Upcoming
November 14
A Christmas Tale
B.O.H.I.C.A.
House of the Sleeping Beauties
How About You
November 21
The Betrayal
November 30
Sussing The Execs
Lamenting the destruction of numerous 35-millimeter theatrical prints of classic films in last week's Universal Studios fire, UCLA film professor Ron Kuntz has written in a N.Y. Times 6.7.08 op-ed piece that Universal "has already canceled screenings of Rear Window and Howard Hawks' Scarface for the U.C.L.A. film history class I teach, along with all their other titles for the indefinite future.
Kuntz says he hopes this disaster "will prompt Universal and its fellow majors to better preserve not just key titles like Duck Soup, Dracula or Vertigo -- which will surely be reprinted and return to circulation -- but also the other 90 percent of their inventories, the less famous and therefore more vulnerable titles that the studio may not feel justify spending thousands to save. These are exquisite samples of 20th-century American culture and deserve to always be seen in their extravagant, sensual, big-screen glory."
Of course, Kuntz wrote the article and the Times ran it precisely because they don't believe -- no one does -- that Universal execs will make a concerted full-boat effort any time soon to replace the destroyed prints, and certainly not the less-well-known ones.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 7, 2008 at 9:14 AM
comment #1
corey3rd
says ...
break out the DVDs.
Although it is weird that UCLA wouldn't have Rear Window in the vault. This guy must have zero connections to not be able to find a print of Rear Window to project.
Posted by corey3rd
at June 7, 2008 10:24 AM
comment #2
corey3rd
says ...
also Kuntz needs to get a few points deducted for using "The Wolfman" instead of the proper title "The Wolf Man."
Posted by corey3rd
at June 7, 2008 10:30 AM
comment #3
Walter Sobchak
says ...
Right.
Any money Uni might use to build a better preservation system for films and videotape would probably instead be used to build a Pluto Nash - The Experience! ride for the damned theme park.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at June 7, 2008 10:31 AM
comment #4
D.Z.
says ...
corey: Technically, it could be the writer of the article who got it wrong.
Walter: Or Van Helsing 2....
Posted by D.Z.
at June 7, 2008 10:36 AM
comment #5
televisiontears
says ...
Poor UCLA, resorting to using something less than original prints. I feel for them.
Posted by televisiontears
at June 7, 2008 10:45 AM
comment #6
corey3rd
says ...
The writer is Kuntz, a UCLA film professor. He should know better than to go with The Woflman.
The question is not will Universal strike fresh prints to 90 percent of the films that linger in the vault, but what does Kuntz propose be done to make these prints active and appreciated? He got a big idea on how to bring fresh and eager eyeballs to these neglected titles? He going to get together with film professors across the country to create a traveling exhibition to make sure these film cans don't gather dust on the rack?
If Kuntz must do more than make a plea - he must create a presentation that will dazzle the Universal executives into thinking these new rental prints will be rented.
Posted by corey3rd
at June 7, 2008 10:52 AM
comment #7
Cadavra
says ...
This man is an ignoramus. The prints that burned WERE the incredible rarities, not the DUCK SOUPs and VERTIGOs, which are stored at DeLuxe. (Kuntz can certainly get prints elsewhere,) Universal has been sensational about preserving both of its libraries, and I've been assured by someone near the top that many, if not all, of these will be reprinted, though of course it will take a while.
Posted by Cadavra
at June 7, 2008 10:59 AM
comment #8
Edward
says ...
There is a larger problem here than preserving the older films. How will the newer digital films be preserved? We could argue that many of them are crap and don't deserve preservation, but they are a window into our current times and should be preserved at the highest possible quality. If only certain films should be preserved, then who makes that call?
Posted by Edward
at June 7, 2008 11:06 AM
comment #9
corey3rd
says ...
The best way to preserve a digital film is to have it transferred to 35mm.
Posted by corey3rd
at June 7, 2008 11:12 AM
comment #10
Wrecktum
says ...
"The best way to preserve a digital film is to have it transferred to 35mm"
That's exactly what is done. Three color separation negatives are made for archival purposes.
Posted by Wrecktum
at June 7, 2008 3:47 PM
comment #11
MPNeeb
says ...
Something is off. If all the rep and revival prints were destroyed as many sources report and lament, why is the Ken in San Diego able to show Jaws and Jurassic Park in about two weeks?
Wouldn't those be archival?
Posted by MPNeeb
at June 8, 2008 1:56 AM
comment #12
corey3rd
says ...
Back in 2000, Universal didn't even have a rental prints of Jaws outside of a crappy 16mm. There are plenty of private archives that have Jaws and Jurassic Park in their collection. So Ken might have been able to borrow them. Spielberg and John Williams have copies.
Also the more popular titles were kept at a different site. (wasn't it Deluxe). So if you were reviving their money winners, you should be able to keep your schedule
Posted by corey3rd
at June 8, 2008 8:12 AM
comment #13
Cadavra
says ...
JAWS and JURASSIC PARK are exactly the sort of common, popular titles that would be stored at DeLuxe. The "archival" prints--actually answer prints of recently preserved films--are of movies most people have never heard of, such as STRICTLY IN THE GROOVE and TRAIL OF THE VIGILANTES.
Posted by Cadavra
at June 8, 2008 2:35 PM
Post a comment