Board moves

The only-25-per-year limit of movies that can be added to the National Film Registry is an integral part of the excitement/frustration cinephiles feel on the unveiling of the list at the end of the year. The all-too-human compulsion to speculate on the motives and politics of the Registry's board was particularly strong in this observer as he looked over this year's selections. Forrest Gump, huh?  Well, score one for Dave Kehr, the board's representative for the National Society of Film Critics, both an outspoken Gump booster and general Zemeckis defender. On the other hand...here's Silence of the Lambs, the film that I believe ruined Demme for Kehr (the critic had once nursed hopes that the director could have become the American Renoir). I can just see the maneuvering going on around the table...well, no, actually I can't. But still. In any event, one of the more exciting pictures on the list is Otto Preminger's 1959 Porgy and Bess, a picture that's been almost impossible to see in any halfway decent presentation for pretty much...well, for pretty much the length of my own movie-going life, something a couple of hairs over four decades. (A couple years back I sprung for something along the lines of a bootleg German DVD of the film...I know, I'm completely anti-bootleg, but forgive me Lord, I was weak. In any event, it's completely worthless, unwatchable.) I'm not near my reference library at the moment, but from what I can recall the availability of the film for screening or video release has been pretty much sat upon, since not very long after the film's theatrical release, by the Gershwin estate. Now selection into the Registry means something more than just a sort of critical seal of approval from a government agency. No, it dictates that the film be "preserved as [a] cultural, artistic and historical [treasure] in the [...] Registry of The Library of Congress." In the case of a relatively recent and well-disseminated picture such as, say, Gump and/or Lambs, that's not such a huge deal to achieve. For something like Porgy and Bess—not to mention other obscure-to-the-general-public pictures such as A Cure For Pokeritis and The Cry of the Children, both made in 1912, George Kuchar's 1977 I, An Actress, and even Cassavetes' 1968 Faces—it's a different matter, and "preservation" might also entail restoration. Does this mean a rep-house revival of Porgy and Bess, complete with an eventual Blu-ray release? Not necessarily. But by naming the film to the Registry, its board is, in a sense, forcing the issue in a particular way. It will be interesting and hopefully gratifying to see what results from this gambit.  

UPDATE: The always gracious and informative Mr. Kehr clears up a bunch of things for us in the comments section, like so. 

Comments

[Oliver_C]

Wasn't 'Porgy and Bess' 1954 not 1959, and wasn't it Saul Bass' first ever title sequence? (The new Bass biography, fully annotated and illustrated, is both weighty and worthy.)

Also, Thumper thumps the forest floor with glee at 'Bambi' being chosen for the Film Registry.

[weatherspoon]

I guess The Iron Horse is the more "important" film, but I would have far preferred to see 3 Bad Men get the nod. It's every bit Horse's equal in terms of silent film craft, and it's a wayyy better John Ford movie.

Very pleased to see the Belson and Kuchar and Cassavetes. Still need to see Porgy and Bess.

[Pete Apruzzese]

I remember channel 11 in New York ran this one back in the 70s. It played at the Ziegfeld back in 2007 via special arrangement with Goldwyn and the Gershwin estate, so perhaps there's a chance it will see the light of day again.

[intheblanks]

@Oliver_C That's Carmen Jones you're thinking of, also by Preminger, also with Dorothy Dandridge, and, for what it's worth, also on the National Film Registry

[jbryant]

Been awhile since I read anything on the subject, but isn't it the Gershwin estate that's keeping PORGY AND BESS out of circulation? It will be interesting to see if the Registry's decision has any effect on this.

Re GUMP, LAMBS, etc.: I never quite get the reasoning for including anything that recent, considering the vast number of older films more in need of restoration and attention. I realize that all films are ultimately in danger of neglect, but I doubt that Best Picture Oscar winners from the '90s have much to worry about.

[Oliver_C]

Whoops, thanks intheblanks...

[James Keepnews]

Right, jb? As I snark on my Facebook page, when is the LOC finally going to preserve those Twilight films, before the vanish from our cultural radar once and for all? Meantime, a short list of works that might, just maybe, be considered worthy of recognition, to say nothing of restoration: Ganja & Hess (actually, Mr. Gunn's Stop! even moreso, but inasmuch as politics is the art of the possible...), The World's Greatest Sinner, Wavelength, Cocksucker Blues, Born in Flames, I dunno, Deathwatch, & cetera.

What's that? You say you have a list or two of your own?

[edo]

Jeez. It's not as if by not choosing, say WAVELENGTH, the Registry board is sending some sort of implicit message that they don't find it worthy of recognition. It's not really up to them what's in the pool in the first place.

[James Keepnews]

Alternatively, by not selecting Wavelength, the National Film Preservation Board is explicitly suggesting Gump plainly deserves firsties.

[Bruce Reid]

Fair enough complaint in general, James Keepnews, but wouldn't Wavelength be the responsibility of the Canadian government?

[James Keepnews]

BR -- No more, I shouldn't think, than Cocksucker Blues. Or, for that matter, New York Eye and Ear Control ("That's another one for the fire..." -- at least Night's on there...).

Which is to say, I reckon: maybe, and point taken. As I hope mine is, as well.

[edo]

JK, every year the board has to choose 25 films out of a couple thousand suggestions. I don't think their choices suggest much of anything except the result of working under quite hefty constraints. It seems really silly, let alone somewhat presumptuous and pompous, to be fussing over their selections. It's not as if they exclusively chose mainstream classics (they chose, um, two), neglected experimental cinema altogether, or gave pride of place to a specific period. I'd be right with you if they had.

[jbryant]

Dave Kehr just mentioned on his blog that the issues with the Gershwin estate have been resolved, theoretically paving the way for a PORGY AND BESS restoration and home vid release.

edo: I don't see what's so silly about fussing over certain Registry selections. I admit I haven't checked the criteria for their choices, but it seems to me that if they're going to include films made in the last 20 years or so, they should choose those that seem to be in some danger of slipping through the cracks as time goes by (independent releases, acclaimed flops, unreleased gems, etc.), rather than highly successful corporate product that is presumably already being well preserved.

[James Keepnews]

Silly, presumptuous and pompous as it may (or may not) seem to say so, recognition of non-mainstream fare in National Film Registry selections past hardly addresses their exclusion subsequently/year-to-year. More to my point, the pressing need to recognize films like Silence or Gump over so much other work that cry out for the sort of literally restorative capacity such recognition confers -- and esp. when you only have 25 selectable slots -- completely eludes me.

[edo]

JK, in selections past? How about in the present selection? There's plenty here that you can consider out of the mainstream. In fact, if you define mainstream in terms of what is or is not in the broader public consciousness at present, most of it is non-mainstream. I think your self-professed snark is somewhat presumptuous and pompous, because it comes off as if you're ignoring the fact that a lot of deliberation goes into making that list, and, moreover, that many of the people who have input in the process are people who care very deeply about the dire situation of independent cinema just as much as you or I - people like Dave. Meanwhile, to hear you comment on it, it sounds as if the selection were just an exercise in Hollywood kowtowing. That's just not the case. If you look back through the Registry selections since its inception in 1989, you'll find that nearly every year they have selected titles that are inarguably "non-mainstream".

[Michael Worrall]

Mr. Keepnews and jbryant:

Do not both of you post on Dave Kehr's blog? Why not ask the man himself? If memory serves me right, in the past Dave asked the contributors on a_film_by and on his own blog to list American avant-garde films so that he could compile a list to bring to the attention of the National Film Registry. I suspect that Dave was being modest in playing down his knowledge of American avant-garde film.

jbryant: Maybe the major studios have changed their film preservation policies, but the negative of one of Universal's cash cows, JAWS, was in pretty bad shape awhile back from what I read.

[James Keepnews]

edo, I misread your comment, which is where my "subsequently/year-to-year" statement comes from, so my apologies. And certainly there's a fair bit of "non-mainstream" fare on this year's list (Zut! Allures!). However, much as you suggest non-selection need not be perceived as ultimate rejection, it frankly seems, yes, silly and preposterous if not pompous to insist that because so much deliberation goes into the Registry choices, one shouldn't be criticizing them -- excuse me, "fussing over" them. Aren't blog comments as much about such critique as they are about +1-ing?

And Silence is an almost perfect exempli gratia in this regard -- does it really deserve the recognition/Registration that Citizen Band and Melvin and Howard do not?

[edo]

JK, from my perspective, all films, as films, are deserving. As Michael has just pointed out, there are plenty of cases where even mainstream titles are in dire need of preservation. Up until the mid-nineties the negatives of the STAR WARS films were in pretty awful condition for instance (hence the special editions). Moreover, there are people out there who do value GUMP and LAMBS very much, as much as you or I value something like WAVELENGTH. Trite as it may sound, I do actually think that matters a great deal.

In any case, I didn't at all say, or mean to suggest, that one shouldn't criticize the Registry selections, simply *because* of the deliberation that goes into them. I said that you speak with such certainty about the matter that it sounds as if you're discounting that process of deliberation entirely, and more specifically discounting the very notion that some of the folks who participate in it, such as Dave or Martin Scorsese, might take into account all that's at stake in the choices they make.

I just don't believe that choosing films for the registry is as simple a matter as you seem to think it is...

[intheblanks]

I think the criticism of specific picks is fine, but the criticism of the board including recent mainstream hits is misguided. It seems to assume that what the National Film Registry does exists in a vacuum. This is a government-funded agency, and given the political culture we live in, there are going to be safe picks on it.

From a cynical perspective, I imagine including recent mainstream picks (a) brings good press and attention to the National Film Registry, which puts it in a better position to fulfill its mission in the future; and (b) prevents it from becoming the subject of anti-government demagoguery.

From a far less cynical perspective, like it or not, these films are a lasting part of our national film culture, and there is probably nothing wrong with recognizing them as such.

[jbryant]

Micheal: I don't feel like doing any homework. :) I do know that the list is only intended to celebrate the diversity of American film and spread the good word for preservation. It's not a list of films deemed to be in actual need of preservation. Inclusion is only contingent on the board finding a film to be "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." So of course there are bound to be many disagreements about whether individual films meet those criteris.

I suspect much of what intheblanks says above is on the mark. A list made entirely of obscurities, oldies and esoterica would have limited value in promoting the overall mission. If including films from the last ten to twenty years makes someone realize that preservation is an ongoing issue, then cool. Within that time range, just about any choice would be controversial, for one reason or another, so I'm not going to write my congressman or anything. But I still see no problem with fussing over the choices. That comes with the territory of listmaking. :)

[jbryant]

Oof. This English major wishes there were an edit function here. I wish I were more like David Ehrenstein, who accepts that typos are a part of life and just moves on. :)

[Dave Kehr]

Actually, Glenn, no maneuvering at all was involved – I was as surprised to see “Forrest Gump” on the list as you were, though it is a film that I (and many other people) have suggested in the past. There are a couple of misconceptions at work in the comments above that I should probably try to clear up: James L. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, makes the choices for the list on his own; the members of the board (a full list can be found at http://www.loc.gov/film/index.html) are only advisors, who propose and discuss films at an annual meeting, usually in the fall. There are always a few titles on the list that are completely new to me, presumably having been proposed by members of Dr. Billington’s staff, such as this year’s selection of the John Bunny film (“A Cure for Pokeritis”) and the 1912 “social problem” film “The Cry of the Children.”

I hope you’ll agree that neither of those silent films are exactly highly commercial, popular choices – and neither are the avant-garde films “Allures” by Jordan Belson, “Fake Fruit Factory” by Chick Strand, and “I, an Actress” by George Kuchar, all of which were proposed by the avant-garde subcommittee, of which I am a member. “Wavelength,” being a Canadian film, isn’t eligible for inclusion, but you will find “Dog Star Man,” “Eaux d’Artifice,” “Fuji,” “Meshes of the Afternoon,” “Our Lady of the Sphere,” “Reminiscences of a Journey to Lithuania,” “Serene Velocity” and several other equally “difficult” films on the list.

If anything, the sense we’ve been getting from the Librarian is that he wants more non-mainstream, non-fictional, non-Hollywood films, and there are quite a few of those on the list this year, including Robert Drew’s “Crisis,” Julia Reichert and Jim Klein’s “Growing Up Female,” and the Nicholas Brothers’ home movies (an amazing collection of footage, brought to the Librarian’s attention by Bruce Goldstein of Film Forum). There is still a lot of work outside of Hollywood to be taken note of, as well as quite a bit of non-Oscar, non-star Hollywood to be recognized, but not everything can go on at once. There is, of course, a need to offer the occasional title that will be recognized by the general public – otherwise, I doubt that the list would receive the publicity that it does, which is very helpful in maintaining public consciousness of the need for film preservation. Even you, Glenn, decided to lead your coverage with “Gump” and “Lambs” rather than “A Computer Animated Hand.” That’s just good, sensible journalism.

The other misconception is that actual preservation work is involved. Alas, this is not true: although the Librarian is authorized to request archival copies of the films from their owners, there is no money or lab work involved. The honor, I’m afraid, is strictly honorary, though the board’s public-private relative, the National Film Preservation Foundation (http://www.filmpreservation.org) does distribute federal funds gathered by the Library of Congress and preservation services donated by public-spirited labs and post houses.

In any case, almost all of the films named to the list have already been preserved, and I can personally assure James Keepnews that there is no danger of the “Twilight” films draining funding from independent and public domain titles. If you’ll look at the list of films preserved annually through the NFPF (last year’s report can be downloaded at http://www.filmpreservation.org/userfiles/image/PDFs/nfpf_ar2010.pdf), you’ll find very little funding going toward sound narrative features, and quite a bit going to avant-garde films, regional documentaries, educational films, home movies and suchlike.

If anyone has any other questions, please drop me a line at my blog, www.davekehr.com, and I’ll do my best to answer them.

[James Keepnews]

Color my face snark red...

Yes, well, just passing along that one Facebook comment in one reply to one blog comment certainly took this discussion in a direction I never intended -- a sobering lesson for us all, or me. But I greatly appreciate Mr. Kehr's generous and revealing detailing of what goes on behind the scenes within this institution, quite apart from the work involved in putting together the annual list of 25 films alone. It's dispiriting if not so surprising to discover that an organization named the National Film Preservation Board is not involved in any preservation per se, mindful the legislation that has shaped the NFPB never mandates any, beyond general calls for "close coordination" with the Library of Congress' archival mission and/or "other appropriate nonprofit archival and preservation organizations.": http://www.loc.gov/film/filmabou.html

And I guess now's as good a time as any to clearly state that I believe choosing the next 25 to be added to pretty much the only official canon of American cinema every year must be an extraordinary difficult task (and, incidentally, bloody well should be). I never meant to suggest otherwise, and I apologize if anyone thought I did, or thought I otherwise disrespected the effort or the role. Nor do I think popular American films of the last 20 years should be excluded from consideration. If ANYTHING, all I wanted to do here was compare lists of films with other passionate cinephiliacs that might be considered worthy of inclusion if as yet unrecognized. That could still happen...c-couldn't it?

[Cadavra]

Maybe it's time to rethink the idea of one man making all the decisions. Personal bias is the only possible reason why the likes of RIO BRAVO and MAD MAD WORLD continue to languish on the sidelines while recent BP Oscar winners win a free pass.

[Michael Worrall]

Jbryant wrote: "I do know that the list is only intended to celebrate the diversity of American film and spread the good word for preservation."

Then I do not quite understand your prior comment on the National Film Registry that read: "but it seems to me that if they're going to include films made in the last 20 years or so, they should choose those that seem to be in some danger of slipping through the cracks as time goes by (independent releases, acclaimed flops, unreleased gems, etc.), rather than highly successful corporate product that is presumably already being well preserved."

It appeared to me that you were criticizing the Registry for selecting films that you presumed were being well preserved by the major studios; although the state of the negatives of JAWS and the STAR WARS trilogy appear to indicate otherwise.

[Michael Worrall]

(correction)

Jbryant wrote: "I do know that the list is only intended to celebrate the diversity of American film and spread the good word for preservation. It's not a list of films deemed to be in actual need of preservation. Inclusion is only contingent on the board finding a film to be "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

If you knew the above, prior to Dave Kehr's post, then I do not quite understand your prior comment on the National Film Registry that read: "but it seems to me that if they're going to include films made in the last 20 years or so, they should choose those that seem to be in some danger of slipping through the cracks as time goes by (independent releases, acclaimed flops, unreleased gems, etc.), rather than highly successful corporate product that is presumably already being well preserved."

It appeared to me that you were criticizing the Registry for selecting films that you presumed were being well preserved by the major studios; although the state of the negatives of JAWS and the STAR WARS trilogy appear to indicate otherwise.

[jbryant]

Michael: I don't see how I contradicted myself. One can understand the Registry's (or Billington's) mandate (celebrate diversity, advocate preservation) and still quibble with his choices. I don't what the studios' current preservation policies are, but I would hope they've improved since the mid-70s when the original JAWS and STAR WARS prints were struck. If they haven't, then sure, keep adding recent titles. I did back off a little after intheblank's post and admitted that the more recent titles may help the public realize that preservation is an ongoing issue, meaning that we shouldn't assume there's no danger of recent and current films ever needing preservation efforts. Even after reading all this back and forth, I still lean toward prioritizing older films unless research reveals that, say, GUMP's or LAMB's negative is in danger. I don't know if that's part of Billington's research when he's making his decision, but it seems like maybe it should be.