As a rule growing up for someone like myself who lived off of old movies, if you rented a video and it started with this logo, you knew you were in for a troublesome experience:
Goodtimes Home Video...the king of public domain and obscure home video releases at cheap quality rates. From the KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park TV special to clip videos such as A Tribute To Lucy and classic features such as Charade and Royal Wedding, Goodtimes was one of those home video companies that always made me scratch my head and wonder how they always stuck around. Their transfers were usually analog from old analog video sources from old public domain prints. Every Goodtimes VHS I have seen has been recorded on LP mode. Most tapes are recorded on SP mode, which allow 2 hours of program on an average size cassette, allowing for superior video quality. By recording in LP mode, which allows 4 hours of program, about half of the amount of physical tape needs to be used. This had its downfalls. It meant low frequency sound and a much softer image, not to mention thick lines during seek mode on your VCR that made it difficult to scan through. Also, LP tapes have a higher rate of video dropout.
Through 2007, when the company finally folded, Goodtimes seemed to nudge its way into the DVD era, by releasing their older titles on DVD using the same video sources they used for their VHS. I was taken aback the other day when I went to the public library and decided to rent an old film for the evening. There on the rack was the DVD of "Royal Wedding", a public domain film that every video company and their Nanna has tried to release. Official releases from MGM exist as well, but the film is commonly seen on internet streaming sites, public television, VHS and DVD because anyone has the right to profit from it. I saw the Goodtimes Home Video logo before I saw anything else and decided that I was going to tolerate whatever transfer I received as it was a free rental. There on the front cover though, my friends, were the words used so liberally: Digitally Restored. "This I have to see" I told myself and popped it into my machine the minute I got home. Before the feature even started came a white text on black background disclaimer, and I'm paraphrasing here: "This film has been restored using the best possible elements."
The first frame came on, and my inner voice flipped into Claire Huxtable sternly saying "What have you done?" to the makers of this DVD. Spending many years in the film and video archive world, I have been able to identify analog video sources based on grain pattern, dropout quality, and video overhead quality. What I was seeing, based on the video line on the right and the grain pattern of the image, appeared to be a DVD of a D2 of a 1" C video source. The 1" soundtrack had not been calibrated before being transferred to the D2 and the result was a lot of pops and clicks on the DVD. Now I have not seen the official DVD of this film, but SURELY there exists a better "element" of the film than a D2 or 1". This is what we were looking at:
This opens my third eye. I don't mind people releasing films on home video and them being sub par quality if there are other versions available. If you can make a buck, and there are people willing to pay a few bucks as opposed to more than 10, go for it! But why lie? Blatantly, at that. Nothing was digitally restored for this film. There wasn't a computer used to color correct the image. Scratches weren't removed, the soundtrack wasn't cleaned. What exactly was done to fix this? And on top of that, why is the company claiming that they used the 'best elements' for this, as if it had accomplished some great feat by releasing a D2 of a public domain film on DVD!!! The people who would buy a film like this would know when they are being fed a bowl of doo-doo in the form of a home video. Shame on you Goodtimes Home Video! It's no wonder you folded!!!
This last week, after getting my finances in order, I opted to bring the Netflix Watch Instantly plan back into my life. I had gotten rid of it about three years ago as at the time, the plan offered was less than what one would desire. The features included on the plan were very limited. I remember a friend of mine and I flipping through the films offered and having a hard time finding one that seemed remotely interesting. The films would come and go from the plan so quickly that by the time you were finally interested in watching a film, it had vanished and you had to order the disc. Films were taken from the cheapest available elements. For a film like "Charade", while the disc was a transfer from Criterion, restored in vibrant color and offered in its 1.85:1 aspect ratio, the watch instant plan was taken from the Goodtimes DVD, a crappy 1" of a crappy 16mm print that was spliced to hell, pan and scan, and had horrible video overhead on the side. Aspect ratios were completely unacceptable on other films as well. Due to a merger, a lot of the titles distributed came from Starz' catalog. So, if I wanted to watch Pulp Fiction, I would be watching it in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio as opposed to its original 2.35:1.
Time heals all wounds, and after hearing the site had cleaned up its act, I decided to rekindle the relationship. This is true and it has been a happy week for the two of us. We have laughed, cried, talked about memories, and shared many a film or tv episode with a glass of Fresca. I was also in the minority of people whom are still opting to get discs vs. watch streaming. Statistics are showing that now that bandwidth is increasing and it is easier for titles in HD to stream flawlessly, people prefer to rent titles online instead of visiting a local video store or order discs from Netflix. Most Blockbusters have closed, and laptops don't even include a DVD-R drive anymore. We have started to move into a discless generation where everything is ordered, screened, and paid for with the touch of a button. But this does not come without its limitations.
There is so much we are missing from watching a program on stream instead of getting a disc. The restorations screened may be great, but the same options available have now become a thing of the past. For example, if you have been following my blog, you may have read how when I can, I try to watch a title with the original sound mix vs. the upmix as I don't have surround sound in my apartment and enjoy the original mix quality better. Watching a film streaming no longer gives you this option. Whatever sound mix has been chosen is the one you are forced to watch the film with. There are other limitations. Audio commentary-- gone. Making of features-- gone. Deleted scenes-- gone. Music only tracks-- gone. Trailers....well these aren't gone, you can still watch them on Youtube, but you get my point. Not to mention, there is a bit of compression that comes with these streaming videos. Studying the quality as meticulously as a reviewer like myself does now is a thing of the past. The hard meticulous work that studios put into film to video transfers is almost worthless now, as no one is buying the discs that show off the work. The studios might as well lease out the older D1 transfers of the films instead of the newer HD transfers considering the image quality won't be making much of a difference by the time the compressed video with whatever demonic video proxy being used hits your laptop, wireless DVD player, or gaming system.
To wrap this up, sure, I do recommend watching stuff streaming if you don't mind the shift in video quality. But I also encourage you to still opt for a disc from time to time to see the glory of the colors, grain, and high sound quality one gets with an uncompressed video disc. Not to mention, if you want to check out the special features, they still exist on the discs. The studios are still slapping them on DVDs and Blurays in hopes of people buying and renting them. Don't compromise for cheaper video quality if you don't want to. It may take an extra day, but your film experience will be worth it.
Signed,
The Celluloid Avenger
I encourage people to watch films streaming as the option is so much easier than waiting for the disc to arrive in the mail, dealing with skipping sections, etc.
When it comes to my list of favorite film openings, this one definitely takes the cake:
Labeled
as India's 'curry western', a take on the 'spaghetti westerns' from
Italy, Sholay was and is one of the biggest films ever to be released.
Beyond being India's second 70mm released film (Around the World was the
first), Sholay struck big at the box office. Thakur Singh, a retired
police officer, now lives in a provincial town with his widowed
daughter. The town lives under the regime of a forceful criminal, Gabbar
Singh, who takes all assets of the town at his disposal and murders
everyone who may threaten his ruling. Through, song, dance, comedy,
action, and drama-- the perfect blend for a Bollywood film, Sholay
delivers as a prime example of classic Indian Cinema. The film didn't
'explode' at the box office overnight though. According to magazines
from the time, people walked out during the first 20 minutes because of
the long action sequence that introduced the lead men. The audience
figured it was going to be another B action film. The people who stuck
around got to see that the film gets better as it progresses and word of
mouth spread. Not long after, the film grew in audience numbers and
soon was selling out for weeks to come.
The 70mm
grandeur didn't hurt things either, although the film wasn't shot on
70mm. In 1975, widescreen was still a fairly new concept in India. While
most foreign films that came into the country had adopted the process,
most Hindi films were still 1.37:1. Theaters were not about to all
switch over to a 2.20:1 format to exhibit a film either due to the
financial obligation this would require. So, to compensate, Sholay had
two aspect ratios. The film was shot on 35mm at 1.37:1 and printed to
35mm in this aspect ratio, and then it was cropped and blown up to
2.20:1 for the 70mm release. This started a new trend in Bollywood.
Because of the rich colors of the image used in Bollywod cinema, blowing
up the frame didn't create a jarring effect in regards to grain. If you
watch the opening sequence above, you can picture where the mattes
exist. Watching this film open matte, one can see that a lot of empty
space exists, especially above the heads of the characters. The film is
definitely framed for the widescreen format, with many medium shots
featuring 3 characters at a time in the frame. I have seen the film in
both aspect ratios and love it both ways.
In the early
1990s, evident from a trailer on an Eros VHS for Chamatkar (1993),
Sholay was rereleased in theaters. While its legacy lived on from this
rerelease, the legacy was not given the same treatment when it came to
home video. Various copies of various aspect ratios have made their way
to home video. The first VHS I remember seeing was from an open matte
print with French subtitles. This copy that circulated around the
bootleg home video market had some scenes cut and many video dropouts,
but was still rich in color and featured the theatrical ending. Eros
issued an official VHS and DVD of the film. Eros is notorious for taking
2.20:1 or 2.35:1 films and cropping them to 1.85:1 letterbox for
release. With Sholay, one would have thought they could have taken a
1.33:1 source and matted it if they wanted to go that way. Instead, they
took a 2.20 source and zoomed farther in to 1.85:1, making the film
barely watchable. Later, MoserBaer took a 1975 2.20:1 print (the year of
the element comes from the censor certificate at the beginning of the
film) and released it in non-anamorphic form on DVD. This print, while
pretty worn, does contain the film as it was meant to be seen in its
theatrical cut.
Sometime in the 1990s, with the advent of
cable tv, the film received a 'director's cut'. The film had its issues
with censors back in 1975 for being too violent and featuring an ending
that did not please the government (I'm not a spoiler, but if you
really want to know what the differences are, I'm sure IMDB can
accommodate). This original ending and some of the gore was reinstated
to bring the film up to 204 minutes. Of course, this version was
released as a 1.37:1 version. Because it has the highest image quality
and is distributed by Eros, who rule the international video market,
this is the most common seen version of the film. I'm not down with
that. For years, I have been searching for the theatrical cut of the
film in its widescreen aspect ratio-- the way people remember seeing it
in 1975 if they went to a 70mm screening. Which is the proper way to see
the film though? The film really only played in 70mm in a few cities.
The big 'crowd' that made the film what it was actually saw the film in
the 35mm square aspect ratio version. I can say this though, they did
NOT see a 204 minute cut of the film. That's a little too much Sholay
for my taste.
And now, of course, something else happens. Sholay has been released
in....wait for it...3D! 3D?! Yeah, that's right. 3D. I am sure it looks
as bad as it sounds, but this also means that a proper 2D release was
done. And it looks BEAUTIFUL! I am not for tampering with old films in
the form of gimmicks, but in this case it actually paid off. In order to
do a 3D conversion, a 2D high quality restoration needed to be done. I
am so happy and proud of the work that went into this. Sholay should be
seen and shared with future generations. It is a huge part of Indian
history. Not to mention, it is just a badass film. I anticipate the new
DVD of this release with great anticipation and hope that when it comes
out, you will do yourself a favor and pick it up:
Truth be told, you don't even have to hear the theme to know what you're in for when it pops up on Comedy Central. That opening text slate (which is usually a lot shorter on air-- I surmise that it is also used as a means of station identification) evokes emotion out of a lot of people. College students smile and know they're in for a good half hour of relaxation from studying. Parents jump up and change the channel before their son or daughter will be exposed to the filth that lies ahead. Middle school and high school kids know to do a 360 with their heads to make sure no adults around and turn down the TV so that no one will know what they are watching. This has been happening for 17 years, and yet, no matter how much it gets protested, feared, or critiqued, South Park lives on as a legacy of Comedy Central.
I was 13, the perfect age, when South Park hit TV. At that time, the idea of watching a show online was a pipe dream. We hadn't even mastered the MP3 download yet. So, to be able to brag that you got away with catching an episode of South Park meant that you were the COOLEST kid in school. If you could sit at the lunch table and intelligently discuss the events that occurred the night before, be it cattle killing themselves in a mass cult suicide or a hypnotic trip to the planetarium, you were obviously on a higher level than the average 7th grader. These first few seasons were incredibly crude and almost geared to preteens and teens who wanted good toilet humor. As the show progressed, it got more sophisticated and took on an entirely new tone. With this came a more general demographic. As the initial viewers matured, so did the show. Between seasons 4-10, South Park began dealing with important political and social issues, always ending with a moral of the day. The show never branded itself as liberal or conservative. Instead, it branded itself on having the opinion that had the most sense, and aimed to share it in the most cynical and crude way.
After season 10, the show began to jump the shark. Episodes became a little too strong in their political message, the humor became a little too crude, and it was hard for the show to find a demographic. However, a demographic was still apparent because it soars on. All of the episodes are now available to watch on an official website, www.southparkstudios.com, and yet the show still has high ratings on Comedy Central. I guess people still like being 'surprised' with which episode from the gigantic library the station now has as at its disposal will be chosen.
Now, to chime in on the archivist's point of view. While I love the ability to watch this show online, I do have an issue with the way it is presented. It wasn't until recently that the show switched from a 1.37:1 to 1.77:1 aspect ratio, to adjust for the more common HD TV format. The website opted to reformat the entire show to 1.77:1, from season 3 on. The remastered versions of the show do this from the pilot on. Sure, the show is construction cutouts (later changed to flash) that crudely move around the screen and I'm sure there's nothing cinematic about the show that could compare it to something such as Mad Men. However, I am a firm believer that aspect ratio should be left as presented. People watching the show today should see it as it was originally released. By altering this, the show gives off the impression that the show was always a widescreen show and cropped for initial showings when truth be told the opposite is true.
While we're on the subject, there is constant debate about how the vulgarity of the show should be handled. The rules of what can and cannot be said on television have definitely changed over the years. Still, there are certain words such as 'fuck' that are a total taboo and cannot be run on Comedy Central. The show had crude beeps in place of profanities, as did many shows back in the 1990s, and current showings on Comedy Central leave these in place. The website, however, opted to remove the bleeps and allow the profanity to be heard. In a way, this ruins the show for me. When Cartman says a naughty word , the profanity bleep makes the instance funnier, as it accentuates the fact that a word that an eight year old shouldn't know just came out of an eight year old's mouth. The film's release, of course, allowed the characters' use of profanity to remain intact, but following this, all airings of the show on Comedy Central still kept profanity censored. It adds something special to the show, and to allow the viewer to hear the characters cuss almost removes the humor of their lines.
I will close with this. While I nitpick, I am eternally grateful for www.southparkstudios.com for releasing these shows for free to the public. This show should be seen by people of a variety of ages, disgusting as it may be. The humor is timeless, and the creators' (Matt Stone and Trey Parker, respectively) bravery to push the envelope every week have made this show a classic on American TV. I hope, years from now, people will see this show for what it is, and the reruns on old tv stations will do what shows like All in the Family do for audiences today.
A few months ago, a good chum lent me the Meet Me in St. Louis Bluray, which if anyone hasn't seen yet, is a definite must-- there are many debates about the quality of the transfer as compared to the quality of an original Technicolor print, but overall it is a great Hi Def video release in my opinion. I was a little sad to see that there weren't any new special features added to the release from the previous DVD a decade earlier. I was even more angry about the sound mixes however. When released on Standard Def DVD a decade earlier, the DVD offered two choices, either a restored mono track, or a 5.1 upmix. The new Bluray only offers the 5.1 upmix as an option.
Let's get technical for a minute for those who don't know what I am talking about. A film such as Meet Me in St. Louis came out in the 1940s when all films were mono, meaning that theaters only had the option of showing the film with one composite track. Even if a theater had two speakers, the same information would be passed out of the left and right speaker. With a 5.1 upmix for home viewing, the manufacturers have made it so that the sound will be passed out of 6 speakers (subwoofer included) and have the sound separated so different information is coming out of each speaker. While post production houses and studio restoration departments that work with old films claim to do this as discreetly as possible, it does still cause an issue. By altering the sound in such a fashion, the film is being tainted. Making such decisions are altering how the film was originally viewed. How is it possible for us as an industry that sets forth to release old films to new audiences to argue for this technique? I feel, personal opinion of course, that anyone who supports the upmixing of old films for home video release and then reprimands the acts of colorization or cropping a fullscreen film to widescreen is a hypocrite. The act of altering the sound in such a fashion is just as abominating in regards to what we stand for as film historians and preservationists and should be stopped.
Several years ago, I attended a screening at a conference. I can't name the city, year, studio, or film that I saw but remember these details well and will carry them to my grave. The head restorer of the project gave a lengthy but wonderful lecture about how the film had switched studios over the years and in order to restore this 1930s film to the way it was originally scene, a title card had been found and carefully added back into the film, while taking heed to how it fit with the score's timing of opening credits. The film started and I noticed that there were several 'layers' in the soundtrack. Uneasy, I was beginning to wonder if what I was hearing was the original mono track to the film. I shrugged it off, however, as I figured that no one would go so far as to present a film and take the time to explain how a 3 second title card had been restored and then go forward to alter the soundtrack of the film. Eventually, as a tree fell in the middle of a scene, I heard the track move from the front right speaker, around the back, and swoosh to the front left speaker. Turning my head around to follow the sound and recreating an image of Reagan spinning her head in The Exorcist I said to myself "WOAH! THAT'S NOT MONO!" I was livid, to say the least. The audience present was a group of film historians and archivists. If a sound mix was to be chosen for such a screening, it should have been a restored mono.
Going back to Meet Me In St. Louis, my anger lies in the fact that an audience should be given an option to hear an original mix or a 5.1 mix, as was the case with the original DVD release of Meet Me in St. Louis. Obviously the restored mono existed, was well received by consumers, and could have easily been included as an option on the new release. By taking away the option and forcing us to listen to the new upmix, we as consumers are being treated like children who must be taught to be grateful for what is presented to us. It is as if I went to an ice cream parlor, knew that chocolate and vanilla were available, was given chocolate instead of vanilla when I wanted the latter, and when I asked why had a finger shaken at me and was told, 'you get what you get, and you don't get upset'.
I am sure that the upmix for this film sounded beautiful, I am not arguing that-- although I will always question the integrity of it. More frustration lies in the fact that I couldn't hear it. Who buys old films on DVD and Bluray? Let's look at our demographic. Yes, there are film scholars who have a prestigious home theater setup with a sound system that can interpret the channel separation of such an upmix. But that is only a percentage of the demographic. Many home viewers are like myself. They have two speakers on their television or attached to a receiver that take this upmix and cast it out as a 2 channel Lt/Rt fold down. It is obvious that the people who headed this restoration did not keep us in mind and QC the Lt/Rt fold down of this upmix. If they had, there is no way they would have released it. Not only do the levels jump from incredibly quiet to booming loud, but the levels of M&E overtook the dialogue in several instances.
Before a side is taken on upmixing or not, one more argument should be presented. Altering sound has been a part of home video for a long time, and I know this. Before we were tinkering with upmixing, sound would be compressed before it was released on television and VHS so that the louder levels wouldn't contrast as much with the quieter ones as they would in a theater setting. So if tampering with sound has been a part of releasing these films to the home market as a staple, does this give restorers the right to upmix since the sound would have been tampered anyway? Food for thought.
If you've visited the Smithsonian, you've seen the chair. If you've watched That's 70s Show or The Simpsons, you've seen the parody, and if you've tuned into any syndication channel, you've seen and heard the familiar theme song:
All in the Family will go down as one of the most important and influential shows of TV history. For nine seasons, CBS brought the Bunkers into our living rooms. Archie, the patriarch, was a working class middle aged republican who supported the war, hated diversity, and got a little confused when paraphrasing his great American quotes. Edith, his wife, was a mousey homey "dingbat", as Archie called her, who believed in serving her husband and family, but spoke up wisely when she saw something unjust. Gloria, their daughter, was a feminist who believed in the future of our children through demonstration and outspoken reaction. Her husband, Mike, was as far left as they come. Together, they brought issues to television that no one before dared.
Starting in 1969, CBS went through what was referred to as the "Rural Purge", cancelling any shows that portrayed middle American life, to appeal to a younger demographic who desired to see shows about the more hip metropolitan areas of the time. Unfortunately, this meant that most family plot shows were tossed aside as well. All in the Family revived the family sitcom by tossing aside issues such as Beaver being jealous that Wally was hanging out with girls, or Opie stealing a candy bar from the drug store. Instead, it dealt with more raw family problems, such as a draft dodger being invited to dinner, or Gloria being sexually assaulted and the family debating on whether or not to report it, but doing it with a flawless mix of drama and humor. This is the true success of the show. The performances are unlike anything one will ever see on TV again. Never in my life before or since have I laughed uncontrollably and started sobbing in the same breath because of the way an actor changed a climate from one line to the next. I don't tend to get emotional when watching a film or TV show, but every 4th episode or so of this series will somehow get me because of the powerful way it is written and the way the script is carried out in the performance.
There is another element that helps evoke emotion in me with this show-- the help of the studio audience. Prior to All in the Family, the 3 camera live audience sitcom had been on hiatus. Series were employing the process of shooting shows with a single camera and using a laugh box during the jokes. Tests found that audiences reacted better to a show if there was laughter on the soundtrack, which encouraged them to laugh along. Although many shows after All in the Family, which was also the first show to utilize videotape for the three camera process as a means of saving money, were 'filmed in front of a studio audience', most of them tended to be sweetened by the laugh track, meaning additional canned laughter would be utilized where the audience didn't laugh as hard as one would expect. If you watch DVDs of shows like Gimme a Break or Roseanne, you can hear the difference in quality of the studio laughter and canned laughter now that it has been digitally remastered.
All in the Family did not do this. Norman Lear has gone on record several times to say that the show was not sweetened and that the audience reactions were accurate to the taping. In the final season, when the show was taped on a closed set, a videotape of the show would be broadcast to audience members attending tapings of One Day at a Time, and these reactions would be added onto the soundtrack of the final product...still not sweetened. The omission of canned laughter is only the tip of the iceberg in regards to how this affected the quality of the show. Microphones placed above the audience record all reactions, giving it a more genuine feel. For three camera live audience sitcoms, there are two 'fourth walls', the one between the live audience and the actors on stage, and the one between the viewer at home and the live audience. The latter wall I mentioned is immediately shattered by Lear's choice of recording all reactions to this show. If an audience members shuffles uncomfortably when Archie is screaming about his support for the war in a dramatic moment, or someone lets out an inappropriate small chuckle at what they might perceive was a joke during a mood change of a scene, the microphones pick this up and bring it into our living rooms. So, when sitcoms today choose not to record laugh tracks in order to allow the home viewer to decide if a joke is funny or not, I feel that this is choice by Lear is comparative. It brings the viewer closer to the action as opposed to dictating when to laugh or not laugh. There is one known instance of when the laughter of a taping had to be edited: the Sammy Davis Jr. episode. Davis, playing himself, comes to Archie's home. Archie is excited to meet him but is still not shy about sharing his feelings about African Americans or the Jewish race with Davis. At the end, while posing for a picture, Davis kisses his cheek, and Archie is confused on whether he is delighted or disgusted.
The laughter went on so long that there was no choice but to edit it down. To me, it is one of the funniest moments ever to hit television.
I love this show and am so glad that it is on DVD (some episodes transferred better than others) for all to watch. Many episodes have hit Youtube recently, and I encourage everyone to check it out!
Tonight, my partner is coming back from work, and I have a special evening planned for us. A meal of oven grilled kabobs, and a screening of the oh so tawdry film, Heavenly Bodies (1984). Heavenly Bodies is a campy cult classic about an aerobics studio that is in danger of being shut down by a larger competitor. In order to keep its studio space, an aerobics-off is chosen...last man standing from the representing competitor gets to keep the studio space to use for their business. Here's a beautiful dance number featuring the music of Bonnie Pointer:
I wish I had this film on an official DVD. Luckily, the DVD I made came from a pristine VHS that had hardly been touched since its issue in 1985, as released by Key Video. The VHS has an incredible Hi-Fi track, as well as mono, so although the DVD is pan and scan, the analog quality from the VHS does not ruin the viewing experience. Still, seeing it in its original aspect ratio and digitally mastered (in 1985, VHS weren't even digitally mastered yet, and this probably came from a 1" source) would make Heavenly Bodies more Heavenly!!!
I wanted to do a quick writeup on this issue because it is one that affected me regularly when I was working at the Sundance Institute. Many people are under the assumption that because a film was once released by a large studio or has been put out on home video that the film is archived and safe. Luckily, this film has seen a Turner Classic Movies broadcast in widescreen, which means that the elements of the film are probably still around, and that a decent master on a newer format must exist somewhere, but that isn't the case for a lot of films.
Heavenly Bodies was produced by several independent companies, Playboy Enterprises for one, and was originally released in Canada. MGM/UA released the film theatrically in 1985, and the home video distribution rights, as I mentioned, were handled by Key Video. Key Video is no longer around, and the theatrical rights to films not made by large studios usually run out over time. When I was at Sundance, dealing with this on a daily basis was the most difficult part of my job. I would call filmmakers, asking them for information on their films that ran in the festival. They would tell me the same story every time. A studio handled the theatrical rights for a few years, another studio handled the video rights, and both contracts had expired. After expiration, they never contacted the filmmaker to tell them where the elements were or bothered to tell them how much was owed to the lab that was storing the film elements. The lab refused to return the elements to the filmmaker unless the lab storage fee was paid, and threatened to destroy the elements to the film. These weren't films that were all that old either, many of them were 15-20 years old and were remembered by large audiences-- some even got DVD releases and were now falling apart in a lab. Other times, the filmmaker would hold the original elements in an environment that was not ideal for the film, such as rental storage or in a New England basement. In many ways this was the big shock to me about the film archive world. Physically saving the elements wasn't the hardest part. Going through the negotiations to start the process was much more difficult.
Sadly, unless the rights of Heavenly Bodies are renewed with the same or another distribution company, it may never hit DVD, and this is the truth for many films. Far too much has been lost because of the negligence of filmmakers, studios, and labs-- not knowing where things are, who owes who money, or not caring whether the film survives beyond a rare VHS at a video store that never threw it away. Lucky for Heavenly Bodies, there is a huge cult following and prints are still circulating at vintage theaters such as the Cinefamily and Nuart. It is time that we as an industry remember that there are still so many films that need to be given access to audiences. Audiences do not need to see another restoration of Casablanca or Citizen Kane...keeping the current home video releases in print will suffice. Films like Heavenly Bodies do not need a 5.1 upmix and a meticulous restoration for Bluray. They just need to have a barebones transfer that looks slightly better than their VHS counterparts and put on an accessible format so that the lovers of that film, no matter how large or small, can share its memories. When we as a society decided that film archiving was important, we carried a motto that sharing the culture and history of a specific time and space needed to be attended to in regards to the moving image form. As I hear that some films have gotten their 4th or 5th DVD release in the last 15 years and films like this have been brushed aside because they are not guaranteed to make the same profit, I worry that our motto as a field has begun to vanish. I ask you, who wouldn't want to rent or buy this charming gem?
