various media (such as TV, airlines, videocassettes, and now colorconverted versions). Many fine movies are made today. However, when one looks at the appalling amount of trash--some of it dangerous, some merely vulgar or ugly, one has to wonder. The protesting directors do not raise an eyebrow at some of the sordid junk their colleagues are directing today, yet want, in effect, to "ban" a group of wholesome movies which once gathered dust but which are now being enjoyed by a large and appreciative audience. If one wants to make traditional family entertainment available, and we most certainly do, then we should and must color such movies as "The Charge of the Light Brigade," "Boomtown" and "David Copperfield." This effort is particularly crucial for prime-time, younger audiences, a market that is almost entirely closed to black and white films. This brings me to another, and far more serious, quarrel with the anti-colorists: the concept that only one vision or version of a work may be allowed. Absolutely not so. Colorization is not the cinematic equivalent of painting a moustache on the "Mona Lisa." And not just because movie prints are mass-produced (not unique entities) nor because a movie is rarely created by a lone genius, nor because Da Vinci's work is a true masterpiece. The analogy fails utterly because to paint a moustache on the "Mona Lisa" would mean that it would no longer exist in its original form. The old black and white movies continue to exist, as we have demonstrated. It is worth mentioning, perhaps, that various artists have, indeed, painted a moustache on copies of the "Mona Lisa," among them Dali and Marcel 7 Duchamps. A mixed media piece by Duchamps includes a photographic copy of the "Mona Lisa" to which an impressive moustache has been added. Frequently, as in the case of Duchamps, artists simply appropriate the work of others to incorporate into their own works. Woody Allen, for example, took a Japanese movie and satirized it for comic effect in "What's Up, Tiger Lily." I assume his employer owned the Japanese film so Allen felt he could do as he pleased--which indeed he could. Just as Allen's new use of the Japanese film did not affect the availability, or lack thereof, of the original, so the Duchamps adaptation in no way impinges on the integrity of the original "Mona Lisa" in the Louvre. The integrity and the existence of the old black and white movies are also not in jeopardy. From time immemorial, in fact, and long before the advent of movies, creators and entrepeneurs alike have exercised the right, both moral and legal, to change the work of others and come up with new concepts. The public in turn has the right to accept the modified version or reject it. History teems with examples of such changes. Moreover, we would all maintain that our lives would be immeasurably impoverished were it not for this rich and ancient heritage of artistic alterations and adaptations--of which coloring old black and white movies is just one other example. Legislation directed toward colorization can only be based in the belief that the public lacks the wisdom and sophistication to be allowed a choice in this matter. We disagree. The reality is, times have changed. Audiences are different, the screen is different, markets are different, demand is different. Each of us has something that is fondly remembered from another time. But nostalgia for the past, appealing though it can be, is not necessarily in the public interest. "You don't like Bizet in its original?" the elitist arguments imply, "Tough, but I've banned the jazzy 'Carmen Jones' version. You don't read long novels? Unfortunate, but I'm burning all the condensations. You don't want to look at a movie in the form that I consider proper and pure? Too bad, but no way will I let you see that movie in another form that you might enjoy." Let us allow no one to mandate what the public may see and be allowed to judge for itself. If A major objective for all of us who work in the motion picture industry and who love movies should be to engender as much enthusiasm, as great an audience, for our product as possible. there are thousands who will watch movies in color who would not watch them in black and white, and this is clearly the case, then Hurray for Hollywood! If they reject the coloring of a few movies because these movies are clearly "right" in black and white, which will doubtless happen in some cases, that is fine too. Colorization is an absolutely harmless process which damages no person, no property, and no concept; which honors fine old movies by rescuing them from oblivion and giving them new life; and which gives great pleasure to millions. To sum up: 1. The copyright holders have both the legal and moral right to color the old black and whites, and there would be a chilling effect on production and the preservation of film libraries were this right denied. 2. Coloring old movies is a matter of taste and choice, which nobody in a democracy wants to legislate. 3. There is overwhelming precedent, in all the arts and throughout history as well as in our own entertainment industry, for creating new versions out of old and for reinterpreting existing works. Coloring black and white movies is but another step in this cherished, important, and culturally enriching tradition. 4. Above all, coloring an old black and white movie in no way affects the existence, integrity, and availability of the original version. Moreover, it is an incentive to preserve and protect all old films. By adding color to old movies we have given new life to pleasant diversions which, for the most part, have lanquished unappreciated for decades, and we have delighted new millions with the kind of wholesome entertainment we would all want for our families. RLM/kl color:6/13/88 10 [The analysis of the Mrazek amendment follows:] TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. WASHINGTON CORPORATE OFFICE 111 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 BERTRAM W. CARP Vice President for Government Affairs (202) 898-7670 June 21, 1988 Turner The Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice Subcommittee 2137 Rayburn House Office Building Dear Mr. Chairman: I am enclosing an analysis of the Mrazek amendment to the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation for 1988, and respectfully request that it be included in the record of today's hearing. As you know, the text of the amendment has only recently been made available. Cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice CNN. SUPERSTATION WTBS HEADLINE NEWS. ATLANTA BRAVES ATLANTA HAWKS |