Lapas attēli

of them.

The agreements would likely not touch the home video

market. It would seem there would always be some available forum for these films. Perhaps most important, any restrictions on the airing of these films, once created, would appear much like censorship. Even if, due to their private nature, these

agreements were not illegal, such a scheme would seem like an

unduly restrictive and paternalistic abridgment of the rights of the viewing public.

Perhaps the strongest argument made by opponents of

colorization is not for the preservation of artistic integrity,

but rather for the preservation of our cultural heritage. Films made in the black-and-white era, whether knowingly or not, capture and record the heritage and culture of a time now passed.

To present altered versions of these films, it is argued, is akin

to presenting an altered version of our history. Instead of educating the young as to the worth of these original films and

their era, they instead present a faddish and distorted view of


Ironically, most film archivists actually view colorization

as a boon to the preservation of these original films. Not only does the process not alter or deface the original work, 148 but it requires the making of a pristine black-and-white print of the


original film, and a new negative if the original was degradable nitrate film. 1 49 Thus, after the process is

performed, our cultural heritage is actually better preserved,

even if only in the archivists' vaults.

While this may be less

than perfect, it cannot be said that, before colorization, the viewing public was breaking down the archive doors to see most of

[blocks in formation]

law in the intellectual property law area be twisted beyond recognition, simply to vindicate these artistic concerns. 150 If the process is to be regulated or prevented altogether, it should be by specific legislation at the national level. 151 So far, and probably with justification, Congress has not viewed colorization

a sufficiently compelling problem to address in this


manner. 152

Perhaps the best thing to do is leave the merits of

colorization in the hands of the viewing public.

As with all

creative works protected under copyright, it is the public alone which must judge the ultimate worth of colorized films. 153 So

far, and to the chagrin of opponents of the process, the public has shown a tremendous interest in colorization. 154 This

interest, however, may eventually prove to be fleeting in nature. 155

Already, at least one New York theatre house has responded to colorization with a marquee proclaiming "Maltese Falcon Original black-and-white version!". 156


If the public as whole does eventually become disinterested in colorized films, this in itself will effectively

[blocks in formation]

may indeed be painful for a director to see colorized showings of

his films, this may be the price he has to pay until the public

Until then, the artists among us may have to FOOTNOTRS Films, New York Times, Dec. 21, 1986, Section 2, at 15, col. 3;

shares his view.

turn down the color knobs on our television sets and ride this

one out.





At least on film critic has refused to use the term

"colorization", instead preferring to describe the process as the

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1986, Part 6, at 6, col. 4, where arts

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

colorize as E.B. White felt about the word personalize.

He once

wrote that he would as

soon Simonize his grandmother as

personalize his writing.

Colorizing a film seems to me in a

league with rinsizing your clothes or ironizing your pants..."


Champlin's objection notwithstanding, this article will use

the term "colorized" to describe this new generation of color

films, in order to clearly differentiate them from legitimate,

[blocks in formation]

Art Laws Don't Protect Films From Alteration, New York Times,

Dec. 11, 1986, Section A, at 34, col. 4; Through a Tinted Glass,

Darkly, New York Times, Nov. 30, 1986, Section 2, at 19, col. 1;

"Colorizing" Black and White Movies, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 29,

1986, Part 2, at 2, col. 1; "NO" Votes Win in "Color Wars", Los

Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 1986, Part 6, at 1, col. 1; The Well

Trashed Art, New York Times, Nov. 26, 1986, Section A, at 27,

col. 5; Ted Turner is Showing His True Colors, Los Angeles Times,

Nov. 19, 1986, Part 3, at 1, col. 1; Tainted, Tinted Movies, New

York Times, Nov. 16, 1986, Section 4, at 22, col. 1; War Against

Colorizing Joined by John Huston, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 14,

1986, Part 6, at 1, col. 2; John Huston Protests "Maltese Falcon"

Coloring, New York Times, Nov. 14, 1986, Section C, at 36, col.

1; Council Against Color, NEA Advisory Group Condemns Film Trend,

Washington Post, Nov. 4, 1986, Section D, at 9; Arts Council Hits

Colorizing, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 4, 1986, Part 6, at 1,


4; Council Opposes Coloring Old Films, New York Times, Nov. 4,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »