THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE MADE BY THOSE WHO PROMULGATE "COLORIZATION" IS THAT BLACK AND WHITE FILMS NEED TO BE "IMPROVED". THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE, FOR BETTER WHITE FILMS MAKES THEM SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THEY WERE. "GRAPES OF WRATH" IN COLOR WOULD NOT BE "GRAPES "CITIZEN KANE" "CASABLANCA AND COUNTLESS OTHER CINEMATIC TREASURES WILL BE FATALLY DILUTED IF SUBJECTED ΤΟ THE "COLORIZING" ANNIHILATION. "COLORIZATION" ADVOCATES ALSO MAINTAIN THAT VIEWERS WHO ARE OFFENDED BY THE PROCESS HAVE THE OPTION OF TURNING DOWN THE COLOR KNOB ON THEIR TELEVISION SETS. WE TAKE STRONG EXCEPTION TO SUCH A SUGGESTION AS A FUNDAMENTAL CORRUPTION OF THE ARTISTS' PROFESSIONAL RIGHTS. THE CHOICE OF THE APPEARANCE OF ANY WORK OF ART DOES NOT REST WITH THE READER, THE LISTENER, THE VIEWER OR THE AUDIENCE. IT RESTS WITH THE ARTIST. IT IS PERHAPS THE MOST BASIC RIGHT OF THE ARTIST, AND ONE THAT THE DIRECTORS GUILD, DEBATES AND THROUGH MANY CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. BUT THERE IS AN EQUALLY COMPELLING REASON THAT WE PERCEPTION OF ITSELF. MUTILATION OF "COLORIZATION" IS A RE-WRITING OF HISTORY, WHICH WE BELIEVE TO BE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE DIRECTORS GUILD SHOULD SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT NO CIVILIZATION WORTHY OF THE NAME CAN AFFORD TO PROMULGATE LIES ABOUT ITSELF. IF WE DO NOT PRESERVE WITH FIDELITY IMAGES OF HOW WE THAT WE WILL ARRIVE AT A DISTORTED UNDERSTANDING "BUT, SAY THE "COLOROIDS", IGNORING US, "MANY BLACK AND WHITE FILMS WERE NOT MADE BY CHOICE BUT BY STUDIO FIAT AND MANY DIRECTORS WOULD HAVE WANTED COLOR IF THEY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO USE IT." PUTTING ASIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY PROFESSIONAL WOULD STILL HAVE A JOB AFTER MISAPPLYING SUCH COLORS, THE REASON THAT THE PALETTE, WAS OR IS, LIMITED TO BLACK AND WHITE, MAY BE HISTORICALLY INTERESTING BUT IT IS ARTISTICALLY IRRELEVANT. WE WORK, LIKE MOST ARTISTS, WITH WHAT WE HAVE. FOR EXAMPLE, BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY WITH THE COLOR REMOVED. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TECHNIQUE WHICH MY COLLEAGUES WILL ADDRESS. NOW TO THE QUESTION OF WHY ANYONE SHOULD CARE, PARTICULARLY THE SOME REASONS. VACUUM. OUR ARTISTS HAVE BEEN FORMED AND INFORMED BY OUR CULTURE, WHICH IN MOST CASES GAVE THEM BIRTH, AND IN ALL CASES GAVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE KIND OF FREE EXPRESSION THAT LED FINALLY TO THE PRODUCTION OF THEIR WORK WORK UNIQUE AND SPECIAL TO THEIR NATION, BORN OF A PARTICULAR TIME AND A PARTICULAR PLACE, SOLVING PARTICULAR AESTHETIC AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO THEM AT THAT TIME. PARTICULAR THE CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES, LIKE THAT OF MOST OTHER COUNTRIES, HAS BEEN SUPPORTED AND PROTECTED BY THE TAXES OF THE PEOPLE AND SOMETIMES BY THEIR LIVES. IN A VERY REAL SENSE THEREFORE, THERE IS A NATIONAL INTEREST AN INVESTMENT IN SEEING TO IT THAT CULTURE (OF WHICH ART IS AN IMPORTANT INGREDIENT) IS PRESERVED. FILM INSTITUTE, THE SMITHSONIAN, AND THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF BLACK AND WHITE FILMS. ONE MIGHT SAY, ΤΟ BE SPECIFIC, THAT FRANK CAPRA DID NOT CREATE "IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE" BY HIMSELF BUT WAS NURTURED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE WHICH PRECEDED AND ENCOURAGED HIM. THAT WORK, THEREFORE, IN ONE SENSE, BELONGS TO THE WHOLE NATION. WE, AT THE DGA, DO NOT CONTEST THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNERS OF ART RIGHT - то THE NEXT FUTURE BY GREEDILY DEVOURING-IN FACT, CANNIBALIZING OUR OWN PAST. OUR ADVERSARIES IN THIS HEARING ARE APPARENTLY INSENSITIVE TO ANY SUCH MORAL PRINCIPLES WHICH MIGHT GUIDE THEIR ENTREPRENEURIAL ADVENTURES. THEY HAVE SAID So. THE BUCK IS THEIR ONLY BIBLE, NO MATTER HOW THEY RATIONALIZE IT. BUT THAT IS NOT ENTIRELY CORRECT. MR. TURNER, WHEN ASKED WHY HE WAS COLORING THE CLASSIC FILM SAID HE WAS DOING IT BECAUSE "HE LOVED THE WE FIND THAT STATEMENT BOTH IRRESPONSIBLE AND "CASABLANCA", CONTROVERSY." OUTRAGEOUS. WE LOOK TO THE ΤΟ SUM UP, MR CHAIRMAN, SOME THINGS HAVE A VALUE BEYOND PRICE. CONGRESS, WHICH, THROUGH ITS LAWS, UNDERLINES THE VALUES WE ALL SHOULD HOLD MOST DEAR, TO TEACH THE NATION THAT IT SHOULD GIVE CONSIDERATIONS OF POTENTIAL PRIMACY OVER THOSE WHICH PERMIT SHORT PERMANENT CULTURAL LOSS TERM BUCCANEERING PROFIT - A PROCESS MADE MORE COMPLEX WITH THE ENTRANCE ONTO THE SCENE OF THE COMPUTER AS AN INGENIOUS INSTRUMENT OF DEFACEMENT. AS WE OWNERSHIP PERCEPTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND SO, WE HOPE THAT WE CAN PERSUADE THE CONGRESS TO DRAW A GUIDELINE IN ORDER TO RESTRAIN SOME CITIZENS WHO PERCEIVE MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES RATHER NARROWLY AND SOLELY IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN ECONOMIC INTERESTS. SADLY, WE HAVE SEEN RECENTLY MR. CHAIRMAN, EXAMPLES OF CASUAL ADHERENCE ΤΟ LONG TREASURED AMERICAN VALUES OF FAIR PLAY AND INATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. FAILURES HAVE EXTENDED FROM WALL STREET TO THE MILITARY. FROM RELIGION TO INDUSTRY. HOWEVER MODEST OUR PLEA IN COMPARISON ΤΟ THE GREAT QUESTIONS THAT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU, WE SUGGEST THAT THE CONGRESS HAS AN OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS ISSUE TO REMIND THE NATION THAT SOME VALUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN MATERIAL REWARD. THAT SOME THINGS ARE JUST NOT FOR SALE. 5113 Erices Cetum RITERS GUILD OF AMERICA west, Inc. Affiliated with the Writes Could of America, cast, Die 8955 BEVERLY BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-2456 (213) 550-1000 Cable: INTWRITER. LOS ANGELES MELVILLE SHAVELSON President JOHN GAY Vice President ALFRED L. LEVITT BOARD OF DIRECTORS JEAN BUTLER OLIVER CRAWFORD ADAM RODMAN BRIAN WALTON Executive Director JANE NEFELDT Assistant Executive Director ANN MIODEN Executive Assistant DOREEN BRAVERMAN MARTIN SWEENEY The following written statement is submitted for the record: It is the position of the WGAW that any material alteration of We applaud this committee for taking up the issue of "computer alteration" of which color-conversion is only a part. The changes and alterations that developing technologies will produce present a danger far beyond the issue of damage to artists and their work. We hope to be a part of future discussions in this important area of law. We thank the committee, and the efforts of the Directors Guild of America, for the opportunity to present our position in the public record. Senator LEAHY. Mr. Silverstein, let me play the devil's advocate just a bit. Directors do allow others, certainly the TV networks, to tamper with their movies all the time. I won't watch movies on television because they get chopped up, edited, changed, the dialog is squeezed down, and pictures are taken out. You have got many ads for things that nobody wants to see. The broadcaster will cut out parts of the movie which may be offensive so that they can fit in an ad that would offend virtually anybody. What about that? Movie directors allow that all the time. Mr. SILVERSTEIN. Senator, you just outlined a series of some of the most anguishing events that occur to us in our professional lives. We have tried over the course of the past 12 years across the negotiating table to achieve some prohibition against these things but, in some cases, they are beyond the disciplines of mandatory subjects of bargaining, and in other cases the Producers Association has said to us that, particularly with regard to the screening of these films in syndication, they agree with us, that their own products are being destroyed, but they have difficulty in policing it. If they had a policing organization, that they would see that this butchering of films, particularly on syndication TV, would be prevented. And, of course, if the Congress saw fit to provide some legislation that would supplant that policeman, we would be very happy about it. Senator LEAHY. But that is not really the issue, if I might. How do you respond to those who say, well, they are willing to have the movie chopped up on television, interrupted by ads, scenes taken out, shortened, lengthened, whatever, but they are getting paid a great deal for that. They are not willing though to have a movie made into color from black and white because they are not being paid for that. How do you respond to a question like that? Mr. SILVERSTEIN. Senator, you use the word "willing." There is a question of how much control we have over that. The colorization process is the lightning rod offense that brings us here today, but there are a large series of offenses, many of which you have just listed, which precede it. This, as you would have heard in a moment later in my remarks, was the last straw that brought us here. We do not like these interruptions. We refer to them as butchering. We have tried for years to do something about it. We cannot do anything about it across the bargaining table. We have been advised by legal counsel that would be difficult. The other side says they have difficulty policing it. We are in effect helpless. Senator LEAHY. The way to police it is not to sell the film to the TV networks, not to sell it to the airlines who are going to chop them up the same way to show them on their airplanes. Mr. SILVERSTEIN. Yes, sir, but we do not have control over the buying and selling of these films. We are artists. We do not buy them and we do not sell them. Senator LEAHY. But your company and your producers do, and they have not shown any interest in slowing that up, have they? Mr. SILVERSTEIN. Yes, sir, they do, and there are some basic prohibitions against that. They are not very strong prohibitions and |