Journal of Film Preservation - FIAF

The National Film Archive of
London was represented at the
FIAF Congress in Copenhagen
in 1948 by Ernest Lindgren.
Lindgren stressed the importance
of preservation and restoration
at this and later Congresses.
His opinion was that you can’t
show anything until you have
the money to make a copy. The
film director Karel Reiz, who
in the mid-1950s worked as a
programmer at the BFI’s National
Film Theatre, once explained
that it was easier for him to
borrow copies – even of English
films – from the Cinémathèque
Française than if it was from the
BFI’s own archive. Langlois’ policy
was – in contrast to Lindgren
– to show all. Langlois was not
particularly concerned with the
state of the copies and usually
referred to lack of money when
he was asked about preservation
and restoration. He saved many
silent films from destruction,
but the copies piled up at the
Cinémathèque Française and
were kept in poor conditions.
The two pioneers, Langlois and
Lindgren, [comma] represented
polar opposites in the debate
on preservation versus showing.
Nowadays archives and
cinematheques operate on both
fronts. However, that there still
exist left-overs from the opinions
of the past is confirmed by the
way the young senior curator
Rajendra Roy experienced his
first FIAF Congress after he was
hired at The Museum of Modern
Art in 2007:
“I was surprised that many of the
older archive people had such a
protectionist mentality. I consider
film to be an experience art form,
but there are people who to a
larger extent consider them a
tangible, physical art form. They
almost care more about the film
inside the metal box than about
When the cinematheques receive those audience reactions, they are
often based on the quality of the copies, the sound in the auditoriums,
the framing, and not often on the actual programme selection. Reactions
to the programming are often very general, and are either about the
programme being too mainstream or too elitist. What one group perceives
as conservative is seen differently by another, something evident from the
following audience comments on our programme in Copenhagen:
“I think there is a tendency for the film selection to become more narrow,
more exclusive, and more focused on a few dominant themes: aesthetic,
psychology, and cinéasme. I miss themes such as history (film history
being the exception), society, and social conflicts. I know what is ‘hip’ in
the younger Danish cultural circles, but I think that the Film Institute has a
public service obligation. It must include the special themes that dominate
here and now, but also include other material and thus have a broader
outlook.
“Before, there was a minimum of five-six films a month, where I thought to
myself: these I’ve just got to see. Now I am lucky if there is just one. It has to
be due to the fact that they stick to the canonized films – and rarely explore
the random areas where film history really starts to kick in! This is true of
both the thematic series and the director series, where there is plenty of
interest for those who don’t know anything about it beforehand, and that
is positive. But to those who know a little (or a lot) – there is not much to
show up for.
“Yesterday at the cinematheque there was absolutely no reason to be
enthusiastic. To begin with, there was a completely meaningless and
superficial presentation, then AnimEigo’s horrible DVD version of Lady
Snowblood on a screen that was too large, and a hopeless audience.
The small-talking cultural elite had luckily almost disappeared when an
otherwise very fine cinema print of Foxy Brown was subsequently shown.
Unfortunately, the film was – due to lack of frames and censoring cuts –
reduced to approximately 75 minutes.”
The problem with the cineaste audience, as is clear from the last quote, is
that it defines itself as underground, and thus seeks its identity by being in
opposition to the “small-talking cultural elite”.
“The cineaste-audience can complain for a long time about us not
presenting their favourite directors, and that they are not acknowledged.
But then when we do present them, we are accused of catering too much
to popular culture and that we haven’t understood anything after all. It is a
division that we must live with,” says Jean-François Rauger (Cinémathèque
Française).
A certain amount of scepticism can be detected at the cinematheques
over the value of audience questionnaires to the work of programming: “By
trying to meet the often contrasting audience expectations it is easy to ‘lose
oneself’,” says Alexander Horwath. “I am not much in favour of adjusting
the programme to fit whatever audience you expect to have. We prefer to
create an audience based on the programme we select.”
Ticket Prices and Memberships
According to Catherine Gautier from the Filmoteca Española, “It is important
to maintain that cinematheques remain places where you can watch films
21 Journal of Film Preservation / 81 / 2009