27

cigarettes has not prohibited pregnant women from drinking or smoking, but

it has given them information as to the risks associated with the

products.

To this day, there is no documented proof that labels turn consumers away. Certainly, we are aware that women continue to drink and smoke in large numbers during pregnancy. The same goals associated with these consumer debates apply to motion pictures. The public has the right-to-know that it is being misled when no reference is made to the changes in a motion picture shown on television or on video.

American audiences viewing these materially-altered films on television or videocassette mistakenly believe the films they watch are the original films as advertised and that they accurately reflect the artistic vision of its creative authors. H.R. 3051 not only gives viewers the right-to-know that the films they are renting, purchasing or seeing on television are not being shown in their original form, but it ensures that they know that the movie has changed technically and in character from what was originally-released in theaters. This is "truth in labeling"

bill.

This bill also acknowledges the artistic author's right to indicate their objections to alterations in their work. There is no doubt that directors, screenwriters and cinematographers do not want to be associated with versions of films that are remarkably different than that of the original release. I know that director John Huston, for instance, did not approve of the fact that Treasure of the Sun was colorized and he felt that each time it was shown in its altered form, its original character

was, to a large extent, maligned.

As this subcommittee is aware, we go to great lengths to provide protections for copyrights, patents and trademarks.

While an inventor or

novelist is guaranteed safeguards against certain infringements of their work, directors, screenwriters and cinematographers have no legal recourse to ensure that their work is protected. Of course, H.R. 3051 falls short of a similar guarantee, as it merely allows the artistic authors the opportunity to express their objection to changes in their work. However, America's filmmakers should gain a modicum of legal respect as spelled-out

in H.R. 3051.

This

Filmmakers believe that it is a misrepresentation to imply, as is done in advertisements, that the films shown on television or on videocassette are the same as the films as originally-released. legislation is a recognition that the individual film artist speaks to the public through his or her films as seen. The enactment of H.R. 3051 would give the film artist the opportunity to tell us whether the voice we hear, in fact, truly belongs to the artist.

Young people may never know that It's a Wonderful Life is really a black and white film. It is important to me that my grandchildren and future generations know which version of a film they are seeing. Therefore, I believe we have an obligation to provide this limited protection, and it is my hope that this subcommittee will approve this important legislation in the coming months.

Mr. HUGHES. Alan, we welcome you today.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, A SENATOR IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mr. SIMPSON. Chairman Hughes, Bill. It is nice to see you, and I want to pay tribute to Bob Mrazek, too.

We have worked together on this one for several years. I very much have an enjoyed that experience and very much enjoyed him. Mr. Chairman, I haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this issue in the last years. I am listening to my friend Dan Glickman. One man's junk is another man's treasure around this place.

So, obviously, I have seen things come before committees and subcommittees and I say, "what is this stuff?" And some of you may have that idea. I wouldn't challenge that, but Bob and I have not just consumed ourselves.

He has worked very hard on it and I am ready to go forward in the Senate with Senators Metzenbaum and Lieberman, and there will be other cosponsors. I just think it addresses something that I personally find to be quite unamusing and that is colorization, when the director has not indicated that he or she ever chose to do that.

This is the key: The alteration of a film author's work by the owners or exhibitors. I am like Bob. I have found black and white movies to be the most enthralling thing.

I must share with you where it started. It was with "Lost Horizon." The lady on the aircraft was named Isabel Jewel, an actress, the daughter of a blind doctor from Shoshone, WY, and she came back and told us about that.

My brother and I were very young, and she said it would be terrible if they ever did that in color, because the "Wizard of Oz" had come out later in that decade in the 1930's. She said, the film is in the eye of the mind and it would be terrible to turn it into what was then called simply technicolor. And then "Casablanca" and the "Maltese Falcon" cause me concern, also.

I just think that these protections are necessary. They are not punitive. But film is a great art form in America. I also realize the authors of a film are not the owners of a film ordinarily, therefore, we must be very cautious about limiting the rights of an owner of the film.

But the film bill we have introduced simply requires that labels be placed on films that are, "materially altered," and that label must describe the alteration and indicate simply whether the film's authors, the director, the screenwriter or the cinematographer object to the alteration.

The bill does nothing more. The Senate bill does not prevent the altered film being sold or shown, does not delay the film from moving from the theaters to television or video stores.

Nevertheless, I think it provides important information to the film audience. It informs them about how film has been changed from its creator's original intent or conception.

I think it is in the spirit of free market for a consumer to be wellinformed. That is all the bill attempts to achieve. I think that perhaps some film authors are inhibited from making films when they know that they cannot even inform their audience that their works,

their original works, might have been materially altered, and this bill would perhaps limit that inhibition somewhat and perhaps more films or more authentically perceived films would be the result. I think that would be good.

Bob's bill is a little different than mine. I have no objection to his bill. They are not identical. We have made some changes, and those changes are described in the detailed summary you have before you, but in essence, and then I will conclude, we insure that the labels do not disparage-I think this is important-do not disparage the altered film. In addition, we insure that the existing distribution patterns would not be delayed by the bill's require

ments.

I think neither one of us are locked into every word. The the intent is there. We will be glad to answer any questions. I think we have heard most of them in our time.

Whether we have the answers is a different thing, but we have heard all the questions. So we look forward to working with your subcommittee and members of the committee to improve it, and other interested members, to get a reasonable bill, which I think is something rather important to the creative people that give us this art form.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]

31

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALAN K. SIMPSON

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

FILM DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1992

MARCH 5, 1992

MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE FILM DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1992, LEGISLATION INTRODUCED BY MYSELF, SENATOR METZENBAUM AND SENATOR LIEBERMAN ON FEBRUARY 25, 1992 (S. 2256).

THIS LEGISLATION WOULD RECOGNIZE THE INTEREST WE ALL HAVE IN PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUELY AMERICAN OF ART FORMS – THE MOTION PICTURE. I PERSONALLY RECOIL AT THE THOUGHT OF COLORIZING SUCH CLASSICS AS "CASABLANCA" OR "THE MALTESE FALCON. THESE FILMS WERE INTENDED TO BE SHOWN IN BLACK-AND-WHITE BY THEIR CREATORS.

PERHAPS THE MOST VIVID EXAMPLE OF AN INAPPROPRIATELY ALTERED FILM IS THE COLORIZATION OF "LOST HORIZON." THAT FILM WAS NECESSARILY FILMED IN BLACK-ANDWHITE BECAUSE THE MYTHICAL PARADISE IN WHICH IT IS SET - SHANGRI-LA – IS FORMED BY THE AUTHOR'S AND THE AUDIENCE'S IMAGINATION. IT IS UP TO THE VIEWER OF "LOST HORIZON" TO FILL IN THE BLANKS" WHEN VISUALIZING THAT PARADISE.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT FILM AUDIENCES SHOULD KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE WATCHING AN ORIGINAL - OR SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE FILM IN FRONT OF THEM. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT FILM AUDIENCES SHOULD KNOW WHETHER THE FILM'S ARTISTIC AUTHORS OBJECT TO THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE MOVIE.

HOWEVER, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT ANY LEGISLATION THAT ADDRESSES FILM