National Film Preservation Act
Scott Gibson
"The Library of Congress today announced selection of the first 25 motion
pictures to the new National Film Registry as 'culturally, historically, or
aesthetically significant' and worthy of preservation."
A list of films follows.
"The registry was created by Congress last year as part of the National Film
Preservation Act, which called for naming 25 important mivies annually for
three years to the registry."
And here are the films:
The Best Years of Our Lives, 1946
Casablanca, 1942
Citizen Kane, 1941
The Crowd, 1928
Doctor Strangelove, 1964
The General, 1927
Gone With the Wind, 1939
The Grapes of Wrath, 1940
High Noon, 1952
Intolerance, 1916
The Learning Tree, 1969
The Maltese Falcon, 1941
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, 1939
Modern Times, 1936
Nanook of the North, 1922
On the Waterfront, 1954
The Searchers, 1956
Singin' in the Rain, 1952
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937
Some Like it Hot, 1959
Star Wars, 1977
Sunrise, 1927
Sunset Boulevarde, 1950
Vertigo, 1958
The Wizard of Oz, 1939
So, what do you think they missed?
Scott
John Locke
>National Film Registry...So, what do you think they missed?
The Act protects these films from being colorized, sped up, shortened,
or otherwise altered without being labelled to that effect.
"The Godfather" was in the preliminary running but didn't make the final
cut. It probably should have. Ditto for "Apocalypse Now."
In the preliminary vote, which was published a couple of months ago,
"The Grapes of Wrath" led with the most votes.
I never heard of "The Learning Tree." Has anyone seen it?
I would have picked "2001" over "Star Wars"; "Rear Window" over "Vertigo."
"Cabaret," "Raging Bull," "Fail-Safe," and "Nashville" wouldn't be out
of place.
I think I would have left off "High Noon" and "Some Like it Hot."
George Lindholm
>"The Library of Congress today announced selection of the first 25 motion
>pictures to the new National Film Registry as 'culturally, historically, or
>aesthetically significant' and worthy of preservation."
>
>A list of films follows.
>So, what do you think they missed?
>
2001, A Space Odessey
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
George Lindholm lind...@cheddar.cc.ubc.ca
Daniel Solomon
>So, what do you think they missed?
>
>Scott
What about IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dsol...@hmcvax.bitnet | "No amount of planning will ever replace
dsol...@jarthur.claremont.edu | dumb luck"
dsol...@jarthur.UUCP |
Doug Krause
>Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Sorry, nothing in the last ten years.
Douglas Krause One yuppie can ruin your whole day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine Internet: dkr...@orion.oac.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa
Mark Gardner
>In article <7...@qip.UUCP> sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>
>>National Film Registry...So, what do you think they missed?
>
>
25 years are represented by only THE LEARNING TREE and STAR WARS.
THE GRADUATE epitomizes the late 60's to me; it belongs on the
list at least as much as MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON.
There may be others; I don't have my personal top ten list in
non-volative RAM. Overall, though, they're a commendable bunch
of films. Probably as good a list as any group could devise.
--
Mark Gardner **
...gatech!dcatla!eqmdg or ** This space is available.
dcatla!eq...@gatech.uucp **
Peter Reiher
>In article <2...@cs.nps.navy.mil> jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>>In article <7...@qip.UUCP> sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>>
>>>National Film Registry...So, what do you think they missed?
>>
>>I never heard of "The Learning Tree." Has anyone seen it?
>>
>I've never heard of it either. My biggest quibble is that the last
>25 years are represented by only THE LEARNING TREE and STAR WARS.
"The Learning Tree" is a film from 1969, by Gordon Parks. Parks was one of the
premier cinematographers of the period, and probably the only black one. He
wrote a book about his childhood, and later made it into a film. I haven't
seen it in many, many years, but I remember reacting to it with a "so what?"
attitude. It wasn't bad, just not compelling. I've never heard anyone
rhapsodize over "The Learning Tree". Maltin gives it 2 1/2 stars, Halliwell
doesn't even list it. So what is it doing on this list?
As an exercise, try to think of an American film directed by a black
person. Try hard. There aren't many, in the mainstream, at least. "Sweet
Sweetback's Badass Song", "Uptown Saturday Night" and sequels, "Man and Boy",
Spike Lee's films, and maybe a dozen or so others. With the possible exception
of "Do the Right Thing", and, in the views of some people, "Sweet Sweetback's
Badass Song", none of them could be viewed as extraordinary. Given that the
people releasing the list were very careful to point out, again and again,
that this wasn't a "25 best" list, but, instead, meant to be representative of
the broad scope of film, I think it a fair guess that "The Learning Tree" was
included to give some representation to blacks.
Peter Reiher
rei...@amethyst.jpl.nasa.gov
(DO NOT send to rei...@amethyst.uucp)
. . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher
Scott Gibson
>>So, what do you think they missed?
>>
>
>What a Wonderful Life
"It's a Wonderful Life" should have been in the list, IMHO.
>2001, A Space Odessey
Ditto.
Scott
Ron Rejmaniak
>
>>National Film Registry...So, what do you think they missed?
>
>The Act protects these films from being colorized, sped up, shortened,
>or otherwise altered without being labelled to that effect.
>
>
>I would have picked "2001" over "Star Wars"; "Rear Window" over "Vertigo."
>
Would 2001 (and other widescreen movies) need a disclaimer when
televised (or released to tape) in the current manner where much of the picture
is lost due to cropping? The Criterion release will show how much is missing.
What about films that have already been tampered with? Will a label be
required on all future releases of that film or is it too late?
>
>I think I would have left off "High Noon" and "Some Like it Hot."
I haven't seen High Noon but I would leaze on Some Like it Hot.
-Ron Rejmaniak
Joe Horowitz
>In article <50...@ubc-cs.UUCP> lind...@cheddar.cc.ubc.ca (George Lindholm)
writes:
>>In article <7...@qip.UUCP> sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>>>So, what do you think they missed?
>>>
>>
>>What a Wonderful Life
>
>"It's a Wonderful Life" should have been in the list, IMHO.
Even if you think it belongs on the list (I won't argue that one way or the
other), it's too late: it's already been colorized.
"Do you *really* imagine, even in your wildest dreams, that a girl like this
could possibly be interested in an aging, brilliantined stick insect like
you?" --Sybil to Basil, _Fawlty Towers_
**********************************************************************
jhor...@bbn.com / Joe N. Horowitz /
**********************************************************************
You're only as good as your stereo
:
:"The Library of Congress today announced selection of the first 25 motion
:pictures to the new National Film Registry as 'culturally, historically, or
:aesthetically significant' and worthy of preservation."
:"The registry was created by Congress last year as part of the National Film
:Preservation Act, which called for naming 25 important mivies annually for
:three years to the registry."
[ List of films deleted ]
:
:So, what do you think they missed?
I think they missed the point. The point is that we shouldn't have yet
another dad-gummed guvmint agency to protect a select list of movies from
vandalism. As long as gratuitous editing, compressing and coloring can
be done to any movie, be it "Citizen Kane" or "Mars Needs Women", while
representing it under the original title, the copyright laws are broken.
Fix *them*. Don't create a panel of tax-sucking bozos to tell us which few
films are to be spared. The less the government gets involved the better.
Granted, they came up with a list of fine films, but the cure may be
as bad as the disease. All art deserves equal protection. Even if it's
bad art.
So I wonder if CBS will have to stop time-compressing "Wizard of Oz". I
noticed in the last airing that it ran quite a bit faster than my laser
disc.
--Craig
...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good
When the Second Amendment goes, the rest will soon follow.
Mark A. Holtz
> From the Phoenix Gazette, Wednesday Sep 20 1989:
> Preservation Act, which called for naming 25 important mivies annually for
> three years to the registry."
>
> So, what do you think they missed?
It is not what they missed, it's what you missed (SWSOT!).
First, any film that goes into the registry cannot be cut or
colorized without a notice saying so.
Second, in order for a film to qualify, it must be 10+ years old.
Thus, Star Wars qualifies, The Empire Strikes Back won't until
1990, and ET-The ExtraTerrestrial until 1992. A film must also meet
other qualifications.
But, I think it is a great idea, especially considering that some
films are dissolving away.
--
*=> Mark Arthur Holtz <=> AppleLink PE: Mark Holtz <=*
*=> 7943 Sungarden Drive <=> GEnie: M.HOLTZ <=*
*=> Citrus Heights, CA 95610-3133 <=> Home: (916) 722-8522 <=*
*=> UUCP: {ames att}!pacbell!sactoh0!mholtz <=> "UUCP or bust!" <=*
John Hofbauer
> premier cinematographers of the period, and probably the only black one.
Not quite true. Parks was a still photographer for LIFE magazine. He dabbled
in film-making in the late 1960's.
> Given that the people releasing the list were very careful to point out, again
> and again, that this wasn't a "25 best" list, but, instead, meant to be
> representative of the broad scope of film, I think it a fair guess that "The
> Learning Tree" was included to give some representation to blacks.
I don't have the list in front of me but when I first saw it it struck me that
they wanted to preserve a cross-section of film which best reflects America.
From that point of view the list was reasonable. I also seem to recall that
another 75 films will be added as soon as the funding comes through.
Zap Savage
> As long as gratuitous editing, compressing and coloring can
>be done to any movie, be it "Citizen Kane" or "Mars Needs Women", while
>representing it under the original title, the copyright laws are broken.
>Fix *them*. Don't create a panel of tax-sucking bozos to tell us which few
>films are to be spared. The less the government gets involved the better.
I agree with you on principle but: the films that Ted Turner owns at least
some of the films he colorizes. He owns "It's A Wonderful Life". He has
the legal right to modify it without breaking the copyright. He has the
copyright.
Zap
"Star Trek: The Compressed Motion Picture"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Zap Savage |
| Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun" |
| "There are three possibilities: Pioneer's solar panel has turned away from |
| the sun; there's a large meteor blocking transmission; or someone loaded |
| Star Trek 3.2 into our video processor." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ste...@rat.indiana.edu
(not as funding allows, as someone else, said. Funding for what??). This
is only for a few years, however.
Anyway, I feel confident that 2001, and It's a Wonderful Life will eventually
make the list.
I also think that even movies that have already be altered will have to be
labeled, by maybe this is just a hope.
Moving from the merits of the copyright issue, and that controversy, I think
that this is a good idea, just as a way of giving recognition to an art form.
To have the Library of Congress preserve a bunch of movies that some people
think are important is a great idea (and one part of the act, as I recall
reading about it is that the Library should work to get good, clean prints
of all of the named films...).
Sure, I think it would be great if we could get someone to preserve ALL films,
but that is pretty unreasonable. This helps some.
**************************************************************************
Steve Scher | "A Spike Lee Joint"
Program in Affect and Measurement |
744 Ballantine Hall |
Indiana University | "A situation defined as real is
Bloomington, In. 47405 | real in its consequences"
***************************************************************************
Brian C. Hogue
[ some stuff deleted ]
>I agree with you on principle but: the films that Ted Turner owns at least
>some of the films he colorizes. He owns "It's A Wonderful Life". He has
>the legal right to modify it without breaking the copyright. He has the
>copyright.
>
>Zap
I remember hearing somewhere that "It's A Wonderful Life" was kinda
public domain film. It was on some program that was complaining about
colorization and stuff. The program said that "It's A Wonderful Life"
became popular when a lot of PBS stations started running it during the
holiday season. The show definitely said that 'all you needed to run
the show on the air or in a theatre was a print of the film. No fees
need to be paid to anyone if you have a print.'
Now that I think about it a little more, it seems that they may have
been reporting on some Senate/House hearings on passing some kind of law
to protect films. Maybe even this 'National Film Preservation Act'.
Brian
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian C. Hogue bch...@unix.cis.pitt.edu University of Pittsburgh
"The opinions expressed here are my Computing & Information Services
own, no matter how insane they may be."
Scott Gibson
>>In article <7...@qip.UUCP> sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>>
>>>National Film Registry...So, what do you think they missed?
>>
>>I never heard of "The Learning Tree." Has anyone seen it?
>>
>I've never heard of it either. My biggest quibble is that the last
>25 years are represented by only THE LEARNING TREE and STAR WARS.
>THE GRADUATE epitomizes the late 60's to me; it belongs on the
>list at least as much as MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON.
I think you are right about THE GRADUATE.
I was also miffed at the exclusion of 2001:A SPACE ODDYSEY. I would have
thought that would make the list.
Maybe next year.
Scott
Scott Gibson
>In article <7...@qip.UUCP>, sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>> From the Phoenix Gazette, Wednesday Sep 20 1989:
>>
>
>It is not what they missed, it's what you missed (SWSOT!).
>
>First, any film that goes into the registry cannot be cut or
>colorized without a notice saying so.
>
>Second, in order for a film to qualify, it must be 10+ years old.
>Thus, Star Wars qualifies, The Empire Strikes Back won't until
>1990, and ET-The ExtraTerrestrial until 1992. A film must also meet
>other qualifications.
Yeah, I have since seen several people mention those facts.
My only defence is that the newpaper I quoted didn't see fit to mention
them.
Sorry.
Scott
Bob Gray
>In article <7...@qip.UUCP> sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>>So, what do you think they missed?
>2001, A Space Odessey
But 2001 is a British film. Is the Act supposed to cover
non-American films as well? Or is it just films released in
the USA.
"Dr. Strangelove" is on the list of the first 25 films.
Where did Kubrick make it? Wasn't that at Pinewood as well?
If so, that would seem to confirm the "release" hypothesis.
Bob.
The Mad Armenian
}} "It's a Wonderful Life" should have been in the list, IMHO.
} Even if you think it belongs on the list (I won't argue that one
} way or the other), it's too late: it's already been colorized.
So? CASABLANCA and THE MALTESE FALCON were as well, and both of them
are on the list.
In article <1...@savage.UUCP>, z...@savage.UUCP (Zap Savage) writes...
} I agree with you on principle but: the films that Ted Turner owns at
} least some of the films he colorizes. He owns "It's A Wonderful Life".
} He has the legal right to modify it without breaking the copyright.
} He has the copyright.
No, he doesn't. In fact, *no one* owns IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. That film
is in the Public Domain. That's the problem with trying to juggle the
copyright laws to "preserve" these films. Eventually, they'll go out of
copyright into the Public Domain, and be subject to whatever desecration
is imaginable.
"And this archaic straitjacket simply must
go. After all, it's the modern age --
everyone knows that drugs solve everything!"
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian
Jay C. Smith
>But 2001 is a British film. Is the Act supposed to cover
>non-American films as well? Or is it just films released in
>the USA.
This is a complicated question, and I'm not sure if the registry people
have sought to make a definitive definition. "2001," though filmed in
Britain, can be regarded as a US film because it was financed by MGM, a
US film studio. Having an American director doesn't hurt, either.
I remember reading that the James Bond movies are fairly complicated,
though I think most would regard them as British. Let's see Eon Films
is the production company, right? They seem to be British, but what of
Danjaq S.A.? The "Musketeers" films were also of twisted origin.
--
"Good. For a minute I thought we were in trouble."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: j...@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%nc...@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu
Pete deVroede
>>In article <7...@qip.UUCP> sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>>>So, what do you think they missed?
>
>>2001, A Space Odessey
>
>But 2001 is a British film. Is the Act supposed to cover
>non-American films as well? Or is it just films released in
>the USA.
I really doubt "nationality" should (or does) have anything to do with it.
I don't think the US Congress could do much to protect films outside the
US, and I would think they would be as interested in protecting the film
treasures of other countries as much as those of the US.
If nationality did have anything to do with it, I'm sure Kubrick, being
the Brooklyn-ite that he is, would still qualify :-).
--
| Information is a parody of knowledge. Peter J. deVroede |
| Knowledge is a parody of wisdom. decwrl\! adobe!devroede |
| Wisdom is a parody of truth. sun/ or |
| Oscar Wilde (?) devr...@adobe.com |
Jan Penovich
It Happened One Night
Yankee Doodle Dandy
It's a Wonderful Life
Public Enemy
Treasure of the Sierra Madres
=> T.T.F.N., Jan Penovich (jpen...@gould.UUCP) <=
=> Encore Computer Corp., formerly Gould CSD <=
=> ...!{uunet,sun,pur-ee}!gould!jpenovich <=
=> ...!{allegra,ucf-cs}!uflorida!gould!jpenovich <=
=> NOTE: Disregard header info. Email to above paths only. <=