enjoyed and celebrated by the masses, not just by the upper
classes. Yet, this nineteenth century history of mass consump
tion of Shakespeare was carefully obliterated in the process of
elevating Shakespeare to highbrow culture status. Levine
reveals that
because the primary categories of culture have been the prod

ucts of ideologies which were always subject to modifications
and transformations, the perimeters of our cultural divisions
have been permeable and shifting rather than fixed and
immutable. To accept this thesis is to accept a picture of the
American cultural past and present that departs considerably
from the images most of us have learned to accept, which is
never an easy thing to do.3
Film Archives as Cultural Institutions 59
Yet, cultural institutions gain power

as we shall see below,
and position from those very factors critiqued by Levine: the

reification and dehistoricization of cultural categorization
practices.
3. Beginning in the late eighteenth century, another definition of

culture emerged, one that would be adapted by social theorists. In
this definition, culture refers to the "general secular process of
social development."4 As originally envisioned by Enlightenment
thinkers, social development was universal and linear, with
European society representing the pinnacle of social develop

ment. However, this view of society was criticized by the German
philosopher Herder and others as Eurocentric. Such critique led
to a more pluralistic vision of the concept of culture.
4. Thus the fourth definition of culture introduces the notion of

civilizations. For the first time, culture is thought of in the plu
ral: cultures.In this sense, the word cultures "refers to distinc
tive ways of life, shared values and meanings, common to
different groups — nations, classes, subcultures (as, for example,
in phrases like 'working-class culture' or 'bourgeois culture') —
and historical periods."5 This meaning is often considered to
be the anthropological definition of culture.
5. The final and most recent definition of culture to be articulated

comes from the field of social anthropology. For certain schol
ars, culture is social practice, rather than a tangible object (such
as the arts) or a state of being (such as a civilization). "Culture

of practices by which meanings are produced and
is the set
exchanged within a group."6 In particular, scholars such as

Claude Levi-Strauss and Ferdinand de Saussure have empha
sized that the study of language practices provides the most
important cues for studying a culture (the concept of language
including not only words, but other symbolic systems as well).
Having reviewed the various definitions of culture, the question

remains, "When speaking of cultural institutions, to which kind of
culture I am referring?" One could make an argument for almost any

of the above definitions, except perhaps for the first meaning. But,
before becoming involved in a morass of comparisons of the validity
of different definitions of culture, it might be more fruitful to con
sider the context in which culture is used, that
is,
in conjunction with
the term institution. Perhaps the definition of culture in the sense of
cultural institution can only be determined an adjunct to the
is
as
it
concept of the institution
—in which case would be helpful to
it
return to these definitions of culture after have determined what
I
exactly are the functions of that latter social construct.
In both academic discourse and common parlance, the term insti
tution used ubiquitously to indicate stable and durable social
is
a
structure. To the average person, the word connotes images of mar
riage, school, or even prison. However, an institution does not have to
be associated with tangible entity, or even be codified through legal
a
means. Something as simple as handshake or cultural tradition

a
a
such as the annual family vacation qualifies as an institution.

In sociological terms, institution denotes "an organized, estab
lished, procedure."7 Further developing this bare-bones definition,
Ronald Jepperson tells us that:
Institutions are those social patterns that, when chronically repro

duced, owe their survival
relatively self- activating social
to
Their not dependent, notably, upon recur
is
processes. persistence
rent collective mobilization, mobilization repetitively reengineered
and reactivated in order to secure the reproduction of pattern.
a
by
That "action," in this strict

is,
institutions are not reproduced
sense of collective intervention in social convention. Rather, rou

a
tine reproductive procedures support and sustain the pattern, fur

thering its reproduction — unless collective action blocks, or
environmental shock disrupts, the reproductive process.8
In comparing the latter, more precise, definition to the former, more

generic definition, we see several elaborations. Institutions are not
just "organized procedures" —they
are "social patterns." Jepperson also
clarifies how the existence of institutions ensured once they are

is
established: institutions constantly replenish themselves through

"reproductive procedures."
The above definition does not explain in detail how institutions

either come into being or maintain their societal status, however.
What process transforms what is merely a convention into an institu
tion? Mary Douglas tells us that "for a convention to become a legiti
mate social institution it needs a parallel cognitive convention to
sustain it."9 Furthermore, she states that "the incipient institution
needs some stabilizing principle to stop its premature demise. That
stabilizing principle is the naturalization of social classifications."10
This naturalization of social classifications represents the repro
ductive procedures of which Jepperson speaks. Institutions sustain
themselves and the status quo of power relations in society by con
trolling access to a valuable resource: our collective memory (which
can be characterized by a variety of terms, including knowledge, cul
ture, etc.). In fact, society even imbues institutions with the power to
regulate thoughts and actions. Douglas enumerates several such func
tions which society has entrusted to institutions, including the con
ferral of identity, the classification of knowledge, and the ability to
make life or death decisions.
Those sociologists of a more Durkheimian, functionalist bent
argue that institutions are merely those social structures that minimize
entropy by reducing uncertainty. In an existence that offers endless pos
sibility for chaos, human beings instinctively embrace order, systemiza-

tion, and stability. In order to minimize the amount of uncertainty with
which we must deal on a daily basis, society formal organiza
creates
tions, regimes, and conventions that become reified as institutions to

regulate social interaction. By relying on institutions to maintain coher
ence, individuals thus relinquish primary authority to shape discourse.
But institutions merely entropy-reducing mechanisms? I
are
would argue that institutions have a larger role in society. They reflect
and reify the social status quo through their processes and practices;
therefore, they wield power over how society views itself and its cul
ture. Above all, institutions are information gatekeepers, sustaining
themselves through the systematic control of information classifica
tion and dissemination. Although gatekeeping is most commonly
seen as the province of human agents,11 institutional procedure and
practice usually underlay and guide the actions of human gatekeepers.

Douglas writes that
Institutions systematically direct individual memory and channel

our perceptions into forms compatible with the relations they
authorize. They fix processes that are essentially dynamic, they hide
their influence, and they rouse our emotions to a standardized pitch
on standardized issues. Add to all this that they endow themselves
with Tightness and send their mutual corroboration cascading
through all the levels of our information system.12
One may notice that the above description of institutions sug

gests a dark side to institutional control. As Foucault has pointed out,
institutions can be used as instruments of domination. In a similar
vein, Bourdieu has characterized institutions legitimating devices
as
that operate as instruments of differentiation, imposing what he

terms "symbolic violence" upon the "unconsecrated" members of soci
ety.13 Another social theorist, Anthony Giddens, has posited that
"structuresof signification always have to be grasped in connection
with domination and legitimation";14 however, he also sees one of the
primary functions of institutions to be as instruments of surveillance:
"Supervision may be direct (as in many of the instances discussed by
Foucault, such as prisons, schools, or open workplaces), but more
characteristically it is indirect and based upon the control of informa
tion."15 We shallbelow that this gatekeeping function is key to our
see
understanding of what cultural institutions are meant to accomplish.

Returning to the first part of this discussion, I deferred my selec
tion ofparticular connotation of the term culture, since I felt that its
a
meaning could only be explained in conjunction with the concept of

institution. Now that the other half of the equation has fallen into
place
—an exploration of the meaning of institution — the connota
tion of culture in the particular sense of cultural institution has
become more evident.
Cultural institutions came into being when society began to dis
tinguish between what does and does not constitute culture, both in
content and in practices. Recalling my earlier discussion of the differ
ent definitions of culture, the reader may note that the differentiation
between the cultured and those lacking culture, between high and low
culture, and lastly, between different cultures, began to emerge in the
age of Enlightenment, at about the same time as what has come to be

seen as the dawn of modern society. Keeping in mind this important
point surrounding the development of the meaning of culture, as well

as the recent discussion of the nature of institutions articulated above,
I offer the following definition of cultural institutions:
Cultural institutions are durable, stable formations that have

emerged in the modern era as a result of a need to naturalize and
reify the convention of differentiation between social classes.
Cultural institutions regulate the diffusion of knowledge, acting as
a gatekeeping mechanism for access to information as it exists in
tangible forms, and serving points for the legitimation of

as locus
knowledge systems. Inevitably, cultural institutions privilege certain

social classes and also privilege certain systems of knowledge over
others. This process of legitimation is seen as natural and logical by
both the empowered and disempowered social classes, thus ensur
ing the survival of the institution.
Although we likely to see cultural institutions

are most as physical
repositories for cultural objects, in fact such organizations as libraries,
museums, and archives are only the most discernible signifiers of

what acultural institution represents.
Given the above definition, how does the film archive classify as a
cultural institution? First of all, film archives legitimate the idea that
motion pictures are in fact objects worthy of collection. Indeed, film
archives came into being only when motion pictures became objects
of contemplation, rather than merely objects of consumption.16 Film
archives found acceptance when the intelligentsia began to embrace
the idea that motion pictures were worthy of study through frames of
reference such as "film as art," "film as history," or "film as social com
mentary."17 In her look back at the early history of the Film Library at
the Museum of Modern Art, Iris Barry noted that
a great featherin the Film Library's cap was gained through [a] lec
ture given by Erwin Panofsky — the art expert who adorned
Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies rather as Einstein did in
another field. The fact that Panofsky had evidently long studied
and esteemed movies, that he cited the pictures of Greta Garbo and
Buster Keaton as familiarly and learnedly as he customarily referred
to mediaeval paintings, really made a dent. What snob could ven
ture now to doubt that films were art?18
B4 Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
Although the consecration of film by the intelligentsia helped facili

tate the founding of film archives, certain tensions arose as a result of
placing a populist medium under the umbrella of cultural heritage.
High/Low Culture: The Position of Film Archives

in the Cultural Hierarchy
Film archives occupy a unique position in the field of cultural produc
tion. Within the hierarchy of relations, they straddle the socially-con
structed fence that separates high art and mass culture —a somewhat
precarious perch in many respects. By appointing themselves as the
legitimators of a genre of cultural objects whose status as art is itself

often contested, film archives occupy a weak position in the hierarchy
of cultural institutions. They must emulate the practices of older,
more established cultural institutions in order to be seen as authori
ties. What is the nature of high/low culture split, and how can the
film archive compensate for its perceived "inferiority" in relation to
more venerable cultural institutions?
Until quite recently, work on the split between high and low cul
ture seemed to consist largely of ideologically-driven polemics. In his
review of the literature of high and mass culture criticism, Kirk
Varnedoe characterized writings about the split as being composed of
two branches: one which critiques the effects of mass culture on soci
ety, the other which embraces its pluralism. Of the first tradition, he
states that it
rests on the idea that low, popular culture in modern society consti
tutes a separate, definable body of phenomena, with its own essen
tial nature, (however bastardized or inauthentic); and on the belief
that this nature is not just irredeemably inferior to the spirit of high
culture, but intrinsically noxious. The world of cheap pleasures is a
bad thing, we are told, because it supplants
something precious we
once had, or at least puts it in imminent danger of extinction. In
this view, popular culture is essentially parasitic in nature and
inevitably trivializes the true culture it draws upon.19
The writers who most closely embrace this tradition include Theodor
Adorno and Clement Greenberg,20 the first of whom places much of
blame for the decline of civilization on the intermingling of high and
low culture brought about by the operations of the "culture industry":
To the detriment of both it of high and

forces together the spheres
low art, separated for thousands of years. The seriousness of high
art is destroyed in speculation about its efficacy; the seriousness of
the lower perishes with the civilizational constraints imposed on
the rebellious resistance inherent within it as long as social control
was not yet total. Thus, although the culture industry undeniably
speculates on the conscious and unconscious state of the millions
towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary, but sec
ondary; they are an object of calculation, an appendage of the
machinery.21
For the very reason that Adorno finds mass culture threatening to the
cultural hierarchy, others feel that mass culture is a source of empow
erment, and they refute the bleak view offered up by mass culture the
orists.22 Varnedoe describes this second branch of thought, most often
found in the literature on popular culture, as "extolling democracy
itself as a primary value." The populists view the work of Adorno et
al. as "the work of
self-proclaimed elite out to impose false hierar
a
chies where no authentic ones exist."23 This orientation towards cul

ture leads to the idea that all culture should be valued equally, without
any discrimination made either between high and low culture or
among creations within any "type" of culture.
A more pertinent approach to understanding the processes by
which cultural systems function is provided by the work of Paul
DiMaggio and Vera Zolberg. They propose that the distinctions
between different kinds of culture arose more from the desire to pre
serve differences between the elite class and the middle and lower
classes than from the need to identify inherent distinctions between
high and low art forms.24
Establishing a Cultural Hierarchy

DiMaggio notes that in the United States, although preachers, edu
cators, and critics had begun to discern the difference between high
and popular art forms, the actual practice of separating serious art
from entertainment did not occur until after the Civil War. Following
the war, the city of Boston was the first to make an abstract distinc
tion into a reality, and it did not occur quickly or easily. DiMaggio
relates that
BB Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
A commercial elite, sons and daughters of merchant traders, were

forming a social class with its own institutions. Threatened from
without by upstate populists who sought to wrest control of
Harvard and other patrician institutions, and from within, so they
thought, by Irish immigrants and urban disorder, elements of this
class created institutions that would give life to the classification
high/popular. The process took forty years, beginning with the cre
ation of stable nonprofit institutions (above all the Museum of Fine
Art and the Boston Symphony Orchestra) and culminating in
purges of "impure" art from the museum's collection and the
orchestra's repertoire and in the construction of ritual and organiza
tional boundaries separating artist from audience, culture from
commerce, the tasteful from the tasteless.25
The upper-class Boston Brahmins maintained their elite status by

making a distinction between their cultural practices and those of
other groups. DiMaggio emphasizes that the high/low distinction is a
form of ritual classification and hierarchy which social groups use to
define boundaries and make sense of their world.
The division between
high and popular arts was firmly
entrenched by the turn of the twentieth century. The invention and
widespread distribution of motion pictures
inspired enthusiasm
among the masses and distaste among the cultural elite. Calls to ban
or censor films came from the middle and upper classes, particularly
from organized religion and the political Right, both of whom con
sidered moving pictures to be a pernicious influence, particularly
upon children.26 In truth, early motion pictures were more likely to be
used as aids for assimilation; the most common frequenters of nick
elodeons, at least in urban areas, were immigrants. The appeal of the
motion picture for the illiterate or immigrants lay in its purposed sim
ilarity to the legitimate theater.
. . . Dramatic subjects of this period were invariably reproductions

of stage plays.The players conducted themselves as though on the
stage
— from which most of them had come. The scenery was gen
erally painted, and the camera was rigid. Titles announced the con
tent of the scene. Little was left to the imagination.
But some of those crouched in the scented darkness of the nick

elodeon had never seen a play, and these films were a revelation.
Some, poorly paid workers, were illiterate. Others, penniless immi

grants, did not speak English. But the titles were read from the
screen aloud and translated dozen languages. It was Babel,
into a
but there were few who did not benefit. The commotion encour
aged the stranger; here was one place where he was accepted and
where he felt at ease. Gradually the little films taught him customs
and ways of life which had previously baffled him; they began to
extend his outlook and enlarge his interests. America's immigrant
population learned from the movies in a way denied them by the
spoken theater.27
Although motion picture producers made films of plays with the idea
of attracting those from the upper classes who had previously fre
quented the theater, this production trend had the added effect of
helping immigrants and others from the lower classes gain cultural
capital, allowing them the opportunity for upward mobility. This trend
towards a democratic form of entertainment may have been disturbing
to the elite who preferred to maintain the distinctions among the
classes through cultural divisions between high and popular culture.
The Institutionalization of Film as Cultural Artifact

Film archives concern themselves almost exclusively with tokens of
mass culture —cultural objects that are widely disseminated through
methods of mass reproduction. Only when motion pictures were con
sidered to be worthy of collection —part of the "cultural heritage" —
did film archives come into being. The rise of these institutions
reflected a new way of thinking about culture, and about art in partic
ular.The new methods of disseminating art through mass reproduc
tion led, in fact, to a transformation in the very nature of art itself;
they made the formerly sacrosanct qualities of art — authenticity and
uniqueness
—irrelevant. In his essay "The Work of Art in the Age of
Mechanical Reproduction" Walter Benjamin notes:
That which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the

aura of the work of art . . . The technique of reproduction detaches
the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making
many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique
existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder
or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object
B8 Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
reproduced. These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering of

tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary crisis and
renewal of mankind. Both processes are intimately connected with
the contemporary mass movements. Their most powerful agent is
the film. Its social significance, particularly in its most positive
form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic aspect, that
the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage.28
is,
One may infer from Benjamin's pronouncement that the new genres
of mass culture pose potential threat to the authority of the museum
a
to legitimate and sanctify art. The ritual aspect of the experience of
by
art, what Benjamin called its "cult value," new model
is
replaced
a
for experiencing art which consumption. Benjamin
emphasizes
termed the latter "exhibition value." Interaction with photography or
motion pictures infers an act of consuming the object rather than
contemplating it. This transformation represents kind of empower
a
ment to the masses, because they no longer need the "graduated and
hierarchized" mediation of the cultural institution to fully experience
the work of art.
Because of the transformative nature of genres such as motion
pictures and photography, not surprising that the elite initially
it
is
resisted incorporating such objects into their domain. By their origi

nal definition, only objects with distinguishable "aura" could be
a
identified Douglas Crimp argues that in reaction to the chal

as art.
lenge that mass culture represents, museums have redefined what

constitutes art. He suggests that museums try to "recuperate the
by
auratic" in the work of art reintroducing the concepts of authentic

by
ity and uniqueness and ascribing subjectivity to which may or

it
a
may not have been present before.
But how that photography has suddenly had conferred upon

is
it
it
an aura? How has the plentitude of copies been reduced to the

scarcity of originals? And how do we know the authentic from its
reproduction? Enter the connoisseur . . . the old-fashioned art his
torian with his chemical analyses and, more important, his stylistic
analyses. To authenticate photography requires all the machinery of
art history and museology, with few additions and more than
a
few sleights of hand.29

. . . The restoration of the aura, the consequent collecting and

exhibiting ... is extended to the carte-de-visite, the fashion plate,
the advertising shot, the anonymous snap or polaroid. At the origin
of each there is an Artist, and therefore each can find its place on
the spectrum of subjectivity.30
I would argue, however, that museums have not necessarily redefined

the nature of art itself. They attempt instead to fit motion pictures
and photography into their previous definition, embracing those
aspects of the genre that seem to match the older art forms while
turning a blind eye to the aspects which make no sense to them.
Thus, in the case of motion pictures, cultural institutions tend to
glorify the creator (be it individual director, motion picture studio, or
even "national cinema"), and cast a dim view on the more systemic or
mechanical aspects of production, distribution, and dissemination.
Only the most recent film scholarship has begun to take these latter
aspects of film seriously, and the exhibition schedules of film archives
and museums have only recently begun to reflect these new orienta
tions toward film study.31
The fact
is,
film archives accumulate, preserve, classify, and

exhibit selections from the corpus of moving images in order to rein
force dominant knowledge structures. Although film historians and
archivists have remarked that the "real" history of motion pictures,
especially that of the early years, has yet to be written, the material
by
collected thus far archives does not really possess the power to
transform accepted attitudes towards film.32 More often than not,
archival collections tend to reflect existing film scholarship canons.
As one shall see below, no accident that notions of authorship,
it
is
genre, and chronological determinism have dominated the organiza

tion of film archives. Indeed, film archives fashioned themselves after
other legitimate cultural institutions whose knowledge structures
emphasized those same notions.
Making Film Archives "Legit"

The assimilation of motion pictures into cultural institutions occurred
over several decades. As described previously in the historical
I
of film
by
overview archives, film was collected initially modern art

museums and the Library of Congress, which demanded a copy of all

copyrighted material for its collections. As film collections became
independent entities, either by becoming separate departments in
parent institutions or through the founding of new organizations,
these archives needed to find ways of legitimizing both their existence
and their processes and practices.
A review of the literature of museology and of sociology of art
reveals that in the formative years, film archives in fact mimicked
processes and practices performed in museums and other cultural
institutions in order to gain authority over the domain of moving
image heritage. DiMaggio writes that the power that the art museum
has for legitimizing cultural objects to the rarified status of "art"
derives from its development as a curatorial institution.33 The tasks of
collecting and classification take precedence over all other functions in
the museum. According to Peter Cannon-Brookes, "the fundamental
role of the museum, of assembling objects and maintaining them
within a specific intellectual environment, emphasizes that museums
are storehouses of knowledge as well as storehouses of objects, and that
the whole exercise is liable to be futile unless the accumulation of
objects is strictly rational."34 These responsibilities for object assembly
and rationalization —in other words, collection and classification —are
key to the establishment of the museum's authority.
In his seminal essay, "The System of Collecting," Jean Baudrillard
describes the drive to collect and classify objects of cultural signifi
cance. He explains that when an object becomes part of a collection,
it is "divested of its function and made relative to a subject. In this
sense all objects that are possessed submit to the same abstractive
operation and participate in a mutual relationship in so far as they
each refer back to the subject. They thereby constitute themselves as a
system, on the basis of which the subject seeks to piece together his
world, his personal microcosm."35 On the basis of this description of
collecting, one can infer that through their collection activities, art
museums assert a particular world-view and perpetuate a particular
agenda by focusing on the acquisition and classification of works of
art as the main tasks of the institution.
Critical theorists attack the authority of the museum for its
assumptions about its realm of authority. Crimp characterizes muse
urns as "institutionsof confinement" similar to asylums, clinics, and

prisons, which place art works within a framework of historicity that
disallows the possibilities of discontinuity and rupture with the past.
For Crimp, the institutional environment of the museum makes dis
ruption of the coherency of cultural development untenable.
Invoking the specter of mechanical reproduction, Crimp offers
up the museum as a modernist institution trying to survive in a post
modernist world. The artifactual definition of art no longer applies
when a photographic print, or an agit-prop poster enters the
film, a
realm of the museum. The homogeneity of art that has formed the
cornerstone of authority of the museum no longer exists.
the
According to Crimp, these antiquated institutions known as muse
ums implode in their attempts to both retain their authority to con
trol the status of "art" and acknowledge the paradigmatic shift in the
definition of art itself in the twentieth century. The introduction of
photographic prints and other works of art made through techniques
of mechanical reproduction into the museum represents a retrench
ment —photography ceases to be merely a vehicle for representing the
world, becoming a legitimate medium of subjectivity. Crimp feels
that this moment — when the museum relented, allowing that an
object created by mechanical means could in fact achieve "art" sta
tus — indicates the point at which the paradigmatic shift in what con
stituted art took place.36
Despite the implied threat to the gatekeeper status of the
museum, this attempt at "gatecrashing" inevitably fails. The institu
tional reaction to the radical shift in the definition of art was to rede
fine its categories of "art" and "non-art." As the ultimate arbiter of
what constitutes art, the museum re-inscribes its own boundaries by
redefining the epistemological functions of mechanically reproduced
objects. Crimp laments that the museum has "ghettoized" photogra
phy into separate departments and divisions. "[Photography] will no
longer primarily be useful within other discursive practices; it will no
longer serve the purposes of information, documentation, evidence,
illustration, reportage. The formerly plural field of photography will
henceforth be reduced to the single, all-encompassing aesthetic. ,"37
Crimp underestimates, however, the stability of the institutional

structure of the museum. To maintain their status as gatekeepers of
culture, museums often remake their own categories of what consti

tutes art and what remains non-art. Although the entrance of pho
tography into museums represented the first test of the flexibility of
the classification system, the introduction of moving images into the
realm of elite art provided another formidable task. The appropriation
of a select number of films into the category of elite art reveals how
much the museum relies on its ability to control collecting and classi
fication practices for the purposes of self-preservation. As important
artists of the twentieth century began to work in mediums formerly
considered "low art," the museum began to recognize and re-catego
rize certain pop culture objects. After all, it would seem embarrassing
if the same museum that sanctioned the paintings of Salvador Dali
did not find his films worthy of recognition! Although institutions
are slow and reluctant to change, the museum redefines and reshuffles
its categories from time to time, finding profundity in formerly mun
dane cultural objects. By forsaking complete rigidity, the museum
maintains itself and its gatekeeping role; popular culture is sometimes
assimilated into the museum, but only by its own rules of the game.
To validate their own status as cultural institutions, film archives
became gatekeepers whose primary activities were to collect and clas
sify moving images
—much like museums. However, their authority is
diminished in comparison to museums because they occupy a lower
position in the hierarchy of cultural institutions, and because they lack
the capability to control access to moving images in their purview.
Making the Case for a Multiplicity of Values:

An Examination of Archival Discourse
In the section entitled, "The Market for Cultural Objects," in chapter
3, I showed how postmodern approaches to value aim to deconstruct
the idea that value is innately either objective or subjective. The eco
nomic and aesthetic explanations of value are suggested to be merely
two among many discourses that have been used by society to stabi
lize certain institutional structures.
I
would like to explore this idea of discourse as it applies to the
valuation of objects in cultural institutions. Thus far, I have focused
on aesthetic value, particularly in the museum setting, because it is so
often used when discussing the value of cultural objects. There are
other traditions of valuation, will provide an interest

however, which
ing contrast to museum discourse. Thus, I will analyze the theories of
valuation in the archive world, usually referred to as appraisal, to pro
vide another context for this discussion.
Archivists have been dealing with the thorny issue of valuation
explicitly for quite some time. In the modern era, when the number of
documents produced by the institutions of society began to grow
unmanageable, archivists began to see the need for devising practical
methods for selecting the most valuable records to retain and preserve
within the archive. In order to perform the task of prioritizing certain
types of records over others, however, they became enmeshed in a
dilemma over certain core questions that arose around objectivity,
namely: what do the records collected by archives represent? Are they
evidence of a universal, unified truth of our society, or
about the history
the elements of one particular narrative about that history? And what is
the role of the archivist in the archival endeavor —custodian of evidence
(indeed of "Truth" itself) or active agent who plays a key role in shaping
collective memory? In the last one hundred years of appraisal theory
and practice, one may trace the trail of these debates by analyzing the
notable models that have been suggested and implemented.
The first person to articulate a theory of appraisal was Sir Hilary
Jenkinson in his Manual of Archive Administration. He felt strongly
that responsibility for appraisal lay with the creator, not the archivist
("making the Administrator the sole agent for the selection and
destruction of his own documents").38 This approach to valuation —
essentially accepting whatever records were entrusted to the archive,
and serving primarily as their steward —reflected a strong belief in the
passive, objective roleof the archivist. In his history of the develop
ment of archival theory, Terry Cook describes Jenkinson s beliefs thus:
If records were to maintain their innocence in an archival setting,

then any appraisal by the archivist was utterly inappropriate. Such
exercise of "personal judgment" by the archivist, as Jenkinson knew
appraisal must necessarily involve, would tarnish the impartiality of
archives as evidence, as of course would any consideration of saving
archives to meet their actual or anticipated uses by researchers. The
archivist's role was to keep, not select archives.39
As Cook points out, there number of problems that arise when

are a
archivists negate their power to place a value on records. First, by

renouncing responsibility for the selection and destruction of records,
archivists sacrifice accountability to the public sector. Second, by deny
ing their own subjectivity archivists privilege the creator's view of a
universal history —leading the way to historical determinism. Cook

uses the example of the records of the Soviet Union, which were regu
larly altered or destroyed to fit the State-approved historical narrative
of the time.
Despite these serious drawbacks to the Jenkinsonian approach to
appraisal, a number of current archival scholars from Australia and
Canada have embraced his perspective, especially regarding the evi
dential nature of archives. Australian archivists Sue McKemmish and
Frank Upward find merit in his model, and Heather MacNeil and
Luciana Duranti have also revived the Jenkinsonian ideal.40 Duranti
emphatically rejects the idea that archivists should assign value, stat
ing that "all archivists, whatever the archives in their care, accomplish
the cultural function of protecting the existing evidence of past cul
tures for future culture to interpret, absorb, and creatively renew.
Attributing value to that evidence would mean to renounce impar
tiality, endorse ideology, and consciously and arbitrarily alter the soci
etal record."41 For Duranti, an objective truth about historical reality
resides in an unbroken record.
At this point, the reader may see certain similarities between the
Jenkinsonian rhetoric found here and the aesthetic value discourse

reviewed in chapter 3. In both cases, the objects of contemplation —
art and archives — are seen as having intrinsic qualities that cannot be
translated or reinterpreted without the degradation of the object. In
the case of artworks, the assignment of economic value will debase its
aesthetic worth, while the appraisal of archives will negatively affect
its integrity and authenticity. Just as one can deconstruct the dis
course of pure aesthetic value, however, one may also question the
assumption that archivists must maintain the inviolacy of archives.
In the United States, the Jenkinsonian approach was largely sup
planted by the appraisal theory of T.R. Schellenberg. The burgeoning
number of documents created by twentieth-century society created
immense problems for American archivists. They rejected the idea that
the creators of these records could or would cull the most important
documents from this avalanche of paper, photographs, films, and other
records. At the governmental level, the situation grew increasingly dire
in the period after World War II, when archivists began to contemplate
how to accession the mass of records generated by the war. The first
truly modern method of appraisal arose from this challenge.
T.R. Schellenberg, who worked at the National Archives, gave
the American archival community a way out of this morass by devel
oping taxonomy for assigning value to records. It is now considered
a
to be the first truly modern method of appraisal. He identified two

major kinds of value in records: evidential value and informational
value. Evidential value, which he ranked as primary, is "the worth of
documents/archives for illuminating the nature and work of their cre
ator by providing evidence of the creator's origins, functions, and
activities."42 Informational value, which Schellenberg considered to be
secondary, is "the worth of documents/archives for reference and

research deriving from the information they contain on persons,
places, subjects, etc., as distinct from their evidential value."43
With the first definition Schellenberg acknowledges the value of
archives as evidence, although his definition of evidential is meant to
serve researchers rather than administrators (the creators of the docu
ments), and should be distinguished from the Jenkinsonian concept
of evidence. Schellenberg does not speak of maintaining the integrity
and authenticity of the record; clearly, he feels that it is the duty of the
archivist to separate the wheat from the chaff:
All archivists assume that the minimum record to be kept is the

record of organization and functioning and that beyond this mini
mum values become more debatable. By a judicious selection of
various groups and series an archivist can capture in a relatively
small body of records all significant facts on how the agency was
created, how it developed, how it is organized, what functions it
performs, and what are the consequences of its activities.44
Although Schellenberg believes that the "judicious selection" of

records using the criteria of evidential value can be accomplished in
an objective manner, he acknowledges that selection for information
value is much more subjective and in fact validates the biases that
archivists and archives may bring to this part of the appraisal process.
Complete consistency in judging informational value is as undesir

able as it is impossible of accomplishment. Diverse judgments may
result in records on particular phenomena being preserved at par
ticular places which are not deserving of general preservation.
Diverse judgments will spread the burden of preserving the docu
mentation of a country among its various archival institutions,
making one preserve what another may discard. Diverse judgments,

in a word, may well assure a more adequate social documentation.45
With these directives for how to assess value in records, Schellen-

berg did more than just give a blueprint for tackling the huge quanti
ties of documents facing them. He in fact empowered archivists to
participate in shaping the record itself. By recognizing the subjective
nature of the archival endeavor, he breaks with the tradition of empir
ical positivism that had thus far straitjacketed archival theory.
Schellenberg has been criticized by a number of archival theorists
for encouraging selection criteria that attempt to value documents by
their current use and potential for future use by scholars. Gerald Ham
complained that a use-based approach privileges narrow research
interests (in particular, historical interests) over the "broad spectrum
of human Taken to its extreme, this piecemeal approach
experience."46
to appraisal threatens to destroy the provenance of the records in
question. Cook describes the fallacies of use-based appraisal thus:
A use-based approach to archives removes records from their

organic context within the activities of their creator and imposes
criteria on both appraisal and description that are external to the
record and its provenance. By so shifting the appraisal focus of
archivists and the definition of archival value away from record-cre
ating processes and record creators, advocates of use-defined
appraisal ultimately reduce archival theory to "much ado about
to few practical rules meant to supplement what
is,
shelving," that
a
for them the key knowledge base for archivists: the historical sub
is
ject content of records, recent historiography, and users' expecta

tions and wishes.47
We can see that although Schellenberg's concepts of evidential and

informational value are useful practical guidelines, they do not
as
combine to form systematic and satisfactory method for appraisal.

a
As I have noted above, however, his theory does allow for multiple
perspectives (i.e., multiple values) of archives, and acknowledges the
subjectivity of the archivist in the appraisal process.
In the last twenty years, a number of archival theorists have built
upon the work of Schellenberg to provide a more comprehensive

approach to appraisal. To simplify this discussion I will focus on two
of the most prominent theories: macro-appraisal and documentation.
A key recent development in appraisal theory is macro-appraisal,
which was first proposed and implemented by archivists at the
National Archives of Canada in the early 1990s.48 Forsaking the classic
bottom-up approach to appraisal practiced by most archivists in North
America (looking at individual documents and series to determine
their value), proponents of macro-appraisal advocate a top-down
approach that studies the social context in which records were created
before making any evaluation of what records should be retained.
As Cook states, "the focus of appraisal should shift from the
actual record to the conceptual context of its creation, from the phys
it,
ical artifact to the intellectual purpose behind from matter to
mind."49To this aim, he suggested that the key appraisal question
is
not "What documentation should be kept?" but "What should be
documented?" The corollary question "Which records creators have
is
the most importance?" (rather than "Which records?").50 To discover

the answers to these questions, archivists must employ their research
skills to determine the societal functions that an organization per
forms, as well as the structure of the organization.
In his methodological approach to macro-appraisal Cook consid
ers both evidential and informational values, but clearly privileges the
structural over the functional:
This an approach which assigns greater primacy to structure (the

is
records creators) than to function as the first focus of archival

appraisal, but also asserts that such structures are the manifesta
it
tion (or reflection) of societal functions. thus an approach that

It
is
also attempts to integrate the uneasy tension between evidential

value (based on archivists' analyses of structure and process) and
informational value (based on users' articulation of important func
tions, usually cited [incorrectly] as subjects and themes).51
He sees institutions, particularly government institutions, to be

the loci of interaction between individuals and social issues, concerns,
and movements.
This approach of integrating function with structure has been

defined in Germany as focusing on the "image" of society — that is
to say, not on the objective reality of society per se, which can never
be known absolutely, but rather on the mechanisms or loci in soci
ety where the citizen interacts with the state to produce the
sharpest and clearest insights into societal dynamics and issues.52
Here, we clearly see the break with the previous notions of how to
document the human experience. Cook refutes the notion that
archives can ever achieve the "gold standard" of "objective reality."
Rather, he sets out the idea that archivists must concentrate on
recording a representative depiction of society through careful selec
tion of those records that most vividly document the "sharpist" inter
actions of the structure (i.e., the institutional creator of the records),
the function (i.e., the purpose for creating the records), and the indi
vidual. By privileging the structural approach over the functional,
however, Cook's suggested methodology does present the danger of
reflecting an image of the institution that reinforces existing hierar
chies and ignores those people or issues that have been marginalized.
This result may be an unavoidable problem of implementing the
structural approach.
Helen Samuels' theory of documentation serves as a complement
to the structural approach to macro-appraisal promoted by Cook and
others. In some respects, it serves to fill in some of the gaps that result
from an initial emphasis on structure. In her book Varsity Letters,
which aims to provide a method for documenting colleges and uni
versities, she makes the case for a functional approach to macro-
appraisal. While documentation theory maintains the traditional
focus on institutions, it suggests
starting the selection process with a different set of questions:

focusing first not on the specific history, people, events, structure, or
records of an institution, but on an understanding of what the insti
tution does — what are its functions. A knowledge of the broad
range of functions provides the context that institutional

the
archivists need to formulate their collecting policies and select spe
cific collections.53
Cook acknowledges the contribution that documentation can

make in the appraisal process, although he feels that it is a method
most suited to appraising manuscripts and non-corporate records.
Documentation holds out more hope for representing multiple per
spectives, although it is a potentially scattershot approach, and may
have overlapping areas — since record groups may sometimes be clas
sified under more than one function.
Overall, the theory of macro-appraisal represents a more expan
sive way of thinking about records and value. It recognizes that
recordkeeping is a process of choosing among multiple discourses,
and stipulates that the most valuable source of information on society
may be found in the discourse of documentary evidence (which is the
result of interaction among institutions, individuals, and records).
Macro-appraisal also purports to take into account individual varia
tion in the application of the methods, because "the culmination of
that evidence, if chosen on this basis even by hundreds of archivists in
scores of locations, will over time add up to a reality at the broadest
levels of discourse or metahistory ideals. If the method for the part is
sound, and derived from holistic concepts, a coherent whole will con
sequently be reflected in the cumulative appraisal decisions."54
Macro-appraisal theory has many elements of postmodern theory
with its challenges to the ideas of archives as bearers of uni
it,
about
versal truth, and its recognition of multiple
Cook and other
discourses.
proponents of macro-appraisal tend to skirt around the issue of the
archivist's own subjectivity, however, although Cook has alluded to
it,
particularly when he describes the evolution of archivists from passive

of the
A
recordkeepers to "active shapers archival heritage."55

growing
number of archivists have explored this issue much further. Robert
Mcintosh describes the new school of postmodern theory thus:
An alternative school of thought, advocated here, defines the

archivist not as mere instrument of the real creators of our mem
a
ory of the past, but as an autonomous creator. As the author of the

archival record, the archivist plays critical role in the construction
a
of our knowledge of the past and, its logical inverse, in creating

silences — gaps in memory. Our authorship, the particular story we
choose to tell, reflects judgments we make across the spectrum of
our professional work, from the advice we offer records creators
through to our appraisal and acquisition decisions to our arrange
ment and description work to our reference and public program
ming activities. As the product of archival politics, of purposive
archival intervention, the record requires not only guarding, but our
close scrutiny.56
Mcintosh does not suggest particular method for becoming more

a
self-reflexive about archival work, but one may hope that this impor
tant work will be translated someday from theory to practice.
Over the course of this discussion one may have wondered about
the relevance of archival appraisal for the focus of this study, the field
of film preservation. Although on the surface, it may seem that such
archival valuation discourse would be applicable to the aim of this
book, I would argue caution in the wholesale application of appraisal
theory to moving images, as most appraisal models were not designed
with moving images in mind. While it is true that the literature of
moving image archiving is weak in the area of appraisal, that is not to
say that film archivists have not had discussions on appraisal; indeed,
they have considered these problems from a practical perspective
informally and at professional For the most part, they
conferences.
have questioned the validity of archival appraisal models for moving
images, however, as moving images do not always meet the definition
of a record as the archival profession has defined it. In one of the few
studies available, Sam Kula declared,
"Whatever the approach to
appraisal, archival literature offers little in the way of concrete and
practical guidance."57
Part of the difficulty in applying the archival appraisal model to
moving images lies with the lack of contextual guidelines in which to
make selection decisions. In the United States, most moving image
archives do not usually collect the records that pertain to the produc
tion of the films in their collections. In addition, films are rarely
treated as collections or as record groups (except at governmental

archives). Thus, a methodology such as structural macro-appraisal has
little applicability. Documentation shows more promise, if one liber
ally interprets the definition of institution to include concepts, not

just organizational entities.
Another difficulty with appraising motion pictures lies with their
very nature as rich cultural documents. Films are signifiers with multi
ple referents whose multiplicity of values is harder to pin down than
other records. A single film can be evaluated for its historical, cultural,
social, aesthetic, educational, economic, or entertainment values, just
to name a few. Preservation decisions may take into account any or all
of these variables, not to mention the proclivities of the archivists
themselves and the outside influences on selection such as the require
ments of federal funding agencies and the whims of private donors.
Last, we must remember that in the historical genesis of many
film archives, appraisal has largely resided in the activity of preserva
tion, not selection. Most archives collected with abandon because so
much moving image heritage had been lost to deterioration or
destruction by studios. Only those institutions with a strong mandate
for selecting items, such as the Museum of Modern Art, showed
restraint in their collection policies.58
The emphasis on preservation over selection leads me to believe
that the preservation discourse generated by the field of film preser
vation must be articulated separately from archival discourse. The fol
lowing chapters introduce that process of articulation, with the goal
of giving moving image archivists the impetus for examining this cru
cial issue further.
Chapter 4 Notes
1 Robert Bocock, "The Cultural Formations of Modern Society," in Modernity: An Introduction
to Modern Societies, ed. Stuart Hall, et al. (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1996), 151-53.
2 See also: Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. "culture."
3 Lawrence W. Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America

(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), 8.
4 Bocock, "The Cultural Formations of Modern Society," 152.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., 153.
7 Ronald L. Jepperson, "Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism," in The New

Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 143.
8 Ibid., 145.
9 Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1986), 46.
10 Ibid., 48.
11 For an example of this branch of research, refer to the work of Cheryl Metoyer-Duran,
Gatekeepers in Ethnolinguistic Communities (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1993).
12 Douglas, How Institutions Think, 92.
13 Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1991), 117-26.
14 Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 31.
15 Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University
Press, 1990), 59.
16 Douglas Crimp has remarked that "if photography was invented in 1839, it was only dis
covered 'in the 1960s and 1970s — photography, that
is,
as an essence, photography itself
Douglas Crimp, On the Museum's Ruins (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993), 74.
17 Paolo Cherchi Usai, Burning Passions: An Introduction to the Study Silent Cinema
of
(London: British Film Institute, 1994), 23.
Panofsky gave the famous lecture in 1936. Iris Barry, "The Film Library and How
It
18
Grew," Film Quarterly 22, no. (1969): 26.
4
Kirk Varnedoe and Adam Gopnik, High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture (New
1
9
York: Museum of Modern Art, 1990), 17.

20 Clement Greenberg, "Avant-Garde and Kitsch," Partisan Review no.5 (1939): 34-49.
6,
21 Theodor W. Adorno, "Culture Industry Reconsidered," in Culture and Society:
Contemporary Debates, eds. Jeffrey C. Alexander and Steven Seidman (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1990), 275.
22 See Herbert Gans, Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation Taste
of
J.
(New York: Basic, 1974).

23 Varnedoe and Gopnick, High CsfLow, 18.
24 See Vera L. Zolberg, Constructing a Sociology the Arts (Cambridge: Cambridge University
of
Press, 1990).
25 Paul DiMaggio, "Classification in Art," American Sociological Review 52 (1987): 446.
26 David A. Cook, A History Narrative Film, 2nd ed. (New York: Norton & Co., 1990), 35.
of
27 Kevin Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By... (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968),
2.
28 Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," in Film
Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 4th ed., Gerald Mast, et al., (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992), 668.
29 Crimp, On the Museum's Ruins, 115.
30 Ibid., 117.
31 For examples of such scholarship, see David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin
Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode Production to 1960
of
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1985); Barry Salt, Film Style and Technology:
History and Analysis, 2nd ed. (London: Starwood, 1992); and Thomas Schatz, The Genius
of
the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era (New York: Pantheon, 1988).
32 Consider the comments of Barry upon seeing The Jazz Singer (1927) again, decade after
a
by
had first been shown in the theater: "Though indubitably sound-film, [it] amazed us
it
containing only two brief sequences in which Jolson actually spoke or sang. This everyone
had forgotten: so, in sense, we became archaeologists and among the first and happiest of
a
film students." Barry, "The Film Library and How Grew," 23.
It
33 Paul DiMaggio, "Constructing an Organizational Field as Professional Project: U.S.

a
J.
Art Museums, 1920-1940," in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds.

Walter W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994),
J.
269.
34 Peter Cannon-Brookes, "The Nature of Museum Collections," in Manual Curatorship: A
of
Guide to Museum Practice (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992), 501.

35 Jean Baudrillard, "The System of Collecting," in The Cultures Collecting, eds. John Eisner
of
and Roger Cardinal (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994), 7-24.
36 Crimp, On the Museum's Ruins, 44-64.

37 Ibid., 35.
38 Hilary Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration (London: Percy Lund, Humphries
ScCo., 1965), 151.
39 Jenkinson, quoted in Terry Cook, "What is Past is Prologue: A History of Archival Ideas
Since 1898, and the Future of the Paradigm Shift," Archivaria 43 (1997): 23.
40 For an example, see Sue McKemmish and Frank Upward, eds., Archival Documents:
Providing Accountability Through Recordkeeping (Melbourne: Ancora Press, 1993).
41 Luciana Duranti, "The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory," American Archivist 57
(1994): 344.
42 Lewis J. Bellardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo, A Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators,
and Records Managers (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1992), 13.
43 Ibid., 18.
44 T.R. Schellenberg, Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques (Chicago: Society of

American Archivists, 1996), 140.
45 Ibid., 149.
46 F. Gerald Ham, "The Archival Edge," in Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch, eds., A
Modern Archives Reader: Basic Readings on Archival Theory and Practice (Washington:
National Archives and Records Service, 1984), 328-29.
47 Cook, "What is Past is Prologue," 29.
48 For a description of the application of macro-appraisal to federal records, see Catherine
Bailey, "From the Top Down: The Practice of Macro- Appraisal," Archivaria 43 (1997): 89-
128, which examines its implementation at the National Archives of Canada.
49 Terry Cook, "Mind Over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal," in The
Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian
Archivists, 1992), 38.
50 Ibid., 47.
51 Ibid., 49.
52 Ibid., 49-50.
53 For example, Samuels identifies seven functions of universities and colleges: conferring cre
dentials, conveying knowledge, fostering socialization, conducting research, sustaining the
22). Helen Willa Samuels,
(p.
institution, providing public service, and promoting culture

Varsity Letters: Documenting Modern Colleges and Universities (Chicago: Society of
American Archivists; Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1992),
2.
54 Cook, "Mind Over Matter," 50.

55 Cook, "What Past Prologue," 46.
is
is
56 Robert Mcintosh, "The Great War, Archives, and Modern Memory," Archivaria 46 (1998):
2.
57 Sam Kula, Appraising Moving Images: Assessing the Archival and Monetary Value Film and
of
Video Records (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2003), 24.
must be noted that this attitude changing somewhat with the introduction of televi
It
58
is
sion and video materials into archives. no longer possible to practice policy of total
It
is
inclusion with the vast amount of magnetic media that constitutes the corpus of American
broadcast and cable programming.
The Social Economy of Film Preservation:
Implementing a Bourdieuvian
Framework
To frame the arguments that I have proposed concerning the world of

film preservation and the field of cultural production in general, this
chapter reviews briefly several key concepts of the work of Pierre
Bourdieu, including his definitions of the concepts of "field" and
"field of cultural production." In the ethnographic narratives that fol
low this chapter, I encourage the reader to consider the underlying
structures and processes presented that affect how the work of film
preservation is accomplished.
When Bourdieu refers to a field, he does not use the word in the
of
is,
sense that comes to mind most readily, that an "area or sphere

action, operation, or investigation."1 He imbues his definition of field
with the concept of autonomy, stating that field
"a
separate social
is
a
universe having its own laws of functioning independent of those of

politics and the economy."2 This conception of "field" permits the co
existence of multiple social structures within, without, and among
each other (see figure 5.1). Individuals and institutions participate in
3
various fields that correspond to different levels of social reality (e.g.,

the field of class relations, the field of power, the economic field, and
in this particular case, the field of cultural production). Because each
field makes its own rules, can in fact operate in direct opposition to
it
the laws governing the fields of class relations, power, and economics.
This concept of the field permits certain social structures that do not
conform to the exigencies of the market or political pressures.
FIGURE 5.I
Figure I.The field of cultural production
+ = positive pole, implying a dominant position
- = negative pole, implying a dominated position
1 = Field of class relations
2 = Field of power
. +
3 - Field of cultural
production
-
The Social Economy of Film Preservation 87
Bourdieu defines the field of cultural production as
the system of objective relations among different instances, func

tionally defined by their role in the division of labour of production,
reproduction and diffusion of symbolic goods. The field of produc
tion per se owes its own structure to the opposition between the
field of restricted production as a system producing cultural goods
(and the instruments for appropriating those goods) objectively
destined for a public of producers of cultural goods, and the field of
large-scale cultural production, specifically organized with a view to
the production of cultural goods destined for non-producers of cul
tural goods, "the public at large."4
While large-scale production is very much affected by the rules

bounding the field of power and the economic field, it is important to
note that the field of restricted production defines success in terms of
prestige rather than economics. By favoring symbolic values such as
prestige and legitimacy over economic value, restricted-production

sectors of the field, such as the literary/artistic sector, distance them
selves from producers and consumers of mass culture (what Bourdieu
calls "the non-intellectual fractions of the dominant class"5). By estab
lishing distance, these sectors are able to achieve secure autonomy
apart from those who might challenge their right to create their own
"rules of the game."
Bourdieu explains that "the autonomy of a field of restricted pro
duction can be measured by its power to define its own criteria for the
production and evaluation of its products. . . . The more cultural pro
ducers form a closed field of competition for cultural legitimacy, the
more the internal demarcations appear 'immune' or irreducible to any
external of economic, political or social differentiation."6
factors
Although the field of cultural production is located at the negative pole
of the field of power (refer to figure 5.1 again), its autonomy as a field
allows it to "suspend or reverse the dominant principle of hierarchiza-
tion";7 and, although the field of cultural production is a dominated
fraction within the field of power, it creates and sustains its own "upside-
down" economy within which "losers win." Those institutions that
would seem to have little or no influence or power when considered
from an economic perspective in fact create power through abnegation
of the economic imperative in favor of a symbolic value system wherein

the economically-dominated create and reinforce their own ethics.
Returning to my initial proposal regarding the world of film
preservation, the discussion in previous chapters helps to make the
case that noncommercial film archives have thus far occupied a rarified
position in the field of restricted cultural production, that they in fact
took the role of the dominant fraction within that subfield. In the past,
they have preserved films for a limited audience, and their standards
and definitions of quality were unchallenged by those working outside
their circle. More recently, the introduction of other players into the
preservation arena, primarily commercial entities who also constitute
the field of mass cultural production, challenge their position in the
hierarchy, and thus their autonomy to control all aspects of their work.
Participants in the Field and Their Relations

The primary powers guiding the field of cultural production are com
posed of two opposing subfields, namely the fields of restricted and
large-scale production. The field of restricted production operates as
the "economic world reversed," defining value and authority in terms of
prestige rather than economic success, while the field of large-scale
production organizes itself according to the demands of the market for
cultural product. For the purposes of this study, participants in the field
of film preservation thus split into two camps: commercial entities and
noncommercial organizations. This division corresponds to the distinc
tions between restricted and large-scale production, yet the separation
between noncommercial and commercial entities in the world of film
preservation is not a perfect separation, as I shall show below.
In order to study this field more closely, my first task was to iden
tify the players in the field of film preservation and describe their
position in the field. Although an overview of the players was given in
chapter 2, they are listed below once more, this time using the arbi
trary distinctions of commercial and noncommercial. Noted with an
asterisk are noncommercial institutions that also engage in commer
cial activities that support preservation, such as footage licensing and
videotape sales of preserved public domain films. For the categories of
stock footage libraries and specialist archives, it is impractical to list
all of the players, thus only some of the more well-known organiza
tions are listed.
Commercial Noncommercial
Studios with Larger nonprofit film archives:
film libraries:
Academy of Motion Picture
Disney Arts and Sciences
NBC-Universal
George Eastman House*
Paramount
Library of Congress*
(CBS-Viacom) Museum of Modern Art
Republic National Archives
Sony UCLA Film and
Time-Warner Television Archive*
Twentieth Century Fox
Specialist archives, such as:
Stock footage libraries: American Archives of
Approximately 160 companies, the Factual Film
as listed in including
Footage, Anthology Film Archives
FOOTAGE.NET Human Studies Film
National Geographic Archives (Smithsonian)
Film Library
Japanese American
Prelinger Archives National Museum*
Sabucat Productions National Center for Jewish Film*
WPA Film Library New York Public Library,
Donnell Media Center
Northeast Historic Film*
Pacific Film Archive
Southwest Film/Video Archives*
Wisconsin Center for Film
and Theater Research
In addition to the organizations discussed above, there are
numerous other libraries, archives, and historical societies that may

perform film preservation activities in some limited capacity. It is dif
ficult to determine either whether they perform any commercial
activity or what individual or cumulative effect they have on the func
tioning of the field. Certainly, one can say, however, that they are not
currently "major players." Foreign archives and collectors may also
have indirect effects on the operation of the field, but once again,
their significance within the field of American film preservation is
minimal in comparison to studios and large film archives.
Processes of Interaction
The field of film preservation may be thought of in terms of a strug
gle over who has the power to define what constitutes film preserva
tion. Position within the field affects every aspect of preservation
work, from the selection of films to the physical techniques used. The
field of production, composed of noncommercial institu
restricted
tions and avowedly concerned only with the ideals of archiving and
preservation than profits, tops the hierarchy and sets the
rather
agenda. Yet participants in the field of restricted production are in
never-ending struggles over what will be orthodox — what the current
standards for preservation and restoration will be, what films should
be preserved, what constitutes ethical behavior in preservation and
restoration work, etc. The dominant faction of the field of restricted
production makes the categories (e.g., art and non-art, "good" preser
vation and "bad" preservation, valuable and valueless). The dominated
faction of restricted production continually struggles to rearrange the
hierarchy of such categorization. Bourdieu reminds us that, all the
while, the field of restricted production denies the effect of economic
imperatives on the field:
Even if these struggles never clearly set the "commercial" against

the "non-commercial," "disinterestedness" against "cynicism," they
almost always involved recognition of the ultimate values of "disin
terestedness" through the denunciation of the mercenary compro
mises or calculating manoeuvres of the adversary, so that disavowal
of the "economy" is placed at the very heart of the field, as the prin
ciple governing its functioning and transformation.9
Meanwhile, although the field of mass production occupies a domi

nated position within the field of film preservation, increasingly partic
ipants in that field have used intellectual property rights as leverage to
challenge the dominant fraction of the field of restricted production. It
remains to be seen whether or not the structure of the field can with
stand the challenge.
It is difficult to comprehend these complex sets of relationships
and interactions using only textual description. Thus, figure 5.2 repre
sents a preliminary graphical conception of the field of film preserva
tion, based upon my review of the literature of the field. This figure
requires additional explanation. Instead of using individual archives
and commercial entities, I have used film types (e.g., feature films,
eF
in
figure The Field American Film Preservatien the 199es
5.2
of
Charismatic consecration High degree consecration Institutionalized consecration
INTELLECTUAL AUDIENCE BOURGEOIS AUDIENCE
Autonomy
(no audience, Corporate Heteronomy
no economic asset (market)
[\
\ /
profit) protection
t*i
41
Stock
footage
3"
of
NO AUDIENCE Low degree consecration MASS AUDIENCE
Legend
P
= Noncommercial preservation <- -> = Indicates reciprocal relationship
a
= positive pole, implying dominant position (primarily orphan films) (films are both cultural heritage
-{-
= Commercial preservation and marketable assets)
O O
a
— = negative pole, implying dominated position (films under copyright) — »• = Indicates films on deposit
by
be
(may not marketed archives)

silent films, newsreels). It is important to understand that a particular

film may fit into more than one category — a feature film can also be a
corporate asset, while an industrial film can also serve as stock
footage. Analyzing the field using film types actually gives a better
idea of the structure of the field, because organizations may assume
more than one position in the field (as I shall explain below).
The position of an archive within the hierarchy of the field is
predicated on two factors: the degree of consecration granted to the
type of work done, and the degree of autonomy that the archive has to
conduct its work. Thus there are two sets of poles: one corresponds to
degree of consecration and the other corresponds to degree of auton
omy. As an example, refer to the circle labeled "Feature films with
sound (1929-present)." Preservation of such film has a high degree of
consecration, since it is often done by both larger film archives and
the studios. However, it occupies a middle position between heteron-
omy and autonomy, meaning that market demand and symbolic value
carry equal weight in determining which films will be chosen for
preservation.
An important factor to consider when analyzing this chart is the
fact that noncommercial institutions often participate in more than one
kind of preservation, especially the larger archives. Examples of archives
that have multiple areas of interest are listed in the following table:
Archive Areas of Interest

George Eastman House Studio films, independent films,
silent films
Library of Congress All types of films (U.S. productions)
Museum of Modern Art Avant-garde films, studio films
(New York)
National Archives Newsreels, U.S. government films
Pacific Film Archive Avant-garde films,
Japanese and Soviet films
Southwest Film/ Independent films,
Video Archives African- American films
UCLA Film 8c Studio films, newsreels, silents,
Television Archive avant-garde and
independent films
Such diversification means that some archives may occupy multiple

positions in the field simultaneously, since they are performing work
of different degrees of consecration, and because they have varying
amounts of autonomy to accomplish that work. In comparison, stu
dios concentrate their efforts on preserving "A-list" feature films, thus
their position in the field is less variable than noncommercial archives.
In addition to the position of the film types, graphic indicators
among the participants further define relationships and interactions.
There are two kinds of circles. The solid circle indicates that preserva
tion of a particular type of film is primarily noncommercial, while the
dotted circle denotes preservation driven largely by commercial con
cerns. There are also two typesof arrows joining certain circles to oth
ers. The dotted arrows signify that there is some kind of reciprocal
relationship between the two types of preservation. For example, news-

reels or industrial films may also be licensed as stock footage, if the
archive has the rights to do so. The solid arrows indicate another sort of
intellectual property relationship in which the noncommercial organi
zation holds the films themselves, but does not possess their copyrights.
Possible Effects of Interaction on Structures

and Processes
In field in which the structure may be changing in favor of eco
a
nomic imperatives, one might read the chart in figure 5.2 as follows:
archives are beginning to favor the types of films with both the most
market value and a high degree of consecration in an effort to main
tain their position within the hierarchy of the field. Feature films con
tinue to retain their appeal, due to their desirability by both
commercial and noncommercial entities. Certain types of films that
can be used to establish or maintain licensing relationships as stock
footage are also favored.
Film types that are currently held in lower esteem include silent
films, avant-garde and independent films, and amateur films/home
movies due to their lack of appeal to a wide audience, their inability to
provide economic profit, or other perceived lack of value. It is not sur
prising that members of the archival community call these types of
films "orphans" — they may truly become abandoned or lost unless out
side funding sources such as government subsidies become available.
Despite the shift in power between restricted and mass produc

tion systems, archives will continue to exist, if only to provide preser
vation techniques, resources, and products which mass producers can
co-opt. The mass production system must produce cultural objects
imbued with high entertainment value in order to attract a wide audi
ence, thus they strip the cultural product of its original aesthetic posi
tion, offering instead the benefits of new technology (i.e., digital
enhancement of image and sound) or the pleasures of a nostalgic
backward glance.
Archives attempting to hold onto their position within the
are
hierarchy, i.e., maintain their autonomy, in a number of ways. First,

they are edging towards professionalization of the practice of film
preservation through the development of graduate-level training for
film archivists. Institutionalized education will give the budding pro
fession additional authority and autonomy. Through the Association
of Moving Image Archivists, the field is also considering the possibility
of establishing a credentialing program in moving image archiving.
Second, archives are beginning to build relationships with the
federal government through organizations such as the National Film
Preservation Foundation, which provides support for the types of film
preservation least likely to be funded due to lack of commercial inter
est. Having such funding enables members of the field of restricted
production to have more autonomy from the field of mass produc
tion, although monies may have other strings attached to them as dic
tated by dominant members of the field of power (of which the
government should be considered part).
The theoretical framework laid out above offers the opportunity to

delve more deeply into the structure, functions, and interactions
found in the film preservation field. It allows me to closely examine
relationships between participants, describe processes of interaction,
and suggest possible effects of those processes on the field. In the fol
lowing three chapters, I detail the processes and practices of preserva
tion, explore the spectrum of attitudes and opinions of what
constitutes preservation work, and investigate the disparities in
authority of individual archivists and institutions to control all aspects

of preservation work. The reader should take heed, however, that the
framework presented here served as an initial point of departure for
the ethnographic study which followed —i.e., as a set of guiding
hypotheses
—rather than serving fully-detailed description of the
as a
field of film preservation. As one shall see in subsequent chapters,

data collected for this study altered that framework considerably. In
the concluding chapter of this book, I
will revisit the model of the
field laid out in figure 5.2 to corroborate its depiction of the field as I
by
it,
see and examine how this representation may be altered, both

internal and external forces, in the decades to come.
Chapter Notes
5
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. "field."

1
Pierre Bourdieu, The Field Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (New York:
of
2

Adapted from figure in Bourdieu, The Field Cultural Production, 38.
of
3
Bourdieu, The Field Cultural Production, 115.

of
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid., 39.
7
Footage: The Worldwide Moving Image Sourcebook (New York: Second Line Search, 1997).
8
Bourdieu, The Field Cultural Production, 79.

of
9
Documenting the Process
of Film Preservation
The preservation of particular film is one of the most visible and

a
identifiable activities of the archive — one that requires the participa

tion of all divisions of the archive. Although the preservation of a film
may seem to be something of a "black box" to those readers who do
not actively engage in this work, this process can be summarized as a
series of sequential steps that includes specific decision points and
results in measurable outputs at various stages along the way. In this
first thematic narrative, I have documented the individual tasks per
formed by archivists, curators, catalogers, and projectionists in spe
cific situations and explored the many difficult decisions that they
must make during the course of preservation work.
Process and Practice

This study aims to provide a detailed, systematic description of the
complex process of preserving a motion picture. The approach
employed in the course of this research relied upon the methodology
of ethnographic fieldwork, and its results encompass data collected
during the course of participant observation and in-depth interview
ing. Through these qualitative methods, I was able to record the social
reality of the film archivists, including their actions, decisions, and
opinions about their work. Along the way, I was also able to uncover
data on the attitudes, values, and ethics of the film preservation com
munity, thus eliciting what Emerson calls "indigenous meanings."1
This research emphasized context, setting, organizational culture, and
the participants' frames of reference, and should not be taken as a
how-to manual for preserving all films in every institutional context.
It is impossible to assume that the findings can be transferred to new

situations and social milieu — they are entirely grounded within the
contexts from which the data were gathered. Readers seeking more
detail about the methods employed in this research are encouraged to
consult appendix I, "A Case Study in Archival Ethnography."
In the following discussion, I present the process of preserving a
film in two parts. First, I describe it in macro form. Preservation is a
linear process that involves activities, inputs, and outputs, from the
initial stage film to the final step of providing access to
of selecting a
it through exhibition or other means. The macro chart (figure 6.1)
conveys the workflow without representing the individual decisions
that along the way. To document each particu
are made at each step
lar decision and feedback loop, eight micro-level diagrams (figures

6.2-6.9) illustrate each subprocess:
1. Selecting a film for preservation

2. Procuring funding and/or resources
3. Inspecting and inventorying a film
4. Preparing a film for laboratory work
5. Duplicating a film at the laboratory
6. Storing the master elements and access copies
7. Cataloging the master elements and access copies
8. Providing access to the preserved film
While the charts serve as a convenient method of summarizing gen

eralities about the process of preserving a film, I am most interested
in revealing the context within which decisions are made. The situa
tion and values of the individual making the choice have a profound
effect on the outcome of many decisions.
The level of specificity represented by the charts is limited by two
factors. First, certain decisions rely on the individual aesthetic judg
ment of the archivist. Thus, I cannot break down all decisions to sci
entific measurements of quality. In this respect, these charts are meant
to represent a process as it currently exists; they are not meant to
improve the process by defining more precise standards for decision
making or streamlining production. Second, these charts are not
time-and-motion studies. They do not reach a level of specificity
Documenting the Process of Film Preservation 99
figure 6.1 Steps in Preserving a Film
Note:
Each micro-processis
C START
J
detailed in a separatechart
correspondingto the
Provideaccess to the superscriptfollowingthe
preservedfilm step. Please referto
throughexhibition subsequentcharts to view
and other meansof decision pointsfor each
Selectfilm to °
micro-process.
be preserved ' display
Projectfilm in
your institution's
/Fiinding\_No^.
X^secured?
/ Procurefunding
and/or
resources2
theater
Yes
♦
Inspectand
inventoryall
film elements 3
Preparethe film
to beduplicated
at the Access
laboratory ' options
(output)
Sendthe film to
the laboratoryto
be duplicated 5
Storethe new
elementsin a
controlled
environment*>
Catalog
Catalogthe new FILM
elements ' record
PRESERVED
(output)
where every movement of the archivists is documented; rather, I am
attempting to represent the sub-process at the task level.2
Steps in Preserving a Film

Figure 6.1 represents the process of film preservation at the highest
level of generality. Each rectangle represents a subprocess required to
of preserving a film; there are eight subprocesses
complete the process
in all. A number of the subprocesses produce outputs, including
preservation masters, projection prints, cataloging records, and dis
plays of the preserved film (which can be either events, as when a film
is exhibited or shown on television, or physical copies, as when video
or dvd reference copies are made or manufactured for rentals and
sales). The production of several identifiable outputs makes this
process a very visible activity in comparison to other processes of film
archiving, where output may not be so easily measured.
In this macro-chart of the film preservation process, there is only
one decision point: "Funding secured?" In such an expensive and
labor-intensive activity as film preservation, it is difficult to move for
ward without the guarantee of funds and resources to complete the
remaining tasks. Thus, the decision point represents a checkpoint. In
some respects, the procurement of funds is in fact a sub-subprocess of
selecting a film for preservation because selection is very much
affected by the ability of an organization to secure funding for particu
lar titles or genres of film. For a detailed examination of the politics of
selection, see chapter 8, "Power and Authority in Film Preservation."
Step 1: Selecting a Film for Preservation
For this phase of the preservation process (figure 6.2), I identified the
key participants to be both the curatorial/managerial staff and the

hands-on preservationists. In the work that I observed, both groups of
people were involved in the creation of a list of potential candidates for
preservation. They bring different areas of expertise to this task. Because
the curatorial staff has more direct contact with funding agencies and
private donors, they can be more cognizant of the funding issues key to
making a preservation project happen, while a preservationist will tend

to have a greater understanding of the logistics involved in producing
the best possible master element for preservation.
figure 6.2 Step 1: Selecting a film for preservation
f START
)
Curatorial and
preservation staff
Create list of
possible films
from which to
choose
Rank each
potential
candidate
according to
selection criteria
r*
Remove
8
1 No—
1
|
film from Rank

list of higher
candidates
1
1 1
Nominate best
candidate based
on rankings
(curator)
No-,
rYes-
Estimate
' ■ laboratory costs
Rank Rank for preservation
higher lower project (curator)
-No-
/" GOTO:
I 2. Procuring funding
\and/or resources
Occasionally, individuals who do not have an affiliation with the

archive will be consulted about which films will be preserved. This sit
uation seems most common when a project is funded by a government
grant. It should be noted that although the archivists involved with
these projects viewed outside committees as being helpful in evaluating
the historical and cultural significance of a film, they felt uncomfortable
with the idea of supervision from individuals who may have an incom
plete understanding of the scope and nature of the collections.
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, individuals and foundations that
provide grant money and donations can also have a strong influence
over the selection process in the nonprofit environment. Often, the
overriding criteria for selecting candidates for preservation can be the
personal preference of an individual donor or the scope of a founda
tion's grant program. As one may see by looking closely at the flowchart
of the process, selection involves research —finding additional informa
tion that will aid the staff in making the final decision as to which film
to preserve. Criteria which are often considered in the course of the
selection process include the current condition of the film ("Is it on
deteriorating stock?"), its rarity ("Is it a unique version?"), its cultural
and historical significance ("Does the film have historical or cultural
value?"), its copyright status ("Is it an orphan film?"), and its preserva
tion status across the international network of archives and other
organizations ("Was it preserved previously by this institution or
another archive? Was the earlier preservation of good quality?").
I also draw the attention of the reader to the outcomes of each
decision point. Because each organization may weigh criteria differ
ently, it is difficult to assign particular values or point to specific scales
used to rank the preservation priority of a film. Hence I have used the
more general "rank higher" or "rank lower" directives, rather than
referring to a particular ranking scale. For example, a studio archive
may weigh market value more heavily than a nonprofit archive, while a
nonprofit archive is more likely to place greater emphasis on the his

torical or cultural significance of a film than a studio archive might.
Some questions can be answered easily and with objective cer
tainty, such as "Has this film been preserved before?" Archivists rely
upon a global network of cooperative preservation; funding and
resources being scanty, it makes perfect sense not to have duplication
of effort. Other questions require reflection rather than reliance upon

a recorded fact. For example, the answer to the question, "Was the
previous preservation work of good quality?" depends upon the opin
ion of the archivist as well as current standards for quality. At a meet
ing to discuss current preservation projects at one archive, I observed

the curator discussing the progress of the restoration of a film that
had already been preserved at another institution. Commenting on
the previous preservation work being very "patchwork," the curator
as
noted wryly that the current restoration in progress was "not built on
work done by [other archive], and they won't like it very much."3 In
this case, the curator justified the additional resources expended on a
film by citing his dissatisfaction with the earlier preservation work.
The consideration of the rarity of a film would seem to be a
straightforward question. Indeed, in the case of a film that only exists

in one copy, its rarity will make it a strong candidate for preservation
(assuming that it also ranks highly for other factors such as deteriora
tion and cultural significance). At the same time, curators may think
twice about removing a particular print from consideration for preser
vation if they recognize that although the film exists in multiple ver
sions, they hold a print that constitutes previously unrecognized
a
variant. One preservationist mentioned to me that his archive held a

copy of The Cabinet ofDr. Caligari. The silent film has been preserved
in numerous archives all over the world, because there are so many
alternate versions in existence. Carl called his archive's copies "mutant
prints," but feels that they were still worth preserving. "Every archive
should have its own print of Caligari" he says.
The most compelling reason for preserving a film — deteriora
tion — can also be subject to evaluation. Decomposing film is a daily
reality for most archives, and the presence of deterioration does not
guarantee that a film will be selected for preservation. Although dete
rioration may be the method by which a film becomes eligible for
consideration for preservation, it must be decided first if it is even
possible to save the film by assessing the degree of deterioration. In
addition, the archivist will weigh heavily the age of the film. In many
instances I witnessed or of which I was told, films from the silent era
were presented as the greatest imperative because so many films have
been lost from that time period. Much as book collectors treasure
incunabula (books printed before 1501), film archivists cherish the

silents (films produced before 1929).
A
final consideration for the selection process is the question of
market value. Most commercial archives will openly admit that their
selection guidelines are heavily affected by their ability to market a
preserved film or license preserved footage. In my interviews, I found
this criterion to have the single greatest influence on selection for
preservation work at commercial archives. Although nonprofit
archives may not be using market value per se as a criterion, I found
that archivists sometimes make a distinction among films according
is,
to what one might call their entertainment value, that their poten
tial appeal to audiences. Although entertainment value may not result
in direct benefit to nonprofit archives in the same way as market
a
value does for studio archives, would appear that films with enter
it
tainment value draw positive attention to the archive when presents
it
films at screenings or lends films to festivals or other institutions.
Positive attention may ultimately lead to increased visibility for the
archive and the potential for attracting private donors. On number
a
of occasions, heard archivists critique the suitability of film for
a
I
a
particular audience; one archivist who was prepping film for labora
a
tory work said, "Oh, they'll love this at the festivals. It's D.W. a
Griffith," and commented that the audience would enjoy the old-
fashioned melodrama.
Procuring Funding and/or Resources

2:
Step
The organization has in securing funding for preserva

success that an
tion affects whether will be able to select film for the preservation
it
process. Because can cost minimum of $40,000 to preserve one

it
black-and-white feature film (and costs for color films or films with
special challenges can go up from there), matter of simply
is
rarely
it
massaging the budget to squeeze out few extra dollars for project.
a
a
Hence, crucial to document the steps that organizations take

is
it
to secure funding (figure 6.3). Although funding options for preserva

tion were once limited primarily to National Endowment for the Arts
and American Film Institute grants and the support of private
donors, the sources for support have become much more diverse in
the last fifteen years. There are number of public and private foun
a
figure 6.3 Step 2: Procuring funding and/or resources
C START
")
Curator or department head
Ask upper
Review budget
management for
for preservation
budget increase
/f Put project on hold >>

until next fiscal year and \
No-»J return to step 1
\
V
("Remove film from list
of candidates") J
/
Explore
alternative
funding sources
No
■Government —Donation— Joint project No

grant 1
Find donor
Share expenses No
Yes Write grant (private
with another
application foundation or
organization
individual)
/goto
-4 3. Inspecting and
Vinventorying a fill
dations that offer grants to nonprofit archives. In the for-profit world,

more and more money is being allocated to preservation activities as
copyright holders have begun to find ways to maximize profits from
their film libraries.
The curator first consults the budget for preservation allocations
before attempting to find money from outside sources. At the
archives visited during this study, I discovered that budgets usually
contain money for preservation staff salaries and equipment, but very
little for actual preservation projects. The operating budget is reserved
mostly for those services for which it is almost impossible to get
grants: human resources and facilities management. One archivist
told me that until four or five years ago, his annual budget for preser
vation projects ranged from $35,000 to $75,000 per year —enough to
preserve perhaps two films at most.
To increase the preservation budget, the curator or head of the
archive must aggressively pursue outside sources. Additional funds come
from four primary sources: grant programs run by government agencies
such as the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and
the National Film Preservation Foundation; grant programs adminis
tered by private foundations; donations made by individuals and busi
nesses; and revenue generated through licensing activities. Also, many
archives have established support groups, which individuals can join at
various levels of donations in order to show support for the institution in
particular and film preservation work in general.
To make matters even more complex, many government-level
granting agencies often require that the archive raise matching funds
for whatever money it receives from the program. Because of these
stipulations, film preservation is slowly but surely becoming more and
more privatized, as archives are increasingly required to rely on pri
vate funding for a majority of their preservation work. One of the
archives I studied was also reliant on licensing activities to generate
additional funds, and had consulted copyright expert at one point to
a
analyze the collections and pinpoint additional films that might be

commercially exploited. In the commercial environment, of course,
revenue sources such licensing activities remain the primary source
as
of income for preservation since studios are not eligible to apply for
grants or to seek donations.
At both of the nonprofit archives where I was an observer, curator

ial staff spent many hours applying for and administering grants from
government and private foundations. The grantwriting process involves
the input of both curatorial staff and preservation staff, who are the
most familiar with the content and condition of the collection. One
curatorial assistant confided that the trick of making a grant application
appealing was to "have a theme." She cited two recent grant applica
tions where the archive had been successful because of this strategy: one
application had focused on films made by "early mavericks"
—directors
from the silent era who had distinctive styles that separated them from
the mainstream; another application proposed films that were all made
under the auspices of the same production company or production
units affiliated with the same production company, thus the theme was
"all in the family." Julia also stressed that every government grant appli
cation must emphasize access, either through intention to exhibit the
film after it was preserved, or through other means such as videotape
and dvd collections made available to the public.
The process by which archives secure funding from individual
donors was more difficult to observe. Because I was
not privy to pri
vate conversations between curators and donors, it is impossible for
me to describe exactly how a curator develops a relationship with a
I
potential benefactor, although came to understand that cultivation
of a donor relationship takes place over a long period of time
strikes me as being quite similar to relationships between donors and (it
curators in the museum world). My exposure to this wooing process
was limited to tantalizing glimpses revealed at meetings where the
curator referred several times to the sorts of special favors that might
be granted to someone who had been particularly generous. For exam
ple, an archive might extend the courtesy of increased access to the
collections to donor. Donors also receive recognition in the credits

a
that the archive attaches to its preserved films — an enduring record of

their generosity, with touch of Hollywood glamour to boot.
a
The results of more aggressive fundraising and increased avail

ability of government money have been key to the increased activity
in preservation departments. The archivist who was once restricted to
under $75,000 year reports that he can now spend that much money
a
on the preservation of just one film since his department began

receiving more grants and donations.His current budget allows him

to increase both the number of films preserved and the amount of
time and resources spent on each preserved film.
The increased availability of funding for preservation also means
that many more genres of film are now potential candidates for
preservation projects than in the past. Nonfiction films such as docu
mentaries and newsreels, independent films, shorts, and other films
outside the mainstream of Hollywood features have received
increased recognition through funding agencies giving grants for
their preservation. Orphan films also have received increased focus.
Orphan films can be from any genre, although the largest category of
them is noncommercial films. Government agency grants are now
awarded almost exclusively to orphan films, thus archives have spent
more and more effort to select films that qualify as orphans.
Step 3: Inspecting and Inventorying a Film
Once the archive has chosen a film to preserve and found the money
to fund its preservation, in the preservation process
the next stage
may begin: the inspection and inventory of the film. Inspection is an
activity that can be undertaken for a variety of reasons, not just when
preparing a film for a preservation project. Archives will routinely
inspect film for evidence of nitrate deterioration, or to systematically
supplement the sometimes scanty information that it may have
received about the film at the time of its acquisition. For the preserva
tion project, however, inspection has the primary goal of recording a
physical description of the film in all its aspects. The archivist will
fully document the base, gauge, length, sound and color systems, con
dition, age, and generation of the film. The thoroughness in how
these details are investigated and recorded will be important for the
next two stages of the process: preparing a film to be duplicated at the
laboratory and the duplication itself.
To conduct the inspection and inventory, the preservationist will
examine the film in a workroom. The process is akin to detective
work: the archivist collects the rolls of film and attempts to read the
clues about the history of the film elements that are embodied in the
physical artifact. The film holds evidence of its production, its use or
abuse by previous owners, and even its decline. All of these details
must be noted, recorded, and interpreted for the film to be properly

inventoried and eventually preserved. Although archivists usually
work alone at this point in the process, they may consult with col
leagues if they experience difficulties in identifying a particular char
acteristic of the film.4 Later, an assistant may take over some of the
more repetitive tasks, such as splicing and repair.
Following the path of inspection as detailed in the chart (figure
6.4), the archivist first retrieves the film cans from storage. If the film
was in cold storage, it will need to be acclimatized slowly so that con
densation does not form on it as a result of an abrupt change in
temperature. Hence, the film may have to be "staged" for twenty-four
hours in a holding area that is somewhere between the temperature
for cold storage and room temperature. After staging, the film can be
brought into the workroom and inspected.
Both of the archives that I observed used a form on which the
preservationist could record data found in the course of inspection.
Before handling the film itself, the archivist fills out the basic identi
fying information that can be found on the label of the film can: the
title, year of production, and location and accession numbers.
Although this information is usually representative of what is actually
in the can, it is important to note that outside appearances can some
times be deceiving. In the past, there have been famous cases of
archivists or collectors who deliberately misidentified films in order to
hide the fact that they had illegal prints of particular titles.5
After opening the can, the archivist will usually receive his or her
first indication of the condition of the film rolls or reels based on both
visual and olfactory clues.6 If there is an odor when the lid is taken off,
an archivist can be sure that some sort of deterioration has taken
place, although the extent of decomposition may be unclear at first
glance (or whiff). The archivist may give the rolllittle squeeze to
a
listen for crackling sounds, which indicate film that is becoming brit
tle from deterioration. If the smell is strong enough, or if visual evi
dence such as froth or powder is present on the film or in the can
(sure signs of nitrate deterioration), an archivist may do an inspection

for deterioration straightaway.
If little or no deterioration is present upon initial inspection, the
roll will be removed from the can and its length is estimated (usually
figure 6.4 Step 3: Inspecting and inventorying a film
C START
J
Obtain inventory
form
Retrieve film
can(s) from
storage
"Stage" film to
minimize
condensation
-Yes
Record title and

other
information
found on
outside of can Attempt to
inventory determine the
form extent of nitrate
deterioration
Rotten eggs"-
(use FIAF scale
(sulphur)
and local
practice); record
result on form
*ln inspection
area, open a can
and remove film
Attempt to
determine the
extent of acetate
— Vinegar —
I deterioration
(use local
(acetic acid)
practice as
guide); record
on form
figure 6.4 Step 3: Inspecting and inventorying a film (continued)
Replace roll In can.

Inspect next roll
(starting from*).
Measure length
of each roll with
a "stick" (film
ruler) and record
'r
Place roll on
rewinds and
attach end to
take-up reel
' '
Wind film past

leader to first
few feet that
contain a title or
an image
Title found on film any)?

(if
''
16
Gauge (35 mm, mm, etc.)?

Aspect ratio (silent, Academy, etc.)?
Record format
Negative or positive?
Color or black-and-white?
characl eristics
there soundtrack? so, what format?
Is
If
a
Are there intertitles? so, what language?

If
Are there tints, tones, or stencils? so, what colors?

If
Goto
page 3
Continued
from page 2
Make estimate of film

Wind through base from year film was
and look for produced/released and
edge code results of deterioration
inspection
Record
Manufacturer of stock?
information
Year stock was manufactured?
about base and
Nitrate or safety film base?
age (based on
Write down edge code numbers for each shot
edge code
of
necessary for eventual assembly multiple elements)
(if
information)
Determine
of
generation
film (e.g., fine
grain, duplicate
negative,
projection print)
to
of
to
Continue Examples damage look for:

wind through
and inspect for Tears and breaks
damage, while Weak splices
writing down Broken perforations
tints and Scratches
intertitles Decomposition
Record damage
on inventory
form
Measure and
record amount
of film base
shrinkage (use
gauge)
Repeat
inspection
*
process from
on page
1
Make sure all

of
Look up entry film AFI

in
information is
catalog or other reputable
recorded on
reference source. Copy entry
inventory form;
to
and attach inventory form

it.
sign and date

of
Give copy
to
form
catalogerto
update record or
create new one
GOTO:
f
File inventory
-w
4.
Preparing film for

a
form
laboratory work
\
within twenty-five or fifty feet) using a measuring stick. The size of

the roll gives the archivist a rough estimate of length (a thousand-foot
roll of 35 mm film is equal to roughly ten minutes of screen time for a
sound film, or slightly longer if the film is a silent). The archivist will
eventually get an exact frame count during the preparation phase.
Then the archivist places the film on rewinds and begins to wind
through to the first foot of the film, which may contain either titles or
an image, depending on what sort of footage is being inspected. The
details may be pulled fairly quickly from the film at this point: What
is the gauge or format of the film? What aspect ratio was used? Is it a
negative or a positive record? Is it a color or black-and-white film? Is

a soundtrack present? Is the sound system optical, magnetic, or
another system? If the film is a silent, are there any intertitles? Does
the film have any tints or tones?
The inventory form has blanks to fill in the answers to these ques
tions, although finding the responses to some of them may require
some research, such as identifying the optical system used to record
the sound. Another challenge for many archivists will be the identifi
cation of colors used in tinting and toning of silent films. Because
these processes are largely unused in current-day filmmaking, infor
mation about the names of colors may need to be researched.
Archivists will usually write down approximations (e.g., "light blue,
green, orange, rose") and then attempt to identify which colors were
actually used at a later date (usually during the prep phase).
After an archivist identifies and records those details that are eas
of film,
ily
determined in the first frame or in the first few feet the

next step in the process to estimate the age and generation of the
is
film. The archivist winds through the film until an edge code
is
found. The edge code, which sequence of numbers printed every

is is
a
sixteen frames on 35 mm film, meant to aid filmmakers in the edit

ing process.7 Edge codes can also be very helpful in identifying the
year of manufacture of the film stock, in addition to determining the
order in which the film was shot. As part of their edge code, Kodak
uses series of symbols, combination of triangles, squares, circles,
a
and plus signs, to indicate the year of manufacture. Both archives that
visited have made reference chart for interpreting these symbols
a
I
by
and made easily accessible to archivists reproducing on inven

it
it
tory forms or by posting a copy of it in the workrooms. If Kodak

made the film, the archivist simply compares the code found on the
film to the code in the chart. Knowing the year, archivists can defini
tively determine the base of the stock as well, because manufacturers
stopped making nitrate-based film (for 35 mm stock) in 1952.
Edge codes can also be helpful in determining the generation of
the film. If there is only one set of edge codes and the film is a nega
tive, the archivist can be fairly confidant that the film is a camera
original (first-generation) negative. A single set of edge codes found
on a positive often indicates a fine grain or first-generation positive.
Each time a negative is struck, a new set of edge codes is added. Thus,
a negative with two or more of codes can usually be safely identi
sets
fied as a dupe neg, or duplicate negative. The same logic applies with
projection prints.
In the case where the archivist is presented with a film that has no
edge codes, it is more difficult to make a definitive determination of
the age and base of the film. Archivists usually rely on a deterioration
inspection for identifying base, and the year of a film's production or
release can help to determine the age of the stock except in the case of
prints, which may have been made many years after the negative was
first shot.
If archivists are truly stymied by the question of whether a film is
nitrate or safety, they may do a test to determine the base. I observed
archivists trim a sliverof the film from its edge (not cutting into the
picture or soundtrack, of course), which they took outside of the build
ing and lighted with a match or cigarette lighter. If the sliver burned
quickly and easily, it was considered to be nitrate, but if it did not burn
all the way through, the film was judged to be safety. This method is
not suggested in most manuals of film care. It was quick and simple,
however, and did not require special chemicals or equipment.
After identifying the key characteristics of the film, the archivist
is ready to check it for any damage or deterioration that was not
revealed in the initial inspection. Any damage will be recorded on the
inventory form and repaired by the archivist later during preparation
for the laboratory, although some archivists may fix minor perforation
damage as they find it rather than waiting. Decomposition must be
noted, as it will affect the ability of the laboratory to make a copy of
the film. I observed several occasions where decomposition affected

the registration of the film during the copying process and thus
affected the quality of the new copy. Significant scratches are recorded
as well, because their presence indicates the need to use a wet-gate
printer at the laboratory.

The amount of shrinkage of the film may be a cause for concern.
If shrinkage is two percent or more, it will not be possible to run the
film through printer without the laboratory making adjustments to
a
the equipment. When the inspection of the film is complete, the roll
is rewound to its head, and the inventory form is double-checked for
completeness and accuracy.
At this point, if the film is a feature, the archivist may look up the
film in a reputable reference source, such as the American Film
Institute catalog, to compare the title found on the film with its actual
release title.8 It is also helpful to compare the length of the film when
it was released to the duration of the film in hand. If they are signifi
cantly different, the archivist may have an alternate version. Any dis
crepancies of this sort will be noted on the inventory form before the
archivist signs and dates it. If cataloging is required at this point, the
form will be forwarded, along with a photocopy of the pertinent
pages in the reference source, to the cataloger, who will either create a
new record for the film or update an existing record with the new
data. The final step is to place the form in a permanent file, so that
the archivist can refer to it in future steps of the preservation process.
Step 4: Preparing a Film for Laboratory Work
After inspection and inventory are complete, the archivist can begin
the phase of the preservation process that is most closely associated
with "preservation" —the intervention and remedy — which includes
repairing damage and readying the film for the duplication process.
At this point, the line between preservation and restoration blurs con
siderably. Some archivists argue that preservation means simply
duplicating the elements as they are found — without, for example,
integrating pieces of the film from various sources, re-recording the
soundtrack, or attempting to compensate for color fading in the
source material. To those archivists, anything performed in addition
to that act of duplication is restoration, or perhaps reconstruction (a
word that seems somehow to occupy that nebulous space between

preservation and restoration).
In my fieldwork, I noticed many instances where steps were taken
that appeared to go beyond the simpler definition of preservation.
The newsreel archivists with whom I worked often reconstructed
footage to its original unedited state by using key numbers found on
edge codes to place the segments in the order in which they were
originally shot. Sometimes, this process entailed taking footage from
edited stories and placing those cuts back into the "cuts and outs" rolls
from which they were removed by the newsreel company during post-
production. At another archive, I saw archivists looking through
excerpts or "compilation reels" to find segments that had been
removed decades ago from prints by curators who wanted to screen
them illustrations for lectures. These excerpts can often be easily
as
respliced into the prints, making them whole again. Are those actions
of searching and replacing ones that belong more in the category of
preservation or restoration? It is difficult to make definitive distinc
tions about this work. To make the issue even murkier, studios will
often market rereleased films using the word "restored" when in actu
ality, a new print has simply been struck. I have chosen to represent
I
it,
the process as observed rather than attempting to make those fine

distinctions myself. Although use the word "preservation," there
I
may be several steps included in the process that some archivists more
closely associate with restoration.
Preparation and duplication are the most complex phases of the
preservation process. Although the chart of the macro process repre
sents preservation as being linear, in reality archivists may find them
selvesgoing through the preparation and duplication phases numerous
times for single film, particularly there are multiple elements that
if
a
must be combined. When archivists recreate new preservation ele

a
ment, they may be combining footage from elements of different

a
gauge or format as well as elements of varying picture quality. Thus,

elements of smaller gauge may need to be blown up in the laboratory
a
to match other elements, and elements of varying quality may have to

be integrated using A/B printing.9 Finally, the archivist may have to
transfer the soundtrack to more modern format (e.g., from
a
a
Vitaphone disk to magnetic track), and then combine picture and

a
sound elements into new print (after making a new track negative).
a
Given all of these potential additional processes, several decision

points and optional steps may delay the preparation process consider
ably. Similarly, in the duplication phase there are a number of feedback
loops that represent quality control checkpoints. The end result is that
a film can remain in preservation Umbo for many months.
The initial step in the process of preparation is to examine every
element that is to be considered a potential candidate for the master.
Because the footage count has been recorded for each roll, the
archivistwill be aware of any discrepancies in length between multi
ple elements. In most cases, the archivist will want to "preserve from"
the most complete version, although the most complete version may
not be the best in terms of picture quality. It is essential to compare
the elements of two or more versions using a flatbed viewer. Viewing
two elements at once on a Steenbeck,10 a side-by-side comparison,
allows the archivist to look at the film shot by shot and frame by
frame, to see exactly how much of the film is missing from one film or
the other, and gives the archivist a good look at the merits of each ele
ment in relation to the other from the standpoint of scratches, dam

age, and deterioration. Although one film may emerge as the clear
choice for the preservation master element, more often the archivist
must combine parts of each element through various means. One
in the study asserted that he always picked the element with
archivist
the most "information," but that he will preserve each element as he
found it before attempting to combine the multiple elements into a
single master print.

If preliminary
laboratory work must be done on some elements,
the archivist needs to prepare them for the laboratory (for blow-ups
or printing to match the master element, or to recreate a missing color
record) or post-production house (for sound re-recording). All the
extra steps needed for those intermediate preparations are not
detailed on the chart.11
After all elements have been found or produced through those
intermediate steps listed in figure 6.5, everything is assembled in the
correct order, which can be quite straightforward or a challenge that
may take weeks or months to unravel. The simplest scenario occurs
when the film has existed in only one version. However, when the
figure 6.5 Step 4: Preparing a film for laboratory work

figure 6.5 Step 4: Preparing a film for laboratory work (continued)
Double-check
element for
decomposition
Magnetic - and shrinkage.
Re-record if
element cannot
For each reel, be used as is.
Vitaphone"
wind through
disk
each picture Yes J~"
element and
repair each tear, Re-record onto Digital or
break, weak magnetic track other format Consult post-
splice, and Optical production
to
broken house
perforation* determine best

If sound is
of
method
acceptable, integrating
is.
leave as sound and

Otherwise, re- picture
record onto
magnetic track
Synchronize
soundtrack with
picture element
Clean each
frame of picture
and sound
elements to
remove dirt,
oils, tape
residue, etc.
Add printing
to
leader head
of
and tail each

reel
Label leader
of
with title film,

element type,
and total footage
count
figure 6.5 Step 4: Preparing a film for laboratory work (continued)
Measure film
with
synchroniser or
footage counter
of flatbed viewer
Return to step
*
marked with
and repeat
procedure for
each color
record
Return to step
*
marked with
and repeat
procedure for
each reel
Choose method
for replicating
colors (e.g.,
Yes*.
Desmet system,
dyeing
projection print)
Select printer to
be used (e.g.,
step, contact,
wet-gate) based
on condition of
master element
/ GOTO: \
5. Duplicating a film at
\ the laboratory J
archivist finds multiple versions of a release print — as evidenced by a
difference in length or different shots used within copies of approxi

mately the same length
—he or she needs to determine which print
will serve as theblueprint for the master element. In this situation,
the work at hand begins to approach the restoration end of the
preservation spectrum.
Once it is decided how the film will be assembled (if that step is
necessary at all), the physical work on the film itself can begin. Every
place where two segments must be joined together requires a splice.
Then the archivist can perform any required repair work, such as
mending tears and perforation damage. Some films may be pristine,

while others may be in terrible shape. Those elements used as projec
tion prints often exhibit the worst damage, which may or may not be
evident after the film is duplicated. Tears are difficult to disguise, even
with the best repair jobs, which may lead archivists to use digital
processes for some restoration work (unless cost-prohibitive).
The penultimate task of film preparation is the cleaning of each
frame with film cleaner so that any dirt, oils, or tape residue can be
removed prior to duplication. Although many film laboratories offer
cleaning services (either by hand or using sonic equipment), an
archivist may prefer to do the job, since he or she can usually take
more time and care with the film than the laboratory personnel can.
After cleaning the film, it is measured to ensure that the archivist has
an exact footage count. An archivist can use either a flatbed viewer
with a footage counter or a synchronizer (a synch block) to perform
this task. Printing leader is added before the film is measured because
it is usually considered part of the total footage count.
Before the film can be declared ready for duplication at the labo
ratory, an archivist usually views the master element on the flatbed
viewer one final time quality check and to note any possible spots
as a
in the film that may present problems for the lab technicians. For
example, if the film has been cobbled together from various elements,
there may be significant shifts in density from one segment to
another. It is also the final chance to catch missed jump cuts or phys
ical damage that may have escaped the attention of the archivist dur
ing the repair process.12 As the chart illustrates, this step can lead to
yet another feedback loop.
Before sending the film to the laboratory, the archivist chooses

what printer will be used, based on the condition of the film. If the
film happens to be a silent, featuring tints and tones, the archivist also
selects a method of reproducing those colors. There are currently sev
eral methods available, ranging from the actual dying of the print as it
was done originally in the 1920s to the use of color negative film and
a series of filters to reproduce the colors in the print (called the
Desmetcolor method).13
Step 5: Duplicating a Film at the Laboratory
At this point in the preservation process, the film leaves the care of
the archive and is entrusted to professionals film laboratory for
at a
duplication (figure 6.6). The archive chooses the laboratory with care
because not every laboratory understands the specific requirements of
preservation work. Archivists build long-standing
and restoration
relationships with those few laboratories that can tailor their services
to meet archival standards, especially those that have expertise in par
ticular types of restoration work, such as an ability to work with spe
cial formats or the capability to modify printing equipment to
accommodate severely shrunken film.
Once the archivist has decided which laboratory will be suitable
for providing duplication services, he or she writes up a work order
detailing what elements will be produced, which printer will be used,
and any special accommodations to be made or instructions to be fol
lowed. The archivist points out any physical conditions of the film
that might hinder efforts to duplicate it (e.g., warping, buckling,
shrinkage, or the presence of deterioration).
To achieve their preservation objectives, archivists have a choice
of four types of printers: continuous contact, contact step, optical step,
and optical continuous. While continuous contact printing is the
most common method for creating release prints for the distribution
of new films, it is rarely requested by archivists to copy archival film.
On continuous contact printers, the films run very quickly, with the
original negative running in contact with the positive stock. Nitrate
film cannot be run on these machines because of its fragility and
because it usually displays a significant amount of shrinkage from
decomposition. The perforations in nitrate footage, which may once
figure 6.6 Step 5: Duplicating a film at the laboratory
C
STm
) o
Write up a work Attend viewing
order, detailing session (bring
what product wil all notes on
be generated condition
(e.g., "dupe neg of film)
and answer
print")
Review answer
Take the film print for image
with the work quality
order to the
laboratory
Review gamma
levels with
timer; adjust if
Consult with the
necessary and
timer in charge
make new trial
of overseeing
print
the production
of the new
elements to Check original
Make any
ensure that element for
needs will be necessary
possible errors
met repairs and
in the prep or
make new
printing
answer print
processes
After the film

has been
Make necessary
duplicated,
Check picture adjustments to
schedule a
element and put picture and
viewing session
at the laboratory
l \— No-» sound element —► sound elements
for any prepping in sync and
screening
errors make new
facility
answer print
o
''
Go to
Yes — »■
Ipag e2 J
figure 6.6 Step 5: Duplicating a film at the laboratory (continued)
Go back to:
Review answer print for image quality
Adjust color
levels and create
No->
new answer
print
Order final Return film to

master element laboratory and
(fine grain) and request that they Make videotape
any access make a new fine access copies
copies grain which meets using telecine
(projection minimum density

prints) requirements
Pick up all film

(original
elements and
/" GOTO:
new elements)
from the
/ 6. Storing the master
I element and access
laboratory
n. copies
At archive,
check new fine
grains for
correct density,
using a
densitometer
o
have allowed the film to run smoothly through printers and projec
tors, are no longer as far apart as they were when the film was new.
When such shrunken film is run through a continuous printer, the
result will be a print that is out of focus or unsteady at best, and at risk
for breaking in the printer at worst.
Where registration is of utmost importance, an archivist will use
a contact step printer to make color separation records.14 An archivist
who works mainly with features may find an optical step printer to be
the more logical choice, especially if he or she is working with multi
ple elements that may be of different gauges or formats. Optical step
printers can also be equipped with liquid gates (i.e., wet-gate) to min
imize imperfections such as scratches and abrasions.
Although wet-gate printing can be a savior for films that might
otherwise be too scratched to be used as a preservation element, it is
not a perfect technology. First, the liquid in the gate that disguises
scratches will also diffuse the light source. The scattering of the light
beams will lead to a decreased sharpness and loss of detail in the
resulting print. When the archivist is also blowing up the master ele
ment from 16 mm to 35 mm the resulting lack of detail from the two
processes can be less than ideal (one archivist described the final print
of such a project as "beautiful, but fuzzy"). Unfortunately, one must
of change of format — which means
use wet-gate printing for any sort
this problem is essentially unavoidable.15 The liquid used in the
gate
—perchloroethylene —may be problematic for another reason.
Some archivists suspect that the chemical, which is also used in the
sonic cleaning process performed in many laboratories, actually
speeds deterioration of film. Despite the drawbacks of wet-gate
printing, however, it remains the best option for archivists who have
elements with many physical defects.
A final option for copying archival film elements is the continu
ous optical printer. Originally developed for producing titles and spe
cial effects, many archivists have begun to use this type of printer to
copy shrunken film that does not have physical defects requiring the
use of a wet-gate printer.
In a typical case, an archivist is preserving a silent title that exists
only as a 16 mm safety print. He or she asks the laboratory to make a
35 mm duplicate negative from the print, and subsequentiy, make an
answer print from the new dupe neg. Before becoming a conservation
copy, the master element (the 16 mm print) was a projection print,
and shows the scratches of much handling and numerous projections.
The archivist indicates on the work order that the laboratory should
use its wet-gate printer to make new positive elements. After the film
has been transported to the laboratory, the archivist consults with the
timer (also known as the grader) in charge of overseeing the produc
tion of the new elements and goes over any problems that might be
encountered in the printing process, such as shots with varying con
trast levels. The skilled timer must be able to translate the requests of
an archivist into precise measurements of density and light qualities.16
One archivist commented that the laboratories know the film stocks
and the normal settings used to print and develop the film. But they
also know how to make adjustments in the variables and when to go
"off the norm." After the requirements for preservation have been dis
cussed, the laboratory technicians conduct the work of duplication.
When the answer print is ready to be viewed, the archivist makes an
appointment to screen it if he or she is within traveling distance of the
laboratory (most laboratories will have some sort of screening facility
available on-site). Otherwise, the new element is shipped back to the
archive, for review by the archivist.
The archivist will review and evaluate the quality of the duplica
tion work with several criteria in mind, including timing, registration,
synchronization of picture and sound, and color balance (for color
films). Although many of the potential problems in the print could be
addressed without any special adaptations to the projector, to spot
difficulties with registration archivists often request that the film be
screened with the aperture plate removed from the projector. That
way, they can see both the edges of the film and the frame line, spot
difficulties with registration, and thus more clearly identify problems
with stability.
When the archivist has a question about
something that seems to
have gone awry with the print, he or she will mention it during the
screening and attempt to resolve matters right then. One might term
the viewing sessions at the laboratory as opportunities for the negoti
ation of preservation standards between the archivists and the labora
tory technicians. The archivists and the technicians balance aesthetic
concerns and financial exigencies, i.e., "getting it right" versus keep

ing costs down. For the laboratory, every time they must reprocess a
film because the archivist found it unacceptable due to a processing
error, the margin of profit, small to begin with, becomes smaller. Thus
laboratories that do preservation work will resist re-doing anything
unless the archivist can prove that the technician has made an error in
processing or printing or did not follow the instructions given. The
archivist must keep careful records about the original element before
the film is sent to the laboratory for duplication.
When the archivist is satisfied that the final result is the best that
can be accomplished (given funding and constraints), he or she will
order the final master element or elements, which is usually a fine
grain in the case of a black-and-white film or three color separations
done on black-and-white separation stock (the three records are yel
low, cyan, and magenta).17 After the new masters have been made, all
elements are returned to the archive, and the archivist double-checks
the density of the masters by using a densitometer. All masters must
meet a minimum density measurement or the archive will ask the lab
oratory to print the element again.
Step 6: Storing the Master Elements and Access Copies
After the long and arduous process of preparing the film for the labo
ratory, sending it to the laboratory, and reviewing the quality of the
new preservation elements — which may include sending the film
back to the lab for reduplication one or more times — the process fol
lowed to protect the final result is fairly straightforward (figure 6.7).
Most archives have systematized such aspects as the conditions for
storage and the ordering of the films in the vaults.
The archivist prepares the films to be placed in storage by ensur
ing that the film is wound to the tail with the emulsion in. This wind
protects the image from scratches and makes it easier to wind prints
onto a reel if they will eventually be used in projection (in the case of
access copies).
If nitrate is to be stored, archivists will also remove any plastic

cores (called "popping the core") that were used during the inspection
and duplication processes. This action allows the film to breathe;
cores left in tend to hasten deterioration in nitrate because the wind is
figure 6.7 Step 6: Storing the master elements and access copies
C START \
Assign inventory
Review original
to
numbers all
materials newly created
gathered for cans
preservation
project
Place new
master material
Separate out and
in
low-humidity/
return all
low-temperature
borrowed
vault
materials
Place access in
copies
a
Separate nitrate controlled

from safety film environment
Replace
Prepare rolls for the
in
originals
storage: wind to which
in
vault
in;
tail, emulsion they were

remove core
in if
originally stored
nitrate; place (nitrate separate
cans from safety)
Label any newly Update records

to
created cans reflect any
with title, reel new location
number, and any numbers
other identifying
information
GOTO:
>
1
Cataloging the new master

7.
o
elements and access copies

tighter. With safety films, however, the consensus seems to be that

cores left in do not harm the film.
Before films are transferred to storage, the archive assigns a loca
tion or inventory number to every can to ensure quick retrieval.
Nitrate film is always stored separately from safety film in the vaults.
This practice arises from safety requirements as well as a concern that
deteriorating nitrate may adversely affect acetate-based films. Nitrate
is required by law to be stored in vaults designed to contain a fire,
should roll of film spontaneously combust. The vaults should also be
a
designed with ventilation, exhaust, and sprinkler systems and, ideally,

temperature and humidity controls. With the discovery of vinegar
syndrome, moving image archivists now realize that safety film needs
the protection of cold storage just as much as nitrate does, especially
for color safety film, which must be kept near freezing to retard fad
ing. Thus building requirements for safety film storage are almost as
rigorous for nitrate storage, with the major exception being
as those
the extra precautions taken in case of a nitrate fire.

The temperature and humidity controls for nitrate film vaults
vary widely among archives. One archive that I visited has no envi
ronmental controls for its nitrate storage, while the other archive
recently built an off-site long-term storage facility in which all film is
kept forty degrees Fahrenheit and thirty percent humidity. Not
at
every community allows nitrate to be stored within the city limits,

which is the reason this archive built its facility in a neighboring
town. Because building a new storage facility costs millions of dollars,
some archives are still in the process of raising funds for such a proj
ect. It is important to note that preservation elements generated
through laboratory work require the most care in their storage. Thus,
archives will usually place these elements in cold storage even if they
cannot afford to place the rest of their collection there.
Step 7: Cataloging the Master Elements and Access Copies
Once all the elements of a film have been transferred to their respec
tive storage sites, it is the responsibility of the cataloger to provide
intellectual access to the film. The cataloger makes a record of the
description of a film and places that record in a catalog, usually a
computer database. Ideally, the cataloger will use a system that sup-
figure 6.8 Step 7: Cataloging the new master elements and

access copies
START
(Archivist)
Retrieve
inventory form
and any notes on
preservation
activity from
files
k
Make new
ri
record for Update holdings
Get preliminary
preserved information to
cataloging form
version using indicate new
from cataloging
information master and
department
found on access elements
cataloging form
Fill in necessary
descriptive Perform
information on research on cast
cataloging form and crew
members to
establish proper
name
Optional:
Assign
Obtain notes on
appropriate
preservation
subject and/or
process from
genre terms
archivist and
to film
add to record
GOTO:
.. Providing access to
the preserved film
ports both physical description and indexes for individuals, corporate

bodies, and subjects (figure 6.8).
The archivist makes sure that all of the pertinent documentation
generated during the preservation process is passed on to the cata-
loger: inventory forms with notes on the physical description of the
film, copies of the results of any research in reference sources, and a
summary of the procedures used in the reconstruction and duplica
tion of the film.
The cataloger enters the data into the database, deciding whether
the film is a new version or not by comparing the description of the
archival copy with the listing of the film in reference sources. The cat-
alogers at both archives that I visited largely rely on the American
Film Institute catalog as their initial point of comparison (for feature
films); other reference sources may be used for shorts, newsreels, and
other types of nonfiction films. A new version of the film always
requires creating a new record, while a film that is simply a copy of a
previously cataloged version may be added to the latter film's record as
an "added holding."
The cataloger assigns index terms to the film that it may be
so
searched for by cast and crew names or by the subject matter or genre
(in addition to title). The methods for assigning terms differ accord
ing to the cataloging standards used by the archive.18 For subject
headings, the cataloger will select terms from a "controlled vocabu
lary," a list of terms approved for use. Providing access to films by the
names of individuals can be more difficult because headings for all of
them may not have been established through previous cataloging.
The cataloger may need to do authority work (research) to establish
the correct form of a name. Because this work is time consuming and
expensive, some archives rely on forms of names found in particular
reference sources, such as the American Film Institute catalog. The
Internet Movie Database is growing in popularity among archivists
and catalogers as a resource for such data as well."
Step 8: Providing Access to the Preserved Film
After the film has been cataloged, it is time to provide physical access
to the film through exhibition, on-site viewing, or other means. I

focus on providing access through exhibition, as it is one of the pri
figure 6.9 Step 8: Providing access to the preserved film
on)
(exhibition) (
START
J O
1
'
Archivist
informs After screening,
programmer that projectionist
preserved film returns film to
may now be the archive
exhibited
1r 1r
Archivist or film
Programmer
technician
schedules film
inspects each
for exhibition
reel for damage
<• ''
Archivist or film
Programmer technician
advertises
repairs any
screening
damage found
on the film
(Ont he day of the screer ing)

1
Projectionist 1'
prepares film for Archivist or film

projection (no technician
platter returns film to
projection storage
allowed)
'
fV
•
Projectionist
screens film
FILM
PRESERVED
J
A
o
'
mary ways of making the film available to researchers and to the gen
eral public (figure 6.9). I also briefly review the procedures for lending
prints to other institutions and festivals, providing on-site access, and
other methods such as marketing the preserved film on videotape,
dvd, cd-rom, or over the Internet.
Both of the archives involved in this study consider exhibition to
be a crucial component of their mission. Each archive has a screening
facility where they show films from their own collections and from
other institutions and archives. One archive screens almost every
night of the week except Mondays; the other archive screens over four
hundred films a year. If a film is preserved at an archive, it will even
tually be screened at that archive's screening faculty and probably will
be lent a number of times to other fiaf archives and festivals.
The archivist or curator informs the programming division of the
archive when the film is available to be screened. Although the film
can simply be placed on the schedule where there is an empty slot, the
film may be shown to better advantage as part of a series of films that
share a similar theme. Common themes for a film series include, for
example, celebrations of the birth or death of a film star or director;
anniversaries or milestone celebrations in the career of a film artist;
representative films from particular eras, such as silents, early sound
films, or pre-Code Hollywood films; films that are representative of
genres, such as westerns or musicals; and films of ethnic or world cin
emas. A programmer at one of the archives pointed out another rule
of thumb to me: titles with more popular appeal should be screened
on Friday or Saturday nights, while less well known titles should be
screened on weekday evenings in order to maximize attendance. I saw
evidence of this principle when the archivists and programmers were
scheduling a festival; certain films that featured big-name stars or
directors received the plum weekend slots, while silent films and
newsreels were assigned Wednesday and Thursday slots.
For some films, particularly those that were preserved in an
incomplete state or from a master that was in an advanced state of
deterioration, it may be difficult or impossible to provide access
through exhibition. An archivist working to preserve a silent film that
was missing the first two reels commented that it "was not a film
which could be simply run at the [archive theater] without an expla
nation"; someone from the archive would have to explain to viewers

why the film was missing two reels. I marveled that anyone would
schedule it all, and he replied, "You'd be surprised. The festivals are
always hungry for new material."
After the film is scheduled for a screening and advertised locally
through the archive calendar and the newspaper, the film is prepared
for projection. At this point, the film technicians and projectionists
become involved in the process. They make sure that the film is
wound onto projection reel and that it is in good shape to be pro
a
jected. Each film that will be projected in the archive theater or lent
out is inspected for its condition and number of splices, and the
footage count is measured. Keeping track of the number of splices
and footage count is particularly important if the film will be lent out,
because with such data film technicians can determine if the lender
has made any alterations to the film, such as joining reels together for
platter projection or removing excerpts.
The archival policy at this institution and at most archives is to
prohibit plattering. Platter projection, whereby all the reels of a film
are combined onto one giant reel, is the current method of screening
used in most commercial movie theaters. This is done for reasons of

economy — the projectionist does not have to be in the projection
booth during the screening to change reels. In the age of the multi
plex, projectionists simply go from projection booth to projection
booth, setting up and turning on projectors. For archival prints, and
particularly for nitrate, plattering is a dangerous screening method.
There is significant potential for damage to unique prints if some
thing should go awry (such as the film breaking). In the case of
nitrate prints, plattering is illegal — if a nitrate print were to catch fire,
there would be enough nitrate on that one giant reel to cause an
explosion. Thus, nitrate is always screened using two projectors, with
a projectionist in the booth at all times.
Because of the stringent requirements for archival projection, pro
jectionists are the "mastersof their domains," i.e., of the projection
booth. They dislike having any other person in the booth because of the
potential for distraction, and because additional people will be in the
way as the projectionist moves from the projectors to the rewind bench
and back to the projectors again. Projectionists are also responsible for
raising and lowering the house lights and controlling the sound system
for the theater. If there is a problem with projection, the projectionist
must react quickly to fix it or risk the annoyance of the audience.
Archival film projection is an intense, demanding job that is often
under-appreciated in comparison to other aspects of preservation work.
Forms of Access
Preserved films are frequently lent to other nonprofit institutions and

to festivals for screenings. Most institutions, with the major exception
of fiaf member archives, are expected to pay a loan fee and to pay for
all shipping and handling, insurance, and copyright clearances, fiaf
archives are responsible only for copyright clearance and shipping
fees. It should be noted that, as a general principle, no archive will
allow aprint to be borrowed unless the title has been preserved at a
fiaf-affiliated archive; the idea is that a unique print is a conservation
copy and should not be projected unless it has been protected by cre
ating a preservation master.
Archives can spend a significant amount of their resources ship
ping and receiving films. Shippers must inspect films both before they
are shipped and after they are returned to the archive. The shipper has
the power to decide whether or not to lend a film to another institu
tion or organization. One shipper told me that if she felt that a film
was "borderline" in terms of its condition, she considered the lender
before she allowed the film to be sent out. An organization guilty of
plattering a film in the past may not be allowed to borrow films again.
In addition to exhibition and lending, other forms of access have
become important means for individuals to view films. Almost every
nonprofit archive provides some form of on-site access to scholars
and students, either by allowing individuals to view the films on a
flatbed viewer or by providing them with a video surrogate. Archives
do not loan films to individuals, nor do they sell videos of films in
their collections, for reasons of copyright, except when the archive
owns the rights to a film or when the film is in the public domain. In
such cases, archives have occasionally sold videos through distribution
companies that specialize in restored films (such as Kino and
Milestone). One of the archives in this study has experimented with
marketing newsreel footage as part of an educational package to col
lege and universities.

Nonprofit archives may also become involved with the licensing
of footage to which they own the rights — one archive has raised a sig
nificant amount of funds for preservation through the licensing of
newsreel footage. Commercial archives provide primary access to pre
served films through the market: rereleasing films, selling and renting
them on video and dvd, and licensing footage to producers for use in
other productions, such as documentaries and television news. Few
commercial archives allow scholarly access to their films.
The Internet is still in its infancy as a significant means of access
to preserved films, although as high-speed connections and broad
band technology become more widespread both commercial and
noncommercial archives will explore its potential further. At this
point, concerns about copyright infringement and piracy keep most
archives and studios from putting feature films online. The major
exceptions have been the Library of Congress, which has placed a
number of short films online through its American Memory Project,
and the Internet Archive, which has made available almost two thou
sand industrial and educational films from the Prelinger Archives.20
This chapter has documented the process and decision making in

film preservation. I mapped the path of preserving a film, finding
eight stages in the process: selection, procuring funding, inspection
and inventory, preparation for laboratory work, duplication at the lab
oratory, storage, cataloging, and providing access. For each stage, I
identified the individuals responsible for making decisions and main
taining quality control, and explored the issues that may affect their
choices. Significantly, I uncovered feedback loops where individual
subjectivity and aesthetic sensibilities can often override concerns for
efficiency and standardization in the preservation process.
Chapter B NdIbs
1 Also known as "member's meanings." Robert M. Emerson, Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L.
Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 12.
2 For the particulars of how to use workflow charts to document task level processes, see
Dianne Galloway, Mapping Work Processes (Milwaukee, Wis.: ASQ_Quality Press, 1994).
3 As somewhat of side note, it is helpful here to make a distinction between the preservation
and restoration processes. As one curator pointed out to me, although every restoration is a
preservation, not every preservation is a restoration. As I understood
it,
he meant that in
the course of restoration, every element used usually copied onto newer stock The
is
a
preservation process does not always include the exhaustive efforts taken to reconstruct
a
complete version as usually occurs with restoration. Both of the archives that visited
I
cited number of films currently being preserved that were incomplete, with significant
a
amounts of footage or even multiple reels missing.
A
restoration project usually under
is
taken when an archive or studio feels that the film important enough to merit the effort
is
necessary to assemble the most complete version possible. Depending upon the goals of
the organization, the film may also be subject to modernization of the soundtrack and to
other enhancements to the picture element to improve its appeal to audiences of today.
The ethical issues involved in restoration are quite complex and merit additional attention,
although they are beyond the scope of this study.
For early films, the archivist presented with particular challenges in identifying and
is
4
inventorying film due to the lack of standardization in stock manufacture, the production
a
process, and printing procedures. Until an archivist has built up "mental catalog" of the
a
physical characteristics which allows him or her to identify the films upon visual inspec
tion, he or she will need to rely upon reference sources to determine the manufacturer of
the film stock, the production company, and the dates of manufacture and production.
Harold Brown, an archivist who worked for fifty years at the National Film Archive in
Britain, wrote an invaluable publication for FIAF to assist in these tasks, Physical
Characteristics Early Films as Aids to Identification (Brussels: FIAF, 1990).
of
by
35 mm prints of copyrighted films may not be owned anyone other than

the copyright
5
holder. Archives may only legally possess them they are "on deposit" from the copyright
if
owner. Henri Langlois of the Cinematheque Francaise was well-known for the practice of
deliberately mislabeling illegal copies of theatrical prints, as was William Everson, film
a
historian and collector who taught for many years at New York University. Thus, given the
proclivities of previous owners or handlers of the film, archivists should not rely exclusively
on labels found on the can to determine the identity of film.
a
Although have noticed that the words "roll" and "reel" are often used interchangeably, one
6
would tend to use the word "reel" more often to refer to serial parts of feature film.
a
Feature films usually have multiple reels. Archivists tend to use the word "roll" to refer to
raw stock, unedited footage, preprint material (such as negatives), or footage which has
been cut down into smaller elements (as often the case with newsreel stories). For the
is
purposes of simplicity, will use "roll" unless am talking exclusively about feature films.
I
For 16 mm film, the edge code appears every 16, 20, or 40 frames. See L. Bernard Happe,
7
Your Film and the Lab (New York: Hastings House, 1974), 22.
Few reference sources exist for other categories of film beyond features. The National Film
8
Preservation Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has funded project to
a
develop guide to industrial and educational films. This publication, The Industrial and
a
Institutional Films: A Field Guide, the NFPF in August 2006. For

by
due to published
is
more information, see http://www.filmpreservation.org/projects/industrial.html.

A/B method used to produce new single element from two rolls of film.
It
printing
is
9
was originally devised to create optical special effects but archivists now use the technique
to reduce the number of splices in master element (hence, reducing the possibility of mis
a
registration from those splices).

10 Steenbeck manufacturer of flatbed projectors.
is
a
11 Readers interested in detailed descriptions of such restoration processes may want to con
sult the various articles written over the past two decades on such famous restorations as
Becky Sharp, Gone With the Wind, Lawrence ofArabia, or Lost Horizon. Such articles can be
found regularly in American Cinematographer, Film Comment, and back issues of American
Film (the latter periodical is no longer in publication).
12 Jump-cuts are places in the film where the action appears jerky due to missing frames.
13 For a detailed explanation of the Desmetcolor method, see Noel Desmet and Paul Read,
"The Desmetcolor Method for Restoring Tinted and Toned Films," in All the Colours of the
World: Colours in Early Mass Media, 1900-1930 (Reggio Emilia, Italy: Edizioni Diabasis,
1998), 147-50.
14 Happe, Your Film and the Lab, 48-49.
15 Ibid., 164.
16 Happe notes that "grading is in fact one of the few laboratory operations where personal
subjective judgments are of primary importance." Ibid., 154.
17 A fine grain is a positive made on intermediate stock that has a higher density and thus
holds more picture information than a regular print. For more information on film dupli
cation, see Dominic Case, Motion Picture Film Processing (London: Focal, 1985), 90-93.
18 It is outside of the scope of this study to explore the challenges of archival moving image
cataloging, except within the context of the situations of the archives included in this
study. For an overall picture of cataloging practice and the multiplicity of formats used by
archives, see the Compendium of Moving Image Cataloging Practice, ed. Abigail Leab Martin
(Chicago: Society of American Archivists; Los Angeles: Association of Moving Image
Archivists, 2001).
19 The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) can be found at http://www.imdb.com/.
20 Films from the American Memory Project may be found at

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/ListSome.php?format=Motion+Picture; the
Prelinger Archives online collection is available at http://www.archive.org/details/prelinger.
The Definition of Preservation
In the film archives community, the meaning of preservation is elusive

and mutable. One of the first things I discovered when talking to
archivists about preservation is that they all had a different idea about
what it was. It of preser
soon became clear to me that the definition
vation is the subject of an ongoing dialogue among archivists. In one
of my first interview experiences with archivists during a focus group,
I asked the participants — who were all curators of film collections —
"What part do you feel preservation plays in the day-to-day activities
of your institution?" It had seemed like a fairly straightforward ques
tion when wrote my interview guide, but when I posed it to the
I
group they immediately turned the question back on me, asking what
I meant by the word preservation. Before I could clarify my question,
they began to discuss the lack of consensus in the field about the def
inition of the term. They never did get around to answering my ques
tion directly, yet they uncovered what would become a key issue for
this study.
The exchange among those focus group participants gave me the
first indication of the contested nature of this word, preservation,
among archivists. field experiences and interviews with
Subsequent
the various individuals who populate the world of film archiving led
me to a better understanding of just how multi-layered and supersat
urated the meaning of preservation has become. Once upon a time,
preservation meant solely the act of copying nitrate film to a more
stable format — safety film stock. Today, the word is a key indicator of
an archivist's responsibilities, commitments, and values. This chapter
explores the fluidity of the meaning of the word preservation in the
archival community and attempts to relate this debate to larger issues
at work in the structure and functioning of the field.
Untangling the Web of Meanings

Preservation work encompasses a complex set of activities, processes,
values, and policies. It can be difficult to separate these different forms
from one another. Archivists often commingle denotative and conno-
tative meanings when speaking about preservation work. The follow
ing instance typifies this multiplicity of interpretations. Erica, who
heads a university archive dealing largely with student films and films
used to support teaching, described preservation activities at her
archive at a focus group session (I have italicized the relevant phrases):
The archive was created in 1995, in its current configuration. So,

prior to that, the preservation consisted of trying to keep and get ahold
of all negatives and prints, and videotape copies, that were produced
from the student and staff productions. It was all brought together,
so now, the various collections that support the cinema school and
*****
other film collections from University, including the student
film collections, are all together. Now, preservation basically consists
of the physical, day-to-day job of watching the dehumidifiers, keeping
the temperature down, making sure there aren't sewage problems in the
building, and creating space, and access, and retrievability of all the
items as they go in and out of the archive, making them available for
people . . . My preservation activity, since I came on board, has consisted
—
of starting with all of the original materials generally 16 mm A and B
rolls, optical tracks, mag comps, whatever I
could find, putting them in
order,and checkingfor any obvious signs of deterioration such as vinegar
syndrome. Anything that had that deterioration was pulled out and
put onto a separate shelf. We're installing molecular sieves because
that's the best thing that we know of now, and the least expensive
way to keep it on good terms. Removing anything away from leaks
in the ceiling — which we discovered — which was very horrendous
and awful. And making sure that that's separated so that we can turn
our attentions to preservation, to anything that seems to be deteriorating
. .
.first . . .
before we try to attempt to do preservation on anything else.
In her description, Erica used the word preservation many times, but
the meaning changes slightly each time. First, she noted that preser
vation at this archive initially consisted of just gathering material
together in one place. In this instance, merely collecting and therefore
saving the films qualified as preservation. Her arrival on the scene
indicated an expansion of the archive's operations, and her responsi
The Definition of Preservation 143
bilities for preservation then began to include monitoring tempera

ture and humidity control, keeping abreast of storage requirements,
and providing access to the collections.
Next, she stated that her "preservation activity" has consisted of
two primary tasks thus far: inspecting and "putting in order" original
materials. She makes a distinction between these tasks and the other
work in which she is engaged, calling the former "activities," and the
latter a part of her "day-to-day" job. Furthermore, she explains that it
is the policy of her archive to separate deteriorating acetate film from
film that does not show signs of decomposition, possibly because she
is concerned that those films affected by vinegar syndrome might
accelerate deterioration in neighboring films. She also notes that the
archive uses molecular sieves —a device that helps to slow down
acetate deterioration in film — "because that's the best thing we know
of now." Thus she is identifying a standard for preservation in her
archive: using molecular sieves is a more efficient way for the archive
to reduce deterioration than just monitoring. The other "activity,"
putting original elements "in order," shows one way that her archive
makes priorities in its work. Original elements — which archivists call
preprint material because they are used in the making of a projection
print — are more valuable than a print for the purposes of preserva
tion, because they are an earlier generation of the film, and thus con
tain more image and sound information than a print would.
One final point to consider: although Erica noted that identify
ing and inventorying original elements were the primary priorities for
her archive, she hones in on what presents the gravest concern for the
archive at this point — saving films that are already deteriorating.
Here, she is not just referring to preventative work to ward off further
damage
—she is indicating an intervention, a treatment to transfer the
visual and aural information to a new format.
The above example presents confusing array of meanings of
a
preservation to the layperson. Erica uses the word as a sort of a catch

all term without differentiating among the multiple meanings it can
have. All of the activities in which she engages herself, both the day-
to-day routines and the reactions to perceived crises or overriding pri
orities, come under a generic rubric of preservation work. It should be
noted that this archivist works in a small archive where she must take
responsibility for much of the work, having only a few student assis
tants and catalogers to help her. Thus her use of the word preserva
tion may have been shaped by her own situation.
In larger archives, where work is much more hierarchical and
compartmentalized, archivists may make sharper distinctions among
these activities than Erica, especially between the routine day-to-day
monitoring and the occasional physical treatments and interventions
performed on endangered films. The structure found in these institu
tions encourages specialization and division of labor. I found evidence
of this sort of stratification in the job titles of individuals working at
the two archives where I did fieldworL In one institution, the
employees who performed the tasks of repairing, assembly, and
restoration were called preservationists, while the people who held
the title of archivist were actually responsible for other functions of
the archive, such as providing access and donor relations. Although
the phrase "film archivist" is often used as a generic tag to refer to
anyone who works in the field, and I have in fact used the moniker in
such a way in this book, it appears that within the field these distinc
tions are much more well-defined.
At the other archive where I conducted fieldwork, I found similar
distinctions being made. When I asked Carl, an employee responsible
for selecting and preparing films to be copied, how he had come to
work in the field of preservation, he took great pains to explain that
he had not started out doing the film prepping work that he does
now, but had worked his way up into his current position. In the fol
lowing excerpt from an interview with him, Carl makes some key dis
tinctions among his various responsibilities over the years.
KFG: So you transitioned into preservation in the mid-'70s?
Carl: Well, actually not quite that early. ... I would say that I
. . .
transitioned into conservation of film in the mid-'70s,

which would be the storage, the cans, all of the materials
like that. Which is really the conservation of it. I started
doing some of the work on
it,
identifying, and doing that,

all the way up through those jobs with vault management
and film technician. ... mean, the vault manager's
I
responsible for all the vaults. So you're talking about lot

a
of conservation. A film technician does a lot of the work on

the film, the physical work itself — splicing, repairs, this type
of stuff, so ... I went through that, and then I actually
started doing the preservation in the early '80s although I . . .
didn't become the assistant curator of preservation until 1988.
In his answer, Carl identifies conservation (i.e., vault management) as
being separate from preservation. Interestingly, he doesn't include

such physical treatments as splicing and repair work as part of preser
vation. In this case, the archivist separates out the intellectual labor
from the physical tasks, reserving the category of preservation for that
work which involves the selection and putting in order of film for
copying. Clearly, the title of "curator" reflects that distinction.
Not every archivist splits preservation work along these lines.
Often, preservation seems defined more by practical and economic
concerns than anything else. Donald, a film technician in charge of
the preservation program at a government archive, remarked that
I like to think of things in terms of what I like to call "passive

preservation" and "active preservation." The active side is the lab
copying of the past, but the passive side is ... at least as important,
and much cheaper, actually, in long term cost. And that involves
storing the material under proper environmental conditions, as well
as ... in the case of nitrate, film safety, fire safety issues, and things
like that. And that's something that I think really is the message
that needs to be gotten out. Because you can buy so much more
time to deal with the active preservation part if you're doing the
passive preservation part properly.
The active preservation of which he speaks corresponds to the inter

mittent interventions to rescue an endangered film, while the passive
preservation (which other archivists might call "conservation") reflects
the perpetual concern to prevent further harm. He emphasizes the rel
ative importance of passive preservation compared to the more visible
active preservation tasks. His statements on "getting the message out"
are especially revealing, because they indicate that controlling environ
mental conditions has not always been a top priority of archivists, and
neither has it always been part of the preservation definition.
This last observation brings up another important point to con
sider. As with all words, preservation history of use. Jessica,

has a
who runs an archive of ethnographic film, noted that "preservation

really started as an issue concerning nitrate film" but its definition
has changed dramatically from its original meaning. The catch-
phrase, "Nitrate Won't Wait!"
— first coined in the 1960s by the
American Film Institute archivist Sam Kula to draw public attention
to the plight of deteriorating nitrate-based film —reveals the field's
fixation on its most critical task — copying nitrate film (whether or
not it was in a state of decomposition) to acetate-based stock. When
referring to the meaning of preservation, the national plan for film
preservation issued by the Library of Congress in 1994 states, "In
casual language and traditional practice, 'preservation' has been syn
onymous with duplication. 'Has the film been preserved?' a question
still often asked of archivists, is understood to mean, 'Has the film
been copied onto newer film stock?'"1 The preoccupation with copy
ing was reinforced through almost three decades because of the way
film preservation was funded: the grants given by the National
Endowment for the Arts and the American Film Institute only
funded the copying of film —not
the improvement of storage condi
tions of film collections. As Donald astutely commented, the fixation
on copying over storage and environmental control in preservation
during this period was short-sighted, inefficient, and has proven very
costly in the long run.
The words and opinions that I have presented thus far have come
mostly from noncommercial archivists who spend much of their time
focusing on physical preservation work (handling, repair, preparation
for copying) and vault management. Their job responsibilities and
their experiences appear to have had some influence over their defini
tion of the term, as has their noncommercial orientation to the field.
It is worthwhile to examine the perspectives of other profession
als, namely administrators of preservation programs in both film
archives and commercial organizations. Head curators, who oversee
all of the work of the archive across several departments, have broader
concerns and have a tendency to see preservation work in terms of an
overall model or a system. Steven, a curator who manages a large
archive with an active preservation department, describes archival
work in his institution as part of a larger system that includes the
related tasks of conservation and restoration. The following some

what lengthy excerpt explains his model in great detail.
There's all kinds of ways to define [preservation]. The way I tend to

think of what we do, is really ... I could divide it into three areas,
which are almost like concentric circles within each other.
The first, activity would be what I tend to call

and the broadest,
conservation, which would include the collecting of original mate
rials. Or at least, materials that are important to preservation,
because they represent the best remaining copies, and in some cases
only copies, or at least, you know, extremely good copies that we
think might end up proving to be the basis for preservation down
the road. Conservation would include the cold storage, which is
becoming an increasingly important part of an archival activity, and
the effort to store material, whether it's preservation elements or
reference copies, under good temperature and humidity control to
keep them around as long as possible. Conservation would also
include the cost of maintenance and inspection functions that goes
along with storage. It's not just a question of putting the item on
the shelf, but the question of inspecting the items, inspecting the
collection periodically for any signs of deterioration. If it's items
that are being used, certainly making sure they're in good repair
before they're used, which will minimize any chance of damage
[and] inspecting the items after use, so that any damage can be
recorded, and can be repaired. I also consider conservation to
include the making of reference copies so that access can be pro
vided without having to use the original materials. Even if it's only
a video copy of a film that researchers can look at,
[it
keeps you
from] having to run the original film over and over and over again,
and wearing out; and then finding out later that you need for
it
it
it,
preservation and it's already got damage done to because it's been
projected or viewed on flatbed so many times. So, making up ref
a
erence copies, we consider part of the conservation program.
Secondly, there's what we tend to call preservation. We use that

term to mean the physical duplication of material . . . the duplica
tion of deteriorating (or material that we know will deteriorate)
material in formats to new, modern, more lasting formats.
Normally, you think of that in terms of taking nitrate film and
making safety copies, prints, and pre-print elements. But the same
if
principle applies you're taking deteriorating acetate and making

new safety copies, preferably on polyester, or even if you're taking

old two-inch videotapes of television programs, and transferring
those to modern tape formats which are fresher, will last longer, and
so forth. So, that physical transfer, for purposes of producing a new
is,
master copy, whatever the format we call preservation.
We go step beyond that when we talk in terms of restoration,

a
where it's not just question of the simple transfer of material. It's
a
question of actually doing historical research and many times,
a
special laboratory processes, to try to recreate

— re-assemble as
it
were — the film, the production, in as close to its original form as
If it's missing footage, we try to find that footage to get
it
possible.
back, and to complete — make the film whole again. If there's
it
faded color ... If the film

re-cut at some point, we try to re
is
assemble the original version the film. All of those things fall
of
into the category of restoration. In sense, every restoration project
a
by
is,
its definition, preservation project, but not every preserva

a
tion project restoration project.

is
a
In his model for archival work, Steven categorizes conservation as
those day-to-day activities such as monitoring storage conditions and

inspecting for signs of deterioration that Donald referred to as "pas
sive preservation." Preservation defined solely as physical duplica
is
tion. He considers restoration to be special case of preservation.

a
One of the most interesting things about this model for preserva
tion work that the curator doesn't really emphasize access to mate
is
rials, except when he refers to the dangers of allowing users to handle

original materials and suggests that conservation should include the
making of reference copies. This opinion could stem from the fact
that in this archive the curator does not oversee access to the collec
tion part of another archive department, overseen

(access services are
another administrator), and thus access does not feature as promi
by
nently in his model of preservation work as might in another

it
archivist's conception.
Other curators who have wider range of responsibilities and
a
oversee the archive as whole are more likely to see preservation as

a
term that encompasses the mission of the archive and the majority of
their activities. As Diane, another focus group participant described
"not simply lab work, but combination of all the
it,
is
preservation
a
The Definition of Preservation 14S
archival functions involved, including cataloging, access to the films,

storage, and education of the users." Preservation is thus expanded to
include films through description, exhibition, and out
access to the
reach to potential users of the films. Taking this idea one step further,
many noncommercial organizations see preservation as essential to
their identity. As one administrator put wouldn't say that
it,
"I
it
drives everything we do, but think it's the core of what we are, and
I
what we do."
of preservation may also be influenced
curator's definition
by
A
the larger institutional structure within which they must adminis

trate. When spoke with David, curator whose archive exists as
a
I
department within museum, he gave definition of preservation

a
a
that reflects his background and education in art conservation. He
describes preservation as
The complex of procedures, principles, techniques, and

overall
practices necessary for maintaining the integrity, restoring the con
tent, and organizing the intellectual experience of moving image
a
on
is,
permanent basis. It's vague definition, but this in fact, the
a
a
acknowledgement of the three-fold purpose of preservation work.

And, that first, making sure that the surviving artifact not fur
is
is
ther damaged; second, bringing back to condition as close as

it
possible to its original state; and third, providing access to in

it
a
manner consistent with the way the artifact was meant to be exhib
ited. Outstanding laboratory work does not fulfill all the above
requirements. If the film then shown without regard to the pro
is
jection speed or the aspect ratio, or

if
the source copy

is
destroyed,
or abandoned after printing, [that does not constitute preserva
tion]. Duplication, restoration, conservation, reconstruction when
necessary, acts of exhibition in proper conditions, are all constituent
parts of the preservation experience.
find this definition to be radically different from the ones that dis
I
cussed previously. Although David includes some of the same activi

ties and processes that the other archivists mentioned in their
definitions, his interpretation of preservation emphasizes that preser
vation much broader term encompassing every aspect of the
is
a
This definition may reflect the different orientation

archival endeavor.
that an archive within museum environment must adopt, where
a
maintaining the integrity of the artifact and ensuring its proper exhi
bition are both of the highest priority. This institution does not just
provide film, it "organizes the intellectual experience" of
access to a
viewing it. Much in the same way that a curator of paintings would
insist upon the correct frame and the appropriate lighting for a can
vas, David emphasizes the need for a film to be shown in a historically
correct manner, i.e., in the medium in which it originated —film, not
on video — and at the correct speed and aspect ratio. I also noticed
that in his definition of preservation, the use of the word artifact gives
a much stronger emphasis to the idea of conservation than other
archivists have proposed.
The above definitions give an indication of how many film
archivists in the noncommercial sector have contextualized the word
preservation through their job responsibilities and their institutional

affiliations. The disparity among definitions may make it difficult to
build a consensus for a definition that can be adopted by the field as a
whole, however.
Preserving Assets, Not Artifacts

The meaning of preservation for those archivists who work in the
commercial sector provides another perspective on how archivists
define the term. Among the people I
interviewed were not only
archivists who work for the major studios, but also employees at film
processing laboratories, administrators who supervise media storage,
and restoration By speaking to these "supporting players"
specialists.
in addition to the studios, I hoped to sample the full range of activity
in the commercial sector.
Commercial archivists perform or oversee the same tasks that
noncommercial archivists do, such as inspection and repair of film,
monitoring of storage conditions, copying deteriorating film to a
more robust format, and restoration work. As with noncommercial
archivists, their work must be analyzed in relation to the missions of
the organizations in which they work. In speaking with these
archivists, I
hoped to get a sense of how that work gets done in the
commercial environment, how they prioritize among the many tasks
to accomplish, and, of course, how they define preservation. Because
of my familiarity with film preservation in the non-profit sector, I was
especially interested in documenting their perspective and to com

plete the preservation "picture."
One of the first things that I learned about preservation in the
commercial sector was how decentralized many of its activities are in
comparison to the non-profit sector. Whereas film archives tend to

want to maintain tight control over most aspects of preservation
work — doing most things in-house — studios, which initiate and sus
tain most of the commercial preservation projects and programs, are
more likely to contract out tasks such as laboratory work, storage, and
restoration to businesses and individuals who specialize in such work.
Therefore, I made sure to cast my net widely to speak with laboratory
personnel and storage providers.
Studio Archivists
Much of the preservation work done for studios is customarily ori

ented around current market demand for films. In this environment,
an economic model of preservation prevails. A scheduled release of a
film on video or dvd, a request to broadcast a film on television, or a
request to license a clip from a film are the prompts for much of the
preservation activity This scenario, as described by Cole, a
at studios.
studio archivist who participated in one of the focus groups I con

ducted, provides a perfect example of such a situation:
We have to deliver a product in a specific format to

German pre- a
TV client, and in trying to locate the master material necessary to

make them a delivery, we find the material is not in good shape, or
that it doesn't exist in that particular format. So our policy then is to
do everything at that time in order to facilitate that release. That
release is the excuse to spend the money and the time to do all that
work, so the project can often include new answer prints and IPs
[interpositives], soundtrack restoration, and a new video master.2
We can then go on and make the delivery.
In this market-driven situation, preservation almost seems a by

product of the process of getting the film to the customer in the desired
format and at the level of quality required. Cole's department handles
both preservation and licensing, which may be one of the reasons why
marketing and preservation priorities are so closely intertwined.

At another studio, the preservation program is separate from the

marketing and licensing department. William, who oversees preserva
tion activities, told me that in his department he does not have to rely
solely upon licensing or other customer requests to initiate preserva
tion projects. Instead, the department has an assured budget allocation
which funds a long-term plan to copy all nitrate to a more stable stock.
His studio was one of the first to implement such a strategy.
****
was probably one of earliest companies that really took film
preservation seriously. ****, in about 1965 or 6, started copying all of
their nitrate film to safety. Happily, they had their own laboratory
and their own optical department, so it was not going out and hav
ing to pay commercial rights. They had a slow time [doing the
was the cost of
it,
work]. They just assigned the people to do and
it
the film stock and the chemicals. They did an extremely, extremely
thorough job. can give you some ... italmost sounds like silly
I
seems like little, piece of nitrate film

It
if
examples. there was

a
a
sitting on shelf somewhere, no matter what was — they copied
it
it
a
to safely. We have dozens of cans of soundtrack positives that don't

****
belong to anything. Rehearsals, auditions, the orchestra playing
because they didn't have anything else to do that day, and they
recorded it. And that, all that stuff has been copied to safety film
and kept, just because was originally nitrate roll that was sitting
it
****
at the studio. So they really did thorough, thorough job.
a
William refers to this comprehensive program for migrating

images to safety film as "raw preservation" because the film was trans
ferred wholesale, without implementing any selection criteria. He
later admitted that the studio policy for number of years was to
a
destroy the nitrate after had been copied because the upper man
it
agement did not see the need to keep the highly flammable material
around any longer than was necessary. This practice ended when the
studio donated many of their original nitrate negatives to one of the
major film archives and gave them the funds to continue with the
copying program.
In addition to this long-term work of "raw preservation," the
department also responds to requests from the studio's licensing
department to supply material to clients.
The market-driven [preservation request] generally comes through

the TV/video mastering group, because that's [who] needs
it,
and
they will tell us what to place orders on. They have final approval,
because it's for their purposes, and our job to do the follow-up on
is
it,
and see that everything cleaned up and everything put back
is
is
on the shelf where belongs after it's all over with.
it
As William describes not only do client requests affect what
is it,
is
pre
served, but also how preserved.
it
Besides their responsibilities to respond to the demands of licens
ing and marketing, both Cole and William also oversee the making of
"protection masters" such as separations and interpositives on new
productions. William noted that some studios have spotty record of
a
making protection masters. In the past, either the separation nega
tives were of poor quality, or no separations were made at all. Much of
the current preservation work at studios consists of redoing transfers
that were done badly in previous eras, or generating preservation ele
ments where none had existed in the past.
Another key tenet of preservation in the commercial realm the
is
concept of asset protection through geographic separation, whereby
the studios keep negatives and master positives of their films in differ
ent locations to protect against the loss of films because of natural or
manmade disaster. Cole noted that although the original negatives of
his company's films are stored nearby in Los Angeles preservation
a
storage facility, interpositives and other copies are stored in various

locations across the
country and internationally, including Los
Angeles, Pittsburgh, and London. Tom, who manages preservation
a
storage facility in Hollywood where many studio films are stored, ver
ified this industry-wide policy. He told me that "all of the studios have
geographic separation: absolute rules. If bring the original camera
I
negative in here to inspect that studio makes sure that I'm not hold
it,
ing the separation masters, or the interpositive, on that same title. . . .

If one of the Southwest Airlines flights from Burbank takes off and
goes awry, and takes us out . . they want to make sure that they can
.
recreate that title, with an element that they're holding someplace

else." William also suggested that studios benefited greatly from
depositing material with archives because was convenient way for
it
them to meet their geographic separation requirements.

In an attempt to refine the meaning of preservation for studio

archivists, I asked Cole how he would define preservation for his
organization. He succinctly stated that for the studio, preservation
means, "to protect the material in the format it was originally pro
duced, in a way that is accepted by today's technical standards —for
future use. Long-term future use." For his organization, those future
uses might include video and dvd releases, theater rereleases, and the
film clip market. The current technical standards that Cole mentions
include polyester-based film, polyester-based magnetic sound mate
rial, and the most stable possible color dye intermediate films. It is
interesting to note that he mentions respect for original format,
meaning that film should continue to be preserved on film, rather
than on one of the digital moving image formats that have become
available in recent years. There are two reasons for this stance. First,
neither he nor William feels that the digital formats available at this
time can hold the same amount of image information as 35 mm film.

Second, the rate at which digital formats become obsolete does not
recommend them as preservation media. Although Cole and William
understand the value of digital imaging for certain kinds of repair
work and for the with which moving images can be produced
ease
and distributed, they are not interested in using digital formats for
storing separation masters. Even for films that originate in digital
form, they predict that they will continue to generate protection ele
ments for the foreseeable future.

Overall, Cole feels that "preservation touches on, really, everything
that we do. We do it with an eye towards that, even though our end-
goal is often simply market-driven." William echoed Cole's definition
of preservation protection for future use, but he was careful to add
as
that preservation in his organization also emphasizes restoration activ

ities because they are dealing with many films that have been rendered
incomplete due to earlier studio practices. He gives a prime example of
why restoration work is so central to his studio's mission:
Many pictures originally released in the 30s and 40s were later reis
sued and cut so that they could be run on a double bill. And there
was no archival mentality at that time. The negative would be cut
and thrown away. Now, here we are, fifty years later on, and we
want it back at the original release version that it may have been in
1935. To try to find something that exists, maybe, at an archive. For

example, [our studio] gave all of their nitrate studio reference prints
****
to the [film archive]. We have found at that archive material
that does not exist in the studio's library because it was cut and
thrown away — taken out of the original negative and dumped in
the garbage. So we often have been able to duplicate films from
that archive's material and rebuild a movie to its original version.
In this respect, the studio must rely upon archive collections to

achieve the primary objective of their department: ensuring material
will be available for future use.
Both Cole and William revealed that in their work as studio
archivists, they must relate preservation work to the mission of their
for-profit organizations. Thus they are more apt to talk in terms of
asset protection, rather than preserving cultural heritage. Within
their organizations, this language has more currency with upper man
agement, who expect a return on the investment of the business. Cole
told me that "we took the approach with management, in that we say,
'Look, there are going to be times we are going to spend more than it
seems necessary or plausible to do.' But because the ... selling of this,
these libraries have been so active, it's presented to us a priority, so
we've always been able to do the work." Although William feels less
pressure to justify preservation because top-level management at his

company has always seen preservation as crucial to its ancillary mar
kets such as video/DVD releases and television, he recognizes that this
attitude toward preservation has been the exception, not the rule, for
most studios.
Though preservation has sometimes been a hard sell in the past,
Cole suggests that it has become easier in recent years for archivists to
communicate the importance of preservation to upper management.
I think the last ten years, if anything, has really shown a very delib
erate and increased education of businessmen who are running
these companies. I think that they have really learned that this is
. . .
important. That we really do need to spend some money on things

that on paper doesn't seem like there's a return, but if you stop and
think about it an extra couple of minutes, of course there's a return,
because you're not going to be able to sell anything if this stuff all
goes away.
Thus, these two studio archivists were more likely to typify preserva
tion as an integral part of a business plan for their company, rather
than to use it identifier for their organization as a whole (unlike
as an
many archivists at noncommercial institutions). This attitude makes

sense, considering they belong to organizations that think of them
selves as producers and distributors of moving images, rather than as
repositories.
Storage Providers and Laboratory Personnel
As I mentioned above, studios often farm out certain types of preser

vation work to other businesses. Over the years, the archivists in these
organizations have gravitated toward businesses that understand the
specific needs of the preservation community.
Laboratory processing is the prime example of this preference.
Although there are many film laboratories across the country, only a
select few can achieve the high standards of quality desired by film
archivists.Most film laboratories are geared towards the production
of thousands of projection prints for current releases and simply do
not have the expertise or the patience to deal with the problems of
shrunken nitrate or separation negatives that don't register properly.
Similarly, there are few commercial storage facilities that provide the
carefully controlled environment necessary to meet archival standards
for keeping motion picture film.
An important point to understand about these businesses is how
they have grown in relation to the expansion of studios into the field
of preservation. Although specialty laboratories have existed for sev
eral decades, their numbers and capacity have grown in the past
decade in part because of the push by studios to make new master
material, especially as the dvd market grows by leaps and bounds.
dvd transfers require the highest quality source material, and thus
studios are spending more on preservation now than ever before. In
addition, many television production companies want to create new
preservation elements for television series shot on film. A number of
the larger laboratories like Technicolor, cfi, and FotoKem have begun
preservation divisions in hopes of getting into this market. Their level

of expertise does not yet match that of the more specialized laborato
ries that most film archivists use, however.
In the interviews I conducted with laboratory personnel, I found

that the archivists who work in film laboratories tend to focus on the
tangible measuresof preservation, such as measurable standards for
image and color quality. In the following interview excerpt, an
employee from a preservation laboratory explains the importance of
generating high-quality master material for his clients.
KFG: What is your definition of preservation and/or restoration?

You know . . . your perspective . . .
Gabe: Preservation . . . from our perspective, it's taking all the ele
ments you can get to get the best interpositive that's color-
corrected and looks right, and after that, then you make
the new ycms, you make new masters.3 Because then you
have an ip and a set of ycms, you can get redundancy. If
that ip gets damaged, you can recreate
it,
and that asset
is
protection . . . making those ycms so that you've got an ele
ment you can go back to in twenty years, and put back
it
together.
Once the laboratory has made separation negatives and an interpositive

that the client approves, they have fulfilled the preservation/asset pro
tection requirements. Clients put faith in the technological expertise of
these laboratory personnel, who are expert at manipulating photo
chemical processes for optimal results. In the next chapter, will explore
I
the relationship between lab workers and archivists more closely.

During the course of the study, also interviewed two individuals
I
who ran storage facilities that housed preservation master material.

Both businesses advertised themselves as "state-of-the-art," although
their clientele and approach differed (one, which was self-service
a
facility, catered to independent producers, while the other was full-

a
service facility whose primary customers were studios and larger pro
duction companies).
Brian, who owns the self-service facility, noted that he founded
his business at time when studios were just beginning to be con
a
cerned about color fading, in the early 1980s. At that point, vinegar
syndrome had not yet been recognized as the next big problem on the
horizon. He recalls, "At the time, we built these four rooms at fifty
degrees and fifty percent humidity. And that was kind of the thinking
at the time. And even that was significantly better than most of the
other facilities out there."
Tom, who operates the full-service facility, related that the busi
ness of media storage changed dramatically in the wake of stricter
standards for archival storage of motion picture film that emerged in

the early 1990s.
In about 1989, 1990 . . . there was a lot of research going on about

the long-term keeping of motion picture film. A lot of research by
Eastman Kodak Company, and the Image Permanence Institute,
which is a part of rit [Rochester Institute of Technology] in
Rochester, New York. And of tests — irradi-
they were running a lot
ance testing . . . determining what caused film to degrade. The dyes
fading, and the acetate base turning to vinegar syndrome, and all of
these problems. Well, pretty soon, in about 1990, '91, the new ansi
standards, the American National Standards Institute, came out
with preservation storage environments. And they really had a big
impact on the industry, because . . . they basically said that if you
were going to keep film in a medium-term storage environment,
you had to maintain at forty-five to fifty degrees Fahrenheit, and
twenty-five to thirty-five percent relative humidity. And if you
wanted . . . "extended term," or archival storage, it was at thirty-four
degrees Fahrenheit and twenty-five percent relative humidity. Very
cold, and very dry. Well, this had a huge impact, like I said, whether
it was a for-profit or nonprofit organization.
The loud outcry from most of the archives

is,
fact there was

a
throughout North America, . . they basically said, "That's great,

.
but we can't afford it. You're talking about millions of dollars of

retrofitting our archives, and we really can't do that." The next thing
you heard was, "We don't believe it. Show us your studies." lot of
A
important archives in the United States put enough pressure on the

ansi group, the study group, to make them go back and start look
ing at their tests, and to try and figure out how to raise those stan
dards. To find out what are the upper limits . . . before you start
having to worry about degradation. And was purely financial
it
situation. Because, you take some of the larger archives in the

if
United States and Canada, they were looking at multimillion dollar

retrofits of their facilities. And just wasn't going to happen. So . . .
it
the ansi standards stayed as published, but they went back and
started revisiting them, and then they came out with revised stan
dards in 1993 or '94, which basically did nothing more than push
the upper limits upward. And in other words, medium-term stor
age went up into the fifty/fifty-five degree Fahrenheit range and to
forty percent relative humidity, but the archival standards stayed
pretty much the same ... at thirty-four degrees Fahrenheit and
twenty- five percent. So, all that aside . . . [my organization], when
these standards came out, said, "Wow. I wonder how many facilities
in Hollywood and the surrounding areas are even close to this?" I'm
talking about the ansi standards. So they did a survey, a very com
prehensive survey, of all the various film storage facilities. And of
course what they found was a lot of converted warehouses. Facilities
that really had no consideration for temperature control or humid
ity control. Certainly not for humidity control, which is very expen
sive and requires a very unique construction. And they said, "You
know what? If we were to build something like this, I bet we would
have a lot of business from the studios."
Tom later related to me that a number of the studios (and archives, as
well) ended up building their own state-of-the-art storage facilities,

so his business is now beginning to target the larger independent pro
duction companies who may not have the resources to set up their
own preservation departments.
Both Brian and Tom define preservation in terms of these quan
tifiable standards. Their services represent the benchmark against
which film archives and studios measure their own storage capabili
ties. Although noncommercial archives initially protested the more
stringent temperature and relative humidity controls, it is apparent
that the ansi guidelines have had a significant effect on how archives,
both commercial and noncommercial, approach preservation. Storage
is now seen as the first line of defense, thus archives are putting more
of their efforts and funds into environmental controls than ever
before, as evidenced by the new storage facilities that have been built
by both the studios and film archives in the past decade.
1B0 Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
Resolving Differences in Meaning: Points

of Tension and Conflict
Archivists use the words preserve and preservation on
daily basis, yet
a
they do not always agree upon the meaning of those words. This dis
parity among meanings may become a source of tension in the inter
action between archivists. Sometimes, the mismatch of meanings may
lead to contentious situations, especially when the disagreement
stems from the incompatibility of the missions of these organizations.
Differences over what constitutes preservation may affect selection of
films for treatment, storage options, and the acceptability of particu
lar techniques and materials for preservation.
Nevertheless, points of tension can also for negoti
be the impetus
ation among archivists, laboratory technicians, studio owners of films,

and users of films. In order to get their work done, archivists need to
reach agreements over how a film will be preserved, and what the min
imal standards will be for the quality of the preservation work. These
negotiations give solutions to short-term problems, and have the
added benefit of increasing the understanding of each side's concerns.
In the following examples, I explore such moments of disjuncture

and negotiation.
Situation A:
In one focus group, an archivist from a noncommercial institution

cited a stressful incident at his job, when his department was being
pressured to accept a of film on deposit (which would
large collection
be copied from nitrate onto safety stock). He felt strongly that the
archive had neither the resources nor the time to preserve the collec
tion properly, and that the rate at which they would be expected to
copy the film would negatively affect the quality of the preservation
work. As he explained
it,
we would actually have to change our procedures internally, which

basically means copying just to copy, not copying for quality, and
making sure it's the absolute best possible print we can do. Okay.
And . . . you know, really become commercial laboratory in its
a
operation, okay. Because they just basically . . . they just fling

it
through here, you know, boom, boom, boom [snapping his fingers
as he says "boom"] . . . minimal inspection, they print it and they

don't even look at what they printed. They just hand it over to the
customer to evaluate it for them. And if a customer complains, then
it,
they might redo okay. So, in this case, well, we were the cus
tomer, so, you know, we would have to look at it. So ... basically
I
said, "No, can't [accept the collection on these terms.]"
by
Despite his reservations, he was pressured into accepting the film
the head of the institution, who felt that the prestige of owning the
collection outweighed the drawbacks.
Apparently what the deal going to be . . . this what I've been
is
is
told ... that we're agreeing to acquire the material. We're going to
is
pay to have shipped to our vaults. We're going to store for noth
it
it
And when and they need preservation done, then they'll pay
if
ing.
for that. But it's unclear to me whether we'll get any preservation
master material out of that deal. So, that's essentially the deal as it's
on the table, which essentially what we've been doing with all the
is
studios throughout the archive's history.
In this situation, the archivist did not have the power to negotiate
directly with the copyright owner. Instead, he had to deal with an
upper-level administrator who seems more concerned with public
image than with potential dysfunction within his institution. The
administrator does not appear to fully comprehend the problems that
the department will be facing, and in fact does not understand that
the department will be unable to meet minimal standards for preser
vation. The archivist feared worst-case scenario, where the archive
a
will become the de facto contractor for laboratory services, and where
by
the institution will not benefit receiving its own copy of the films
that the archivists can use as preservation masters. Ultimately, this sit
uation threatens to
compromise preservation standards as this
archivist from the noncommercial archive has defined them.
Situation B:
In the following fieldnote excerpt, noncommercial and commer

a
cial archivist who were working together on restoration project dif

a
fered over how the colors of tinted silent film should be reproduced.
a
The film in question an early, filmed version of well-known clas

is
a
sic of literature that the studio later bought the rights to and remade
(the studio's version is the most well-known today). The head of the
studio was said to have been greatly influenced by the silent version,
now in the public domain, which boasted exquisite visuals and special
effects. Thus the studio was very interested in funding the preserva
tion of this film in exchange for owning a print of it for their own
library. The only 35 mm tinted print still in existence resided at the
archive where Carl works.
Sometimes, the style of an archivist will clash with another's. Carl

gave the example of when he worked with Alex, a studio archivist at
****, on a silent tinted version of . When Alex saw the
muted colors of answer print (which were true to original tints), he
said, "I don't like the color" and he wanted to "juice it up." Carl
refused to "juice up" the color, because he wanted it to look more
like the original nitrate. For ****'s copy of the print, however, Alex
asked the lab to change the light values to brighten the colors.
In this situation, there are many factors at work influencing the out
come. Is this simply a case of a "clash" between dif two archivists, a
ference of opinion, or does this reflect larger institutional systems of

value at odds with each other? I would argue the latter, for several rea
sons. Carl shows concern for the integrity of the artifact when he
indicates his preference for the tints of the original nitrate. Although
Carl does not mention why Alex wants the colors to be brightened
here, I later discovered that the studio was planning on screening the
film at a Los Angeles theater that it owned. Apparently, Alex was
concerned with how modern audiences would receive the muted col
ors, even if they were more true to the look of the film when it was
originally released.
In this situation, the negotiation was resolved to the equal satis
faction of both parties. The archive got a print that it considered to be
more historically accurate, while the studio received a print it consid
ered to be more appealing from a marketing perspective. It is impor
tant to point out that this film was in the public domain, and thus it
was not under copyright to the studio. The archive, which owned the
sole viable copy in existence, had more leverage in this situation than
it might have had otherwise.
Situation C:
Noncommercial archivists often have mixed feelings toward the

preservation programs in place at motion picture studios. In the fol
lowing excerpt, Carl gives an example of why studio preservation pro
grams make him worry:
I asked Carl how he felt about the quality of preservation work at

the studios. He thought that they did a good job (doing work com
parable to his own at the archive in terms of quality). He empha
sized, however, that most archives do not consider a film preserved
by a studio to really be preserved. I asked him to clarify what he
meant by this statement. He explained that because the preserva
tion materials (i.e., masters) are not kept in a nonprofit institution,
they are vulnerable. A studio "can decide to destroy something, and
there's nothing anybody can do about it." He told me how he will
****
often call William at to ask him about the preservation status of
a film that they own. William will say, "Well, I think that we have
everything we need on that film" (meaning that he thinks that the
film is preserved since they have made safety copies of the picture
and sound elements). "What he won't admit, and what I would
never say, is that since we don't have copies of those materials, we
don't consider it preserved," Carl explained. "Anything could hap
****
pen. could decide to get out of the movie business and sell the
libraries to someone who doesn't really care about preservation."
Although Carl feels that the quality of preservation work being

done by studios (i.e., the laboratory work) is sufficient, Carl disavows
the validity of the studio preservation
program because its ultimate
aim is not to safeguard their films for the public interest, but for its
own private interests. Yet, for the sake of continuing his collaborative
relationship with the studio archivist, he will not express his opinion
to William.
As I have shown through the above examples, the degree to

which an archive can negotiate with on decisions affecting
a studio
preservation depends largely upon the economic leverage they can

muster. Often, noncommercial archivists must make decisions that
compromise their preservation ethics.
As corollary to this discussion on negotiation and consequences

a
of that process, I offer an excerpt from an interview with David, who

spoke about the consequences of allowing studios to take responsibil
ity for the preservation of the films to which they own the copyright.
David: Some people think that production companies should pay

for the preservation of their own films.
KFG: And do you think that they're going to take the responsi
or ...
it,
bility for
?
David: No! No! They won't. Besides, this line of reasoning would
production companies had the films. They
if
make sense
don't.We have them, because museums have been taking
care of these films at the time when production companies
could not care less. And even they do care now, they just,
if
they cannot just come to us and say, "Give us, give us our
film because the film ours. We produced it."
is
KFG: What they were going to do preservation on

if
them
is it
selves? Could they take back in that situation, or ...
it
it
?
David: Well, there should be some cooperation with the museum
which preserved that. If we kept negative from film for
a
fifty years while production company was not interested in

a
its preservation, then all of the sudden gets interested

it
. . .
we need to cooperate. Some cooperation has to take place,

because we have saved the film.
KFG: So do you prefer that the preservation work be done within

the institution, rather than taking out on loan? mean,
it
I
by
cooperation, do you mean lab work or do you mean . . .

?
David: By cooperation, mean, cooperation on mutual basis.

a
a
I
Two institutions working together and selecting laboratory,

a
mutually agreed. The techniques we agree upon, and . . . con

sidering that we are preserving things for different rea
a
son, there should be some form of mutual satisfaction for

this preservation. We are preserving films for the benefit of
posterity, and for scholarly and research purposes. For pur
poses which are not for profit. Production companies want
to preserve films because they want to make money out of

it. [KFG: And so ... ] And so, these two interests have to
find a meeting point.
KFG: So, if — and this is just a hypothetical — if they don't want

to use the same lab, if they want to use a commercial lab,
then the result would be unacceptable from an archival
standpoint, from a film preservation standpoint?
David: Well, ... it could mean that, for example, the condition of
the [film] . . . the physical integrity of the original would be
in danger. That's the main [thing] . . . when we are asked to

print it ata certain lab and we say, "no," it's because we are
seriously concerned about the physical integrity of the arti

fact. It's really hard to imagine how much damage is made
to archival material in certain laboratories. Some irrepara
ble damage is being done, every time.
In this excerpt, David lays out a key conflict for cooperative

preservation work: agreeing upon standards. A laboratory that satis
fies a studio's preservation standards may not be suitable from the
point of view of the archive. The archive wants to keep the original
film viable for as long as possible, and that is not really an issue for
studios (whose primary objective is to produce a new element which
they can then market).
This final excerpt relates David's views on the dysfunctional
nature of the film preservation field.
The whole issue of the relationship between commercial versus

noncommercial preservation is at the core of our field, at the core of
the problem we are dealing with, because everything's there: all the
good, and the bad, and the ugly is there. And it's there because
when you do things for two very different reasons, sometimes the
results are different. In abstract, in principle, I could very well say, "I
do not care if a preservation is done for commercial reasons, or non
commercial reasons, as long as it is done well." And I can still sub
scribe to that. "Yes, I don't care whether our preservation is done
here or there as long as it is done the way it should be done." But
this theoretical concept has very little consequence, if we do not
inquire about what happens to the film to be preserved. And what
happens afterward. Even after it is restored, there is a group of
hard-liners that are within fiaf [International Federation of Film

Archives], who say, "If a film is not preserved in a fiaf archive, we
will not consider the film preserved at all." Okay? So, say a certain
production company does this great preservation, but no fiaf
archive has it. For them, this film is not preserved. And I almost
thought, "Gee, this is a little bit of a harsh way of putting it." But
the more I progress in this field, the more I have the feeling that
there is some right in what they are doing, what they're thinking.
And, I'm getting increasing evidence that there is a point to what
they're doing. A production company sets up a preservation branch,
and they do a wonderful job, let's say. And then a new executive
comes on board, and says, "We don't need a preservation branch.
We don't need all this material. Everything has been digitized. ... I
don't care about where the negatives are being stored. They can be
stored in a basement, because we have everything in digital." And
there you are.
Over Paul Conway wrote, "One distinguishing charac

a decade ago
teristic of an evolving field of specialization, such as preservation, is

disagreement on key definitions."4 Although he was writing about
preservation in archives, his words also resonate when considering the
current state of the field of film preservation.
Many archivists —particularly those in the noncommercial sec
tor — arguefor an expanded definition of the word beyond merely the
copying of a film from an unstable format to a more stable one. They
feel that preservation should encompass not just activities or
processes, but also values and policies. In my fieldwork and inter
views, I found that archivists use the word preservation in many con
texts, such as:
1. To refer to a particular collection of physical techniques and

procedures used to help retain a film's basic characteristics and
content;
2. To describe a complex of interconnected activities that support
the work of physical preservation;
3. To communicate standards for accomplishing the goals and
overall mission of the institution or organization; and,

4. To delineate a set of values which distinguishes the position of
a particular institution or organization within the field.
In addition, I discovered that various other circumstances may influ

ence how an archivist defines preservation, including job responsibil
ities, institutional affiliation, and professional experiences in the field.
My findings suggest that archivists in the field of film preserva
tion do not share common vision of what preservation means. Their
a
lack of consensus on the definition of preservation stems from a piv

otal conflict over whether economic or cultural imperatives should
take precedence in this work. It is unclear if it is possible for noncom
mercial and commercial archivists to come to a mutual agreement
over this issue because the requirements for preserving cultural her
itage are too often at cross-purposeswith the demands of asset man
agement. In the meanwhile, archivists will continue to negotiate with
one another, with noncommercial archivists likely to make the most
concessions.
Chapter 7 Notes
of Congress, 1994), 5.
2 An answer print is the first print combining picture and sound that the laboratory pro
duces for the customer (in order to check the printing values for density and color). IP
stands for interpositive, which is a color master positive print. Definitions taken from: L.
Bernard Happe, Your Film and the Lab (New York: Hastings House, 1974), 203, 205.
3 YCM refers to the three color records (yellow, cyan, magenta) that result from making
color separation negatives.
4 Paul Conway, "Archival Preservation Practice in a Nationwide Context," American Archivist
53 (1990): 206.
Power and Authority in
Film Preservation
As the last chapter showed, preservation is not just a series of treat

ments and interventions, but rather, a complex system of many activ
ities, processes, standards, and values. Given this expanded definition
of preservation and the often-conflicting imperatives of multiple
interests in this work, it is natural to question how much control film
archivists actually have over the decision-making process in the many
aspects of preservation work.
Do archivists in fact operate autonomously in all spheres of film
archiving? I would
like to suggest that archivists have varying degrees
of authority to make decisions regarding preservation work, and that
the autonomy of noncommercial archivists may be more adversely
affected by challenges to their authority than that of archivists work
ing in commercial environments. Bourdieu remarks that "the auton
omy of field of restricted production can be measured by its power
a
to define its own criteria for the production and evaluation of its
products."1 Thus, in this chapter, I
look at parameters that guide
preservation practice in several key areas: evaluation of condition, lab
oratory work, selecting films for preservation, and establishing
national agendas for preservation. In each area of preservation work, I
look at the factors, both internal and external, which affect the ability
of archivists to control how this work is accomplished.
Given the broad nature of this topic, my approach will be to
examine preservation work from the "inside out," looking first at
activities that are controlled solely by the film archivists within their
own organizations, such as film inspection and viewing. In these
activities, archivists are encouraged to develop their own aesthetic
sensibilities, and seem to have the greatest amount of control over

how they are accomplished and evaluated. Next, I examine the rela
tionship between laboratory personnel and archivists. With labora
tory work, film archivists must find a laboratory that they trust which
will understand their needs and produce product that corresponds
a
to archival requirements for preservation. Third, I focus on selection

for preservation, a process that is affected considerably by the drive to
find funds for preservation. Outsiders such as donors and granting
agencies can influence which films are selected, and thus affect the
larger cultural imperative. Last, I look at archival authority on a
national level, examining in particular the phenomenon of the orphan
film appellation, and what the new focus on preserving orphan films
means for both the field as a whole and for noncommercial institu
tions in particular.
Archival Autonomy
The physical work of film preservation is a complex and exacting
enterprise that requires meticulous attention to detail, mechanical
adeptness, dexterity, and an advanced understanding of film technol
ogy and aesthetics. In order to learn how to preserve film, archivists
spend months, even years, mastering techniques and skills on the job.
They become proficient in handling film, using viewing and editing
equipment, making repairs and splices, and recognizing, diagnosing,
and treating problems like nitrate deterioration.
These skills can be developed to some extent — learned by watch
ing others work —but it is largely through extensive repetition of
tasks, such as inspecting and winding film, threading a flatbed viewer
or projector, or scrutinizing films on screen for flaws, that novice
archivists begin to internalize preservation principles. As neophytes
gain experience in handling film, they will eventually "get a feel" for
the work — a kinesthetic sense.2 For instance, an archivist must learn
to attune her ear to the varied sounds that a film can make as she
rewinds it at a bench, so that she can differentiate between the sounds
and interpret them. A crackling sound could indicate a tape splice, or
it could tip off the archivist to previously undetected nitrate deterio
ration (as the slightly sticky layers of film come apart during the
winding process, the film pops or crackles). By winding through hun
Power and Authority in Film Preservation 171
dreds of rolls, the archivist builds up a mental catalog of sounds, both

"good" and "bad."
In the course of their training archivists also develop aesthetic
sensibilities which allow them to make appropriate preservation deci
sions. They train their eyes to evaluate particular physical qualities of
the film, such as density, color, and sound, and, to identify defects
present in the film, such as scratches, tears, dirt, and jumpcuts. In
their examination of a print, archivists must constantly keep in mind
that flaws which appear minor during inspection or viewing on a flat
bed projector, will be magnified tremendously when the film is pro
jected on a theater screen.
The proficiencies and specialized knowledge that film archivists
develop help to establish their authority in making decisions about how
a film will be preserved. To illustrate this concept, I offer an examina
tion of two typical preservation activities. First, I look at procedures
used to inspect nitrate film, and how archivists make recommendations
based on that evaluation. Second, I describe the particular way in which
archivists watch film, examining how they assess the quality of a film
element and use clues found on it to determine its provenance.
Film Inspection
Inspection of film is an activity that film archivists do on a regular

basis. Inspection can be done for any number of reasons: for general
inventory purposes when new films are acquired, to get more infor
mation about a particular element in the course of preparing a film to
be preserved, or to check the condition of a film before and after it is
screened (looking for damage and deterioration). Inspection also
serves the purpose of acquainting archivists with their collections;
through inspection, archivists can ascertain patterns of production,
use, and deterioration.
In the following fieldnote excerpt, Jason, an archivist in training,
explained how to inspect nitrate film at a rewind bench in a work
area.He was inspecting reels as part of a project to do preliminary
inspection on a group of films in the collection:
Iasked Jason to talk through how he inspected a reel, and he was

happy to oblige. He wound the film that he had just started to its
head. He said, "First off, you have to look at the leader, and write
down any information you find there: the title, the reel number, and
whether or not the leader is safety or nitrate." He pointed out where
he had filled in that information on the form. "When you start
winding the film, you have to make sure that the emulsion is to the
inside, and that it is being wound so that the tail (end) will be out.
The next thing you do is wind through past the leader to the image,
and look for an edge code," which will usually give you a clue to the
date. The edge code for this film was a triangle and a square. Jason
looked it up, and found that that edge code corresponded to the
years 1924 and 1944.3
"You also want to measure the film for shrinkage at the head and
tail, and sometimes in the middle." Jason pulled out a nifty-looking
shrinkage gauge and showed me how to stretch out a length of film
placing the perforations over two pins. The amount of tension
it,
on
resulting from the narrower perforations of the shrunken film
translated as percentage (between o and percent) on the meter.
a
Jason noted that title sections can often be more shrunken. This
is
because in the production process, titles tend to be processed at the
last minute, with less care paid to the rinsing of the fixing agent
(hypo).4 As result, the titles tend to deteriorate faster. Last, "as you
a
are winding through the film, good to look for and record any
is
it
sprocket damage" (most likely from past projections

if
print).
is
it
Jason wound through the film slowly, cranking with his right hand
while his gloved left hand allowed the film to go lightly underneath
his fingers.
In this procedure, Jason identified the film stock and year of manu
facture, recorded the title and reel number of the film, and assessed
by
potential problems measuring for shrinkage and checking for per

foration damage. To collect certain data like age and shrinkage, he
needed to interpret the clues found on the film. In the first case, he
referred to an edge coding chart to determine the date of the film, and
in the second took three measurements for shrinkage in order
case, he
to get an accurate assessment of the rate of deterioration of the film.
Continuing in his inspection, Jason explained how he looked for
further signs of nitrate deterioration.
Jason mentioned that he also kept an eye out for any "decomp"
[decomposition]. looked at the form he was using, and noticed
I
that it allowed for five stages of decomposition. I asked him how

[the archive] defined those five stages. Jason got up and found a
binder, in which there was a reproduction of fiaf's definition.5 It
said that the stages were defined as follows:
0 = Free from decomposition

1 = Silver fading, brownish discoloration of the emulsion, sulfur
smell (which Jason called "stinky feet")
2 = Emulsion becomes sticky
3 = Film becomes soft in parts and blisters
4 = Entire film congeals to a solid mass
5 = Base of film disintegrates to a pungent brown powder
I asked Jason at what point [the archive] began to be concerned

about the survival of the film. He responded that if a film got to
stage 2 or 3, it was usually disposed of.
In order to further classify the degree of deterioration, Jason inter

preted certain sensory clues, comparing them to the catalog of symp
toms which he has come across before. Although he did not identify
any signs of deterioration in this film, one might assume that when he
smells "stinky feet" and sees brownish discoloration of the film, he
knows that he has come across stage 2 nitrate deterioration.
The fiaf guidelines to which Jason referred represent a com
pendium of knowledge about decomposition which most

archival
archivists use for initial diagnosis of the state of deterioration in
nitrate film. Although fiaf recommends that decomposing nitrate be
copied immediately and then disposed of, it is the prerogative of the
archive to decide the course of action to be taken after decomposition
isfound. Whether to dispose of the film, copy it immediately, or
merely segregate it is a matter of local policy. At this archive, nitrate
that has reached the stage where it is sticky and soft (2 or 3) is usually
discarded from the collection, as Jason indicated. Other archives may
act differently when they come across nitrate deterioration.
At another noncommercial archive, nitrate inspection is a bian
nual ritual. The nitrate film must be examined regularly because it is
not stored in a controlled environment, and thus deteriorates at a
faster rate than films in cold storage. Due to the size of the holdings
at this institution, nitrate inspection is an extensive process that takes
four to six months from start to finish. Many archive employees take
part in the inspection process, including preservation specialists and
vault staff, although the roles that staff members play depend upon
their level of expertise.
Usually, the inspection is separated into three phases. In the initial
phase, each can in the nitrate collection is opened and each reel or roll
within that can is evaluated for any signs of deterioration. The
archivist will note the smell as the can is opened, look at the top of the
roll for brownish-orange foam or powder, lift up the roll to check
underneath for rust inside the can, and squeeze the roll gently, listen
ing for "crackling sounds" — all of these signs point to deterioration. At
that point, the presence of decomposition simply noted as stages i, 2,
is
3, 4, or 5, and the inspection staff take no further action. The first phase
of this work is usually done by vault assistants, who have film handling
experience but may not have any physical preservation experience.
In the second phase, a vault manager or a member of the preser
vation staff will take the list of films identified as being in some stage
of deterioration and go through those cans again. Usually, many of
the rolls that were noted being "stage 1" are not really deteriorating,
as
although they may have a faint sulfur smell or crackle a bit when
squeezed, and the can may have a bit of orange powder or a rust ring
inside it. It is the task of more experienced staff members to eliminate
these "false positives." The second phase of inspection tends to cut the
number of films that genuinely deteriorating by one-third to one-
are
half of those reels first identified.

In the third and final phase of inspection, all of the available
preservation staff will participate in order to make the difficult deci
sions of what can be saved and what must be removed from the col
lection. In the following fieldnote excerpt, I noted how the practice at
the archive studied differed from the guidelines on nitrate decompo
sition published by fiaf (note that in this particular situation the
archivists are inspecting newsreels).
According to [fiaf's] published preservation guidelines, nitrate film

found to be suffering from any degree of deterioration should be
copied and disposed of immediately. In reality, that recommended
course of action rarely takes place, at least, not at [this archive].
Although films found to be at stage 4 and 5 are almost always
junked, since it is usually impossible to put the films through a

printer at that stage of deterioration, films at stages i, 2, and 3 do not
have such a certain fate.6
The action taken with nitrate film depends upon a number of cir
cumstances. First of all, what was the situation when the film was
inspected? If it is found during routine nitrate inspection, the like
lihood of it being "junked" or having footage cut out directly, with
out being copied, is very high. Only if an archivist recognizes that a
film might be "important" will it be set aside for more consideration
of its status at a later date. If deteriorating film is found in the
course of doing a preservation project, the possibility that it will be
copied is much higher. Another circumstance to consider is the
subject matter of the film. Footage containing well-known public
figures or covering important events has much more of a chance of
being salvaged than some of the more "lightweight" human-inter
est stories in which the newsreel collection abounds. Lastly, the for
mat of the film is yet another factor. "Cut stories" (segments that
are in the final form which the public saw) are more likely to be
saved than the outtakes from a story.
In this particular situation, systematic nitrate inspection, the archivist

has great latitude to decide the fate of a film. It is at this point that
preservation staff participate more actively in inspection, because they

are more qualified to judge the worth of a particular film than vault
assistants would be. Their knowledge of the collection, and of the
place of a particular film within that collection, becomes crucial.
Even with their knowledge and expertise, however, they often
have difficulties making some of the decisions. In the film storage
area of this archive, one vault has been set aside to hold deteriorating
nitrate film so that the preservation staff who work with the collec
tion can review reels at a later date. It
of removing the deteri
is a way
orating film from the collection (so that it will not contaminate other
reels), but reserving judgment upon it. Some of the reels may be
copied as part of a preservation project, if funding can be found to do
so. Sometimes archivists may check the preservation status of the film
in question —if
a satisfactory preservation master has been made in
the past, it facilitates the disposal of the film.

The ritual of regular nitrate inspection offers a good example of
the archivist's control over preservation work. In the above situation,

the archivists are given the authority to discern the state of deteriora
tion, assess the value of the film (based on their knowledge of the col
lection and film history), and make a decision for preservation or
disposal. Although these archivists use the fiaf guidelines as a base
line for diagnosis, the criteria for evaluation and prioritization are
actually generated internally, within the organization.
"Looking at Films"
In addition to the ability to inspect film, another essential skill that

archivists develop over time is the ability to watch a film and focus
exclusively on its physical qualities. This proficiency is important
both for the purposes of identifying defects present in the original
element and for evaluating the work of laboratories after the film is
duplicated.
These keen observational skills are also crucial when archivists
have multiple elements of a film, and they are not sure which element
to use for preservation purposes. In the following extensive fieldnote
excerpt, I observed Carl and an intern, Todd, perform a preliminary
assessment on a duplicative negative and a projection print of a silent
film which the archive was preserving.
The first thing that Carl and Todd did was to pull two sets of cans
from the staging area of the cold storage and take them into Carl's
personal preservation workroom. They were two elements of the
**** 7
same film, a 19** D.W. Griffith silent called a negative and a
print. The initial task was to find out which element had been
struck from the other; in other words, which came first to the
archive? The ultimate question to answer was which element to use
for preservation ("which do we do our preservation from?"). The
negative was set up on the rewind bench. Carl opened the can con
taining the first reel of the print, and found that it was "tails out."8
He asked Todd to rewind it using the power rewind in the shipping
office. Meanwhile, he would look up the projection card from the
archive's file to see if he could find a note about making a preserva
tion copy from the records. I tagged along as Carl went down the
hall to a large filing cabinet containing thousands of 3 x 5 inch cards.
He pulled out a handwritten accession card and a projection card. I
asked him for which years these records were kept, and he replied
that they were from the period of 1950-1970. Neither of the cards
contained any information about striking a negative from the print,
or vice versa, but the projection card did list a number of projections
of the film during that period. Carl informed me that these entries
only represented the times that the film had been projected in-
house, so it wasn't a great record of the total number of times the
film had been projected.
We went back to the preservation workroom, where Todd had just

returned with the rewound film. Carl stated the situation: that he
had gotten no helpful information from the cards, other than that
they had received a print of the film from the donor in 1952. But
there was no guarantee that the print received in 1952 corresponded
to the print they had before them today. Carl told Todd that they'd
have to look for other clues to figure out which film had been
struck from which.
Carl began to screen the print on the Steenbeck. He told Todd to

get a preliminary cataloging form and begin filling it out so that
Barbara [the cataloger] could create a record for the film [for the
archive's computerized catalog]. The first bit of film that we saw
was what Carl called a "flash" — a few title frames that said
"Consolidated Certified Prints," which was probably a distributor
for the film at that time. This was followed by what Carl called
"studio head leader" and after that a title card that said "Start." Carl
commented that this film probably was released both as a silent,
and with an optional sound effects and music track. The "Start"
card told the projectionist when to begin to play the Vitaphone
record. Finally, we came upon the main title cards, the first of
which stated,
Joseph M. Schenk
Presents
D.W. Griffith's
[Title]
Todd was busy filling out the cataloging form for the title and
Carl said, "Oh,
director. Below the title, United Artists was listed.
that's probably the distributor." He advanced the film to the next
title card, containing names of five cast members. He told Todd to
"grab a couple of players" to put in the blank for the cast on the
form. "Why don't you put down [names of three actors]. Carl went
more quickly through the rest of credits, saying that Todd could
pull them out of the afi9 if he needed them. Finally we got to the
last title card, which said:
Personally Directed
by D.W.
Griffith
Carl and Todd laughed a bit about this, with Carl saying, "Gee, that
must be a new category of direction. As opposed to what?
Impersonally?"
Carl forwarded the film again to the first few frames of image. He
asked Todd to pass him the loupe, so that he could look for edge
code.10 He found one, a square which indicated "1917/37/57/77"
according to the Kodak edge code chart. A printing negative had
probably been made in 1937, from which this master positive had
been struck in 1952. Carl asked Todd to wind through to the same
spot on the negative and check for edge code. Todd did so, and
looked with the loupe at the faint edge code that he could find. It
matched the edge code on the print. Carl was pretty sure by this
point that the negative had been struck from the master positive
(probably as a safeguard in the 1970s), but he began to run the print
through the Steenbeck to look for corroborating evidence. As the
film ran, he and Todd watched closely to check out the condition of
the print. The projection of the print on the Steenbeck wasn't
screened to block out the frame lines and the perforation holes, so
that we could easily see where the film had been spliced or repaired
at some point in its life (even past splices and repairs leave some
record in subsequent generations; it's called "printed-in"). Carl
noticed some more flashes and "flake," where the emulsion had
begun to separate from the base. It looks like white spots on the
film. Carl also said, "I'm getting two layers here," pointing to the
side of the film where it had been in contact with the master during
the printing process. At one point, Todd thought that there was a
jump cut early on, but it was really a "fade" from one shot to the
next in the same scene (an older technique that was used once upon
a time to indicate a temporal change). Another thing that Carl
noted was what he called "mottling" — spots on the film that looked
like nitrate decomposition which had printed through when the
nitrate was copied. At one point, Carl stopped the film and said, in
a definitive tone, "this [pointed at the negative on the table] was
made from that [pointed at the print]." The telltale clues were a
reddish streak on the print that was found to be printed into the
negative, and a piece of perforation repair tape that had also been
duplicated in the negative. Todd and I eyeballed the evidence
through the loupe.
After finding the two clues, Carl posited that the duplicate negative
was probably made from the master positive at the John Allen lab
oratory. He said, "this being the original, I say we go from this."
Todd asked why not the dupe negative, since it had been subjected
to less abuse than the print (with its history of being used for pro
jection). Carl replied that the "dupe neg" had been made too early
for John Allen [the laboratory] to have used wet-gate printing (at
least 25 years ago).11,12 Thus all the scratches from the print had
been duplicated in the negative. He would actually get a better neg
ative off of the print using wet-gate. In addition, there were no
decomp [decomposition] problems, because the film is on an
acetate base. Carl instructed Todd to return the negative to the
vaults after they had viewed all the reels (to make sure that there
was no irreparable damage on the print that would have to be
replaced with sections from the negative). The print had probably
been made into a master positive years after it was first received,
when the archive found out that it had the only surviving material
of that film.
In this preliminary assessment of potential preservation elements,

Carl's process of viewing the film is evidentiary in nature. By system
atically analyzing the evidence contained in the two elements, he is
able to assess which one of them will be used to strike the new preser
vation master. He looks for clues of the production, printing, and
screening histories of the film, and uses them to plan a course of
action for preservation.
Carl's expertise in observation and interpretation give him a great
deal of authority in this area of preservation work, and also enhances
his stature within the field as an expert in preservation and restoration
techniques. In the following interview excerpt, Julia, a colleague of
Carl, tells me that one of the things she admires most about him is his
expertise in observation:
What Carl does amazes me sometimes Carl says, "I don't watch
movies. I look at them" — and you don't [watch films], as a preserva-
tionist. He doesn't know who directed the films, you know. He

remembers sometimes who's in them, but he says, "I don't care who
directed them, I care about what they are and how they look."
Authority in preservation work correlates closely with the perception

that an individual has highly developed skill set in observation and
a
interpretation of visual cues found in the artifact.
Building Relationships: Archivists and the Laboratory

Copying film is another essential part of physical preservation work.
Yet most archivists working in either commercial or noncommercial
environments do not do their own laboratory work. They rely on the
expertise of laboratory technicians, who are well-versed in photo
chemical processes and are trained to use the apparatus required to
reproduce motion picture film (i.e., developers and printers).
Laboratory technicians who specialize in preservation and
restoration work possess the technical knowledge necessary to repro
duce the look of an original element. They can take the instructions
of an archivist about image quality (e.g., "give it more contrast") and
translate that request into specific light values. When a film seems too
red by an archivist's standards, they know how to adjust color values.
They also know which film stocks are most likely to provide the clos
est approximation of the look of the original, and how to duplicate
film that is shrunken, or fraught with damage or deterioration,
through the use of wet-gate or step printing.
Because archivists rely on laboratory technicians for this crucial
part of the preservation process, they must be able to place their faith
in them. Archivists will often develop exclusive relationships with
particular laboratories because they feel that the technicians there
understand their needs. One restoration specialist even bragged, "Our
customers trust our eyes."
At the same time, archivists realize that it is not always easy to
translate their requirements to laboratory personnel. In the following
fieldnote excerpt, Carl gives a group of interns advice about dealing
with labs:
Carl told them that it was important for them to develop "a trust
relationship" with their lab. The lab personnel have a particular
expertise, and they should be able to make suggestions about par

ticular problems. Yet, Carl warned, "Do not let them control you."
In the end, "you walk a fine line." Eventually, if an archivist devel
ops a long-term relationship with a laboratory, he or she, along with
the lab, begins to have a "distinct look." "Carl does it that way" or
"that's from [a particular laboratory]." In fact, each archive has its
own style. He said it "depends on who's making the decisions."
Sometimes, you "can even tell what time period" because it corre
sponds to who was doing preservation at the institution at that
time. At larger institutions like ****, a lot of stuff "looks like [a par
ticular archivist]." But since there are others working on preserva
tion there too, some of it doesn't.
Carl makes an important point: although archivists and laboratories

both put their imprimatur on the films that they preserve, archivists
must take the responsibility to make the final decision of how a film
should look.
Quality Control
After archivists convey their requests for how they want a laboratory
to handle a project, they must evaluate how well their criteria have
been met through the process of quality control. When archivists
view footage from the laboratory such as answer prints and preserva
tion masters, they are looking at a variety of factors. First and fore
most, the picture commands attention. Is it timed correctly (referring
to the balance and tonal quality of color or black and white)? There is
no test for timing; rather, archivists usually delineate a spectrum of
acceptability. In speaking of black-and-white footage, some archivists
prefer a preponderance of gray tones, which will give a greater
amount of detail (this is done in the lab by exposing the film to less
light rather than more). However, the archivist cannot make it too
dense with grays, because then the film lacks "punch." When, on the
other hand, the film has been overexposed in the laboratory, it is
described as being too "contrasty."
There appears to be some variation in how nonfiction and feature
films are timed. One archivist, Kent, who specializes in newsreel
preservation, told me that he prefers richer spectrum of grays, while
a
a colleague who preserves feature films at the same archive will tend
toward an image with more contrast. Kent feels that newsreel mate
rial should retain as much detail as possible since this footage is of
historical importance.
While the first check of density occurs during projection,
archivists also use a device called a densitometer to measure the den
sity of the preservation master created by the laboratory. In this con
text, density is defined as the light-stopping power of the positive
element. At one archive, all fine grains must measure between 0.6 and
2.00 — if they measure less than 0.6, a new, darker, fine grain must be
produced to be acceptable as a preservation element.
Keeping an eye on defects in the original and comparing them to
what is found on the new element is another major feature of quality
control. Defects might include scratches, jump-cuts, framing prob
lems, and badly-done splices, the latter of which can cause the film to
jerk at the point of the splice during duplication and projection. To
catch such flaws, archivists must be eternally vigilant, since they can
go by in the blink of anOccasionally, an original element will be
eye.
damaged in the printing process. Most of the time, laboratory techni
cians will immediately confess to any damage that has occurred, but
by keeping careful records and a watchful eye, archivists can avoid
arguments with technicians who assert that certain defects were "in
the negative."
Quality control in preservation copying has become more rigorous
in the last couple of decades, especially for studio preservation pro
grams. Whereas in the past, separation negatives were made badly, or
not at all, studios now require the highest possible quality preservation
masters. These improvements in standards came about because of
increased concern about asset protection and the need for high quality
elements for dvd transfers and licensing for other productions.
The Imperiled Future of Laboratory Processing
Despite the ever-increasing need for specialized knowledge of pro

cessing for archival purposes, many archivists fear that the number of
individuals with such expertise maybe dwindling. Knowledge of pho
tochemical processes may become very rare in the coming years, as
the motion picture industry begins to convert its production, distribu
tion, and exhibition to digital processes. Yet archivists will still be
dealing with over a century of film, and will continue to need photo
chemical copying expertise. Tom, a commercial archivist, pointed out

that it is now difficult to find timers who know the aesthetics of
black-and-white film.
Tom: You'd think that the black-and-white would be easier [than

color to process]. But really, to get the true tonal mid-range
quality out of black-and-white, when it can look so beauti
ful, you really have to put a lot of work into it. Just keep in
mind that most of your equipment today is geared towards
color. The art of black-and-white is a by-gone art, and you
really have to hunt down and search a little bit to find good
black-and-white people. . . .
KFG: Yeah, it's interesting. It's like, what's going to happen in

another twenty years, when all of the people who really
know black-and-white are out of the business — retired or
passed away? How do you pass on that sort of aesthetic
knowledge to new people?
Tom: We have to introduce young people into this hybrid indus

try, now. It's a hybrid industry: it's both chemical and it's
digital. You can't dismiss either one. And we need people
who are looking at the black-and-whites today, and work
ing with some of the people that have this knowledge, to
pass it on.. . . We can roll over and just let the digital side
take over, but that wouldn't be fair to anybody. I mean, it's

incumbent upon us to introduce new, young people into
this industry. We have not done a good job of
it,
in the last
thirty years. You know, can remember as young pup
a
I
myself, back in the seventies, when video was coming out.

And they basically said, "Video coming out, and film
is
is
going away. People are going to rent videos, buy videos, go

it,
home and watch and they're not going to go to the

movies anymore. So, you're basically not going to have any
work coming through the laboratory." We didn't bring in
young people. We weren't training people anymore. We
were training people on videotape. And ...
we basically
rolled over and said, "Gee,
if
you're going to take us, go

ahead. That's fine." There was lesson to be learned.
a
As Tom points out, the decline of certain types of expertise in processing

can be connected to technological changes in the production of motion
pictures. There is a real danger that the transition to digital filmmaking

will make photochemical work obsolete, thus he feels strongly that the
field must continue to sustain this specialized knowledge.

Many noncommercial archives would like to start their own in-
house laboratories, thus reducing their dependence upon commercial
laboratories. Several archives are in the process of building new facili
ties that will include this capability.13 In the meanwhile, the field of film
preservation hopes to encourage new archivists entering the field to
specialize in archival laboratory services in order to cultivate expertise
in archival printing and processing techniques. Thus the Association of
Moving Image Archivists has established an annual fellowship, funded
by Eastman Kodak. It includes an internship at a motion picture labo
ratory that specializes in restoration and preservation.
The Politics of Selection

Although film archivists have exclusive authority over many aspects
of physical preservation, their decisions regarding the selection of
material for preservation are not as Many factors affect
autonomous.
the selection process — not just the physical state of the film, but also
how much the film is used or requested; its historical or cultural sig
nificance; the format in which it is found; and the availability of fund
ing for its preservation. It is worthwhile to explore these four factors
that allow for external influence over the process of selecting films to
be preserved.
Perceived or Projected Use of a Film
When I asked one curator how his archive selected films for preserva
tion, he named a number of criteria, but revealed that for the feature
films in the collection, the requests of users often determine what
films receive the highest priority:
Here, we do it by committee. And that committee really consists of

the senior curator, David, myself, or the assistant curator in charge
of preservation, and then, the assistant to the senior curator, which
is Julia. We also take suggestions from anyone on the staff. And
then [the suggestion] goes under our consideration, but we actually
make the final decision. And then the criteria for [selection] being . . .
(as with most places, I think) first of all, the condition of the film,
and the uniqueness of the film. And then, of course, what the film
of the film, how unique in the history of
is,
what's the history
is
it
[film]. . . But not necessarily in that order. And don't care what
I
.
think what usually happens —and this very true
is
anybody says,
I
here as well — that the people make the decisions more than they
is
think. A lot of times what has happened to us, that somebody will
is
say, "Gee, I'm looking for so-and-so film. I'm doing some research,"
And because it's nitrate, and it's not
it,
etc. we say, "Sorry, you can't see
And the person will "Well, it's not pre
if
preserved, .
."
say, gee,
.
served, who else has it?" and we've said, "Gee, nobody else has it. . .
.
we better look at this. See what kind of condition it's in." And that
starts the chain of events that winds up with the title being on
pri
a
ority list. Then when grant comes up, we stick in there, try to
it
a
make work into group [of films] for grant, that we can then
it
a
get funding for. And think that's really the case, more often than
I
not, that the people that work here in the archives are [the catalyst].
by
The title or the material brought to our attention the people
is
who use the archives.
Requests for access tofilm affect preservation priorities in noncom

a
mercial archives, much in the same way that market demand can
affect what films get preserved in the commercial sector. However, in
noncommercial archives, number of other factors come into play,
is a
especially when the film not Hollywood feature.

a
Historical and Cultural Significance
Many of the noncommercial archivists with whom spoke tend to be

I
humble lot when comes to selecting films for preservation based

it
a
on perceived historical or cultural value. Perhaps they are fearful of

imposing their own cultural hegemony over film heritage. Robert
Rosen, the former director of the ucla Film and Television Archive,
once said that
The single most important criterion [for selection] humility.

is
Tastes change and so do the uses to which moving images are put.
Archivists must not foreclose the possibility for future generations to
discover their own meaning in work. The dark films of the '40s
a
depicting urban violence, viewed at the time as culturally marginal

works, were later discovered as film noir and heralded as quintessen
tial examples of film art. The "B" movies of yesterday are today's cult
films; and the newsreels, thought to be irrelevant a week after they

were shot, are now historical documents of enduring importance.14
As described by Rosen, the archival ethic seems to encourage self-

effacement, not allowing personal preference or the taste of a particu
lar era to affect the selection process. This abnegation of personal bias
runs counter to the greater autonomy that archivists have over other
aspects of preservation, public espousal of objec
however. Despite a
tivity, archivists do have great influence over the selection process, but
not in the ways that one might think.
It is illuminating to explore how the multiple issues involved in
selection play out in a particular situation. Below, I examine a situa
tion where newsreels were being selected for a project to preserve
footage pertaining to both California history and racial and ethnic
issues in the United States. The project was funded by a non-profit
organization that has funded a number of cultural heritage projects.
Two archivists, Kent and his assistant, Jon, worked jointly on the pre
liminary selection of footage.
In this situation, the two archivists culled films that fit the gen
eral topics of California history and race and ethnicity in the United
States from the collection at large. This process required the archivists
to search through a manual index card system (the only existing com
plete catalog of the collection, containing very idiosyncratic subject
headings). Each archivist had a different idea about what sorts of sub
jects fit this topic, and in the following excerpt, Jon comments on how
his criteria for selection differed from Kent's.
Kent was mainly doing chronological kinds of [criteria] . . . using

his own very extensive knowledge of u.s. history and California his
tory and trying to go through and take a little sampling from each
decade. What's significant varies between the two of us. I some
. . .
times find significance in the nontraditional, like . . . when I looked

at descriptions of footage that might cover . . .just the geographical
location and the architecture of that particular period. Look,
Southern California has changed so rapidly. I think that's really sig
nificant and important, in addition to the historical events. And
then, historical events ...in this collection, the coverage centers a
lot around Hollywood. And, you know, even though that's a very
limited view, it's still a very important one that I think people are
interested in. And it's important to Los Angeles' growth, so I think

that's often significant, and valuable to be preserved, even though
maybe somebody might consider it "fluff."
Whereas Kent concentrates on historical events such as the Watts

Jon places emphasis on what some might consider to be second
riots,
ary characteristics of the footage, such as evidence of urbanization in
Southern California, and films which document the rise of the enter
tainment industry. Jon calls these criteria that influence his selections
"nontraditional," implying that he considers these secondary cate
gories to have been underrepresented in the past. He sees his selec
tions as providing a more complete picture of California history and
culture, and remedying the slant toward certain types of footage.
Advisory committees are sometimes called in to provide another
source of input into the selection process, especially in larger grants
such as the one detailed above. Large philanthropic organizations or
government agencies which fund preservation projects often stipulate
that advisory committees, made up of historians, documentary film
makers, and other academics, oversee the process of selecting footage
for preservation. These requirements might be seen as an attempt to
enrich the selection process with the subject expertise offered by com
mittee members, and perhaps, an effort to offset any bias resulting
from the predispositions of a particular archivist.
Archivists often have mixed feelings about the presence of a com
mittee overseeing selection. In the following fieldnote excerpt, Kent
describes his ambivalence about having a committee to assist with the
selection process.
I asked where Kent and Jon were with the [grant], in terms of selec
tion. Kent said that they would begin the "narrowing, prioritizing
process" soon. I asked if this was similar to the process involved in
****
[the last large grant on which they had worked]. Jon said, "Well,
so far, we don't have a[n advisory] committee like we did with [that
one]." I asked, "Do you think that a committee will be appointed?"
He replied, "It's not written into the grant, but I think they're going
to sneak one in." I responded, "Do you not like having a committee
to aid in selection?" This question stimulated a few comments from
****
Kent about the experiences with the committee during the
grant. The committee was composed of historians, women's studies
and ethnic studies scholars, and filmmakers. Although Kent didn't

really have a problem working with the committee, he feels a bit
uncomfortable about the level of supervision over selection that he
has never had before, especially from people who don't have any real
idea about the limitations of the collection. He feels that he has been
doing an effective job at selection over the past fifteen years even if
he doesn't have advanced degrees (his undergraduate degree was in
history). As
it,
he put "Where the evidence that since we don't
is
have the credentials, we're picking crap?"
In the above instance, Kent shows concern about the implication that
the scholarly committee can make better decisions about what to pre
serve than he can. He also chafes at the idea that individuals with
much scholarly knowledge but no archival knowledge will make deci
sions about what will be preserved. Although Kent acknowledges that
the purpose of the advisory committee to provide multiple perspec
is
tives on selection — in fact, to admit that selection cannot be

wholly
a
objective process
— Kent
still seems to feel that his position as an
authority on the newsreel collection has been challenged, and that his
knowledge not given equal weight in the final selection decisions.
is
On another occasion, he elaborated on why he finds selection

committees so problematic — he sees them as being superfluous in
many ways.
Way, way back when, was very much against bringing in outside
I
experts because ... thought could do as good job as they, which

a
I
probably isn't the case ... as far as being able to assess the historical
value in great detail of particular thing. But was more concerned
a
about just spending lot of time to come up with decision- that

a
could be made very quickly. . . You could almost pick anything out
.
of the collection, because somebody has already made collec

it
a
tion. Somebody's already decided what to save . it's not like

.
there's random [selection] . . . you know, instead of typewriters

a
they gave bunch of monkeys cameras and sent them out there to
a
shoot in hopes one of them will film the Hindenburg! . . .That's not
what we have here. What we have here more organized than that,
is
and there was more thought put into saving what they saved. They
thought that was worth saving. So somebody's already made that
it
determination.
Kent derides the process of selecting films with the aid of commit
a
tee because he feels that the decisions could be made without such a
lengthy deliberation. Since he is working with material that is quickly

disintegrating, it is natural that he would want to preserve as much
material as he can in the limited time available. He considers the
addition of a committee to be in some ways unnecessary, because the
company that produced the footage was already in effect preserving
history through its choice of subjects, as well as through its later use
of the films as stock footage.
At one point, I
Jon directly, "How do you feel about the
asked
committee? Do you like having that kind of structure?" He replied,
Oh, I find it all right. The committee . . . you know, they have very
interesting insights and emphasize certain issues and historical events
that we might not have been familiar with. And sometimes they were
in the collection, and sometimes they weren't. Often, they weren't. So
the committee often went with our recommendations, because even
though we may not have our PhD's yet, we are very familiar with
what this collection has, and we were able to direct the committees
and show them what's available. And if we've actually seen the
footage, we could give them more insight on [what's actually in the
footage] ... Is it what they thought the [index] card described? And
if it wasn't, then maybe it isn't as significant as they thought. Because
sometimes the card looks like unique and significant footage, and it
turns out to be not what it appeared to be. It turns out to be some
landscape, instead of something with historical figures.
He feels more comfortable accepting the suggestions of the advisory

committee than Kent, yet he, too, resists the idea that they have supe
rior knowledge.
As the above discussion shows, it is difficult to make the process of
selecting newsreel footage for preservation objective and unbiased.
From the personal preferences of the archivists, to the slant given by
scholars interested in one or another point of view, choice is always
subjective in some way or another. The fact that most scholars have no
archival knowledge or familiarity with the collections, and that
archivists usually do not have the same depth of historical or cultural
knowledge as the committee members, means that the archivists and
the scholars do not always speak the same language. Ultimately, selec
tion for preservation becomes an iterative process, where archivists and
scholars negotiate a list that includes footage satisfying the interests of

the two parties from both a historical and an archival point of view.
Eventually, the list will be winnowed down further by archival realities,
such as losses due to deterioration or the misfiling of footage.
Edited versus Raw Footage
In addition to subject matter, type of material provides another area

of debate for archivists and committee members. The newsreel collec
tion at the archive at which Kent works consists of both edited mate
rial (individual stories and complete newsreels as they were shown to
the public in theaters), and raw footage —either trims left over from
the editing process, or material ordered from other sources which
were never used. Raw footage was never shown to the general public
and thus is a valuable source of "fresh," unfamiliar images. In the
selection process for one grant, the archivists and committee mem
bers could choose from both edited and raw footage, but there were
sometimes disagreements about what was the best balance between
the two types of footage.
Kent: The only real differences of opinion that I ran across — seri
ous differences of opinion — were two things. One was that
some members felt more strongly about preserving
unedited material, and others felt more strongly about pre
serving edited material. You know, try every combination
and gradation between the two as you can get with eight
people.And I argued in favor of what we [ended up doing]
. . . of across the board, some of each. Each of that is
sort
what the collection is. It's some of each. And, I think, pro
portionally, we probably emphasized the released stuff more
than the unreleased stuff because it's capable of doing more
things in an educational, or even an entertainment context.
You've got the raw footage that you could strip away the
sound [from], and work with an ambient section of the
track; strip away the synch and you have the raw footage.15
Then edit but you have the image of the actual event. If
it,
you fill the soundtrack in then you have contemporaneous

a
explanation of what's going on, which puts into histori

it
cal context, and you also have the slant of that contempora
neous thing.16 It's more entertaining thing to look at
a
because you have somebody telling you what's going on.

And so if you're doing a full restoration of an entire issue,

you're getting . . . even though it's more expensive foot per
foot to preserve and restore, you're getting much more for

your dollar.
17
The people on the committee who were more
outspoken in one direction or the other tended to be more
outspoken towards the raw footage.
KFG: What were their reasons for preferring the raw footage?
Kent: Because it was raw, and it would give scholars a greater

opportunity to be able to make their own choices as to
what was of value in
it,
and had never been seen before,
it
so we'd be putting out there for the very first time. All
it
absolutely one hundred percent true, but when you're talk
ing about newsreel that maybe nobody's seen in fifty
a
years, you are, in very real sense, putting out there for
it
a
the first time. mean, there's nobody . . . unless you're talk

I
ing about an absolutely photographic and phonographic

memory, there's probably not many people out there who
would really clearly remember what the film was.
In this very richly detailed interview response, Kent begins to touch

upon many different possibilities to consider when selecting non-fic
tion footage. He shows bias towards the released footage, because he
a
sees more "educational" or "entertainment" value in it. The fact that

the edited footage contains narration gives added value in Kent's
it
opinion. He disdains the idea of the raw footage as being somehow

"fresher" or more valuable than the edited footage, saying the edited
more entertaining thing to look at, because you have
"a
is
footage
somebody telling you what's going on." In addition, Kent feels that
restoring complete newsreels ("full restorations") more economical
is
because "you're getting much more for your dollar."

In contrast to Kent's preferences, many of the scholars favored
the raw footage because "it would give [them] greater opportunity
a
to make their own choices as to what was of value in it." Whereas

Kent sees more value in the edited footage for the purposes of enter
tainment or education, in footage
the scholars are more interested
that has not been censored through editing. Kent does not compre
hend the latter logic, since he feels that the film company was in
effect being an editor through its choices about what to shoot.

Later in the interview, Kent comments that "if you were to go
through and pick [stories], starting with the biggest lettering on the
synopsis sheets18
— [and said,] 'I'm going to preserve those newsreels
first and just work my way down'— you'd probably make a pretty
decent selection of what a lot of the important events of that time
period was." When I responded that he was in effect preserving only
the stories that the film company thought were important, Kent
added, "Well, unquestionably you would be preserving what they
thought was important. But, a lot of times, they were right! . . . This is
a collection that people have gone through over the years. They culled
material before they assigned it a permanent place in the collection."

In the mind of Kent, the selection of the footage for preservation has
already taken place through the editing process, and his actions serve
to reinforce previous decisions of the creators. In contrast, many of
the scholars and documentarians on the committee want to offer the
footage as a kind of historical and cultural tabula rasa, upon which
future users of the material can affix multiple interpretations of iden
tity, ethnicity, and gender.
Funding
For the newsreel project discussed above, the archivists did not have
to specify in advance which films would be preserved when they
applied for funding. Most archives do not have this luxury of such lat
itude in their selection for preservation, especially in feature film
As Steven,
it,
preservation. a curator at a large archive, puts
When you're having to raise the money to do the preservation, you

can only preserve whatever you can raise the money for. And
is
it
you may have film that you'd really like to do, but you've got
a
donor who doesn't want to do that film. They're not interested in

that film. They want to do this other film, which in perfectly
is
good shape, and showing no signs of deterioration, and you could

is
it,
probably wait another five years on but that's what you can get
the money for, so that's what you end up doing. Even when you go
to funding agencies, you're not getting away from individual
donors. There few places to go where you can kind of get
are very
money to do whatever you want, or kind of get money to do, you

know, really obscure films. Everybody likes to be able to preserve

films that have a certain, you know . . . prestige to them. Or, differ
ent funding sources will have different areas of interest. Somebody
wants to fund silent films, so suddenly those early sound films
you've been trying to get money for are kind of out the window in
terms of that funding agency, because that's not what they're inter
ested in. I'm not saying that to slam funders, and donors, and fund
ing agencies. It's totally understandable. But those are realities that
you have to live with all the time.
Funding agencies and donors have a great influence on what films get
selected for preservation, not just on a local level but a national level
as well. Because finding resources for preservation is a constant strug
gle for most noncommercial archives, often these outside sources
impede archival imperatives.
The grants available from federal sources like the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Film Preservation
Foundation are usually restricted to laboratory services, and often tend
to privilege the needs of archives which are transferring nitrate to
safety film. Regarding the government agency grants, there is a feeling
of dissatisfaction among a number of archivists, especially those from
smaller archives and libraries. These smaller archives often feel shut
out of the funding process at the national level. In one of the focus
groups for this study, several archivists referred to the preference for
funding preservation of nitrate film (which smaller archives that spe
cialize in nonfiction material are less likely to have in their collections).
Ellen: looking back to] the original rounds of American Film

[. . .
Institute/National Endowment for the Arts grants, who
can forget the conversations that you had with the staff
about what was appropriate, and how much money would
be available to the non-nitrate archives? It was a trip! . . .
And number of us here had the opportunity to sit on the

a
panels of the National Endowment for the Arts, and . . .
Diane: Actually, it was a nightmare. ... It felt like we were sort of

attached to this juggernaut. And you could raise your hand
and say, "Well, . . . maybe we should divide funding a little
bit more equitably among the ..."
Ellen: No, the decisions were all made before you even got to
the table.
Diane: Right. Exactly.
Donald: And certainly the ratios in which the money was passed
out. Certain archives got boom, boom, boom, and then
everyone else [got next to nothing].
Ellen: And they still do. . . . The nitrate-holding archives still get
the preference.
Part of of the grants, which are

the problem lies in the scope
often only for funding laboratory services. The bias in grants favors
preservation only as a physical process, rather than as a way of con
necting people with their cultural heritage. Grants written to provide
access to films are slighted in favor of projects that emphasize copy
ing. Several of the archivists I spoke with emphasized that organiza

tions such as the National Film Preservation Foundation need to
re-think the grant-writing process so that it reflects a broader defini
tion of preservation.
According to these archivists, another effect of the dire funding
situation is that many of them must structure their activities around
particular preservation projects, rather than a well-thought-out
preservation plan. One archivist said, "You're reacting to what you can
do with the money sources. ...Sort of taking third place is a rational,
reasoned decision on how you'd like to proceed in terms of preserving
this collection." Another archivist noted rather wryly she and her col
leagues "are driven by the fashions of our time." In the following
exchange, she comments on the trend toward preserving footage that
features underrepresented communities.
Ellen: One pretty easy thing for all of us to talk about is the exist
ing funding programs, and how important it is to under
stand the priorities of the flinders, and how we have to be
very sophisticated about understanding that we are driven
by the fashions of our time. And right now, there
is,
in
many funding areas, big push to be able to enable preser
a
vation of underrepresented communities. And so, you see

a
project such as yours [said to Diane] where you're going to

focus on African-American representation, and that was
money that you knew you could go out to get, so therefore
you're going to take a sector of collection, and it will be
preserved ahead of something else. And this is something
that we need to put into how we make long-term deci
sions, because fashions change, and . . .
Diane: But you need to be aware of those fashions ... or anticipate

them. Yeah, it's [about] being politically savvy.
As the above exchange shows, these archivists feel that they must
often cater to popular taste or current academic predilections in order
to get funding agencies, administrators, and the general public inter
ested in preservation. As the participants put often comes down
it,
it
to question of "What's sexy?" They pointed out that usually eas
is
it
a
ier to find resources to preserve particular group of films rather than

a
to fund other more generalized needs of the archive. As one archivist

it,
put not
is
"Storage sexy!"
Other
by
factors affecting funding for preservation cited
by
archivists included preference donors and granting agencies for

a
well-known films over unknown films, and edited footage over

unedited footage. In the latter case, this propensity often stems from
the knowledge that easier to provide access to edited material.
is
it
One archivist, whose collection consists largely of unedited ethno

graphic films, expressed hopes that digital technologies might
increase interest in and access to her collection: "A lot of our stuff
is
not edited. It's [raw] footage, which lot harder to use. And that's
is
a
why think that there's lack of vision [on how to provide access].
a
I
always saw this as futuristic collection, in that dependent on

is
it
a
these future technologies which are now really coming into being, to
make this material accessible."
The "Orphan Film" Movement

Although have mentioned many of the influences on the selection
I
process, have not yet discussed another factor which may have even
I
more power to affect which films are preserved and which archives
will be allowed to do the work — the new national agenda for preserv
ing film heritage.
In Redefining Film Preservation, the Library of Congress recom

mended that the film preservation community divide responsibility
for preservation between copyright holders and film archives.19 In its
report, the Library of Congress endorsed the opinion that studios
should take care of their own films, while film archives must focus on
preserving those films which are no longer under copyright or which
have no clearly defined owner — usually referred to as orphan films.20
Although the recommendation was made in the context of how

federal grant money for preservation should be spent —i.e., not on
films from which copyright owners could later make additional prof
its — the net effect of this policy was to set new priorities for preserva
tion at many noncommercial institutions, because proportion
a large
of those archives get a large portion of their preservation budget from

federal sources.
The recommendation of the Library of Congress became the new
national policy on film preservation with the passing of the National
Film Preservation Act in 1996, which established the National Film
Preservation Foundation. The nfpf uses matching funds from the fed
eral government to fund orphan film preservation. Steven, a curator at
a large archive, described the process of getting the legislation passed:
Whether or not you think . . . Congress was not going to

it's right
accept a situation where matching funds would flow to a
federal
foundation, and would go back out to archives to be used to pre
serve the property of copyright owners like Universal or Paramount
or Sony. I mean, it wasn't tenable. And I agree with it.
pub I think
lic money should not be used to subsidize the operations of major
corporations, and the studios didn't want that either. [Thus] the
phrase "orphan film" was coined to distinguish those films that did
not have amajor corporate owner who could be responsible, either
alone or in conjunction with an archive, for preserving the film. To
distinguish those films that would likely disappear, would likely not
be preserved per se, unless there was a major effort made through
the public and the nonprofit archives to save them. And that actu
ally got written into the legislation, and was really a key distinction
that helped to communicate to Congress that it just was something
that they should do. I've been told that that [bill] was the only leg
islation that got through the Republican Congress that year. The
Republicans had just gained control, and had made it clear that
there were going to be no increases for existing federal programs.
There were going to be no new federal programs at all, and the

[National Film] Preservation Act of 1995,21 which established the
Foundation, was the only exception to that. It was the only new
federal program that was created in that Congress. And part of the
success of getting that through was incorporating that orphan film
metaphor, that orphan film concept.
Despite these good intentions, the orphan film designation is prob

lematic in two ways. First, the orphan film metaphor relies too heavily
on adefinition of preservation that emphasizes physical techniques
and the intervention approach. As Steven stated,
One of the things that the field is going to have to come to grips
with, and the [nfpf]'s going to have to come to grips with, is: how
does it deal with this orphan film metaphor? Because the orphan
film metaphor makes sense, and is pretty easy to keep a fairly clear
distinction, when you're talking about physical preservation. Once
you get away from physical preservation, then it becomes a lot less
clear. My own position is that money should be used only for the
public benefit. Not for the benefit of corporations, for for-profit
corporations. But "for the public benefit" could mean money to pay
for the cataloging of a collection, even if it's a collection of copy
righted films, if that collection will then be accessible to the public
and to students and scholars and researchers. Or, it could be paying
for a film series. That film series might include copyrighted films,
but if it's a film series being put on by a public or nonprofit archive,
any monies coming into it would be accrued to the public or non

profit archiveif it's being put on as an educational, archival activity for
the public benefit. And I think that the Foundation should be allowed
to use monies for that kind of thing. These are all activities that may
involve copyrighted, . . . non-orphan films, but they're all activities
that were accrued to the public benefit, and not directly, at least, to the
benefit of the for-profit corporation. And I think that's got to be
allowed for. So, I think we're going to see it over the next . . . prob
ably not for another couple of years, but down the road, four or five
years down the road, it's going to have to be some modification . . .
an effort to either come up with a new metaphor, or redefine what . . .
the orphan film concept means. Because, while it works in physical

preservation, it's too restrictive in terms of what all archives have to
deal with. And all the other areas that we think of as archival activities.
The second problem with the orphan film concept is that many
films which should be cared for by copyright owners will still fall
through the cracks, because studios will make priorities among the
thousands of titles that they own based on market demand, not cul
tural heritage imperatives. Since federal funding agencies will not
grant money for preserving films that are part of studio collections,
even if that film is unlikely to be preserved by the studio, that leaves a
significant number of films hanging in the balance. In an interview
with the curator Carl, he described such a scenario.
Carl: People, foundations, individuals, like to fund Hollywood

films, fiction films, they want to go for the star, the director,
this type of stuff. They're more the fan type thing, you know.
They want to fund it because it starred Gloria Swanson, or it
was directed by Cecil B. DeMille, something along that line.
That's really tough, you know. And then some of that stuff
can also be the stuff that's tough to get public funding for,
because obviously if you're looking at something like that,
you're looking at something that's owned by somebody,
unless you go into public domain. Yeah, it's great using those
two names that I said, but what if you want to do something
from film that needs it? This is going to be owned by a
a 40's
studio; it's not an orphan, quote unquote. That means some
it,
body owns it. So whoever funds you know, going to

is
say
— and the public funding people say this too . well, why
.
.
shouldn't the studio pay for it? Why should pay for some
I
thing? Well, why should we pay for something that some

body actually owns the copyright to? But the copyright
if
owner's not going to do anything with not going to do

it
.
.
.
any preservation or restoration on somebody's got to or

it
. .
.
you're going to lose it.
KFG: So, sounds like there's chance of some things that you
it
would think would get preserved, aren't going to get pre

served?
Carl: Oh yeah . that's already happened think actually it's

I
.
.
in an area that people don't think about. mean, it's

I
because everybody thinks, "Well, why should do this?

I
Because MGM's going to do this, Warner Bros, going to

is
do this, Turner's going to do this . . . somebody who owns

going to pay for it." But those studios are not really
is
it
responsible to preserve it for history. They're a commercial

entity. And I'm not saying anything bad about them.
That's not their job. Their job is to keep it for the corpora
tion. But if that corporation just decides, "Well, we're not
going to use this anymore," they'll make one copy of
it,
and
make all the videos in the world, or whatever the current
is,
spiel you know, the local hologram or whatever the heck
we're going to go to next. And that's all they're going to
make. Because they can sell that. And film that they can't
a
sell . . . they may do nothing. And so that's going to disap
pear. Those are tougher than everybody thinks, for that
very reason, because nobody expects that. They feel, "Well,
they're going to make money off of this, so they're going to
preserve it." And that's not the case. And yet, go in
if
I
there and say, "Well, this the only print of something
is
Cecil B. DeMille in 1919," which nobody owns
by
done
anymore
— it's in the public domain. can get money like
I
that, for that. From public, private, foundation ... can get
I
that in second. But ... gets even worse with things like
it
a
with the independent film there. And we're not even dis
cussing here . . documentaries that nobody really owns,
.
and personal films — home movies. That big part of

is
a
history that . . crosses the whole field and everything, but

.
who's going to pay for that?
At on orphan films, Gregory Lukow brought

1999 conference
a
up this issue of certain films falling through the cracks, calling for
a
reassessment of the definition of orphan film. He stated that "both

the legality and the politics of orphanage need to be defined so the
key criteria not that public archive can determine in all cases films
is
or footage that are guaranteed to be in the public domain with no

rights holder legally on the books. Rather the initial key criteria
should be that there no private sector entity actively responsible for
is
such materials." While he applauds the orphan film metaphor for

22
how has brought the plight of many under-appreciated genres of

it
films to the public attention (e.g., documentaries, newsreels, avant-

garde, and independent films, home movies, amateur and local pro
ductions, and educational and industrial shorts), its current definition
does not really empower the noncommercial archive community to
act in the public interest to save film heritage. Lukow critiques the
metaphor, saying that "despite the positive and productive 'Save the
Children' connotations of the orphan film, the question remains as to
whether or not there are attendant costs to the public archives or to
the public interest that emerges in the wake of this new metaphor. Is
it double-edged sword?"23 Six years later, the passage of the
a
Preservation of Orphan Works Act, part of the Family Entertain

ment and Copyright Act of 2005, showed that Congress and the film
preservation community had made progress in redefining orphan
films to encompass some of those works that might otherwise have
fallen through the cracks.
This chapter looked at how film archivists accomplish the work of

film preservation, focusing on their ability to make autonomous deci
sions. For the purposes of this study, I defined autonomy as the power
to define the criteria for the production and evaluation of preserva
tion work.
I found that archival autonomy varied considerably, depending on
the nature of the work in which the archivist was engaged. The
archivists with whom I spoke are likely to have the most freedom in
the domain of physical preservation for establishing their own criteria
for how such work should be accomplished and evaluated. It appears
that their unchallenged autonomy may be traced in part to their com
mand of unique skills and aesthetic sensibilities that are crucial to
preservation work.
When it comes to selection for preservation, however, these
archivists do not command the same degree of authority. The com
mercial archivists who participated in my study respond largely to the
demands of the market in choosing which films will receive treat
ment, while the noncommercial archivists juggle the multiple criteria
of state of deterioration, rarity, user demand, historical and cultural
significance, and availability of funding in making their selection
decisions. In the noncommercial environment funding appears, in
many instances, to be a primary determinant of whether or not a film
will be preserved. The format and genre of the film also affected
whether or not it was marketable to funding sources.
At the national level, the emphasis on orphan films also has had a
great influence on what films archivists preserve and how they pre
serve them. The initial decision by the federal government to fund
preservation only for those films which are in the public domain, or
which have been abandoned by the legal copyright holder, threatened
to define the agenda of most noncommercial film archives, due to
their dependence on federal monies for preservation programs. The
orphan works legislation works to redress that imbalance between
intellectualproperty rights of creators and cultural heritage impera
tives, making the orphan film metaphor a more powerful concept for
helping archives prioritize preservation activities.
Chapter 8 Notes
1 Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (New York:
2 Douglas Harper calls this kind of sensory knowing, "knowledge in the body." Douglas
Harper, Working Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 131, 133.
3 Edge marks (also known as edge codes or edge numbers) are the inscriptions found along
the edge of a strip of film. They are often helpful to identify the year of manufacture or to
identify the exact position of a frame. Kodak uses a system of triangles, squares, and circles
to indicate the date — most archives have a chart to look up dates handy in their work
rooms. Kodak reused their codes at twenty-year intervals, so the film could be either from
1924 or 1944. Usually, other factors such as the presence of a soundtrack or degree of dete
rioration will provide clues to the date if the archivist cannot determine it from the title or
subject matter.
4 Hypo is sodium thiosulfate, formerly called sodium hyposulfite (hence the word "hypo").
5 FIAF is the International Federation of Film Archives.
6 "Junked" means to dispose of the entire film rather than simply cutting out the footage
where deterioration appears.
7 Title omitted for reasons of confidentiality.
8 "Tails out" means that the reel has been wound through to the end.
9 The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures Produced in the United States
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971- ).
10 A loupe is a magnifying glass used to examine individual frames more closely.
11 "Dupe neg" is an abbreviation of duplicate negative.
12 Wet-gate printing is "a system of printing in which the original is temporarily coated
with a layer of liquid at the moment of exposure to reduce the effect of surface faults."
L. Bernard Happe, Your Film and the Lab (New York: Hastings House, 1974) 208.
13 The Library of Congress will open its National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in
2006; UCLA Film and Television Archive began construction on its new facility in 2004.
14 Robert Rosen, introduction to UCLA Film and Television Archive presents the Fight Annual
Festival of Preservation, June 27-July 20, 1996 (Los Angeles: UCLA Film and Television
Archive, 1996), 1.
15 In this collection,
the negative may contain the ambient sound that was recorded at the
time the image was filmed, while the print will carry the commentary and music of the
released version.
16 Here, Kent suggested that future users of the film could reconfigure the audio track to
combine both ambient sound and voiceover.
17 Each issue of a newsreel typically consisted of five or six stories that were bridged by music
and commentary.
18 Synopsis sheets were flyers given to newsreel exhibitors that contained descriptions of the
contents of a newsreel.
of Congress, 1994), 25-26.
20 Paolo Cherchi Usai notes that the term orphan film was first used in a public context in
1993 by David Francis, the former head of the Library of Congress's Division of Motion
Pictures, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division, at the Los Angeles hearings for the
National Film Preservation Plan. Paolo Cherchi Usai, "What is an Orphan Film?
Definition, Rationale, and Controversy," Paper presented at Orphans of the Storm I,
University of South Carolina, September 23, 1999.
<http://www.sc.edu/filmsymposium/archive/orphans2001/usai.html> (accessed September
18, 2005).
21 The Act was first introduced in 1995, and passed in 1996.
22 Gregory Lukow, "The Politics of Orphanage: The Rise and Impact of the Orphan Film
Metaphor on Contemporary Preservation Practice," Paper presented at Orphans of the
Storm I, University of South Carolina, September 23, 1999. <http://www.sc.edu/filmsym-
posium/archive/orphans2001Aukow.html> (accessed September 18, 2005).
23 Ibid.
-Ef-
Evolution Df the Field Df Moving
Image Archiving
In his essay "The Book as Symbolic Object" Regis Debray describes

the codex "as symbolic matrix, the affective and mental schematization
in whose dependence we bind ourselves more or less unconsciously to
the world of meaning."1 Somewhat similarly, Robert Rosen describes
film as "a document of our culture, recording not only what happened,
but what we thought about what happened —not only the truths of the
past seventy-five years, but also the mythologies, the misconceptions,
the attitudes that were prevalent."2 In both examples the authors see
the cultural artifacts as metonymic objects.

It of cultural institutions to reify dominant social
is the nature
structures and systems of signification by endowing physical objects

such as books, films, and other works of art with symbolic power. This
study has shown that society is invested in multiple systems of signi
fication and value, however, and the standing of an individual or insti
tution within a particular community depends upon the system of
value to which that community subscribes. This work also has
revealed the relationship between economic and other kinds of value,
and how cultural institutions have thus far been heavily invested in
noneconomic systems of value in order to maintain the internal logic
of their mission and goals.
In this concluding chapter, I offer a brief summation of the
research problem under consideration in this study, the methodology
used, and the findings. I follow this precis with a discussion of poten
tial implications of those findings: revisiting the relevance of the
Bourdieuvian framework to the analysis of this environment, cri
tiquing the application of naturalistic methods to the study of archival
processes, and relating my findings in this study to the preservation

movement in other fields.
Summary of Findings
Using ethnographic methods, this book aimed to document and ana
lyze institutional and social practices of film archives, in both commer
cial and noncommercial settings. It provides a detailed description of
this "information" world, focusing particularly upon the talk and prac
tices of individuals who create and sustain systems of symbolic value
while accomplishing the work of film preservation. I explored the
nature of this work in a methodical way, describing not only what film
archivists do, but also how they define their world in terms of bound
aries, values, and ethics. I also had the chance to examine the similari
ties and differences in language and practices between two
communities performing similar work while having dissimilar goals.
One of the primary tasks of this study was to document process
and decision-making in film preservation. Thus, I mapped the path of
preserving a film, finding in the process: selection,
eight stages
procuring funding, inspection and inventory, preparation for labora
tory work, duplication at the laboratory, storage, cataloging, and pro
viding access. In each stage of the process, I identified the individuals
responsible for making decisions and maintaining quality control, and
explored the issues that may affect their choices. Significantly, I
uncovered feedback loops where individual subjectivity and aesthetic
sensibilities overrode concerns for efficiency and standardization.
In my conversations with archivists, I found film preservation to be
an evolving field where archivists disagree over the boundaries of their
work Film archivists do not share a common vision of what preserva
tion means. As restoration expert Robert Harris once stated, "the rules,
regulations and responsibilities of an archivist for the preservation and
safekeeping of motion picture films have never been determined. Each
and every individual organization makes their own determinations —
good or bad."3 Many archivists with whom I spoke, particularly those in
the noncommercial sector, argue for an expanded definition of the word
preservation beyond merely the work of physical preservation. They
feel that preservation should encompass not just activities or process,
but also values and policies. Commercial archivists interviewed in this
Evolution of the Field of Moving Image Archiving 205
study are more likely to see preservation in terms of asset protection,

rather than preserving cultural heritage. The lack of consensus among
noncommercial and commercial archivists on the definition of preser
vation stems from a pivotal conflict over whether economic or cultural
imperatives should take precedence.
I also found
world where archivists struggle to maintain auton
a
omy over preservation work, autonomy being defined as the power of

archivists to define their own criteria for the production and evalua
tion of preserved and restored films. Judging from the experiences of
the archivists with whom I spoke, archivists in both the noncommer
cial and commercial sectors are likely to have the most freedom in the
domain of physical in part because they command
preservation,
unique skills and aesthetic sensibilities that are crucial to preservation
work. In selecting films for preservation, however, I found that a sig
nificant number of archivists have much power to make
less
autonomous decisions. Commercial archivists in this study respond

primarily to the demands of the market, while availability of funding
tends to limit the choices of the noncommercial archivists. The cur
rent national agenda for film preservation, which reserves federal
grant money for the preservation of orphan films, also constricts the
power of these noncommercial archivists to make independent selec
tion decisions.
Validity of the Bourdieuvian Model

Film archives, like libraries and traditional archives, work part of an as
economy that tends to value symbolic goods over economic goods.

Pierre Bourdieu calls this milieu the field of cultural production, or,
"the economic field reversed," where power is achieved through the
abnegation of This book explored
personal or commercial interest.
how the world of film preservation prefigures a shifting balance of
power among stakeholders in the field of cultural production, how
ever. I have suggested that film preservation has the potential to
become of work controlled more by the market for economic
a type
goods than by the market of symbolic goods; moving images will be
preserved and made available only as the mass market will bear the
costs of such activities. Film archives, which have traditionally
focused upon noncommercial values in the selection and preservation
of moving image heritage, may be emerging as a new type of cultural

institution that must acknowledge the multiplicity of values associ
ated with mass culture objects, such as film.
The model for this new institutional hybrid suggests itself from
the social interactions and power dynamics witnessed via observations
and interviews with members of the film preservation community.
The compromises that noncommercial archivists make in their work,
and the limits to their autonomy to control certain aspects of their
work, reflectgrowing disregard for the principle of disinterestedness
a
in economic considerations that characterizes the field of cultural

production. In many cases, film archivists have no choice but to bal
ance an ethic of symbolic valuation against economic pragmatism.
While on the surface, this trend seems primarily negative and deter
ministic — we might interpret this hybridity to mean that film
archives will be forced to become "sellouts" and preserve exclusively
those films that will pay for themselves through their commercial
appeal or their fundability
— there are potential benefits to this sce
nario as well. Noncommercial archivists may become more savvy
about how to finance preservation of film genres lacking commercial
appeal by leveraging new access technologies, bringing new attention
and additional funders to their cause. Below, I articulate a vision of
the next era of the field that considers several of these potential devel
opments.
The Future of the Field of Film Preservation

The description of the field of film preservation that I present in this
book should not be considered inviolate and unchanging. Interaction
among participants in the field and even the participants themselves
will continue to evolve, as the economic, legal, political, and cultural
environments with the field change over time and will
that overlap
thus affect film preservation work. While no one can say for certain
exactly what these changes will bring to the field, one may certainly
identify particular patterns and trends developing at this time and
suggest ways in which those phenomena might affect the power
structure and relationships among participants. In chapter 5 of this
book, I proposed a model for the organization of the field of film
preservation in the 1990s (see figure 5.2). Given the developments in
Evolution of tie Field of Moving Image Archiving 207
technologies for accessing moving images — i.e., streaming digital

moving images over the Internet — and the reassessment of priorities
for preservation for noncommercial film archives —i.e., the new
emphasis on orphan films
— I present the reader with a new vision of
how the field may transform itself in the next two decades (see figure
9.1). This model reflects the subtle changes in the power structure and
relationships that have begun to take place, and provides an idea of
how those changes may ultimately play out.
I foresee two major changes for film preservation. First, the mar
ket for moving images will begin to encompass more types of film
than in the past. Because noncommercial archives will be spending
more of their efforts and funding on preserving orphan films, com
bined with an increased emphasis on access to those films, archives
will be exploring ways to distribute preserved films in new ways,
either through dvd or on the Internet. A stellar example of these
efforts can be found in the dvd sets released through the National
Film Preservation Foundation, Treasures From American Film Archives
and More Treasures From American Film Archives, 1894-1931* On the
Web, the Library of Congress's American Memory Project and the
Internet Moving Image Archive serve as excellent examples of
resources for orphan films. The latter project is an endeavor of the
Internet Archive, Prelinger Archives, and other institutions and indi
viduals whereby public domain "ephemeral" films (advertising, indus
trial, educational, and amateur films) are available for free download
in the mpeg-i, -2, and -4 formats.5 Although they are not commercial
endeavors, these projects nevertheless stimulate the market for such
films. Certain genres of film that may previously have had little
cachet now have the opportunity to increase in value, both culturally
and economically, and may begin to be viewed in a different light (in
Bourdieuvian terms, they may move along the continuum of "conse
cration" towards a more bourgeois or mass audience). Thus, the chart
in figure 9.1 shows many of those film types that were firmly fixed at
the lower ends of the spectrum have moved to new positions as their
marketability increases. For example, home movies may migrate
upward, as their cultural value increases; their appeal to the market
rises only marginally, however, as these films tend to be made largely
for private consumption.6 Independents and documentaries will begin
eF
The Field American Film Preservmien, me-mm
M
figure
ie.1
consecration
of
consecration Institutionalized
Charismatic consecration High degree
BOURGEOIS AUDIENCE
INTELLECTUAL AUDIENCE
cr.
1
Autonomy
Heteronomy
(no audience,
(market)
no economic
I
profit)
NO AUDIENCE
Low degree of consecration MASS AUDIENCE
1- Legend
o Noncommercial preservation <__>. = Indicates reciprocal relationship
(films are both cultural heritage
a
•L. = positive pole, implying dominant position (primarily orphan films)
Commercial preservation and marketable assets)
— > = Indicates films on deposit
(films under copyright)
a
— = negative pole, implying dominated position
by
be
(may not marketed archives)

to be protected more consistently, as studios and others see these films

asbeing more marketable.7 Note, however, that the position of avant-
garde and student films remain fixed in this model, since their market
is unlikely to increase dramatically, avant-garde films being usually
aimed squarely at the intelligentsia.8
I also foresee a second trend for film preservation on the horizon.
The increased emphasis on orphan film preservation for noncommer
cial archives and the continued emphasis by commercial archives on
preserving their films only as the market will bear their cost, may cre
ate a new genre of films which I call "films in stasis." By stasis, I mean
those films which are currently protected by copyright, but which
have low priority for preservation by the copyright holder (note that
these films would be different from those which are still under copy
right but have been abandoned by the owner — those films would be
considered to be orphans under the current definition).
In its general usage, stasis is defined as "inactivity; stagnation; a
state of motionless or unchanging equilibrium."9 Static films are those
copyrighted titles which may be eligible for preservation for various

reasons of deterioration, or for historical, cultural, or social values, but
which will not be preserved because of their perceived lack of economic
value. Thus, they remain in a state of limbo, halfway between salvation
and complete disregard. What percentage of the national film heritage
may enter into this state of stasis will depend largely on the continued
interest of copyright holders in preservation as a method for both the
protection of investments and an increase in profitability.
Proposed legislation that aims to remove films from copyright
limbo is in the works. If passed, this new legislation would give
archives increased powers to save some of these orphaned films from
falling between the cracks. The United States Copyright Office
recently held hearings and issued a report on the orphan works issue;
this directive reviewed the challenges in locating copyright owners of
works suspected to be orphaned and suggested steps that cultural
institutions and other users should take to ensure that copyright is
protected, should a prodigal owner materialize later to claim copy
right infringement.10 These steps would include provisions for com
pensating a copyright owner should someone step forward and claim
copyright infringement. The amount of compensation that an
infringer would owe to the owner is still in debate at this time.11
Previous to this report, several groups of creators such as photogra

phers and illustrators protested that the new legislation would not
require sufficient due diligence in copyright clearance.12 Proponents
of the orphan legislation hope that all of these concerns can be
resolved; if passed, this new legislation will empower archives to save
films and other works from preservation Umbo.
Elitism, Commodification, and the Role of Economic

Imperatives in Shaping the Field of Film Preservation
This study operates under a set of assumptions which some readers
may find challenging — that preservation of moving image heritage
takes place in a field of competition for power and resources, and that
noncommercial institutions can only maintain their autonomy and
secure their continued existence by distancing themselves from com
mercial organizations. Some readers of this work may feel that I have
put forth a model that promotes an elitist stance towards culture and
cultural institutions, whereby archives must maintain a distance from
commercial preservation endeavors in order to survive as separate,
autonomous entities.
Is it in fact possible for film archives to accept the increasing
commodification of our moving image heritage, but not yield their
institutional role as the residence for cultural memory as it is embod
ied in moving images? Some readers might argue that the position of
the film archive has always been tenuous, given that the objects that
fit the classic definition of cultural artifacts. Walter
they collect do not
Benjamin suggested that the ascendancy of mechanically reproduced
cultural objects such as motion pictures has caused the "liquidation of
the traditional value of the cultural heritage."13 While the cult value of
a painting, sculpture, or other hand-crafted object resides solely with
the original artwork, the aura of uniqueness surrounding filmic
objects of cultural value can be transmitted via the instruments of
mass consumption: at first, it was through the movie projector, and
then the television, but now the list includes the vcr, the dvd player,
the digital video recorder, the iPod, and the computer with an
Internet connection. Film archives may have been able to reconstruct
an aura of authenticity in the traditional sense when they held unique
Evolution of the Field of Moving Image Archiving 21 1
copies of films which could only be viewed on site, but the widespread
distribution of many of those films via personal media players and
over networks emancipates the film from the ritualistic trappings
which formerly defined the value of it cultural object.
as a
A strict interpretation of the Bourdieuvian model would argue

that as a film archive becomes a producer and a distributor as well as
a storehouse for cultural objects, its position in the field changes as
well. Other archives will see the
enterprising archive as becoming part
of the heteronomy (i.e., commingling with the commercial sector),
and would reassert their claims of disinterest in the market value of
their collections — thus maintaining their high degree of consecration
as well as their autonomy from market forces. Given the current eco
nomic realities facing the world of American film preservation, how

ever, it is unlikely that these latter archives would be able to maintain
their autonomous positions for very long.
It is far more likely that film archives will transform themselves
into what I suggested in my introductory chapter: hybrids that strike
a balance between cultural heritage needs and market forces. One
might refer to this composite institution as the new American cul
tural heritage model. By developing and maintaining standards for
preservation work which differentiate them from purely commercial
endeavors, film archives may be able to maintain some degree of
autonomy that their continued existence yet recognizes the
assures
relationship between the economic and cultural values of moving

image heritage.
Film archives may serve as harbingers for the transformation of
other cultural institutions, given their potential to become producers
and distributors of cultural heritage via digital technologies. The
impetus for transformation depends, however, upon the field in which
the institution operates. Not every cultural institution faces the same
degree of competition or the same financial exigencies that character
ize the field of film preservation. Therefore, it would be unwise to
predict a similar future for museums, traditional archives, and
libraries without a careful consideration of players, stakes, and power
structure of each field.
I
would also like to suggest that film and other moving images
may become a border-crossing art form that appeals equally to intel
lectual, bourgeois, and mass audiences. In an article about the trans

formation of highbrow taste in recent decades, Richard Peterson and
Roger Kern note that Americans, starting with the baby boomer gen
eration, have begun to consume culture in a manner which does not
discriminate among the different art forms to the same extent as that
of previous generations.14 The growing tendency toward omnivorous
consumption of arts commodities may lead one to question the valid
ity of the Bourdieuvian model of distinction, the definition of cultural
capital, and the structure of the field of cultural production. How
would the social and intellectual elite differentiate themselves in the
absence of clear distinctions between cultural strata? How would cul
tural institutions function without clear boundaries between the
"acceptable" Would they be strengthened or
and "unacceptable"?
weakened by the trend toward cultural pluralism? While outside the
realm of this study, these are interesting questions which bear further
investigation.
Validity of Using Ethnographic Methods for the

Study of Cultural Institutions
There is no question that this study uses a methodology that may be
seen as suspect or inadequate by many scholars in the library and
archival science fields. Ethnographic fieldwork and other cognate
qualitative methods have been seen as secondary or supplementary
research tools in these "information" fields, where research agendas

aredominated by statistical or historical perspectives. In addition, the
more traditional, positivist scholars have argued that many of the pro
ponents of qualitative methods promote a radical relativist epistemo-
logical stance whereby the goal of finding a single objective truth
becomes irrelevant and undesirable.15
While it is understandable that scholars trained in the quantita
tive tradition may find issue with the epistemological agenda of the
more radical qualitative researchers, I
would argue that there is not
only a place, but a dire need for such methods in this field.
Information studies research does not often address such issues as
how practitioners such as librarians, archivists, and curators accom
plish the multiple tasks that comprise their work. The few studies
that have used ethnographic methods usually focus on describing and
analyzing the worlds of different user groups, the underlying idea

being that if practitioners have a more complete profile of a particular
community, will be able to fulfill users' requests more satisfacto
they
rily. Rarely have researchers turned their attention to the world of the
practitioners themselves, or to the institutions that they inhabit and
sustain.16
We have entered a new era in information studies, one which

presents us with problems which cannot be solved simply through the
development of a better retrieval algorithm, or by the cognitive mod
eling of the information seeking behavior of children, lawyers, or art
historians through a quantitative survey. The former presumes that
relevance is a simple quantitative measurement — it is not — and the
latter presupposes that every child (or attorney, or art scholar) shares
similar concerns, possesses the same skills, and inhabits the same
social and cultural universe — and they do not.
Jana Bradley typifies the qualitative perspective as centering

"around notions that empirical reality should be approached as poten
tially multiple realities, constructed by perceivers, and frequently
acted on as if there were one objective reality. Empirical reality —what
researchers set out to capture as data and understand in terms of
abstraction — is complex, intertwined, understood most fully as a con
textual whole, and ultimately inseparable from the individuals 'know
ing' that reality."17 If we want to delve further into the contextualized
information environment of the information seeker and user, and if
we want to include the information provider as a shaper of that envi
ronment, naturalistic design must become a valid option for the infor
mation studies researcher.
As Anne J. Gilliland-Swetland points out, the next generation of
information studies researchers must take a more
pluralistic approach
in their inquiries in order to address the many new problems and
challenges brought about by the dizzying technological change of the
last decade and the decades to come.18 Not only in the area of moving
image archiving and preservation, but also in other newly emerging
subdisciplines of the field such as social informatics, digital libraries,
and electronic recordkeeping, will need to reappraise the methods
we
that have been used in the past, and the benefits and drawbacks of
nontraditional tools of research. Ethnographic methods, along with
such tools as content analysis, discourse analysis, and focus group

interviewing, offer information studies researchers a way to recast
research problems and in fact uncover new avenues for inquiry that
were inaccessible through purely quantitative methods. It is my hope
that eventually, researchers from both quantitative and qualitative tra
ditions will collaborate on research to cross-validate research findings
through triangulation, and thus provide results on both micro- and
macro-levels.
The Definition of Preservation in Allied Fields

The findings of this book lead one to consider how other cultural her
itage fields define and promote the image of preservation. I see simi
lar issues to those faced by film archivists in a number of allied
fields — in addition to libraries and archives, this list includes sound
archives, historic preservation, and art conservation. In each of these
areas, the application of new technologies has caused practitioners to
reflect upon the nature and ethics of their work.
To take two examples, consider the fields of sound archiving and
art conservation. Sound archivists must deal with rapid change in
sound recording technology, the implications of losing certain types
of information when copying from one format to another (e.g., what
happens when old analog recordings areand/or digi
remastered
tized?), and the increased restrictions on copying presented by new
copyright law. Sound archivists also consider aesthetic questions
regarding the quality of restored material, and they consider how to
balance the need to preserve fragmented or unedited works against
the pressure to spend funds on more easily accessible works.19
In the domain of art conservation, conservators must sometimes
consider preservation issues related to the multiplicity of copies for
those artworks that are generated using mass production methods.
For example, the earlier prints obtained from wood-engravings are
more valuable than later ones, because the quality of the image
degrades as the original printing source wears. They must develop
methods of evaluating the quality of prints.
Art conservators also deal with the effects of using new technolo
gies for preservation; they often have debates over their aesthetic
implications. One can see similarities between the procedure called
"in painting," where conservators attempt to reconstruct an area of a

painting that has deteriorated, and the efforts of film archivists to
provide substitutes for missing footage by using stills and outtakes.
Conservators face dilemmas in methods of cleaning paintings: the
removal of decades of dirt and environmental pollution often leaves
an artwork which looks vastly different from the one with which art
historians have become familiar.20 This frustrating situation mirrors
the reaction that many film archivists face from audiences who view
pristine prints of preserved films and comment on how it does not
look like an "old film" — i.e., it does not sport the scratches and physi
cal defects that mark a vintage print.
Given the many similar debates occurring in allied fields, it may
be fruitful to conduct research which compares preservation defini
tions, procedures, and standards across various allied conservation
fields to compare how professionals define the boundaries of their
work, how they maintain authority over their domain, and how they
debate and/or resolve ethical dilemmas. The answers to many of these
questions may be found in issues of professionalism,
particularly in
the tension between individual authority and the drive toward stan
dardization in the institution and the field at large, and in reaction to
technological advances.
Professionalization or Marginalization? Considering the

Future oi the Moving Image Archivist
At this writing, film preservation stands at the crossroads of the ana
log and the digital world. Is digital technology in fact changing the
way film archivists work? How do they deal with the new technolo
gies, yet continue to maintain a commitment to the medium which
has defined their identity? And last, will moving image archivists who
do not transform themselves into digital asset managers become mar
ginalized figures in the field of film preservation?
The drive toward professionalization in the field of film preserva
tion will change the work of its practitioners in a number of key ways.
The autonomy of the individual archivist, who wields power through
his or her particular wisdom and skill, may be sacrificed as a result of
the impetus to standardize the knowledge baseof the field. As educa
tional programs to train archivists become part of graduate degree
programs, will be to produce a professional literature

the next step
from which to draw upon. Researchers will begin to develop system
atic theory that will aid student practitioners in absorbing the key
tenets of the field. As a result of this development, the individual
authority of the archivist may be de-emphasized in favor of promot
ing a particular ethic of film preservation.
In his analysis of the arrested development of the archival profes
sion, Richard Cox notes, "The archival community lacks resources
and authority partly because it fails to assert itself effectively as a pro
fession with an essential role in modern society."21 The moving image
archives community may want to pay heed to the lesson learned by
traditional archivists about the importance of communicating its own
worth to those outside the profession.
Film archivists flew very low under the radar of public perception
until quite recently. Only in the last decade or so has their work been
recognized as a separate field. Now, just as their identity has been
firmly fixed with the motion picture format, they are being asked to
embrace the digital realm. Although one can see that by calling them
selves moving image archivists rather than film archivists or television
archivists, the archival
community has begun to acknowledge the
importance of expanding their domain, it remains to be seen if they
will be anxious to take on the role of digital asset managers. 22
Although some experts in the area of multimedia and digital libraries
present convincing evidence of the necessity of accepting the transi
tion to digital stewardship, initial evidence from this study and else
where shows that archivists show little enthusiasm for relinquishing
their ties to the analog world.23
At a recent symposium on this subject, one studio executive
remarked that
In archival restoration, there have been mistakes made. But I

believe in properly processed polyester separation masters — there's
nothing better than that. There's this elegant thing — there's this
worldwide standard of 35 millimeter. And you know what, if you do
produce films all digitally, and there's no film in the origination
process
— I hope we're not stupid enough to lose the fact that if you
really want to archive and keep it for a long period of time, lay it
back out to a good robust film.24
For the majority of archivists, the final output of the preservation

process must still be film for the foreseeable future, no matter what
the original format of the image is. We may see this attitude change
in the next ten to fifteen years, as more and more material enters the
archive in digital form, but from the viewpoint of the corporate asset
manager and the archivist alike, the risks of preserving in digital for
mats still outweigh the benefits.
The resistance of archivists to the new digital paradigm makes
sense when one considers film preservation from a social and cultural
stance, not just an economic or technological one. It is important to
realize that the work of film preservation is embedded within an
institutional structure — whether that structure is a film archive or a
motion picture studio— and that institutions are built to sustain the
status quo, not to embrace change. Studios will continue to want geo
graphic separation to protect their assets, and they consider separa
tion negatives stored in various places to be the most secure way of
achieving that goal. Most film archivists remain convinced of the
superior image quality of motion picture film. Archives and studios
are heavily committed to the physical trappings of analog film preser
vation (for example, one must consider the number of new vaults that
have been built in recent years to store film in the proper conditions).
Is the introduction of digital technology such an "environmental
shock" that it would force film archives to alter how they function and
embrace a new paradigm that focuses on "disembodied digital preser
vation"?25'26'27 The evidence presented in this study suggests that the
old artifact-based paradigm is still very much alive and sustained by

institutional patterns and infrastructure. It remains to be seen if it can
be permanently dislodged by the digital revolution.
This book represents the first attempt to consider the social and cul
tural aspects of the field of film archiving, gathering together what
has previously been an ad hoc and undocumented body of knowledge.
In choosing to approach film preservation from this perspective I
emphasized social activity over technical processes, because I am con
vinced that preservation needs to be studied as "a means to an end,
rather than an end in itself."28 In her article on the current state of
preservation, Michele Cloonan states that "preservation must be a

way of seeing and thinking about the world, and it must also be a set
of actions. For some it is only a technical problem, for others an aes
thetic one. But preservation also has broader social dimensions, and
any discussion of preservation must include consideration of its cul
tural aspects."29
Although it is impossible to generalize these findings to every
member and institution of the film archive community, it is hoped
that the results resonate with a majority of its members and will gen
erate discussion for the community at large. By
as to its relevance
studying the film preservation community as a sociocultural phenom

enon rather than as an object of history or critical analysis, we can
reflect not only on what we do, but also on what we value and how
those values affect our actions.
Chapter 9 Notes
1 Regis Debray, "The Book as Symbolic Object," in The Future of the Book, ed.
Geoffrey Nunberg (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 141.
2 Tom McGreevey and Joanne L. Yeck, Our Movie Heritage (New Brunswick, N.J.:
Rutgers University Press, 1997), 17.
3 Robert Harris, "Re: Responsibilities," May 6, 2001.
<http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-
l/2001/05/msg00036.html> (accessed September 18, 2005).
4 Treasures From American Film Archives: 50 Preserved Films, DVD 4-disc set
(Chatsworth, Calif.: Image Entertainment, 2000); More Treasures From American
Film Archives, 1894-1931, DVD 4-disc set (Chatsworth, Calif.: Image
Entertainment, 2004).
5 The Internet Moving Image Archive may be found at:
http://www.archive.org/details/movies.
6 There have been some rare exceptions of home movies which became quite valu
able, such as the Zapruder film or the films made of the Japanese internment
camps during World War II, but the vast majority of these films have no eco
nomic value. One must note, however, that their value as social documents has
been largely untapped due to the difficulty in collecting such material.
7 In 1997, the UCLA Film and Television archive announced a major new project,
the Sundance Collection, which focuses on collecting and preserving independent
films. They claim to be the first archive to focus on this genre. I predict that
copyright owners of many independent films will begin to care for their property
better, as these films (particularly documentaries) have become more visible and
profitable in the marketplace in the last decade.
8 The recent release of the impressive CD set Unseen Cinema may make inroads in
improving the market appeal for avant-garde cinema, however. Unseen Cinema:
Early American Avant-Garde Film, 1894-1941, DVD 7-disc set (Chatsworth,
Calif.: Image Entertainment, 200S).
9 Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. "stasis."
10 United States Copyright Office, Report on Orphan Works: A Report of the Register
of Copyrights (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Copyright Office, 2006).
11 Andrea L. Foster, "Copyright Office Sides With Publishers in Proposal for Handling
'Orphan' Works," Chronicle of Higher Education 52, no. 24 (February 17, 2006),
http://chronicle.com/weekly/vS2/i24/24a03901.htm (accessed March 17, 2006).
12 Scott Carlson, "Whose Work Is It, Anyway?" Chronicle of Higher Education 51, no.
47 (July 29, 2005), http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i47/47a03301.htm (accessed
September 23, 2005).
13 Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," in
Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, ed. Gerald Mast, et al., 4th ed.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 668.
14 Richard Peterson and Roger M. Kern, "Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to
Omnivore," American Sociological Review 61 (1996): 900-907.
15 See Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom, "The Use and Misuse of
Anthropological Methods in Library and Information Science Research," Library
Quarterly 65 (1995): 161-99.
16 For the rare example of a study which looks at the entire environment, see Terry
Plum, "Academic Libraries and the Rituals of Knowledge," RQ 33, no. 4 (1994):
496-508.
17 Jana Bradley, "Methodological Issues and Practices in Qualitative Research,"
Library Quarterly 63 (1993): 432.
18 For a discussion of this issue in archival education, see Anne J. Gilliland-
Swetland, "Archival Research: A 'New' Issue for Graduate Education," American
Archivist 63 (2000): 258-70.
19 For a discussion of these issues, see: Christopher Ann Paton, "Preservation Re-
Recording of Audio Recordings in Archives: Problems, Priorities, Technologies,
and Recommendations," American Archivist 61, no.l (1998): 188-219; Crispin
Jewitt, "Digital Chaos and Professional Standards," IASA Journal 15 (2000): 17-19.
20 Conservators must also be cautious that they do not remove the original varnish
ing in the course of cleaning. In some cases, such varnishing may have contained
stains that lent a layer of color to the original. For more information on the
restoration of paintings and other artworks, consult Sarah Walden, The Ravished
Image, or, How to Ruin Masterpieces by Restoration (New York: St. Martin's, 1985).
21 Richard J. Cox, American Archival Analysis: The Recent Development of the Archival
Profession in the United States (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1990), 40.
22 Note that the professional association is named the Association of Moving Image
Archivists, not the Association of Film and Television Archivists.
23 Howard Besser, "Digital Preservation of Moving Image Material?" The Moving
Image 1, no. 2 (2001): 39-55.
24 Transcript of symposium held in Los Angeles on May 16, 2000: "Issues of
Preservation and Media Production: New Paradigms for the Digital Age," in
Digital Storytelling, edited by Ben Davis. Report 024 (Los Angeles: Razorfish, 16
May 2000), www.digitaleverything.com/rr024_film_transcript.pdf (accessed
September 18, 2005).
25 Ronald L. Jepperson, "Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism," in
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. Walter W. Powell and
Paul J. DiMaggio (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 145.
26 See Besser, "Digital Preservation."
27 Also see Gilliland-Swetland on the development of a new digital paradigm for
the "metacommunity" of all cultural institutions. She has argued that cultural
institutions need to create "an overarching dynamic paradigm — that adopts,
adapts, develops, and sheds principles and practices of the constituent informa
tion communities as necessary ....
Such a paradigm must recognize and address
the distinct societal roles and missions of different information professions even
as boundaries between their practices and collections begin to blur in the digital
environment." Anne J. Gilliland-Swetland, Enduring Paradigm, New
Opportunities: The Value of the Archival Perspective in the Digital Environment

(Washington: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2000).
28 Erica Avrami, Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre, "Report on Research," in
Values and Heritage Conservation (Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute,
2000), 11.
29 Michele Valerie Cloonan, "W(h)ither Preservation," Library Quarterly 71.2
(2001): 232.
Appendix I
A Case Study in Archival Ethnography
In my study of the world of film preservation, the need to look at

institutional norms and practices rather than industry-wide statistics
and overall trends necessitated the use of ethnographic methods.
Fieldwork and in-depth interviewing, supplemented by the use of
focus group interviewing, facilitated the discovery of systematic pat
terns and themes within institutions that practice film preservation.
Data collected in this manner gave me crucial clues to piecing
together how the world of film preservation functions, while the
mode of analysis, combining open and axial coding with memo-writ
ing to develop categories of meaning, was essential for helping to
identify, describe, and explicate the systematic patterns embedded in
the field.
Ethnographic methods represented the best choice for collecting
and analyzing data for two reasons. First, the emphasis of this project
was largely exploratory and explanatory in nature. I investigated phe
nomena which are thus far little-known or understood. I was
attempting to identify "plausible causal networks shaping the phe

nomena" being studied.1 Catherine Marshall and Gretchen B.
Rossman have pointed out that ethnographic methods such as partic
ipant observation, in-depth interviewing, and elite interviewing are
most likely to yield information on institutionalized statuses and
norms, especially those of a tacit nature.2
Second, in this research I emphasized context, setting, organiza
tional culture, and the participants' frames of reference. By observing
and interacting with individuals within the setting, I was able to
record their social reality, including both participants' behavior and
the meaning of that behavior for participants. By eliciting "indige

nous meanings,"3 I uncovered data on the attitudes, values, and ethics
of the film community in various settings.
preservation
To achieve the goals set forth for this research, I immersed myself
in the world of film preservation. This work is practiced in a variety of
institutional settings: museums, universities, libraries, and most
recently, film laboratories and motion picture studios. My primary
method of differentiating among these settings was to separate them
into categories of commercial and noncommercial sites under the
assumption that there are in fact two subcultures of film preservation
corresponding to this commercial/noncommercial split. I hypothe
sized, however, that as these two cultures begin to commingle, non
commercial cultural institutions, which have traditionally valued
symbolic goods over economic goods, may become more like their
commercially-minded colleagues in a number of ways.4
In order to document the social reality of the cultures of film
preservation in the noncommercial realm, I carried out ethnographic
fieldwork and interviewing in two film archives. In these institutions, I
explored how archivists decide what to preserve, and the techniques
and methods they use to accomplish preservation tasks. In the course
of data collection, I spoke with sixteen specialists in different aspects of
film preservation, including the archivists themselves, as well as other
individuals, such as curators, catalogers, interns, vault managers, and
projectionists, who perform work that is essential to the primary task
of physical preservation. These noncommercial interviews, conducted
either informally or in the field, constituted seventy-three percent of
the total number of individuals with whom I spoke for this study.
My preliminary research into the field revealed that preservation
work in the commercial sector was too decentralized to be studied
using fieldwork methods. Unlike film archives, where most preserva
tion activities take place in a single location, commercial entities
involved in film preservation often contract out for services such as
storage and laboratory services. Without a centralized commercial

preservation culture to study, I opted instead to focus on "sampling
the continuum" of preservation activities through the use of in-depth
interviewing and focus group interviewing (see below). During the
course of interviewing, I spoke with six individuals who worked in
Appendix I: A Case Study in Archival Ethnography 223
commercial organizations involved in some aspect of preservation,

including managers of storage facilities, laboratory technicians, and
studio employees who oversee preservation activities for their compa
nies. Conversations with archivists in the commercial sector com
prised twenty-seven percent of the total number of individuals
interviewed for this study.
To augment the scope of the results achieved through fieldwork
and in-depth interviewing, I chose to conduct several focus groups
composed of individuals responsible for the overall management of
film preservation programs in various organizations and studios. I
used this technique to gather more "macro" level data — the purpose of
the focus groups was to discuss institutional-level and national-level
concerns of the film preservation field. The focus group data was also
helpful in that many of the issues brought up and discussed in these
sessions affected later hypothesis testing during the fieldwork and
interviewing components of the study.
In the following sections, I give a more thorough explanation of
the methods outlined above. I also review my methods for analysis of
the resulting data, and discuss the limitations and assumptions inher
ent in using this amalgamation of qualitative methods.
Fieldwork and Interviewing in Noncommercial Settings

Selecting Fieldwork Sites
When selecting a location for ethnographic research, the primary

objective is to "locate a site that contains people and social activity
bearing upon that interest."5 For ethnographic studies that are able to
draw from a large local population, this simple directive causes few
difficulties. In the case of this study, however, the task of finding a
suitable site proved to be more problematic, for a number of reasons.
First, the number of individuals and institutions that engage in
the work of film preservation both relatively small.6 It was impos
are
sible to choose one site that would be representative of film archives
across the country. In fact, a number of archivists informed me that
each archive was so unique, in terms of its organizational structure,
collections, and activities, that it would be impossible to draw any
conclusions about the field as a whole.
Second, preservation activities tend to be centered in a few areas

of the country, close to large metropolitan areas that are hubs for
either motion picture production or cultural institutions — e.g., Los
Angeles, New York City, and Washington, d.c. I was fortunate to be
located in one of these areas, but given the small pool of possible sites
for study, my options were extremely limited, and I risked geographi
cal bias if I chose to focus on just one area of the country.
A thirdproblem presented itself, which ended up being a solution
to all three conundrums, in a way. During the course of reviewing
possible sites I had the opportunity to select an archive with which I
was already familiar — the place where I had received initial hands-on
training as a preservationist. This site had the advantage of easy access
due to my connections to employees there and my broad knowledge

of its operations, and I had already done preliminary fieldwork there
to fulfill requirements of a course in ethnographic methods. Despite
these advantages, it was suggested that I
should broaden my perspec
tive on the field by visiting an archive in another part of the coun
try — to taste the culture of an archive far from the milieu in which my
"alma mater" was located. In this way, I could see the differences
between indigenous meanings and meanings shared among archivists
at different institutions. The second archive could serve as an addi
tional case study, which I could use for comparison to the first institu
tion, as for further development and refinement of initial
well as
hypothesis formulation.
These reasons provided a strong argument for choosing to con
duct participant observation at two sites, despite the difficulties
encountered in arranging for fieldwork at a site far from my home
university. Additionally, I faced challenges of funding which ended up
curtailing the amount of time I could spend in the field. Despite these
limiting circumstances, I believe that the addition of a second setting
enriched the study immeasurably.
Setting
Physical and Social Features. Although every film archive is unique in

the particulars of its facilities and staff — not to mention their
approach film — one may make several general state
to preserving
ments about the mechanics of their work. In order to perform film
preservation, archivists require certain facilities and equipment.

Facilities include vaults to store film, workrooms to carry out physical
preservation, projection rooms to view films, and office space for staff.
Basic equipment includes rewind benches to inspect film, flatbed
viewers or Moviolas to view film, splicers to repair film, and synchro
nizers to compare various elements of films to one another. Basic sup
plies include film cleaner, splicing tape, and leader (to protect the
ends of film reels from damage). Archivists also require access to film
laboratories knowledge of how to duplicate
that have specialized
archival film, which may be fragile and in a state of deterioration.
Preservation staff members perform a variety of tasks having to
do with the physical preservation and restoration of films. Archivists
select the films to be preserved and/or restored, inspect them for
damage and signs of deterioration, repair them if necessary, and pre
pare them for duplication at the laboratory (which can be located on-
or off-site). Archivists are also expected to keep records of their work,
conduct quality control checks of laboratory work, and communicate
with supervisors, other staff members, preservation institutions, and
potential donors (in the case of noncommercial institutions).
Although usually work alone on individual preservation
archivists
projects, they also work in teams on large projects, or may work indi
vidually on different aspects of the same project.
Access. My study aimed to delve deeply into the daily life of the individ
uals who make up the world of film preservation. In seeking access to
the sites chosen for this project, I made use of my past experiences as an
archivist. My assumption that my past training in film preservation
would facilitate both my requests for my acceptance in the
access and
role of participant-observer proved to be true. Earlier in my profes

sional career, I worked in the preservation department of a large film
archive, first as an intern while I was earning a master's degree in library
and information science, and later as an assistant preservationist.
As a result of spending almost three years at that archive, I con
sidered myself to be somewhat of an insider to the world of film
preservation. While my skills and techniques might not have
approached the highest standards of the more experienced archivists,
I felt that I had assimilated into this culture. I learned much of the
lingo and mastered many of the techniques of film preservation, and I

felt comfortable participating in critical discussions of preservation
projects. This insider information proved to be invaluable as I
attempted to establish a rapport with individuals at a site.
At the same time, I understood the dangers of fully embracing
the insider role.7 I forced myself to underscore my primary role as a
researcher, asking detailed questions about film preservation practices

and procedures in order to elicit detailed explanations from the
archivists. Because of my previous knowledge, however, I could not
feign ignorance of the simpler techniques of film preservation. To
maintain some semblance of credibility, I framed
my questions
slightly differently than a complete outsider would. For example,
instead of asking how an archivist would perform a procedure (a com
mon technique used by fieldworkers to obtain rich, detailed data), I
asked why they performed a task in a certain way, often comparing
their technique to that used by another department or another insti
tution. This method was successful in prompting archivists to reflect
upon their work, in addition to simply telling me how they accom
plish activities.
Collecting Data
I spent approximately two hundred hours in the field at each site. For
one site, this time stretched out over a five-month period, and for the
other site, the fieldwork occurred over a one-month period. The latter
visitation period involved travel to a site outside of my state of resi
dence, hence the period in the field was unfortunately limited by fund
ing and time constraints. At each site, I was usually present for a
minimum of three or four hours per day. At both sites, I engaged
myself in the daily activities of the archive; usually this involved work
ing intensively with an archivist while he or she worked on a particular
project. Under the direction of archivists, I often assisted with some of
the simpler tasks of preservation, including rewinding film, preparing
leader to attach to the ends of film, making simple splices, identifying
film stock, inspecting footage for signs of deterioration, and assessing
other types of damage. For more complex work, such as the compari
son of various film elements to one another, or reconstruction work, I
often sat beside archivists as they performed the delicate operations of
their craft, conversing with them about their techniques, decisions,

opinions — anything which might shed light on their professional
knowledge, technical skills, and how they approached their work. I
also had the opportunity to join them when they were in consultation
with other members of the archive (such as curators, catalogers, and
programmers) and observe the interactions among personnel in the

various divisions of the archive. Finally, I accompanied them when
they reviewed preservation copies of films at local laboratories, which
gave me insight into the quality control process.
After spending a significant amount of time in the field with
these archivists, I followed up with interviews of key informants,
whom I had identified through my fieldwork. These individuals came
from all divisions of the archive, from managers to archivists to entry-
level vault assistants and student interns. By garnering the insights of
individuals throughout the archive, I got a much better idea of how
film preservation works at all levels of the hierarchy. Student inform
ants were particularly interesting interview subjects, as they often
were in the process of learning many of the same skills and practices
that I was, albeit from a different perspective than my own.
Confidentiality. At all stages of this research, I made every attempt to

protect the confidentiality and anonymity of participants. Before I
began any fieldwork or interviewing, the study was reviewed and
approved by the Office for the Protection of Research Subjects (oprs)
at ucla. I abided by the requirements of this body through the use of
either informed consent, in the case of fieldwork participants, or con
sent forms, in the case of interview participants. I used pseudonyms
to disguise the identity of individuals and institutions who partici
pated in this research, and omitted the titles and details of particular
films and collections in instances where they might be considered
identifiers.
Participating and Observing. In order to familiarize myself with the

environment of each setting, I spent a significant amount of time as a
participant-observer. The primary activities associated with partici
pant-observation include:
1. Entry into the setting and familiarization with people

involved in it.
2. Participation in the daily routines of the setting.
3. Development of relations with people in the setting.
4. Observation of all events and interactions.8
While entree or access may seem like just the prelude to the real
business of fieldwork, it is wise to remember that "entree is continu
ous process of establishing and developing relationships, not alone
with a chief host but with a variety of less powerful persons. In rela
tively complex sites, particularly those with multiple leadership and
jurisdictions, there doorways that must be negotiated; suc
are many
cessful negotiation through the front door is not always sufficient to

open other doors, though at first it may appear to do just that."9 I
learned this lesson time and time again as I sought access to different
departments of the archive; while I had an easy time establishing
rapport with preservationists due to my background and technical
knowledge, it was more difficult for me to establish trust relation
ships with other constituencies, such as the projectionists and the
programmers. In these cases, I had to work harder to convey my sin
cere interest in their work. Often, it was easier to establish rapport at
times when they were taking a break from work, over lunch or coffee;
a casual conversation about work-related concerns often led to an
invitation from the individual to "take a look" at what he or she was
working on.
After the researcher achieves initial contact and successively
negotiates entry into the site, she must begin the process of immer
sion and contemplate which activities and interactions merit further
investigation. The first few weeks of participant-observation can
often be overwhelming — the potential avenues to explore are many
and varied, and researchers may feel confused about where they
should focus their attention. When deciding which events to write
about in their fieldnotes, Emerson et al. instruct novice researchers to
"take note of their initial impressions," "focus on observing key events
or incidents," and "move beyond their personal reactions to an open
sensitivity to what those in the setting experience and react to as 'sig
nificant' or 'important.'"10
This advice served me well as I observed the myriad of activities

in which film archivists are engaged. In addition to physical preserva
tion tasks, they visit film laboratories to view work in progress, con
sult their colleagues for advice on techniques, write grants to support
future preservation projects, and communicate with archivists at other
institutions. By spending a significant amount of time at each setting,
I observed the full scope of the social world of film preservation and
yet was able to narrow my focus to pinpoint those particular areas
where tensions between commercial and noncommercial institutions
are emerging. Participant-observation enabled me to "enter into the
matrix of meanings of the researched, to participate in their code of
moral regulation."11
Recording Field Data. Participation in the setting and systematic

recording of observations go hand-in-hand in ethnographic research.
The record that I generated included all observations and experiences
in the course of participating in the daily activities in the life of the
people in the setting. Relying on mental notes and jottings (quickly-
made notes of key words and phrases), I generated densely detailed
fieldnotes which are comprised of those incidents and conversations
which seem noteworthy and significant. All fieldnotes generated in
the course of this study were recorded in machine-readable format, to
facilitate analysis of the data.
Interviewing in the Field. In the interests of gathering as much data as

possible in a reasonable amount of time, I chose to augment fieldwork
with in-depth interviews at each site. I selected certain concepts,
tropes, or patterns drawn from my initial fieldnotes, and pursued
them further with open-ended questions that did not prompt a sim
ple yes-no answer or a brief response.
Leonard Schatzman and Anselm Strauss encourage the field-
worker to see the in-depth interview as a "lengthy conversation," not
ing that "the interviewer does not use a specific, ordered list of
questions or topics because this amount of formality would destroy
the conversational style. [S]he may have such a list in mind or actually
in hand, but [s]he is sufficiently flexible to order it in any way that
seems natural to the respondent and to the interview situation."12 For
my study, I encountered some resistance from the ucla oprs when I

proposed interviews that did not use a standardized questionnaire. To
satisfy the committee, I wrote list of interview questions which cor
a
responded to areas of inquiry which I was interested in pursuing; dur

ing the course of interviews, however, I used that list mostly as a
springboard for exploring other issues as they emerged.13
I selected individuals for interviews with an eye toward docu
menting the world of film preservation from as many angles as possi
ble. I relied on the advice of William Foote Whyte when selecting
interview subjects:
The best informants are those who are in a position to have

observed significant events and who are quite perceptive and reflec
tive about them. Some such key individuals may be identified early
in the study since they hold formal positions of importance to the
study. Others, who hold key informal positions, are not so evident
initially. To locate such people, the interviewer can make a practice
of asking each informant to name several people who would be
especially helpful to his study.14
Thus, in this study interviewing served a three-fold purpose of gath

ering information, testing hypotheses, and generating additional
pathways to accomplish the first two objectives.
As stated above, interview data augmented fieldwork data,
although I do not want to give the impression that interviews merely
provided a supplement to the fieldwork data. Although many ethnog
raphers view fieldwork as the neplus ultra method for acquiring socio
logical data — i.e., the most complete form of information about a social
world15,16 —other researchers point out the value of in-depth interview
ing as a way of testing out hypotheses generated from fieldwork data.
All formal field interviews on audiotape, and

were recorded
machine-readable transcripts were generated from those recordings.
Having done so, I was able to study these interviews in detail later
using nud*ist, an ethnographic data analysis software package.
In Depth Interviewing in Commercial Settings
Selecting Participants. As I have stated above, the structure of the field

of film preservation did not allow me to conduct fieldwork on com
mercial organizations in one centralized location, as had been the case

with noncommercial institutions. Thus, for this portion of the study I
focused on selecting what Robert S. Weiss calls a "sample of represen
Note that this type of sampling should not be confused
tatives."17
with random sampling, often used in quantitative studies to represent

the larger population. Rather, my aim was to choose a representative
sample of individuals who contributed to the work of film preserva
tion in commercial organizations by providing essential services such
as storage facilities, specialized technical assistance, and laboratory
duplication services.
After having identified those key areas, I used two methods for
selecting individuals for interviewing. First, I
followed up on sugges
tions given to me by individuals working in the noncommercial sec
tor. Often, studios and archives use the same laboratories or storage
providers
— the field is small enough that "everybody knows every
body," and there are acknowledged "experts" in certain areas. I also
relied upon the membership directory of the Association of Moving
Image Archivists (amia), the main professional organization in
North America for film preservationists, to identify possible inter
view subjects.
Ultimately, my list of interview subjects narrowed to those indi
viduals who responded to my initial queries and were willing to be
interviewed for the study. A number of the participants were quite
eager to assist me. These obliging individuals tended to be more
active in amia, especially in its educational initiatives, so it is not sur
prising that they were supportive of my research endeavors. There
were several individuals with whom I was unable to conduct inter
views, due to their heavy work responsibilities at the time of my
request. Despite these difficulties, however, I was able to find at least
one representative in each major area who agreed to speak with me.
Designing the Interview Guide.™ My preparation for the interviews

conducted in the commercial sector included the construction of a
guide. As its name suggests, an interview guide is "a listing of areas to

be covered in the interview along with, for each area, a listing of top
ics or questions that together will suggest lines of inquiry."19 Major
areas covered included the background of the participant, his day- to
day responsibilities, relations with other people in the field of film

preservation (often clients), and his opinions about the contribution
that his work was making to the field. I told participants that they
should expect the interview to take approximately ninety minutes;
usually interviews ran approximately seventy-five to ninety minutes.
Because I
did not have the luxury of spending time observing
participants at their place of work before the interview took place, I
tried to begin each interview with an "ice-breaker" type question
which sought to elicit biographical data about how the person had
entered the field. Such questions helped to build rapport with the
participant and jumpstarted the conversation, leading quite naturally
to other questions which covered the areas forming the various parts
of the interview guide.
All of the interview questions were open-ended, giving the partic
ipants latitude to explore issues that were of particular concern to
them. The minimal amount of structure in the interview process was
helpful in uncovering concerns to which I had not previously been
exposed. I could then pick up cues and allusions from initial responses
and ask the participant to elaborate on those opinions and experiences.
Focus Group Interviewing
Selecting Participants. David Morgan notes that "the comparative

advantage of focus groups as an interview technique lies in their abil
ity to observe interaction on a topic. Group discussions provide direct
evidence about similarities and differencesin the participants' opin
ions and experiences as opposed to reaching such conclusions from
post hoc analyses of separate statements from each interviewee."20
The inclusion of focus group interviews as part of my data provided
me with a more macro-level perspective on many of the issues that
had already arisen in fieldwork and interviews.
In designing the structure for focus group interviewing, I was
guided by two primary criteria. First, I believed that it was important
to keep commercial and noncommercial participants in separate
groups. Because I was particularly interested in uncovering tensions
between the two interests, I
felt that to have studio employees and
archivists from nonprofits in the same group would stifle genuine
opinions and feelings about certain issues, e.g., the validity of preser
vation as it was practiced in each environment.
Beyond the main criterion of keeping commercial and noncom

mercial participants separate, I also tried to segment the noncommer
cial groups by maintaining a balance between representatives from
major archives and smaller archives.21 The main advantage of this
guideline was to be able to examine such issues as the difficulties of
securing funding for preservation from the perspective of both the
"major" and "minor" players in the field.
One possible source of bias in the focus group interviewing was
the fact that most participants were acquainted with one another
prior to the interview taking place. It was difficult, if not impossible,
to avoid this bias, since the film preservation community is quite
small —most of the major players see one another on a regular basis at
conferences and film archivists are always contacting one another to
locate prints for preservation or exhibition purposes. Morgan notes
the danger that acquaintances may be less likely to discuss tacit mean
ings in focus group settings.22 Therefore, I tried to be aware of this
potential for assumptions when designing the interview guide.
Designing the Interview Guide. As I had done with the commercial

interviews, I prepared an interview guide to provide some nominal
structure for the discussion. Areas covered in the guide included the
definition and importance of preservation in archival work, prioritiza
tion and funding for preservation work, and preservation partnerships
between institutions and studios.23 I did not want too much structure,
however, so as to avoid the bias of a researcher-imposed agenda.
Morgan notes that in focus groups that do not use a standardized
guide "what makes [them] such a strong tool for exploratory research
is the fact that a group of interested participants can spark
lively dis a
cussion among themselves without much guidance from either the

researcher's questions or the moderators direction." Indeed, in my
most successful session I did very little "moderation"; the group
became so involved in their discussion that they ended up discussing
many of the issues on my guide without my having to ask any ques
tions about them!
The main drawback of using an unstandardized interview guide,
however, is that it reduces the researcher's ability to make direct com
parisons from group to group. I attempted to counteract this disad
vantage by making sure that each group touched upon the general
areas of concern outlined in the guide, even if they
didn't answer every
question in as much depth as I would have liked. By maintaining a
flexible structure, the focus groups revealed many issues and concerns
that my original agenda had not taken into account.
Analysis24
Kathy Charmaz states that "the grounded theory method stresses dis
covery and theory development rather than logical deductive reason

ing which relies on prior theoretical frameworks. "2S
The methods of
grounded theory research require that researchers juggle the two tasks
of data collection and data analysis, because each activity informs and
shapes the formulation of the theories that will help to explain the
social world in which they are immersed. "Grounded theorists shape
their data collection from their analytic interpretations and discover
ies, and therefore, sharpen their observations. Additionally, they
check and fill out emerging ideas by collecting further data."26
Coding and memo-writing are the two primary techniques used
in the analysis of fieldwork data. Researchers use coding initially as a
way to begin to categorize and sort data, and further on in the

research, to "label, separate, compile, and organize data."27 Memo-
writing serves manner whereby researchers can begin to explore
as the
ideas about the data and the categories drawn from the initial coding.
The researcher may write many memos on the same topic, refining
her ideas as she collects additional field and interview data. From
these two inductive processes theory will emerge, based in large part
on the amalgamation of indigenous meanings and in situ experiences
of participants.
Coding. Coding is defined as "the analytic processes through which

data are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated to form theory."28
In the initial coding phase, often referred to as "open coding,"29
researchers "look for what they can define and discover in the data.
They then look for leads, ideas, and issues in the data themselves."30
Line-by-line coding, where researchers begin to make categories and
subcategories (concepts that stand for phenomena), provides the most
efficient way to accomplish this goal. Charmaz identifies four objec
tives that she uses in the initial phase of coding, all of which I kept in
mind when analyzing my own data:
1. Attend to the general context, central participants and their

roles, timing and structuring of events, and the relative
emphasis participants place on various issues in the data.
2. Construct codes to note what participants lack, gloss over,
or ignore, as well as what they stress.
3. Scrutinize the data for in vivo codes.
4. Identify succinctly the process that the data indicates.31
An example of this process in my study was when I began to iden

tify key phenomena and exchanges that made me look at the meaning
of the word preservation more closely. Archivists used the word in mul
tiple contexts, and it soon became apparent that I would need to sort
these meanings out in a logical manner. Thus, preservation became a
code that I focused on in the next phase of the analysis process.
Axial coding, which is an intermediate phase between open and
focused coding, is "the act of relating categories to subcategories
along the lines of their properties and dimensions."32 During this
phase, I
identified causal, intervening, and contextual conditions that
affect the phenomena which I categorized in the open coding phase
of Initial hypotheses generated during data collection and
analysis.
open coding were tested. To continue with my previous example, in
the axial coding phase I began to recognize that that job responsibili
ties and institutional mission were key contextual conditions that
affected how archivists used the word preservation.
After refining open codes through the axial coding process (and
through the memo-writing process which I articulate below), I
embarked upon the third phase of coding. In this final phase of analy
sis, often referred to as "focused coding" (or "selective coding,"),33 I
incorporated a of codes developed during the open and
limited set
axial coding phases, and applied the schema to large amounts of data.
Charmaz describes this process as both selective and conceptual,
emphasizing the analytic level inherent in focused coding. The pur
poses of focused coding are to "build and clarify a category by exam
ining all the data it covers and variations from it," as well as to "break
up a category [and] develop subcategories which explicate and

exhaust the more general category."34 To illustrate, during the focused
coding phase of this I
filled out my "preservation" category by
study
examining all of the contexts in which archivists used the word
preservation, as well as coding those instances where the archivists
defined the term directly.
Selective coding is a process of refinement whereby the researcher
ensures that her categories have achieved saturation (i.e., when no new
information seems to emerge from either coding or the collection of
new data). Strauss and Corbin note that reaching data saturation often
is a matter of practicality, when "collecting additional data seems coun
terproductive; the 'new' that is uncovered does not add that much
more to the explanation at this time. Or, as is sometimes the situation,
the researcher runs out of time, money, or both."35 In the case of my
study, the modest budget for data collection (taken largely from a dis
sertation-year fellowship and other financial aid sources) indeed lim
ited the extent to which I could pursue data saturation.
Memo-Writing. Memos provide researchers with the opportunity to

develop ideas about the data and coding categories. Thus memo-
writing should take place throughout the coding process, from the
initial observations and interviews onward. Initially, memos "shape
aspects of subsequent data collection; they point to areas the
researcher could explore further. They also encourage researchers
both to play with ideas and to make early assessments about which
ideas to develop. Additionally, early memos provide concrete sources
for comparison with materials gathered later."36
Over the course of data collection, I wrote memos in order to
explore the boundaries and definitions of the codes as they were
under development. These memos were refined to account for varia
tions in observations, and eventually, the processes of sorting, inte
grating, and refining memos helped to explicate a major pattern or
idea. At that point, a cohesive theory, grounded in shared experiences
and conversations, began to emerge. Examples of early memo topics
that later proved to be very helpful in developing my ideas and coding
categories included: the lack of consensus about what preservation
means in the field of film preservation, the nature of the relationship
between archivists and film laboratory personnel, and the factors

which influence selection of films for preservation.
Potential Biases of the Researcher
In an attempt to control the possible skewing of results as a result of

my own biases, I took special care in the design and implementation
of data collection, as well as in the analysis of that data. In his work
Learning From Strangers, Robert Weiss lists four possible points in
qualitative research where investigator bias might affect results and
analysis: sampling, interviewing, interpretation and reporting, and
intellectual honesty. 37 As a self-critique, I offer my response to these
sources of prejudice, as he has identified them:
Sampling. According to Weiss, "biased sampling occurs when we take

respondents who have particular points of view as a representative
sample of a more inclusive group." To combat this potential bias, I

consciously attempted to select respondents on the principle of pro
viding representation of the different types of archives, both noncom
mercial and commercial, and of the different types of archival work,
rather than selecting participants from only one or two strata of the
field (e.g., only curators and preservationists).
Interviewing. Weiss warns that "biased interviewing occurs when we

encourage respondents to provide material supportive of our thesis."
In the design phase of this study, I constructed my interview guide
using topics, not issues; during interviews, I made every effort to
make my questions open-ended and non-directive; and last, simplyI
asked participants at the beginning of interviews to frame their
answers in terms of their own experiences and opinions rather than in
terms of an official institutional response. These precautions were
taken to encourage responses that were more representative of the
respondents' true thoughts and feelings.
Interpretation and Reporting. Weiss states that "we can easily make an
argument come out our way by treating comments that support our
view as gospel and subjecting to skeptical scrutiny those that don't, by
reporting material we like and disdaining the rest, and in general by
behaving like a brief to advance." In this research, I

lawyer with a
always sought to present an even-handed, balanced description of

events and interactions. My hypotheses were tested against multiple
sources of information. To give an incomplete picture would have
undermined the very argument I was advancing in the study.
Intellectual Honesty. Weiss comments that "people who do research

should have only one concern in their work, and that is to capture,
with scrupulous honesty, the way things are." This point strikes to the
very heart of researcher bias. In my own career, I have certainly felt an
affinity with the professionals in the field of film preservation, having
been one myself earlier in my career. This affection could have led to
a very skewed representation of these individuals. However, the
breadth of my study, in terms of number of participants and variety of
institutions studied, much more balanced perspective than
gave me a
if I had simply looked at the single institution with which I had pre
viously been affiliated. Looking back at the final analysis phase of this
study, I found that the results of this study challenged many of my
most strongly-held beliefs about the field. Thus, I believe that I have
made a sincere effort to maintain a spirit of intellectual honesty.
Limitations and Assumptions of Methodology
Implementing a qualitative methodology such as fieldwork raises sev
eral questions in the minds of researchers who may be more familiar

with the quantitative paradigm
— where such concepts
as objectivity,
external and internal validity, and reliability constitute the criteria for
judging the soundness of research design. Marshall and Rossman dis
pute the relevance of using quantitative criteria, offering the follow
ing concepts as alternate measures:38
Credibility, instead of internal validity, "in which the goal is to

demonstrate that the inquiry was conducted in such a manner as to
ensure that the subject was accurately identified and described. The
inquiry then must be 'credible to the constructors of the original mul
tiple realities.' The strength of the qualitative study that aims to
explore a problem or describe a setting, a process, a social group or a
pattern of interaction will be its validity. . . . Within the parameters of

Appendix LA Case Study in Archival Ethnography 239
that setting, population, and theoretical framework, the research will

be valid."
Transferability, of external validity, "in which the burden of

instead
demonstrating the applicability of one set of findings to another con
text rests more with the investigator who would make that transfer
than with the original investigator." Although researchers more famil
iar with the quantitative approach view qualitative research as lacking
in external validity, Marshall and Rossman point out that data collec
tion and analysis will be guided by concepts and models which repre
sent the theoretical parameters of the research. Those researchers
working within the same parameters can determine whether or not the
research in question may be generalized to their own research agenda.
Dependability, instead of reliability, "in which the researcher attempts

to account for changing conditions in the phenomenon chosen for
the study as well as changes in the design created by increasingly
refined understanding of the setting." This concept assumes that the
social world is continually being constructed, thus replication of the
study is not only impossible, but also not a practical consideration for
the qualitative researcher.
Confirmability, instead of objectivity, in which the researcher "remove

evaluation from some inherent characteristic of the researcher (objec [s]
tivity) and place[s] squarely on the data themselves. Thus the qual
it
itative criterion is: Do the data help confirm the general findings and
lead to the implications?"
My to have my research be evaluated according to the cri

is
goal
teria stated above, because of its greater relevance and applicability to
qualitative methods. This study does not pretend to be generalizable
to all cultural institutions, or even all institutions performing film
preservation. By keeping the parameters that have set as to setting,
I
population studied, and theoretical framework in mind, however,

other researchers may find that this research will have relevance and
applicability to their own studies.
A Step-by-Step Summary of Methods Used
The methods I used in research and analysis represent a commitment

to the methodology of grounded theory. A note of caution is
extended to those who would interpret this list as an indication that

the process was entirely linear, however. It is the nature of ethno
graphic fieldwork to be iterative, i.e., that the practices of data collec
tion and analysis feed upon one another — initial analysis of data
uncovers new directions and concepts that demand the additional
collection of data to fully describe and understand the newly-identi
fied phenomena. This cyclical process continues until the researcher is
satisfied that additional collection of data will shed no new light on
the subject in question.
The following list summarizes the different steps followed during
the data collection and analysis phases of my work.
1. I gained access to fieldwork sites, and established myself in the

roleof participant-observer (known as entree).
2. I wrote up fieldnotes of observations and experiences on a regular

basis, and conducted interviews in the field with key informants.
3. I conducted in-depth interviews with key informants in the com
mercial sector.
4. Iconducted focus group interviews with managers of both com
mercial and noncommercial film preservation programs.
5. I converted all fieldnotes and interviews to machine-readable for
mat using a word-processing program.
6. I performed preliminary, line-by-line coding (using nud*ist, an
ethnographic analysis computer program) at regular intervals
during the data collection and transcription process.
7. I refined and clarified coding categories using memo-writing and
knowledge of the relevant literature.
8. I carried out theoretical
sampling by collecting more data, i.e.,
performing additional interviews, as needed.
9. I performed focused coding using the refined set of codes on the
entire data set.
10. I reworked memos on concepts and categories, based on refined
coding schemes.
11. I sorted and integrated memos.
Reflecting Upon the Validity of "Archival Ethnography"

For this study, I found that ethnomethodological methods were the
most appropriate way to investigate an archival environment which
was largely undocumented and unexplored. By conducting an initial
exploration of the world of film preservation through participation,
observation, and ethnographic interviewing, I was able to gather
enough preliminary data to formulate initial hypotheses that reflected
actual practice. This study offered the opportunity to go beyond the
minimal quantitative measurements that have commonly been
accepted as assessments of progress in the film preservation endeavor
to explore standards for such work. The amount of footage preserved
annually or the dollars spent on preserving film on a yearly basis are
the most glaring examples of such measurements. These figures tell
only part of the story of film preservation.39 By relying exclusively on
such gauges of progress, the field of film preservation places undue
emphasis on quantity rather than quality For instance, this study
revealed that if the budget for preservation is increased, archivists are
just likely to spend additional time and funds on increasing the
as
quality of preservation as they are to use the money for preserving

additional films. My observations and interviews documented a
process that employs multiple feedback loops for quality control,

whereas the simple counting of "footage preserved" or "dollars spent
on preservation copying" does not reflect such data.
In this project, I foresaw two major benefits to the fieldwork/
grounded theory perspective. First, I was able to foreground an emic,
or insider, perspective, which allowed me to grasp concepts that were
so tacitly accepted and understood among film archivists as to be
invisible to outsiders. The definitional nuances of the word preserva
tion, for example, would have been undetected by the typical survey
instrument. Similarly, it would be quite difficult to "identify plausible
causal networks" shaping phenomena such as the process of selecting
afilm for preservation or the rise of the orphan film movement with
out comparing interview responses with experiences observed in the
field. Second, ethnographic methods allowed me to ascertain the
nature of relationships among participants both within and among
institutions and organizations more precisely than would have been
possible through survey methods or quantitative analysis. Given the

lack of documentation of the operations in this field, my goal was to
record the function and form of film preservation from the ground
up, and to build a base of knowledge from which to generate theory
on the operations of the field. In my opinion, this approach was logi
cal and unassailable.
The qualitative perspective that I have embraced centers "around
notions that empirical reality should be approached potentially
as
multiple realities, constructed by perceivers, and frequently acted on

as if there were one objective reality. Empirical reality
—what
researchers set out to capture as data and understand in terms of
abstraction — is complex, intertwined, understood most fully as a con
textual whole, and ultimately inseparable from the individuals 'know
ing' that reality."40 It is my argument that the new agenda for archival
research must not privilege a single worldview, and must be reflective
and reflexive. Naturalistic research design provides methods for cap
turing the complexity of the lived experience in which records are cre
ated and preserved.

SAMPLE GUIDES FDR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

For Participants from Noncommercial Institutions
Background of the Participant
1. How did you decide to become an archivist?

2. Describe your job responsibilities.
3. What individuals or experiences have had the strongest
effect on how you perform your work?
Archival Work
1. Can you tell me about a typical day at work?

2. What sorts of projects currently working on?
are you
3. Describe a recent preservation project, small or large. Tell me

how the project came into being and what you did, or are
doing, to complete the project.
4. How do you feel about the results you achieved with the proj
ect? Were you satisfied with the final product? How do you
think others perceived the results?

5. How much of your day is spent doing physical preservation
work? What other kinds of work do you do? How do you see
these other kinds of work as fitting into your job?
For Participants from Commercial Organizations
For all commercial participants:
1. How long facility been involved in preservation work?

has this
2. Please describe the preservation services that this company

offers.
3. What sorts of customers do you serve (e.g., archives, studios,
independent producers)? Why do they choose to employ
your company?
For laboratory services personnel:
Laboratories and Preservation
1. What do you see as the role of film laboratories in the

preservation process?
2. How would you say that ideas about laboratory processing
for preservation have evolved over the past ten years?
3. Have these changes affected the sorts of services that you
provide?
Processes and Practices
1. Please describe the process, from start to finish, of preserv

ing a film and your part in it.
2. What types of situations make a preservation or restoration
difficult?
3. At what points in the process do you interact with your clients?
4. How do they communicate their needs to you? What hap
pens when they are dissatisfied with a particular aspect of
the product?
5. Do you use digital processes in your work? In what ways?
For storage facilities personnel:
Storage and Film Preservation
1. What do you see as the role of storage in the preservation

process?
2. How would you say that ideas about storage have evolved
over the past ten years?
3. Have these changes affected the sorts of services you provide?
4. How you feel that the transition to digital filmmaking will
affect the sorts of services you provide?
SAMPLE GUIDES FDR

FDCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS
For Participants from Either Commercial or

Noncommercial Organizations
Definition and Importance of Preservation in Archival Work
1. What kinds of preservation activities does your organization

engage in?
2. What part do you feel preservation plays in the day-to-day
activities of your organization?
3. What is the primary mission of your organization?
4. How does preservation work fit into your organizational mis
sion?
5. How would you define the word preservation}
Funding for Preservation/Cultivating Donor Relationships
1. How are preservation activities funded in your institution?

2. (For nonprofit institutions) How much of your time is spent
writing grants to fund preservation activities?
3. (For commercial organizations) Describe the level of support
received from the parent organization for preservation activi
ties in comparison to other sorts of activities in which your
department may engage.
Orphan Films
The national plan for preserving film heritage published by the

Library of Congress calls for an increased emphasis on rescuing
orphan films (orphan films being defined as "works without clearly
defined owners or belonging to commercial interests unable or
unwilling to take responsibility for their long-term care").
1. Do you have orphan films in your collection?

2. Have you undertaken any preservation projects involving
orphan films? Please describe one or two of them.
3. What goals does your organization have for preserving
orphan films?
Partnerships in Preservation
1. Has your institution engaged in a partnership with another

institution or organization to work jointly on a preservation
project? If so, please describe the project briefly, including a
breakdown of which activities were performed by which

organization.
2. What kinds of concerns did you have before entering the
partnership?
3. Were you satisfied with the results of the collaborative work?
Appendix I Notes
1 Catherine Marshall and Gretchen B. Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed.
(Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995), 41.
2 Ibid., 105.
3 Also known as "members' meanings." See Robert M. Emerson, Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda
L. Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 12.
4 This hypothesis builds upon the work of Pierre Bourdieu on the cultural sphere. See Pierre
Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
5 Leonard Schatzman and Anselm L. Strauss, Field Research: Strategies for a Natural Sociology
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice, 1973), 18.
6 In the United States and Canada, film archivists number fewer than a thousand practition
ers, based on 2004 membership statistics from the Association of Moving Image
Archivists. The number of institutions practicing film preservation is fewer than one hun
dred. Of the latter number, fewer than ten could be considered "major archives" — i.e.,
archives whose primary activity is film preservation. (Estimates taken from the most recent
edition of the Association of Moving Image Archivists Membership Directory, published
in May 2004.)
7 For a discussion of issues involved, consult Melvin Pollner and Robert M. Emerson, "The
Dynamics of Inclusion and Distance in Fieldwork Relations," in Contemporary Field
Research: A Collection of Readings, ed. Robert M. Emerson (Prospect Heights, 111.:
Waveland Press, 1983), 235-52.
8 Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, 1.
9 Schatzman and Strauss, Field Research, 22.

10 Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, 26-28.
11 Murray L. Wax, "Paradoxes of 'Consent' to the Practice of Fieldwork," Social Problems 27
(1980): 272-73.
12 Schatzman and Strauss, Field Research, 72-73.
13 The questionnaire, as approved by the UCLA OPRS, appears in the appendix to this
paper.
14 William Foote Whyte, "Interviewing in Field Research," in Human Organization Research,
eds. Richard N. Adams and Jack J. Preiss (Homewood, 111.:Dorsey, 1960), 358.
15 Howard S. Becker and Blanche Geer, "Participant Observation and Interviewing," in

Qualitative Methodology, ed. William J. Filstead (Chicago: Markham, 1970), 133.
16 Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw do not consider interviewing to be "the primary tool for getting
at members' meanings. Rather, the distinctive procedure is to observe and record naturally
occurring talk and interaction. It may indeed be useful or essential to interview members
about the use and meaning of specific local terms and phrases, but the researcher's deeper
concern lies in the actual, situated use of those terms in ordinary interaction." Writing
Ethnographic Fieldnotes, 140.
17 Robert S.Weiss, LearningFrom Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview
Studies (New York: Free Press, 1994), 18.
18 See the sample interview guide at the end of this appendix. Note that the actual interview
guide used in a particular session was tailored to the participant's activities (e.g., a manager
of a storage company responded to questions about storage, in addition to more general
questions).
19 Weiss, Learning From Strangers, 48.
20 David L. Morgan, Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage, 1997), 10.
discussion of homogeneity and segmentation.
(p.
21 See Morgan 35) for

a
22 Ibid., 37-38.
23 have included sample focus group interview guide in the appendix.
a
I
24 Iam indebted to the work of Anselm Strauss, Juliet Corbin, and Kathy Charmaz for large
portions of my descriptions of coding and memo-writing in this paper. See Anselm Strauss
and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998); and Kathy Charmaz, "The
Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation," in Contemporary Field
Research: A Collection of Readings, ed. Robert M. Emerson (Prospect Heights, 111.:
Waveland Press, 1988), 109-126.
25 Charmaz, "The Grounded Theory Method," 110.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid., 111.
28 Strauss and Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, 3.
29 Ibid., 101.

31 Ibid., 114-15.
32 Strauss and Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, 124.
33 Ibid., 143.
35 and Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, 136.

Strauss
36 Charmaz, "The Grounded Theory Method," 120-21.
37 Weiss, Learning From Strangers, 211-213.

38 Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage,
1985), cited in Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research, 143-45. All quota
tions taken from Marshall and Rossman.
39 Film Preservation 1993: A Study of the Current State ofAmerican Film Preservation, vol. 1
(Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1993), http://www.loc.gov/film/study.html.
40 Jana Bradley, "Methodological Issues and Practices in Qualitative Research," Library
Quarterly 63 (1993): 432.
APPENDIX II
Genealogy of Hollywood Studios and
Disposition of Film Libraries
Allied Artists Pictures Corporation (1946-1980)

1953: Merges with Monogram Pictures, both becoming Allied
Artists
1980: Files for bankruptcy; taken over by Lorimar
1996: Allied Artists library becomes part of Time-Warner assets
American International Pictures (AIP) (1954-1979)

1954: Begun American Releasing Company
as
1956: Renamed American International Pictures

1979: Merges with Filmways
1982: Filmways becomes part of Orion Pictures
1997: MGM purchases Orion Pictures; AIP library becomes part
ofMGM
1998: American Movie Classics (cable network) buys 89-film AIP
library from MGM
Columbia Pictures (1920-present)

1920: Begun as CBC Sales Corporation
1924: Renamed Columbia Pictures
1972: Sold its studio and used Warner Bros, studio for filming
1982: Purchased by Coca-Cola Company
1982: Founded TriStar Pictures with CBS and HBO
1987: TriStar and Columbia merge to form Columbia
Entertainment
1989: Purchased by Sony Corporation of Japan
1991: Columbia and TriStar become part of Sony Pictures
Entertainment
Fox Film Corporation (1913-1933)

(See also: Twentieth-Century Fox)
1913: Begun as Box Office Attractions
1915: Renamed Fox Film Corporation
1931: Owner William Fox loses control of company
1933: Merges with Twentieth Century Pictures to become
Twentieth Century-Fox
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) (1920-2005)

1920: Marcus Loew buys Metro Pictures Corporation
1924: Loew purchases Goldwyn Picture Corporation
1924: Metro-Goldwyn merges with the Mayer Company to form
MGM
1969: MGM bought by Kirk Kerkorian
1973: MGM cedes distribution of its films to United Artists
1981: MGM and United Artists merge

1986: MGM/UA purchased by Turner Broadcasting System
(Turner retains library, sells off name and current produc
tions to Kerkorian, Culver City studio to Lorimar
Telepictures)
1990: Giancarlo Paretti purchases MGM/UA as part of Pathe
Communications Company, renames the new conglomerate
MGM-Pathe Communications
1992: Paretti deemed to have insufficient funds to buy MGM/UA,
and loses it to Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland in France
1996: Kerkorian, along with Australia's Seven Network, buys

MGM/UA again
1997: MGM buys Orion Pictures, Goldwyn Entertainment, and
Motion Picture Corporation of America
2005: Sony acquires 20% interest in MGM/UA
Miramax Films (1981-present)

1981: Independent film distribution company Miramax begun in
New York City by Bob and Harvey Weinstein
1993: Purchased by Walt Disney Company
APPENDIX II: Genealogy of Hollywood Studios 253
Monogram Picture Corporation (1930-1953)

(See also: Allied Artists Pictures Corporation)
1930: Founded by W. Ray Johnston
1936: Foreclosed upon by Herbert J. Yates; Yates forms Republic
out of Monogram and Mascot
1936: Monogram reestablished by Johnston and Trem Carr
1953: Merges with Allied Artists, both becoming Allied Artists
Pictures Corporation
1980: Files for bankruptcy; taken over by Lorimar
1996: Allied Artists library becomes part of Time-Warner assets
2000: ePersonnel Management.com (EPMC) acquires Monogram

library
New Line Cinema Corporation (1967-present)

1967: Founded by Robert Shaye as a small distributor of foreign
films
1993: Purchased by Turner Broadcasting Systems
1996: Turner Broadcasting Systems merges with Time-Warner
Paramount Pictures Corporation (1914-present)

1914: Begun as Paramount Pictures, a distribution company
1916: Adolph Zukor's Famous Players and the Jesse L. Lasky
Feature Play Company merge with Paramount Pictures,
forming the Famous Players-Lasky Corporation
1927: Company becomes the Paramount Famous Lasky
Corporation
1930: After obtaining the theater circuit of the Publix
Corporation, corporation becomes the Paramount Publix
Corporation
1933: Company declares bankruptcy, and is reorganized as
Paramount Pictures Corporation

1958: Paramount sells pre-1948 films to Universal for television
broadcast
1966: Paramount becomes part of financial conglomerate Gulf 8c

Western
1989: Gulf 8c Western changes its name to Paramount
Communications Inc.
1993: Viacom International purchases Paramount

Communications
1999: Viacom merges with CBS
Republic Pictures (1935-1959)

1935: Herbert J. Yates founds Republic from Monogram Pictures
and Mascot by foreclosing on both studios
1959: Republic ceases production; Eli Landau and a consortium

buys the studio's library
1994: Republic library bought by Spelling Entertainment (a sub
sidiary of Blockbuster, and thus Viacom)
1998: Artisan Entertainment subsidiary of Paramount, and thus
(a
Viacom) acquires Republic Pictures catalog for home video

distribution (Artisan also owns the libraries of Carolco and
Vestron, among others)
RKO Radio Pictures Incorporated (1928-1955)

1928: Organized when Radio Corporation of America (RCA)
joined with Keith- Albee-Orpheum company
1933: Company goes into receivership
1948: Howard Hughes buys control of the company
1955: Hughes sells the company to General Tire and Rubber
Company
1957: Desilu purchases RKO studio lot
1986: Turner purchases RKO library
1996: Time-Warner merges with Turner Entertainment, thus
acquiring RKO library
Sony Pictures Entertainment (1989-present)

(see also: Columbia Pictures, MGM, and TriStar Pictures)
1989: Sony Corporation of America buys Columbia Pictures

1991: Columbia and TriStar become part of Sony Pictures
Entertainment
2005: Sony purchases 20% interest in MGM/UA
TriStar Pictures (1982-present)

1982: Production company TriStar begun by Columbia Pictures,
HBO, and CBS
1987: TriStar joins with Columbia to become part of Sony
Pictures Entertainment
1989: Purchased with Columbia by Sony
1991: Becomes part of Sony Pictures Entertainment
Turner Entertainment (distributor only)

1986: Turner Broadcasting System buys MGM/UA, pre-1950
Warner Bros., and RKO film libraries to launch TNT cable
channel
1996: Turner Entertainment becomes a Time-Warner subsidiary
Twentieth Century-Fox (1935-present)

1935: Formed by the merger of Fox Film Corporation and
Twentieth Century Pictures
1981: Purchased by Martin Davis
1985: Purchased by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and
becomes part of Fox Corporation
United Artists Corporation (1919-present)

1919: Organized in 1919 by Charles Chaplin, Mary Pickford,
Douglas Fairbanks, and D.W. Griffith
1967: Purchased byTransamerica conglomerate
1981: Sold to MGM
1986: MGM/UA purchased by Ted Turner (see MGM for
further details)
Universal Pictures (1912-present)

1912: Film production company Universal formed by Carl
Laemmle when he merges several organizations with his
Independent Motion Picture Company (IMP)
1946: Company joins with International Pictures and becomes
known as Universal-International
1952: Reverts to its old name, Universal Pictures; company is
bought by Decca
1962: Universal and Decca became part of Music Corporation of

America (MCA), new corporation renamed
MCA/Universal
1990: Matsushita Electric Industrial Company of Japan purchases
MCA/Universal
1995: Matsushita sells 80% of MCA/Universal to the Seagram
company
2000: French company Vivendi buys Universal Pictures through
purchase of Seagram
2004: GE/NBC and Vivendi Universal Entertainment form a con
glomerate, NBC Universal (NBC purchases 80% of the shares,
while Vivendi and Barry Diller own the remaining 20%)
Walt Disney Company (1923-present)

1923: Disney Brothers Studio founded
1929: Disney films begin to be distributed by Columbia
1953: Buena Vista Pictures founded
1984: Touchstone Films founded
1990: Hollywood Pictures founded
1993: Disney purchases Miramax
1995: Disney purchases Capital Cities/ABC Inc. (television and
cable networks)
Warner Brothers (1923-present)

1923: Warner Brothers production company founded by the four
Warner brothers
1925: Purchased Vitagraph
1928: Obtained one-third interest in First National
1930: Took over First National
1967: Purchased by Seven Arts, became Warner Brothers-Seven
Arts
1969: Purchased by Kinney National Services
1971: Kinney became Warner Communications

1990: Warner Communications purchased by Time Inc., becom
ing Time-Warner Inc.
1996: Time-Warner merges with Turner Broadcasting
With latest merger, Time-Warner now owns:

Entire output of Warner Brothers
Turner holdings (pre-1986 MGM
library, RKO library)
New Line Cinema library
Castle Rock Entertainment library
Lorimar library
Allied Artists library
Appendix III
Evolving Definitions of Preservation,
Conservation, and Restoration
The following tables cumulate definitions of these key terms as they
have been found in the library and archival literatures. Definitions are
listed in chronological order to illuminate the evolution of a word's
meaning over time. Sources for citations may be found in the bibli
ography of this book (page references are given at the end of each def
inition).
Preservation
Source Date Institutional Definition

Focus
Evans, et al. Archives The

[1]
1974 basic responsibility to provide ade

quate facilities for the protection, care, and
maintenance of archives, records, and man
uscripts. [2] Specific measures, individual
and collective, undertaken for the repair,
maintenance, restoration, or protection of
documents. (427)
Conway Archives Archival preservation the acquisition,

is
1989
organization, and distribution of resources
(human, physical, monetary) to ensure ade
quate protectionof historical and cultural
information of enduring value and access for
present and future generations. [It]
. . .
encompasses planning and implementing

policies, procedures, and processes that
together prevent further deterioration or
renew the usability of selected groups of
materials. . . Archival preservation, when
.
most effective, requires that planning precede

implementation, and that prevention activi
ties have priority over renewal activities. (51)
2B0 Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice

Focus
DePew 1991 Libraries The activities associated with maintaining

and library and archival materials for use, either
Archives in their physical form or in some other for
mat. Preservation is considered a broader
term than conservation. (428)
Bowser/ 1991 Film Preservation is defined as all the practices

Kuiper Archives and procedures necessary to ensure perma
nent accessibility (with a minimum loss of
quality) of the visual or sonic content of
the materials. Preservation may be consid
ered as having both active and passive
dimensions. Passive preservation is synony
mous with "storage," i.e., keeping the
material in an ideal environment and not
subjecting it to any mechanical risk
through use. Active preservation includes
such practices and procedures as technical
examination, technical selection, conserva
tion, methods of storage in correct envi
ronments, housekeeping and collection
control procedures (such as maintenance of
technical records, surveillance, labeling,
etc.), technical restoration, rejuvenation,
duplication, and quality control.
AH aspects of preservation are closely
interrelated. For instance, it is pointless to
have a first-class storage environment if
preservation materials are handled, shelved,
or canned incorrectly, or if labeling, num
bering, or housekeeping records are inade
quate to ensure complete identification or
control of the material. The various aspects
of preservation comprise what film archives
call the preservation system. (n-12)
Bellardo and 1992 Archives The totality of processes and operations

Bellardo involved in the stabilization and protection
of documents against damage or deteriora
tion and in the treatment of damaged or
deteriorated documents. Preservation may
also include the transfer of information to
another medium, such as microfilm. (27)
Ritzenthaler 1993 Archives Preservation broadly encompasses those

activities and functions designed to provide
a suitable and safe environment that
enhances the usable life of collections. (2)
Appendix III: Evolving Definitions of Preservation, Conservation, and Restoration 261

Focus
Film 1993 Film In practice and in casual language, preser-

Preservation Archives vation has usually been synonymous with
ippj duplication. The archival rallying slogan
for the last two decades has been "Nitrate
Won't Wait," and the primary preservation
task — still far from accomplished — has
been to copy unstable, nitrate-base film
without significant loss of quality onto
more durable "safety" stock. For a variety
of reasons, this definition of preservation
is being rethought and broadened to
include the costly issue of storage condi
tions, as well as the apparently contradic
tory issue of public access. Preservation is
increasingly being defined less as a one
time "fix" (measurable in footage copied)
than as an ongoing process. (5-6)
Feather, 1996 Libraries The managerial, financial, and technical

Matthews, issues involved in preserving library mate
and Eden rials in all formats—and/or their informa
tion content — so to maximize life.
(5)
as
Edmondson Audiovisual Preservation the totality of things neces-

is
2004
Archives sary to ensure the permanent accessibil
ity — forever — of an audiovisual document
with the maximum integrity. Potentially,
embraces great many processes, princi it
a
ples, attitudes, facilities, and activities.

These may include conservation and
restoration of the carrier, reconstruction of
definitive version, copying and processing
a
of the visual and/or sonic content, mainte

nance of the carriers within appropriate
storage environments, recreation or
emulation of obsolete technical processes,
equipment and presentation environments,
research and information gathering to
support these activities. (20)
Film 2004 Film Continuum of activities necessary to pro-

Preservation Archives tect film for the future and share its con-
Guide tent with the public. (105)
Pearce-Moses Archives "[Definition The act of keeping from

2]
2005
(Society of harm, injury, decay, or destruction, especially
American through noninvasive treatment." (304-5)
Archivists)
Restoration

Focus
Evans, et al. 1974 Archives [See Preservation definition.]
Bowser/Kuiper 1991 Film Restoration is the process of compensating

Archives for degradation— in order to return an arti
fact or its visual or sonic content to its
original character and condition. (12)
Ritzenthaler 1993 Archives [See Conservation definition.]
Film 1993 Film "Restoration" goes beyond the physical

Preservation Archives copying of surviving material into recon
'993 struction of the most authentic version of a
film. Ideally, this requires comparison of all

surviving material on a given title, consul
tation of printed records of the production
and exhibition history, and then decisions
regarding the film's "original" state. (6)
Film 2004 Film Reconstruction of a specific version of a

Preservation Archives film. (106)
Guide
Pearce-Moses 2005 Archives The process of rehabilitating an item to

(Society of return it as nearly as possible to its original
American condition. (346)
Archivists)
Moving Image 2005 Film The process of recreating, in whole or in

Collections Archives part, the original appearance (and, in some
Glossary cases, the original soundtrack or other
sonic accompaniment) of an archival mate
rial when it was first produced.
Appendix III: Evolving Definitions of Preservation, Conservation, and Restoration 263
Conservation

Focus
DePew 1991 Libraries The treatment of library or archival materials,

works of art, or museum objects to stabilize
them chemically or strengthen them physi
cally, sustaining their survival as long as pos
sible in their original form. (424)
Bowser/Kuiper 1991 Film Conservation is the component of preserva

Archives tion which embraces those processes or
actions necessary to ensure the continued
physical survival of an artifact without further
degradation. (12)
Bellardo and 1992 Archives The component of preservation that deals

Bellardo with the physical or chemical treatment of
documents. (8)
Ritzenthaler 1993 Archives "Conservation" has replaced "restoration" in

current usage and is generally considered to
be but one aspect of an overall preservation
program. Conservation treatment is intended
to stabilize materials in their original format
(3)
by chemical and physical means.
Film Film Distinguishable from preservation "conser

is
1993
Preservation Archives vation," which requires no physical copying,
T993 only the decision to treat film material with
greater care because of its perceived use as
a
future preservation source. Typically, print
a
which has been regarded as an access or

"reference" copy becomes conservation
a
copy when suspected to be the best sur

is
it
viving material on that title. (6)
Film 2004 Film Processes and activities resulting in the pro

Preservation Archives tection of the film original. (101)
Guide
Pearce-Moses Archives [Definition The repair or stabilization of

1]
2005
(Society of materials through chemical or physical treat
American ment to ensure that they survive in their orig
Archivists) inal form as long as possible. (87)
Moving Image 2005 Film Actions taken to prolong the life expectancy
Collections Archives of cultural object. Conservation may
a
Glossary include cleaning, specialized storage condi

tions, restoration and active treatments to
reduce the rate of deterioration. All conserva
tion treatments must respect the provenance
of the object and not place the object at risk
Bibliography
Adorno, Theodor W. "Culture Industry Reconsidered." In Culture and
Society: Contemporary Debates, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander and Steven

Seidman, 275-82. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures Produced in the United
States. 13 vols, to date. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971-.
Angrosino, Michael V. and Kimberly A. Mays de Perez. "Rethinking

Observation: From Method to Context." In Handbook of Qualitative
Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 673-
702. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2000.
Association of Moving Image Archivists. AMIA Membership Directory: 2005.

Hollywood, Calif: Association of Moving Image Archivists, 2005.
. "Preservation Projects, Discoveries, and Rerelezses." AMIA Newsletter

35 (1997): 2.
Avrami, Erica, Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre. "Report on

Research." In Values and Heritage Conservation, edited by Erica Avrami,
Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre, 3-11. Los Angeles: Getty
Conservation Institute, 2000.
Bailey, Catherine. "From the Top Down: The Practice of Macro- Appraisal."
Archivaria 43 (1997): 89-128.
Barry, Iris. "The Film Library and How It Grew." Film Quarterly 22, no. 4
(1969): 19-27.
Baudrillard, Jean. "The System of Collecting." In The Cultures of Collecting,

edited by John Eisner and Roger Cardinal, 7-24. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1994.
Becker, Howard S., and Blanche Geer. "Participant Observation and
Interviewing: A Comparison." In Qualitative Methodology: Firsthand

Involvement with the Social World, edited by William J. Filstead, 133-
42. Chicago: Markham, 1970.
2BB Film Preservation: Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
J.,
Bellardo, Lewis and Lynn Lady Bellardo.^ Glossary for Archivists,
Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers. Chicago: Society of
American Archivists, 1992.
by
Belton, John, et al. "Statement on the Use of Video in the Classroom the
Society for Cinema Studies Task Force on Film Integrity." Cinema
Journal 30, no. {m\)\ 2,-6.
4
Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction." In Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings,
by
edited Gerald Mast et al., 665-81. 4th ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1992.
Besser, Howard. "Digital Longevity." In Handbook for Digital Projects: A

Management Tool for Preservation and Access, edited
by
Maxine Sitts, 155-
66. Andover, Mass.: Northeast Document Conservation Center, 2000.
. "Digital Preservation of Moving Image Material?" The Moving Image

no. (2001): 39-55.
1,
Bettig, Ronald V. Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy Intellectual
of
Property. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996.
Bocock, Robert. "The Cultural Formations of Modern Society." In by

Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies, edited Stuart Hall et
al., 149-83. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1996.
Borde, Raymond. Les Cinematheques. Paris: Editions LAge d'Homme, 1983.
Bordwell, David, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson. The Classical

Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode Production to 1960. New
of
York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field Cultural Production: Essays on Art and

of
Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press, 1991.
Bowser, Eileen, and John Kuiper, eds. A Handbook for Film Archives. New
York: Garland Publishing, 1991.
Bradley, Jana. "Methodological Issues and Practices in Qualitative

Research." Library Quarterly 63 (1993): 431-49.
Braembussche, An toon Van den. "The Value of Art: A Philosophical

In The Value Culture: On the Relationship Between
by of
Perspective."
Economics and Arts, edited Arjo Klamer, 31-43. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, 1996.
Works Cited 2B7
Braman, Sandra. "Defining Information: An Approach for Policymakers."

Telecommunications Policy 13, no. 3 (1989): 233-42.
Breznican, Anthony and Gary Strauss. "Where Have All the Moviegoers
Gone?" USA Today,]\mt 23 2005, 1D.
Brown, Harold. Physical Characteristics of Early Films as Aids to
Identification. Brussels: FIAF, 1990.
Brownlow, Kevin. The Parade's Gone By . . . Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1968.
Cannon-Brookes, Peter. "The Nature of Museum Collections." In Manual of

Curatorship: A Guide to Museum Practice, edited by John M. A. Thompson
et al., 500-12. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992.
Card, James. Seductive Cinema: The Art of Silent Film. New York Knopf, 1994.
Carlson, Scott. "Whose Work Is It, Anyway?" Chronicle of Higher Education

51, no. 47 (July 29, 2005). http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i47/
47a03301.htm (accessed September 23, 2005).
Case, Dominic. Motion Picture Film Processing. London: Focal, 1985.
Charmaz, Kathy. "The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and

Interpretation." In Comtemporary Field Research: A Collection of
Readings, edited by Robert M. Emerson, 109-26. Prospect Heights,
111.: Waveland Press, 1988.
Cloonan, Michele V. "W(h)ither Preservation?" Library Quarterly 71
(2001): 231-42.
Conway, Paul. "Archival Preservation: Definitions for Improving Training

and Education." Restaurator 10 (1989): 47-60.
. "Archival Preservation Practice in a Nationwide Context." American

Archivist 53 (1990): 204-22.
Cook, David A. A History of Narrative Film. 2nd ed. New York: Norton,
1990.
Cook, Terry. "Mind Over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival

Appraisal." In The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honourof Hugh A.
Taylor, edited by Barbara L. Craig, 38-69. Ottawa: Association of
Canadian Archivists, 1992.
. "What is Past is Prologue: A History of Archival Ideas Since 1898,

and the Future of the Paradigm Shift." Archivaria 43 (1997): 17-63.
Cox, Richard J. American Archival Analysis: The Recent Development of the

Archival Profession in the United States. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1990.
Crimp, Douglas. On the Museum's Ruins. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993.
Debray, Regis. "The Book Symbolic Object." In The Future of the Book,
as
edited by Geoffrey Nunberg, 139-51. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1996.
DePew,John N. A Library, Media, and Archival Preservation Handbook.

Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1991.
Desmet, Noel, and Paul Read. "The Desmetcolor Method for Restoring
Tinted and Toned Films." In All the Colours of the World: Colours in
Early Mass Media, 1900-1930, 147-50. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Edizioni

Diabasis, 1998.
Digital Cinema Initiatives. Digital Cinema System Specification. Version 1.

Hollywood, Calif: Digital Cinema Initiatives, 2005. http://www.dci-
movies.com/ DCI_Digital_Cinema_System_Spec_vl.pdf (accessed
September 5, 2005).
DiMaggio, Paul. "Classification in Art." American Sociological Review 52

(1987): 440-55.
DiMaggio, Paul J. "Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional

Project: U.S. Art Museums, 1920-1940." In The New Institutionalism
in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J.
DiMaggio, 267-92. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
DiOrio, Carl. "Techies Pitching 'Digital- For-A-Dime'." Daily Variety,

March 8, 2001. Lexis-Nexis, via University of Pittsburgh Digital
Library, http://www.library.pitt.edu/.
Doherty, Thomas. "No Longer Home Movies." Chronicle of Higher

Education 52, no. 2 (Sept. 2, 2005), Bll. http://chronicle.com/weekly/
v52/i02/02b01101.htm (accessed September 7, 2005).
Douglas, Mary. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University

Press, 1986.
Duranti, Luciana. "The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory."

American Archivist SI (1994): 328-44.
Edmondson, Ray. Audiovisual Archiving: Philosophy and Principles. Paris:

UNESCO, 2004. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/
001364/136477e.pdf (accessed March 3, 2006).
Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. Writing

Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Evans, Frank B., et al. "A Basic Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators,
and Records Managers." American Archivist 37 (1974): 415-33.
Works Cited 269
Feather, John, Graham Matthews, and Paul Eden. Preservation
Management: Policies and Practices in British Libraries. Aldershot,
England: Gower, 1996.
FIAF. "Code of Ethics." http://www.fiafnet.org/uk/members/ethics.cfm

(accessed March 7, 2006).
FIAF. Statuts et Reglement Interieur [Constitution and Internal Rules]. N.p.:

FIAF, 1968.
The Film Preservation Guide: The Basics for Archives, Libraries, and Museums.
San Francisco: National Film Preservation Foundation, 2004.
Footage: The Worldwide Moving Image Sourcebook. New York: Second Line
Search, 1997.
Foster, Andrea L. "Copyright Office Sides With Publishers in Proposal for

Handling 'Orphan' Works." Chronicle of Higher Education 52, no. 24
(February 17, 2006). http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i24/
24a03901.htm (accessed March 17, 2006). Friend, Michael.
uF'Am/Di&.tai/F)lm." Journal of Film Preservation 50 (1995): 36-49.

Galloway, Dianne. Mapping Work Processes. Milwaukee, Wis.: ASQ_Quality
Press, 1994.
Gans, Herbert J. Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and

Evaluation of Taste. New York: Basic, 1974.
Garnham, Nicholas. Capitalism and Communication. Newbury Park,

Calif.: Sage, 1990.
Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, Calif:

Stanford University Press, 1990.
. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
Gilliland-Swetland, Anne J. "Archival Research: A 'New' Issue for

Graduate Education." American Archivist 63 (2000): 258-70.
. Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The Value of the Archival

Perspective in the Digital Environment.Wzshington: Council on Library
and Information Resources, 2000.
Gorman, G.E., and Peter Clayton. Qualitative Research for the Information
Professional: A Practical Handbook. London: Library Association

Publishing, 1997.
Gracy, Karen F. "Coming Again to a Theater Near You: The Lucrative

Business of Recycling American Film Heritage." Stanford Humanities
Review 7, no. 2 (1999): 180-91.
-. "Film and Television Preservation Concerns Come of Age: An In-

depth Report on the Second Preservation Intensive Institute." Library
Hi-Tech News 117 (1994): 1-6.
Grampp, William D. Pricing the Priceless: Art, Artists, and Economics. New
York: Basic, 1989.
Greenberg, Clement. "Avant-Garde and Kitsch." Partisan Review 6, no. 5
(1939): 34-49.
Ham, F. Gerald. "The Archival Edge." In A Modern Archives Reader: Basic
Readings on Archival Theory and Practice, edited by Maygene F. Daniels

and Timothy Walch, 326-35. Washington: National Archives and
Records Service, 1984.
Happe, L. Bernard. Your Film and the Lab. New York: Hastings House, 1974.
Harper, Douglas. Working Knowledge: Skill and Community in a Small Shop.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Harris, Robert. "Re: Responsibilities." May 6, 2001. http://palimpsest.stan-

ford.edu/byform/mailing-Usts/amia-l/2001/05/msg00036.html
(accessed September 18, 2005).
Hiltzik, Michael. "Digital Projection: Cost Vs. Clarity." Los Angeles Times,
Aug. 1,2005, CI.

Holland, Bill. "Orphan Songs." Billboard, May 14, 2005. Lexis-Nexis, via
University of Pittsburgh Digital Library, http://www.library.pitt.edu/.
Houston, Penelope. Keepers of the Frame: The Film Archives. London: British
Film Institute, 1994.
IFLA. Audiovisual and Multimedia Section. Guidelines for Audiovisual and
Multimedia Materials in Libraries and Archives. March 2004.
http://www.ifla.org/VII/s35/pubs/avm-guidelines04.htm
"Issues of Preservation Media Production: New Paradigms for the

and
Digital Age" (transcript of conference session). In Digital Storytelling,

edited by Ben Davis. Report 024. Los Angeles: Razorfish, May 16,
2000. http://www.digitaleverything.com/rr024_film_transcript.pdf
(accessed September 18, 2005).
Jenkinson, Hilary. A Manual of 'Archive Administration. London: Percy

Lund, Humphries 6c Co., 1965.
Jepperson, Ronald L. "Institutions, Institutional Effects, and

Institutionalism." In The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Works Cited 271
Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 143-63.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Jewitt, Crispin. "Digital Chaos and Professional Standards." MSA Journal

15 (2000): 17-19.
Kaufman, Debra. "Fine Prints." The Hollywood Reporter, Dec. 16, 2003.
Lexis-Nexis, via University of Pittsburgh Digital Library,
http://www.library.pitt.edu/.
King, Susan. "Gaining Ground in Film's Reel War." Los Angeles Times, June
16, 2000, Home Edition, F2.
Klamer, Arjo. "The Value of Cultural Heritage." In Economic Perspectives on
Cultural Heritage, edited by Michael Hutter and Ilde Rizzo, 74-87.

New York: St. Martins, 1997.
Kofler, Birgit. Legal Questions Facing Audiovisual Archives. Paris: UNESCO,

1991.PGI-91/WS/5. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000886/
088674e.pdf (accessed March 3, 2006).
Kula, Sam. Appraising Moving Images: Assessing the Archival and Monetary
Value of Film and Video Records. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2003.
Leggett, Stephen. "Landmark Film Preservation Bill Becomes La.w."AML4

Newsletter 34 (1996): 1,21.
Levine, Lawrence W. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural

Hierarchy in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Library of Congress. Film Preservation 1993: A Study of the Current State
ofAmerican Film Preservation. 4 vols. Washington: Library of

Congress, 1993.
. Redefining Film Preservation: A National Plan. Washington: Library

of Congress, 1994.
Television and Video Preservation 1997: A Report on the Current State of

American Television and Video Preservation. Vol. 1. Washington: Library
of Congress, 1998.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills,
Calif: Sage, 1985.
Lindgren, Ernst. "The Importance of Film Archives." Penguin Film Review

5 (1948): 47-52.
Lukow, Gregory. "The Politics of Orphanage: The Rise and Impact of the
Orphan Film Metaphor on Contemporary Preservation Practice."
Paper presented at Orphans of the Storm I, University of South

Carolina, September 23, 1999. http://www.sc.edu/filmsymposium/
archive/orphans2001/lukow.html (accessed September 18, 2005).
Mann, Sarah Ziebell. "American Moving Image Preservation, 1967-1987."

Master's thesis, University of Texas, 2000.
Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. Designing Qualitative

Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995.
Martin, Abigail Leab, ed. AMIA of Moving Image Cataloging

Compendium
Practice. Chicago: Society of American Archivists; Los Angeles:
Association of Moving Image Archivists, 2001.
Matuzewski, Boleslas. Une Nouvelle Source de I'Histoire: Creation d'un Depot

de Cine'matographie Historique. Paris, 1898.
McGreevey, Tom, and Joanne L. Yeck. Our Movie Heritage. New

Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1997.
Mcintosh, Robert. "The Great War, Archives, and Modern Memory."

Archivaria 46 (1998): 1-31.
McKemmish, Sue, and Frank Upward, eds. Archival Documents: Providing
Accountability Through Recordkeeping. Melbourne: Ancora Press, 1993.
Metoyer-Duran, Cheryl. Gatekeepers in Ethnolinguistic Communities.

Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1993.
More Treasures From American Film Archives, 1894-1931. DVD 4-disc set.
Chatsworth, Calif.: Image Entertainment, 2004.
Morgan, David L. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand

Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997.
Moving Image Collections. MIC Glossary of Preservation Terms.
http://mic.imtc.gatech.edu/preservationists_portal/presv_bggloss.htm
Nichols, Stephen G., and Abby Smith. The Evidence in Hand: Report of the
Task Force on the Artifact in Library Collections. Washington, D.C.:
Council on Library and Information Resources, 2001.
Paton, Christopher Ann. "Preservation Re-Recording of Audio Recordings

in Archives: Problems, Priorities, Technologies, and
Recommendations." American Archivist 61 (1998): 188-219.
Pearce, Susan M. "The Making of Cultural Heritage." In Values and Heritage

Conservation, edited by Erica Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta de la
Torre, 59-64. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2000.
Works Cited 273
Pearce-Moses, Richard. A Glossary ofArchival and Records Terminology.

Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2005.
Peterson, Richard, and Roger M. Kern. "Changing Highbrow Taste: From

Snob to Omnivore." American Sociological Review 61 (1996): 900-907.
Plum, Terry. "Academic Libraries and the Rituals of Knowledge." RQ 33,

no. 4 (1994): 496-508.
Pollner, Melvin, and Robert M. Emerson. "The Dynamics of Inclusion and

Distance in Fieldwork Relations." In Contemporary Field Research: A
Collection of Readings, edited by Robert M. Emerson, 235-52. Prospect
Heights, 111.: Waveland Press, 1983.
Priest, W. Curtiss. The Character of Information: Characteristics and Properties
of Information Related to Issues Concerning Intellectual Property.
Washington: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1985.
Ritzenthaler, Mary Lynn. Preserving Archives and Manuscripts. Chicago:

Society of American Archivists, 1993.
Rosen, Robert. Introduction to UCLA Film and Television Archive presents

theEighth Annual Festival of Preservation, June 27-July 20, 1996. Los
Angeles: UCLA Film and Television Archive, 1996.
Roud, Richard. A Passion for Films: Henri Langlois and the Cinematheque
Francaise. New York: Viking Press, 1983. Reprint, Baltimore, Md.:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Ruccio, David, Julie Graham, and Jack Amariglio. "'The Good, the Bad,
and the Different': Reflections on Economic and Aesthetic Value." In
The Value of Culture: On the Relationship Between Economics and Arts,
edited by Arjo Klamer, 56-73. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press, 1996.
Salt, Barry. Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis. 2nd ed. London:
Starwood, 1992.
Samuels, Helen Willa. Varsity Letters: Documenting Modern Colleges and

Universities. Chicago: Society of American Archivists; Metuchen, N.J.:
Scarecrow Press, 1992.
Sandstrom, Alan R., and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom. "The Use and Misuse
of Anthropological Methods in Library and Information Science
Research." Library Quarterly 65 (1995): 161-99.
Schatz, Thomas. The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the
Studio Era. New York: Pantheon, 1988.

Schatzman, Leonard, and Anselm L. Strauss. Field Research: Strategies for a

Natural Sociology. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice, 1973.
Schellenberg, T. R. Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques. Chicago:

Society of American Archivists, 1996.
"
Shapiro, Carl, and Hal R. Varian. Versioning: The Smart Way to Sell
Information." Harvard Business Review 76, no. 6 (1998): 106-14.
Sherman, Stratford P. "Ted Turner: Back From the Brink." Fortune, July 7,
1986,24-31.
Slide, Anthony. "The Challenge of Film Preservation in the 1990s." In

Advances in Preservation and Access, edited by Barbra Buckner
Higginbotham, 280-92. Vol. 2. Medford, N.J.: Learned Information,
1995.
. Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United States.
Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1992.
Smith, Sean. "Coming to a Theater Near You." Newsweek, August 8, 2005, 52.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques

and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998.
Tedlock, Barbara. "Ethnography and Ethnographic Representation." In

Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and
Yvonna S. Lincoln, 455-86. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage
Publications, 2000.
Throsby, David. "Economic and Cultural Value in the Work of

Creative Artists." In Values and Heritage Conservation, edited by Erica
Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre, 26-31. Los Angeles:
Getty Conservation Institute, 2000.
Towse, Ruth. "Market Value and Artists' Earnings." In The Value of Culture:
On the Relationship Between Economics and Arts, edited by Arjo Klamer,
96-107. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996.
Treasures From American Film Archives: 50 Preserved Films. DVD 4-disc set.
Chatsworth, Calif: Image Entertainment, 2000.
UNESCO. Memory of the World Programme: General Guidelines to Safeguard
Documentary Heritage. 1995. CII-95/WS/11. http://www.unesco.org/

webworlcVmdnVadminist/pdf/MOW_FIN.PDF
Works Cited 275
. Recommendation for the Safekeeping and Preservation of Moving Images.

JD=13139MJRL_
1980. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL
DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
United States. Copyright Office. Report on Orphan Works: A Report of the

Register of Copyrights. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Copyright Office, 2006.
United States. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational

Outlook Handbook: 2004-05. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 2004.
Unseen Cinema: Early American Avant-Garde Film, 1894-1941. DVD 7-disc

set. Chatsworth, Calif.: Image Entertainment, 2005.
Usai, Paolo Cherchi. Burning Passions: An Introduction to the Study of Silent

Cinema. London: British Film Institute, 1994.
. "First School of Film Preservation Opens." AMIA Newsletter 34
(1996): 10-11.
. "What is an Orphan Film?: Definition, Rationale, and Controversy."

Paper presented at Orphans of the Storm I, University of South
Carolina, September 23, 1999. http://www.sc.edu/filmsymposium/
archive/orphans2001/usai.html (accessed September 18, 2005).
Varnedoe, Kirk, and Adam Gopnik. High & Low: Modern Art and Popular
Culture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1990.
Walden, Sarah. The Ravaged Image, or, How to Ruin Masterpieces by

Restoration. New York: St. Martin's, 1985.
Wasko, Janet. Hollywood in the Information Age. Austin: University of Texas

Press, 1995.
Wax, Murray L. "Paradoxes of 'Consent' to the Practice of Fieldwork."

Social Problems 27 (1980): 272-73.
Weiss, Robert S. Learning From Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative
Interview Studies. New York: Free Press, 1994.
Wenger, Etienne. "Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System."

Systems Thinker (June 1998). http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/
knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml (accessed September 11, 2005).
Whyte, William Foote. "Interviewing in Field Research." In Human

Organization Research: Field Relations and Techniques, edited by Richard
N. Adams and Jack J. Preiss, 352-74. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey, 1960.
Zolberg, Vera L. Constructing a Sociology of the Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1990.
Zone, Ray. "Films With a Future." The Hollywood Reporter, Nov. 20, 2000,
S-9.
Index
Boldface indicates figures.
A/B printing, 117 American National Standards Institute

access and accessibility (ANSI), 158, 159
obsolete formats and, 37 AMIA Newsletter (periodical), 34
preservation and, 2, 19 Anthology Film Archives, 26
role of curator in, 148 appraisal, 73, 74, 75, 76
screening facilities and, 134 apprenticeship programs, 33
access copies, cataloging of, 130, archival ethnography, definition of, 9-10
131, 132 archives, definition of, 18
access process, in film preservation, art
132, 133, 134-137 aura of, 68-69
acclimatization, 109
classification of, 70, 72
acetate-based "safety" film, 2, 19, film as, 71
130, 146, 147
mass culture and, 67-68
"active preservation," 145
asset protection, 153, 154, 155, 217
Adorno, Theodor, 64, 65
Association of Moving Image
advisory committees, 187-188, 189
Archivists (AMIA), 34, 94, 184, 231
aesthetics, 171, 183, 214-215
Association of Research Libraries
AFI. See American Film Institute (AFI)
(ARL), 32
AFI-NEA Film Preservation
audience, film preservation and, 91, 208
Program, 29
aura of art, 68-69
Allied Artists Pictures, 251
authenticity, 39, 210-211
Amariglio, Jack, 53
American Archives of Factual Film, 26 authority
American Film Institute (AFI) challenge to, 188
catalog of, 2, 116, 132, 178

of film archivists, 171, 176
funding by, 29, 104 in film preservation, 6-7, 169-201
nitrate film and, 146 skills and, 180
American International Pictures autonomy
(AIP), 251 in cultural production, 85, 87, 211
American Memory Project, of Library in field of film preservation, 91, 92,
of Congress, 137, 207 93, 208
American Movie Classics (AMC), 28 of film archivist, 170-180, 215-216
Bandy, Mary Lea, 21-22 preservation and, 27-28, 89

Barry, Iris, 48, 63 selection and, 188
Baudrillard, Jean, 70 color
Benjamin, Walter, 67-68, 210 balance, 127
Besser, Howard, 36-40 fading, 157
Bettig, Ronald, 46-47, 50 identification of, 114
bias reproduction of, 123
in funding, 195 separations, 128
of researcher, 237-238 Columbia Pictures, 251
in selection, 186 commercial film archives
black-and-white film, 128, 181-182 decentralization in, 151
Bocock, Robert, 57-59 interviews in, 230-232, 244
Borde, Raymond, 45 organization of, 152
Bourdieu, Pierre preservation and, 88, 89
on autonomy, 85, 169 protecting assets in, 150
on cultural production, 5, 7, 23, research methods in, 222
87, 205 selection and, 104
on economics, 90 studios as, 151-154
on fields, 85 types of film and, 90, 91, 92, 93, 208
on institutions, 62 commercialism, 7, 8, 24, 104
Bourdieuvian framework compilation reels, 117
film archives roles in, 211 compression, 37
film preservation in, 85-95 confidentiality in research, 227
validity of, 205-206, 212 consecration, degrees of, 91, 92, 93,
Bradley, Jana, 213 208, 211
budgets, 106, 152 conservation
as collecting, 147
Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The, 103 definition of, 22, 263

cable television networks, 28-29 as making copies, 147
Cannon-Brookes, Peter, 70 as "passive preservation," 22, 148
Card, James, 27 as storage, 145, 147
catalog (AFI), 2, 116, 132 context
cataloging, 2, 177 in case study, 221-222
cataloging process, 130, 131, 132 in definition, 150, 166, 167
Center for Home Movies, 31 of information seekers, 213
CFI (laboratory), 156 macro-appraisal and, 77
Charmaz, Kathy, 234, 235 Conway, Paul, 166
cinematheque, 17, 18 Cook,Terry,73,74,77, 78
Cinematheque de Toulouse, 45 cooperative preservation, 102-103,

Cinematheque Francaise, 27 164-165
classification of art, 70, 72 copying. See also
Duplication process
cleaning of film, 122 laboratory and, 180-181
Cloonan, Michele, 218 as "raw preservation," 152
coding, in data analysis, 234-236 copyright

collectors and collections access and, 136
conservation and, 147 cultural heritage and, 23
nature of, 70 digital technology and, 47
Index 279
film archives and, 25, 26 curatorial/managerial staff, 100, 145,

orphan films and, 209 148-149
stakeholders in, 3 custodianship, 38
Copyright Act (1976), 49 "cuts and outs," 117
Copyright Office, 49-50
Copyright Term Extension Act Dali, Salvador, 72
(1998), 47 damage, in printing process, 182
Corbin, Juliet, 236 data collection in research,
cost of film preservation, 3-4 226-227, 240
Cox, Richard, 216 DeBray, Regis, 203
creators decision-making
appraisal and, 73 film deterioration and, 174—175
selection and, 191-192 film viewing and, 179-180
credibility, in qualitative research, definitions
238-239 of archives, 18
Crimp, Douglas, 68, 70-71 of art, 71
"cult value" of art, 68, 210 of conservation, 22, 263
cultural artifacts context in, 150, 166, 167
film as, 67-69 of cultural institutions, 57-64
as metonymic objects, 203 of culture, 58-59
cultural economics, 50-55 of deterioration, 173
cultural heritage evolution of, 166, 259-263
artifacts as, 20 of field of cultural production, 87
as constructed, 54 of fields, 85
film as, 1-2, 25 of film preservation, 20-23
as intellectual property, 23 of institution, 60
market forces and, 50-55, 211 nuances in, 241
movement, 4, 20, 54 power struggles over, 90
cultural hierarchy, 64, 65-67 of preservation, 20-21, 141-159,
cultural institutions. See also Institutions 213-215, 259-261
assimilation of film into, 69-70 of preservation in institutions, 149
commercialism in, 7 of restoration, 22, 262
definition of, 57-64 of stasis, 209
film archives as, 57-81 densitometer, 128, 182
film archives within, 55 Desmetcolor method, 123
as legitimizing agents, 6 deterioration
nature of, 62 of film stock, 19-20
new type of, 205-206 inspection for, 108, 109, 115, 172
as stakeholders, 23 molecular sieves and, 142, 143
symbolism and, 203 selection for preservation and, 103
cultural pluralism, 212 stages of, 173
cultural production digital film preservation, 36-40
control issues in, 7 digital formats, compared to film, 154
field of, 85, 86, 88 Digital Millenium Copyright Act
values of, 6 (1998), 38, 57
culture digital processes, in film
development of concept of, 57-59 restoration, 122
high and low, 64—65 DiMaggio, Paul, 65-66, 70
disjuncture, in definition of Family Entertainment and Copyright

preservation, 160-167 Act (2005), 49
distribution Feather, John, 20, 21
access and, 136 feedback loops, 204, 241
cycle of, 24 festivals, 134
of digital film, 35 FIAF. See International Federation of
film industry and, 45-46 Film Archives (FIAF)
of independent films, 25 field diagrams
documentaries, 207, 209 on film preservation in future, 208
documentation on film preservation in 1990s, 91
approach to appraisal, 77, 78-79 field of cultural production, 5, 87
of preservation process, 132 field of film preservation,
Dogme, 35 relationships and interactions in,
donors, 106, 107, 193 90, 91, 92, 93, 208
Douglas, Mary, 54, 61 field of mass production, 90
duplication process. See also Copying field of restricted production, 90, 94
in film preservation, 123, 124-125, fields, Bourdieuvian, 85, 86, 88, 94
126-128 fieldwork in research, 8, 234-236
Duranti, Luciana, 74 Figgis, Mike, 35
Dutch Mill Society, 52 film
DVDs, 30-31, 156 as art, 63
black-and-white, 128, 181-182

Eastman Kodak, 184 categories of, 92
economic goods, 6, 87 characteristics of, 2, 114, 126
Eden, Paul, 20, 21 as commercial asset, 150
edge codes, 114, 115, 172, 178 compared to digital formats, 154
edited material, 190-192 as cultural heritage, 1, 63, 67-69
EDLs (editing decision lists), 38 industry, 23, 45

education, in film preservation, 33-34, laboratories, 123, 156, 157
94, 215-216 libraries, 3
elites and elitism, 65-66, 210 perceived use of, 184-185

Emerson, Robert M., 11, 97, 228 as preservation medium, 216, 217
encryption, 37 series, 134
entertainment, 67, 104, 191 shrinkage of, 116
environmental controls, 147, 157-158 storage of, 130
ethnographic methods types of, 32, 90, 91, 92, 93, 115
in case study, 221-247 values in, 81
context and, 8-10 viewing, 176-180
fieldwork in, 97 film archives. See also Motion pictures;
validity of, 212-214 Moving Images
ethnography appraisal in, 80
archival, 9-10, 221-247, 241-242 areas of interest of, 92
thematic narratives in, 10-11 characteristics of, 3-4
evolution of definitions, 166, 259-263 as cultural institutions, 57-81, 63
exclusion (restriction of access), 46, 47 cultural production and, 6-7
exhibition fees, 25, 26 division of labor in, 144
exhibitors, theater chains as, 35, 36 facilities and equipment of, 225
Index 281
film industry and, 45 "films in stasis," 208, 209

founding of, 1-2 flatbed viewers, 118, 122, 136
functions of, 19-20 flowcharts. See Workflow
funding of, 4 focus group interviews, 8, 232-234,
high art and mass culture in, 64-65 246-247
limited authority of, 7 footage count, 114, 122, 135
missions of, 2-3, 150, 155 foreign archives, 28, 89
nature of art and, 69 foundations, funding by, 4, 104, 106
orphan films and, 196 Fox Film Corporation, 252
priorities of, 19, 143 Fox Movie Channel, 28
studios and, 48-49 frame count, 114
film archivists
I.,
Fretz, Rachel 11
appraisal and, 73, 74 Friend, Michael, on context, 39-40
authority of, 169-201 funding. See also Government funding
digital formats and, 216 AMC telethon and, 28
inspection by, 108, 109 of film preservation,
4
preservation and, 154
process, 104, 105, 106-108
responsibilities of, 144
selection and, 192-195
skills of, 170-171, 176
sources of, 104, 106
in studios, 151-154
future of film preservation, 206-210
styles of, 162
tasks of, 100, 225
Garnham, Nicholas, 46
viewing films by, 176-180
gatekeeping role, 71-72
viewpoints of, 163-166
geographic separation, 153, 217
film preservation. See also Preservation
George Eastman House
definition of, 20-23
film preservation education at,
future of, 206-210
33-34
movement, 17, 54
national plan for, 22, 23, 146 history of, 27
holdings of, 31, 92
process of, 97-98, 99, 100
Giddens, Anthony, 62
sociocultural aspects of, 217, 218
J.,
film preservation process Gilliland-Swedand, Anne 213
cataloging in, 130, 131, 132 government funding. See also Funding
access and, 107
duplication in, 123, 124-125,
126-128 foreign, 12
film preparation in, 116-118, limits to, 29, 193
119-121, 122-123 of orphan works, 49
funding in, 104, 105, 106-108 preservation and, 94, 106

inspection and inventorying in, grader, 127
108-109, 110-113, 114-116 Graham, Julie, 53
providing access in, 132, 133, Grampp, William D., 51
134-137 grants and grantwriting, 107, 194
selection in, 100, 101, 102-104, Greenberg, Clement, 64
184-195 Guidelines Audiovisual and
of
storage in, 128, 129, 130 Multimedia Materials in Libraries

filmoteca, 17, 18 and Archives (IFLA),
1
Ham, Gerald, 76 in research methodology, 8

Harris, Robert, 204 sample guides for, 243-247
Herder, Johann Gottfried, 59 selection of subjects for, 230-231,
history of film preservation, 17 232-233
home movies, 31, 207 inventory form, 109, 114, 116, 172
Houston, Penelope, 17, 18-19 IP (interpositive), 157
Human Studies Archive
(Smithsonian), 26 Jaszi, Peter, 50
Jenkinson, Hilary, 73
IFLA (International Federation Jepperson, Ronald L., 60, 61
of Library Associations and
Institutions), 1 Kern, Roger, 212
immigrants, nickelodeons and, 66-67 Kino, 24-25, 136
independent filmmakers Klamer, Arjo, 52, 53
digital films and, 34-35 Kodak edge codes, 114, 115, 178
film preservation and, 24—25 Kula, Sam, 80, 146
index terms, 132
indigenous meanings, 222, 224 laboratories
information studies, 212-213 film archivists and, 123, 180-184
inspection and inventorying process interviews in, 244
as cost of conservation, 147 laboratory work
of film, 171-180 outsourcing of, 156
in film preservation, 108-109, preparation for, 118
110-113, 114-116 Langlois, Henri, 27
institutions. See also Cultural large-scale production, 88
institutions Learning from Strangers (Weiss), 237
cooperation between, 164—165 legitimization, of film as art, 69-72
definition of, 60 Levi-Strauss, Claude, 59
documentation in, 77, 78 Levine, Lawrence, 58
missions of, 150 Library of Congress
preservation in, 149 American Memory Project of,
role in society of, 61-62 137, 207
intellectual property areas of interest of, 92
cultural heritage and, 23 digital film preservation and, 36
exclusion strategies and, 46-47 film as art and, 69-70
field of mass production and, 90 film titles held by, 31
film industry and, 45 on funding, 31, 32
interactions, in field of film on independent films, 24
preservation, 90, 91, 92, 93, 208 Internet access and, 137
International Federation of Film national plan for film preservation,
Archives (FIAF), 3, 18, 19, 165-166 22, 23, 146
Internet, 137, 207 on orphan films, 49, 196
Internet Archive (Library of on public institutions, 27
Congress), 137 on stock footage libraries, 25
Internet Movie Database, 132 survey by, 22
Internet Moving Image Archive, 207 on television and video, 12
interviews licensing, 4
insider view of, 225-226 Lindgren, Ernst, 18
Index 283
loans and lending, 134, 136 as cultural heritage, 1
Lucas, George, 34 future of, 211-212

Lukow, Gregory, 199 Internet and, 207
Museum of Modern Art (MoMA),
MacNeil, Heather, on appraisal, 74 32, 48, 63, 81
macro-appraisal, 77, 79-80, 80-81 museums, 70-71, 72
major elements, 130, 131, 132
Manual ofArchive Administration National Archives of Canada, 77
(Jenkinson), 73 National Archives
markets and marketability (United States), 75, 92
balanced with cultural heritage, 211 National Endowment for
for cultural objects, 50-55 the Arts (NEA)
in cultural production, 88 funding by, 29, 104, 106
preservation and, 155 grant restrictions and, 146, 193
studio films and, 153, 198 National Endowment for the
Marshall, Catherine, 221, 239 Humanities (NEH), 29, 106
mass culture, 64-65, 67-68, 210 National Film Preservation
master elements, 118, 126, 127, 128 Act (1996), 29, 196, 197
Matthews, Graham, 20 National Film Preservation Board, 27
Matuzewski, Boleslas, 1 National Film Preservation
Mcintosh, Robert, 79-80 Foundation (NFPF)
McKemmish, Sue, 74 distribution by, 207
memo-writing, in data analysis, 234, establishment of, 196, 197
235, 236-237 funding by, 30, 94, 106
Memory of the World Programme grant restrictions and, 193, 194
(UNESCO), 1 National Film Preservation Plan, 30
metadata,in digital film archives, 38 National Screen and Sound Archive of
methodology, of research, 221-247 Australia, 27
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), 252 negatives, 115, 157
Milestone Films, 24-25, 136 negotiation, in definition of preserva
Miramax, 252 tion, 160-167
missions New Line Cinema, 253
of film archives, 150 New York University, film preservation
of studio archives, 155 education at, 33
molecular sieves, 142, 143 newsreels, 117, 136-137, 181-182,
Monogram Picture, 253 186-190
More Treasures From American Film nickelodeons, immigrants and, 66-67
Archives (NFPF), 207 nitrate-based film stock
Morgan, David L., 233 combustibility of, 115
motion pictures. See also Film copying to acetate, 146, 147
appraisal of, 81 deterioration of, 19
composite nature of, 38 edge codes of, 115
cultural assimilation and, 66-67 inspection of, 108, 109, 171-173
cultural hierarchy and, 66 plastic cores and, 128-129
nature of art and, 69 platter projection of, 135
Moving Image, The (journal), 34 printers and, 123, 126
moving images. See also Film storage of, 130
"nitrate won't wait," 2, 146 platter projection (plattering), 135

noncommercial film archives polyester-based (ESTAR) film, 19
in cultural production, 88 "popping the core," 128
interviews in, 223-230, 243 popular culture, 5, 64, 65, 72
preservation and, 88, 89 postmodern theory, 79-80
research methods in, 222 power, in film preservation, 169
types of film and, 90, 91, 92, 93, 208 power struggles
nondepletability, copyright and, 47 over definitions, 90
nonprofit film archives between production systems, 94
film preservation and, 25-26 Prelinger Archives, 137, 207
licensing by, 137 preparation process, in film preserva
selection and, 104 tion, 116-118, 119-121, 122-123
Northeast Historic Film, 26 preprint material, 2, 21, 143, 147
preservation. See also Film preservation
obsolete formats, 37, 154 accessibility and, 19
odor, deterioration and, 173 active and passive, 145
Office for the Protection of as asset protection, 154
Research Subjects (OPRS, at
ascollecting, 142
UCLA), 227, 230
context of, 150, 166
original elements, 143 control issues in, 7
Orphan Film Symposium, 27 ascopying, 141
orphan films definition of, 20-21, 141-159,
copyright law and, 26, 49, 209 213-215, 259-261
digital, 39 of digital films, 36-40
funding preservation of, 108
economic model for, 151-154
gatekeepers and, 50
as environmental control, 142
Internet and, 207
as goal of film 2-3
archives,
limitations in concept of, 197-200
as management of deterioration,
perception of, 93
142, 143
physical preservation and, 197
markets and, 155
politics of, 199
movement, 4
in selection process, 195-200
as providing access, 142
restoration and, 116-117, 148
Pacific Film Archive, 26, 31, 92
role of curator in, 148
Panofsky, Erwin, 63
symbolic value in, 204
Paramount Pictures, 253-254
as system, 146-147, 149
participant-observer, author as,
tension over definition of, 160-167
225-226, 227-229
as umbrella term, 143-144, 148-149
participants in film preservation, 23-31
Preservation of Orphan Works Act
"passive preservation," 22, 145, 148
Pearce, Susan, 54
(2005), 26, 49, 200
Pearce-Moses, Richard, 18, 20-21 Priest, W. Curtiss, 46
perforations, 122, 123, 126 printers, types of, 123

process, of film preservation, 97-98,
Peterson, Richard, 212
photochemical processes, 182-184 99, 100
piracy of digital films, 35 production, restricted and

large-scale, 88
plastic cores, 128
Index 285
professionalization, of film Rosen, Robert, 185, 203

preservation, 94, 215, 216 Rossman, Gretchen B., 221, 239
projection Ruccio, David, 53
card, 176, 177
prints, 122, 135, 143 "safety" (acetate) film. See Acetate-based
systems, 35-36 "safety" film
projectionists, 135-136 sampling, 186
public Samuels, Helen, 78-79
film preservation and the, 30-31 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 59
as filmmakers, 31 Schatzman, Leonard, 229
public domain, 30, 136 Schellenberg.T. R., 74, 75, 76
public institutions, films in, 27 screenings
access and, 134
qualitative research, 8-9, 238-239, 242 of laboratory work, 127
quality control selection process
in laboratory work, 181-182 criteria in, 102
in research, 241 example of, 186-190
in film preservation, 100, 101,
raw footage, compared to edited 102-104
material, 190-192 funding and, 192-195
"raw preservation," copying as, 152 influence over, 102
re-releases, 24 orphan films in, 195-200
"Recommendation for the Safeguarding politics of, 184-195
and Preservation of Moving Images" raw and edited footage, 190-192
(UNESCO), 1 separation negatives, 157
Redefining Film Preservation (Library Shaw, Linda L., 11
of Congress), 22, 33, 196 shipping, 136

reference copies, 147, 148. See also shrinkage, 116, 172
Access Copies silent films, 2, 103-104, 114, 123
relationships Singer, Bryan, 34
commercial and noncommercial, 165 Slide, Anthony, 17, 18
in field of film preservation, 90, 91, small gauge stock, 32

92, 93, 208 social economy, 85-95
with laboratories, 180-184 Sony Pictures Entertainment, 254
Republic Pictures, 254 sound archiving, 214
restoration specialist archives, 89
definition of, 22, 262 splices, 135
digital processes in, 122 staff
preservation and, 116-117, 148 in film archives, 33
of sound recordings, 214 responsibilities of, 174
in studio film archives, 154-155 skills of, 180
by studios, 24 training of, 178
restricted production, 88 stakeholders, 8, 23-31
revenue, 47, 48, 106 standards
reversal stock, 32 ANSI guidelines and, 158, 159
review, of laboratory work, 127 in film laboratories, 157
RKO Radio Pictures, 254 technical, 154
Rodriguez, Robert, 34 stasis, definition of, 209
stock footage, 93 UNESCO (United Nations

stock footage libraries, 25, 26, 89 Educational, Scientific, and
storage facilities Cultural Organization), 1
commercial, 156 United Artists, 36, 255

interviews in, 245 United States, film archives in, 12
for nitrate film, 175 Universal Pictures, 255
in studios, 158 University of Rochester, film
storage process preservation education at, 33-34
as conservation, 147 Upward, Frank, 74
in film preservation, 128, 129, 130 Usai, Paolo Cherchi, 27
Strauss, Anselm, 229, 236 uses of film, 184-185
studios
asset protection in, 153, 155, 217
values and valuation
film archives and, 24, 48-49
appraisal and, 73, 75
genealogy of, 251-257 in archives, 73
preservation and, 24, 89, 163-166 aura in, 210
responsibility and, 196 clash in, 162
symbolic goods, 6, 87 cultural institutions and, 203
symbolic value, 203, 204, 206
of culture, 50-55
synch block, 122
in heritage conservation, 54
synchronization, duplication and, 127
selection process and, 104, 185-190
Van den Braembussche, Antoon, 51-52
Technicolor (laboratory), 156
Varnedoe, Kirk, 64, 65
television preservation, 12
Varsity Letters (Samuels), 78
theater chains, 35, 36
vaults
thematic narratives, 10-11
film storage in, 130
Throsby, David, 54
management of, 145
timers and timing, 127, 181, 183
versions, 118
Towse, Ruth, 53
video preservation, 12
training, of film archives staff, 33, 171
video surrogates, 136
Treasures From American Film Archives
viewable form
(NFPF), 207
Trier, Lars von, 35 definition of, 2
TriStar Pictures, 255 preservation and, 21

Turner Classic Movies, 28 viewing
Turner Entertainment, 255 example of, 177-179
Twentieth Century-Fox, 255 film archivists skill in, 176
vinegar syndrome, 19-20, 143, 157
UCLA, film preservation
education at, 33 Walt Disney Company, 256
UCLA Film and Television Archive Warner Brothers, 256

AMC funding of, 28 Weiss, Robert S., 231, 237, 238
areas of interest of, 92 Whyte, William Foote, 230
film titles held by, 31 winding, 128
licensing by, 26 windmills, 52
Index 287
workflow
of cataloging, 131
of duplication, 124-125
of inspection and inventorying,
110-113
of preparation, 119-121
of procuring funding, 105
of providing access, 133
of selection, 101
of storage, 129
YCM (protection separation masters),

157
lr» -(^07)
BENTLEYWSTORICAL LIBRARY
nil
9015 07115 6411
3
PRESERVATION
Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice
"Karen Gracy's book is a unique archival ethnographic study of the

film preservation world. It examines the values of the film preserva
tion community and the myriad of details involved in the preservation
process. Issues ranging from the theoretical to basics are covered in
this important resource for all concerned with film preservation."
—Mary Ide, Director of the WGBH Archives
"Finally, we have a comprehensive overview of the challenges and

possibilities of preserving motion picture film. In Film Preservation:
Competing Definitions of Value, Use, and Practice, Karen Gracy offers a
sophisticated balance of scholarship and advice that helps us think

creatively about a largelv neglected segment of our cultural heritage."
-Paul Conway, Associate Professor, School of Information, University of Michigan,
and Fellow, Society of American Archivist'
Karen F. Gracy holds an MLIS and PhD in library and information

science, and an MA of film and television, from the
in critical studies
University of California, Los Angeles. She is an active member of the
Society of American Archivists and the Association of Moving Image
Archivists, where she currently serves as the interim editor of AMIA's
journal, The Moving Image.
527 South Wells Street. 5th Floor

SOCIETY OF
Chicago. IL 60607 USA
American
312/922-0140
Archivists
fax 312/347-1452
Browse archives titles at www.archivists.org/catalo

Film Preservation Book PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Film Preservation Book PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Film Preservation Book PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Film preservation : competing definitions of value, use, and practice

Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives

This work is protected by copyright law (which includes

© 2007 by the Society of American Archivists.

Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

practice / Karen F. Gracy.

Graphic design by Matt Dufek, dufekdesign@yahoo.com.

An Introduction to the Field of Film Preservation

Documenting the Process of Film Preservation •

II: Genealogy of Hollywood Studios and

been reaffirmed through unesco's inclusion of moving images as part

a huge amount of information that needs to be preserved for future

use."3 These statements show how the cultural heritage community

considers motion pictures to be in the same category as more tradi

well as books and archival collections.4

The struggle to secure film's place as part of the world's cultural

ably shorter than older, paper-based communication media. Hence,

tinguishes film archives from film libraries, which focus primarily on

building digital libraries.14

Studying the World of Film Preservation

field as a separate social universe, with its own structure, dynamics,

Background for the Study

tion, which includes chapters 2, 3, and 4, contains what I consider to

The Social Economy of Film Preservation

In this chapter, I outline the structures of the relationships among

influenced the work

tions") among participants in the field, as the power to control cul

The field of cultural production differentiates itself from other

fields functioning inversely. By and large, cultural heritage institu

future generations; the collection, preservation, and dissemination of

economic considerations, the field operates as "the economic field

through the assertion of intellectual property rights, a large portion of

within the field of cultural production, film preservation is becoming

Data Collection and Analysis

market share, number of films or amount of footage preserved, or

Because much of the "cultural capital" in film preservation is symbolic,

ing, and focus group interviewing to examine film preservation

Ethnographic Methods and Archives.

For those readers unfamiliar with ethnography, a definition of the

in which events are embedded and the perspectives of those partici

niques, including participant observation and in-depth interviewing,

focus group interviewing, content/document analysis, discourse

tion" and "philosophical paradigm," in addition to methodology.18

anthropologists, sociologists, and others have applied

urban environments, organizations, and modern work cultures. This

culture and community. In some cases, ethnographers can be said to

have "created" community "simply

the archival environment does in fact encompass cultural dimension,

and that worthy of study in this manner.

What then the meaning of "archival The author

Archival ethnography is a form of naturalistic inquiry which posi

A corollary to the above definition is the concept that creators of doc

Ethnographic Narratives of the World of Film Preservation.

In chapters 6, 7, and 8 I present three thematic narratives, which draw

viewing. The narrative format allowed me to explain phenomena by

senting their methods, ethnographers seek to depict the varied quali

Boundaries and Limitations of This Study