PAGE FOUR

MOTION PICTURES THAT ARE CONSIDERED GENUINE WORKS OF ART COMPARABLE TO FINE LITERATURE, PAINTING AND MUSIC. BUT THE COLORIZERS HAVE NO REGARD FOR THE MEN WHO MADE THESE MOVIES AND WHEN A GREAT AMERICAN DIRECTOR LIKE JOHN HUSTON SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT HIS SUPERB MYSTERY "THE MALTESE FALCON" MADE INTO A COLOR MOVIE BECAUSE THAT MAKES THIS HARD BOILED BOGART THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT HUSTON

FILM SILLY LOOKING:

WANTS.

THE COLORIZERS ALSO TELL US THAT A VIEWER CAN SIMPLY TURN OFF THE COLOR AND SEE THE FILM IN BLACK AND WHITE. THE FACT THAT THE MAN WHO MADE THE FILM WANTS NO ONE AT ALL TO SEE IT IN COLOR MEANS NOTHING TO THEM. FINALLY, THEY SAY WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY AND THE PUBLIC WANTS THESE FILMS IN COLOR BUT IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAD THE RIGHT то DEMAND ALTERATIONS TO SUIT THEIR TASTE THE WORLD WOULD HAVE NO REAL

ART.

NOTHING WOULD BE SAFE. PICASSO WOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED

YEARS AGO AND JAMES JOYCE AND STRAVINSKY AND THE LIST GOES

ON.

THE EXAMPLE OF JOHN HUSTON,

INCIDENTALLY, IS PARTICULARLY

MEANINGFUL TO ME BECAUSE THE AESTHETIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COLOR AND BLACK AND WHITE IS A SUBJECT THAT HITS HOME IN MY OWN WORK. IN AN ERA OF ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY COLOR FILMS, I HAVE CHOSEN ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, EVEN FOUGHT FOR THE PRIVILEGE, OF TELLING STORIES WITH BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY. INDEED THE DIFFERENT EFFECT BETWEEN COLOR AND

PAGE FIVE

BLACK AND WHITE IS OFTEN SO WIDE IT ALTERS THE MEANING OF

SCENES.

IF I HAD PORTRAYED NEW YORK CITY IN COLOR RATHER
"MANHATTAN", ALL THE
CONNOTATIONS WOULD HAVE VANISHED.
ALL THE

THAN BLACK AND WHITE IN MY MOVIE

NOSTALGIC

EVOCATION OF THE CITY FROM OLD PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILMS WOULD IMPOSSIBLE то ACHIEVE IN GLORIOUS

TECHNICOLOR.

HAVE BEEN
WHEREAS IF I HAD FILMED "ANNIE HALL" IN BLACK AND WHITE, ALL
THE SCENES THAT NOW COME OFF AMUSINGLY WOULD TAKE A GIANT
STEP TOWARD GRIM SERIOUSNESS BY MERE VIRTUE OF THEM SUDDENLY
BEING GRITTIER AND LESS CARTOONLIKE. ONE HAS ONLY TO THINK
OF A FILM LIKE "THE BICYCLE THIEF" AND IMAGINE THE LIFE AND
DEATH SEARCH THROUGH POST-WAR ROME FOR THE PRECIOUS BICYCLE
BEING IN REDS AND YELLOWS AND BLUES RATHER THAN THE HOT
WHITES AND DIRTY BLACKS AND GREYS AND ONE SEES HOW ABSURD THE
WHOLE THING IS. AND IT'S NOT JUST DRAMA

-

MUSICALS JUST

BECAUSE THEY ARE BOUNCY ARE NOT HELPED BY THE ADDITION OF COLOR WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG EITHER. PART OF THE ARTISTIC EXPERIENCE OF SEEING OLD GINGER ROGERS AND FRED ASTAIRE FILMS THE BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY

IS THE PERIOD QUALITY

GIVES IT ITS ENTIRE FEEL. WHEN ASTAIRE MADE COLOR MUSICALS IN A LATER PERIOD THEY HAVE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT QUALITY THAT REFLECTS BEAUTIFULLY THEIR PARTICULAR ERA. THEY ARE NOT BETTER OR WORSE

-- BUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND TRUE TO

THEMSELVES.

PANNING, THE CUTS MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF

DOG FOOD AND ROACH SPRAY.

ONLY IN AMERICA ARE FILMS SO

IN OTHER COUNTRIES THE ARTIST IS OFTEN PROTECTED
NO ONE CAN CHANGE A FRENCH FILM

GOVERNMENT.

DIRECTOR'S FILM WITHOUT HIS CONSENT. THEY HAVE TOO MUCH RESPECT FOR PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOCIETY BY DOING CREATIVE WORK TO ALLOW ANYONE TO SUBVERT THEIR CREATIONS AT RANDOM. MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS OF COURSE THAT NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE ABLE TO TAMPER WITH ANY ARTIST'S WORK IN ANY MEDIUM AGAINST THE ARTIST'S WILL AND THIS PRINCIPLE CAN BE ARGUED JUSTLY BY ANY CITIZEN. IT DOES NOT NEED A DIRECTLY INVOLVED ARTIST.

THE COLORIZERS MAY THINK THEY HAVE A LEGAL LOOPHOLE BUT THE MORALITY OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS ATROCIOUS. FOR DIRECTORS WITH ENOUGH CLOUT TO MAKE SELF-PROTECTING CONTRACTS THIS IS NO PROBLEM. BUT FOR THOSE LESS FORTUNATE AND, OF COURSE, THE DECEASED ONES, PROTECTION MUST BE GUARANTEED.

IF A PRODUCER INSISTS ON COLOR AND IF A HELPLESS DIRECTOR IS FORCED TO FILM IT THE STUDIO'S WAY, DESPITE HIS OWN FEELINGS THAT IT SHOULD BE BLACK AND WHITE WELL A DEAL'S A DEAL.

SIX SEVEN

BUT ONCE A FILM EXISTS IN BLACK AND WHITE AND HAS BEEN

THRILLING AUDIENCES FOR YEARS, THEN TO SUDDENLY COLOR IT

ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE, THE COLORIZERS WILL LOSE THIS BATTLE. IF IT'S NOT IMMEDIATELY THEN FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL FOR SURE

DISCARD THESE CHEESY, ARTIFICIAL SYMBOLS OF ONE SOCIETY'S GREED. THEY WILL, OF COURSE, GO BACK TO THE GREAT ORIGINALS. AND IF WE ARE FOOLISH ENOUGH то PERMIT THIS MONSTROUS PRACTICE TO CONTINUE ONE CAN EASILY PICTURE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN SOMEDAY DISCUSSING US WITH DISGUST AND SAYING, "THEY DID THIS AND NOBODY STOPPED THEM?"

"WELL THERE WAS A LOT OF MONEY INVOLVED."

"BUT SURELY THE PEOPLE COULD SEE THE DEEPER VALUE
TO AMERICA OF ITS FILM TREASURY, OF ITS IMAGE AMONG
CIVILIZATIONS.
SURELY THEY UNDERSTAND THE

IMMORALITY OF DEFACING AN ARTIST'S WORK AGAINST HIS
WILL. DON'T TELL ME IT WAS THE KIND OF NATION THAT
ADORED PROFIT AT ANY COST AND HUMILIATION."

HERE I FINISH BECAUSE IT'S TOO EARLY TO KNOW HOW IT TURNS OUT BUT I HOPE DEARLY THAT I WILL NOT BE PART OF A CULTURE THAT IS ONE DAY RIDICULED AND REVILED AS A LAUGHING STOCK.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Forman.

STATEMENT OF MILOS FORMAN

Mr. FORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was born and I lived the first 37 years of my life in Europe, and that, I feel, qualifies me to testify that the only U.S. Ambassador who is welcomed with open arms and love and admiration by everybody everywhere in the world is American film. The emotional impact that American movies have on hundreds of millions of people everywhere every day is astonishing, and we can be very proud of it.

You can give the audiences Hollywood glamor. You can show them films showing our dark side, criticizing ourselves, and they admire our freedom with which we can talk about ourselves.

So, whichever end of the stick you grab, the American film always wins, except at home.

You can imagine how saddened I was when, after coming to the United States, I learned that these wonderful and proud Ambassadors of our culture, when they return home, to the homes of Americans on television, they are treated by the money people not even as second-class citizens, they are treated as sausages on the butcher block.

They are cut. They are colorized. They are panned and scanned, sped up and altered, and I learned it myself the hard way. I made a musical for United Artists, which was sold to 115 syndicated stations all over the country in the United States with nine entire musical numbers cut out, and numerous little cuts here and there throughout the whole film.

But the interesting thing is my name was still on it. The film was still sold to the audiences for profit as an original, as a Milos Forman film. I asked the lawyers if there was any way to protect my work against this mutilation. I was told if you are not protected by your individual contract, there is nothing in American law which protects the rights of creative authors of motion pictures. Whoever buys them can do with them anything they wish. They can even sell them after the alterations as the original work.

It was shocking for me to discover that the creative authors of this genuinely American art form are much better protected in every other country in the civilized world than they are in the United States. For example, if I commission a painting, it does not matter if it is a Picasso or from an unknown, it is mine. I paid for it, and I can do anything-anything. It is mine. I can do anything. I own it. Nobody can protect the painting against me doing anything with it I wish. I can change colors, I can alter the lines. I can even cut a few inches here and there to accommodate the space on my wall. But should I still be able to sell this as a Picasso or an unknown for profit as the original work? I believe not.

I realize that I am hired and paid by the money people to make a film. But so was Michelangelo whom Medici hired and paid to paint the Sistine Chapel. And still none of the Medicis went inside during the night and changed the colors or repainted or otherwise altered Michelangelo's work. But, of course, those were the Middle Ages, or were they?