Re: [ARSCLIST] Vanguard Classics reappears in 2 cd sets

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott D. Smith" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> What the Hollywood studios did with their mag films is pretty much the  
> same as what the record companies did-ship them off to some storage  
> facility to rot (MGM being the exception).
> 
> I am more than just a little familier with the issues regarding mag  
> film disentegration, as we deal with it almost every day. I would like  
> to point out, though, that your assessment regarding the superiority  
> of tape over mag film, does not neccesarily always hold true.
> 
> While it is generally true the most polyester based tape stocks hold  
> up better than acetate based mag film, we have run across some notable  
> exceptions to this thinking.We have run across some mag films that  
> nearly 50 years old, which have stood up quite well, if they have been  
> stored properly. We have also dealt with some polyester tapes less  
> than 10 years old which have posed major problems. As always, proper  
> wind and storage conditions play a major factor here.
> 
> We have recently done a couple of projects which will serve as a case  
> in point. One of them involved AGFA 35mm acetate full coat from the  
> early seventies. It had fortunately been stored in a proper vault  
> environment, with a good wind tension. We were able to reproduce these  
> films (dubbed in England) with a minimum of fuss, with excellent  
> results (wish they were all that easy!).
> 
> Another project we did the same week involved 1/2" 4 track sync  
> safeties for a major film release from the 1960's, recorded on 3M 201  
> stock. Apparently the 35mm 3 track masters had been lost or scrapped.  
> While the tapes were in pretty good condition physically, the facility  
> that made the safety copies did a rather poor job, the result being  
> only a fraction of what I can guess was contained on the mag masters.
> 
> While the studio was apparently trying to do the right thing by making  
> safeties, the fact that they lost or scrapped the masters is criminal  
> (this was for a bid budger film of the era, with a name director and  
> major stars, not some lowball indie film).
> 
> The story repeats itself endlessly.
> 
The point is this...artifacts of "popular culture" have, almost since
their emergence, benn considered expendable, with a short "life span"
that is limited to their short period of popularity!

I'm not entirely sure that I can justify, on a serious basis, the
preservation of such artifacts...in spite of my obvious enthusiasm
(exemplified by my 40,000+ 78's) therefor! I leave this to those
who are experts in history and historiography.

Nonetheless, I think that such items deserve preservation...to the
extent, if not more, than do artifacts of "serious" history! In
fact, cinema seems to have attracted more popular attention (and
thus funding) than other forms of popular culture. In fact, that
"lowball indie film" might well be more important in the history
of cinema than that "major film!"

However, the sad fact is that our current "culture" seems more
interested in preserving those artifacts that promise substantial
(and fairly immediate) financial return...which will give our
descendants (if any?) a rather prejudiced and inaccurate picture
of their past!

Steven C. Barr