the work-for-hire doctrine be altered in any way. Nonetheless, it is this doctrine that now leads us into the absurd situation where the legal author of The Bridge_On_the_River Kwai is the Sony Corporation. And it is this doctrine that is thrown up to us as

the ultimate barrier against our wishes to protect the integrity of our work and our professional reputations. "Who are these elitists who believe that they have any right to a reputation after they have been paid?" ask our opponents.

Let us look at it this way. Under present law, movie directors have no way of communicating to the public when they believe an altered movie damages their professional status or will simply diminish an audience's insight or pleasure. Nor do directors, screenwriters or cinematographers have any recourse when the artistic integrity of their work, their expression of their artistic vision, their "speech", if you will, is routinely and cavalierly violated. Who did James Madison have in mind when the

things a little more in the direction of equity and fairness in the treatment of consumers and the creative authors of films. Such treatment can only enhance the future of American film.

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Wise, welcome.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WISE, FILM DIRECTOR, ON BEHALF OF
THE DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA, INC., LOS ANGELES, CA

Mr. WISE. I am Robert Wise, who will be celebrating his 50th year as a director next year. I am cutting through my testimony, but there are a couple of areas.

Mr. HUGHES. Take your time and present it as you see fit.

Mr. WISE. First and foremost, movies are about storytelling. Only instead of being read from the printed page and recited from memory, our stories are told through moving visual images. Like any other form of storytelling, the magic that motion pictures exert over audiences is rooted in the imagination and creative vision of the artistic author.

But imagine, if you can, the almost daily insults the artists who create films must endure when their work is altered. For instance, I wonder if you can have any idea what it does to filmmakers to have their work butchered through indiscriminate editing just to fit a certain time slot. I never see any of my films on commercial television-it is too infuriating and painful. And to do this kind of butchering without letting the audience know is completely unfair to the viewers.

"Mr. Wise, through The Sound of Music you were able to make a 7-year-old tomboy fall in love with a musical and with its story and family. This is certainly one movie my children will see; but not if parts keep getting cut." Signed: Michelle Rodrigues.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have to tell you how honored I was to have received an Academy Award for directing "The Sound of Music." But that honor was not bestowed on me by my colleagues in the Academy for directing the mutilated version that is referred

to in Ms. Rodriques' letter. Such butchering is an insult, not just to me, but to those same colleagues who voted me that Oscar. It was the quality of my work that was honored, and in which I take pride. But I have no pride in a version that is edited almost beyond my recognition and yet still bears my name over the title. And it is just plain deceptive to allow the public to think that such a version expresses my creative ideals as a filmmaker.

I would like to put into the record a letter that just came from another well-known director, John Landis. It says, to whom it may concern: On September 17, 1991, the Columbia Broadcast System telecast a version of the film entitled "Coming to America." As they had made a number of cuts in the picture, I requested that CBS put a notice at the head of the film that it had been "Edited For Television."

"As per my contract with Paramount, the producing company, I asked Paramount to persuade CBS to attach the notice. CBS refused saying it was not their 'policy.'

"I am disappointed by the abuse of my professional credit and feel that my request was certainly not unreasonable. I believe that CBS has used the public airwaves to consciously misrepresent the credit on the motion picture."

He goes on to support the bill.

Mr. HUGHES. Without objection, it will be so received. [The letter of Mr. Landis follows:]

March 2, 1992

INNOCENT
BLOOD

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 17, 1991, the Columbia Broadcast System telecast a version of my film entitled "COMING TO AMERICA." As they had made a number of cuts in the picture, I requested that CBS put a notice at the head of the film that it had been "Edited For Television."

As per my contract with Paramount, the producing company, asked Paramount to persuade CBS to attach the notice. CBS refused saying it was not their "policy."

I am disappointed by the abuse of my professional credit and feel that my request was certainly not unreasonable. I believe that CBS has used the public airwaves to consciously misrepresent the credit on the motion picture.

A bill such as the National Film Disclosure Act, which seeks to truthfully inform the audience, in a brief and salient manner, that the film they are watching is not the original as advertised and as expected and describes alterations in specific terms, serves the purpose of educating the public as to the nature of the product it is receiving as well as offering a very modest protection for the reputation of the individual, in my case, the director, who is credited with the work and its defacements.

Mr. WISE. Let me talk briefly about colorization, the process in which, well you know the process.

Some of my work, such as "Somebody Up There Likes Me" has had the dubious distinction to be taken in hand by the computerists. All of the careful work of trying to create mood and tone through utilizing black-and-white photography is wiped away. This is cultural revisionist history at its worst.

I have another short quote from a letter: "A few months ago they had on 'Somebody Up There Likes Me.' Not only did they show the colorized version, but they cut it as well. Forgive me in that I failed to tape it for you so you could see the total destruction of the movie.'

I would like to tell about a bizarre incident I had with a former colleague of yours, Mr. Kastenmeier, who was former chairman of this subcommittee. He was out in California about 21⁄2 years ago holding hearings on these general subject matters, and he asked that he have an opportunity to visit the colorization plant. He wanted to see what the process was like. So that was arranged.

I was asked to go and be part of the visit as the Directors Guild representative. We had a representative of the cinematographers and production designers, and we went down to the plant. They gave us, first, an overall briefing of how it was done. Then they started taking us through the plant. We would go into one of the darkened rooms with all the usual computer lights and up on the screen would be a film they were colorizing. We saw a couple of these and went into a third one. To my great surprise there was a scene out of one of my pictures on the screen, a picture called "The Haunting" from the famous author, Shirley Jackson's book. This picture was deliberately filmed in black and white. In fact, I insisted at MGM that it had to be in my contract to be made in black and white and here they were colorizing it.

There is a room in the film which is described as the purple room and there they had it on this screen in awful, ghastly purple. You can imagine how I flipped my top and let them know what a low opinion I had of their work.

I was even more incensed when I asked, "Did you check with anybody who originally was on the film, do you have any idea what we were after in terms of the look of the film with the black and white, like the cinematographer or production designer?" No, they had not checked with anyone, they put their own choice colors in there.

That was my experience with Mr. Kastenmeier of my work being raped, as I would like to say. They created absolutely the wrong feeling and mood for that film.

I will conclude by saying that I spent my entire career in the film industry. Like any artist who gets to practice his craft over a long period of time, I build up a body of work of which I am proud. I would like to see audiences view my work as I have created it, but if I cannot control the changes, I would like the audiences to know that changes were made and that I object to them. It is a little insurance to my reputation and for audiences who wish to see my films as I created them.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wise follows:]