Here is a good article covering the demise of VHS and the film 'catalogue' it sustained...http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/the-vanishing-20090226
When VHS (and Betamax) came out in the mid 1970s the excitement it generated started a crash program of dumping just about everything to the format. Very often, 16mm projection prints were pulled out of their cans and transferred on a simple telecine chain so as to be releasable in order to quell the insatiable appetite for "movies, movies, movies". (Projection prints are optimized to be placed in front of a film projector's xenon lamp, not a low-power telecine machine bulb.) The bigger studio films generally got a better transfer via a Flying-Spot Scanner off of 35mm elements since the extra cost was well warranted due to their anticipated performance in the marketplace, but the public, certainly all the new and old movie fans, also wanted older pictures and more obscure ones. Many smaller or micro distributors -- like Toronto based Admit One -- popped up and made a living releasing so-called cult titles. It was a good time.
What is happening now, and this is discussed in the story I linked above, is a lot (read: Shit load) of movies released during the 'great dumping over to video tape period', have not got the same treatment for the DVD format. Certainly things have gotten better over the years, and a welcome swing away from the seemingly exclusive (relatively recent) mainstream-crap-only stream, but the fact is a huge chunk of titles will never see the light of the shiny disc, a format, I might add which is in its last few years of existence as the big thing. (Blu-ray sales have leveled off to rather unimpressive numbers but something will give, sometime.) It costs a fair bit to properly master something for DVD or Blu-ray; and in the latter's case, unless a particular film survives in excellent condition in order to work as a Hi-Def performance piece then, as that major studio piggy once said, "That's all folks!".
4 comments:
Question: should everything be available forever in whatever format we're currently using? We've become a society of collectors and amateur archivists, without the ability to discern what is truly worth saving.
I'm reminded of a quote by Wynton Marsalis (paraphrasing here) who when asked how he felt about some famous jazz concert not having been captured on tape, rather than lament the fact that he would never hear it, he joyfully expressed the opinion that the fact that it wasn't recorded made (and continues to make) it special for those who were there.
And, let's be honest. How often is the actuality of a seeing a film from your childhood or early adulthood better than your recollection of it? Not very often. We need to stop worshipping the physical thing over the experience.
There are certainly a lot of titles that are nostalgic, and that is a different argument, but the concern is that far too many things that should be preserved (or carried over) are not due to the lack of impetus, whether it be money or potential audience size, due to the changing of 'screening' formats.
To be specific, "should everything be available forever in whatever format we're currently using?" No. Besides, that is not the argument or desire.
"Worship", and having the option of seeing something (that is often neglected by the big companies) are two different things.
As the linked article states, money can stop a film from perpetuating as an existing thing.
Thank god for collectors. They keep a lot of titles breathing. And the joke is these people are who the 'home video' distributors (for example) often go to when there is a resurgence of interest in name-the-movie.
"We need to stop worshipping the physical thing over the experience." That is not what we are saying... we want the option. The almost regular changing of formats (you ain't seen nothing yet!) are what is killing movies that should not be.
I see your point... we don't want to lose the Keaton masterpieces (Buster that is; if you immediately assumed "Michael" seek help at once) or the Godfathers, etc. etc. etc. These are art, and by all means should be preserved. But the mindless, consumeristic drive to "own" a film, and the studio's desire to fill our houses with shiny discs for their own monetary gain isn't the same preserving and archving. I'm all for archiving. My life has certainly been enhanced through my experience of great art I myself did not (nor could not have) saved.
But are you saying we each need a Blu-Ray copy of Citizen Kane in case the Powers That Be decide this is no longer an important film? I can't quite see the frame of your argument here.
I don't think I'm saying that. (Your point about Citizen Kane-type argument.) It all gets messy with the new formats.
I do agree with your 'collection' point. There have been times where where I have been visiting a store like HMV and there have been people holding a whack of DVDs. I'm thinking, "just rent... it's a whole lot cheaper!" The other part of me thinks, "To each their own. If it gives you pleasure, go for it".
You are right about the consumer drive. The tv commercials and print ads slam us with, "Own it today on DVD!!!"... or, "Buy it on DVD!!!"
And I say, "EFF OFF!!!"
... I'll save my money.
Post a Comment