|
Post by Des on Aug 10, 2003 14:11:12 GMT
who said anything about just cult tv? i was illustrating what i said by mention of various shows such as Play For Today etc. im talking across the board. anyway nothing alters the fact that the bbc to the nfa when it came to acquiring things in the past. which is why a lot of stuff is gone! this is documented in various bfi books. seeing as they were wiping stuff themselves it seems that the least the bbc could have done in a public service frame of mind was to give another body an easier ride and a chance to save more items than they did.
|
|
|
Post by Des on Aug 10, 2003 14:13:55 GMT
that should have read 'the bbc were obstructive to the nfa when it came to acquiring things'!
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Aug 10, 2003 15:55:32 GMT
I mentioned 'Cult TV' because there is a majority of interest in it. The reason so little of it survives is because it was mostly thought to be not worth keeping. We should be grateful that tv selections were firm but fair. Otherwise we would have an imbalance. We may not have Jon Pertwee on 'This is your Life', but I can't see why this would be thought worthy of being kept. After all, who, expect for Dr Who fans would care? He'd be given the usual book of memories etc etc. In the US at least they gave them a Kinescope!!!
|
|
|
Post by David Brunt on Aug 10, 2003 17:33:10 GMT
The fans of his radio career - which by 1971 had already covered more than a third of a century?
Many stars of top-rated shows of the era are wiped - Pat Phoenix, Noele Gordon, Leonard Rossiter, Mollie Sugden, Michael Bates, Clive Dunn, Jack Smethurst, Hylda Baker, etc, etc.
With many notables on the missing list, there doesn't seem much consistancy in what was retained, or why.
The UK guests up to the 1980s were given a book and a recording of the soundtrack. Since then they got the book and a video.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2003 21:18:43 GMT
well i'm talking about all archives, not just bbc or itv. this includes the national film archive. who were supposedly there to save things for posterity. this was an area they let us down badly in the past. Well again Des, you have to take things in context. The NFA, up until relatively recently (the mid 1970s?) was just that - a film archive, not a television archive. Television was seen as ephemeral, and only really started to gain some prestige in the 1960s. No-one could have foreseen, for instance, that the merger between two of the main commercial ITV stations (Rediffusion & ABC, which became Thames) would have apparently resulted in the major decimation of both archives. As someone else points out, the NFTVA (as it is now) does not have massive funds, runs on grants and is strapped for staff because they can't pay for a major team. They have to rely on donations and some major acquisitions from other archives are still being documented after many years because of this. I do[/b] believe in preservation as a concept, as do many of the regulars here - but you have to realistic in what has happened in the past. Crying over it won't rectify it! If you're that concerned, start looking at the decimation of present[/b] archives, such as ITC, which suffered a major blow when Polygram acquired it - junking alternative edits, screen tests, trailers and other material - in favour of generic overseas versions for resale. And exactly the same thing will continue to happen, unless you get a context of why[/b] these things happen...
|
|
|
Post by john g on Aug 10, 2003 22:35:31 GMT
As someone else points out, the NFTVA (as it is now) does not have massive funds, runs on grants and is strapped for staff because they can't pay for a major team. They have to rely on donations and some major acquisitions from other archives are still being documented after many years because of this. I do[/b] believe in preservation as a concept, as do many of the regulars here - but you have to realistic in what has happened in the past. Crying over it won't rectify it! If you're that concerned, start looking at the decimation of present[/b] archives, such as ITC, which suffered a major blow when Polygram acquired it - junking alternative edits, screen tests, trailers and other material - in favour of generic overseas versions for resale. And exactly the same thing will continue to happen, unless you get a context of why[/b] these things happen... [/quote] My stance on this has always been to make this stuff marketable and it will survive. The NFTA cannot keep whining about what it has not got, because in its present condition it is not going to any better at the fickle whim of donations and gov policy .It must turn itself into a business to survive. Its all very well people saying "nobody is interested in that old TV stuff today" but they are if it is marketed in the right way. Perhaps Edward D Wood films are a shining example of turning base metal into gold just thru honest marketing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2003 5:55:32 GMT
My stance on this has always been to make this stuff marketable and it will survive. The NFTA cannot keep whining about what it has not got, because in its present condition it is not going to any better at the fickle whim of donations and gov policy. It must turn itself into a business to survive. Well if it does turn itself into a business, it runs the very same risk of having to junk stuff it can't sell or store. But I take your point about financial independence - to a degree. The NFTVA, through BFI Video, are trying to wade through the nightmare jungle of clearances (you can't just release this stuff willy-nilly) and have done so - but the process is[/i] costly and time consuming. And it makes no sense for the BFI, nor any other commercial interest, to release something if they know it will lose money. I dare anyone here who whinges about stuff not[/i] being released, to just start acquiring information on who has what rights, residuals for cast and crew, print transfers and remastering, and then duplicating and marketing a programme. And then[/i] come back and whinge from an informed viewpoint...
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Aug 11, 2003 9:18:08 GMT
There are a lot of fair points from everyone here although I generally agree with David's comment above that there doesn't seem to be much consistency in what was retained and why. If there HAD been a recognisable, coherent (but limited) preservation policy by the TV company archives, then there would be far less to moan about now!
Actually the NFA began to include TV in it's activities as early as 1959 (when it's first television officer was appointed, I believe). As everyone seems hung up on hard facts here, that needs clarifying. They clearly saw something of value in TV worth preserving, at least to a degree. However, this intention was severly impeded by the non-cooperation of the TV companies themselves at the time. This is all documented in various publications and should be re-stated as - in an era of much better cooperation between all parties - many seem to want to airbrush certain facts out of history altogether.
If we are talking about TV as a means of communication / art form / creative medium that reflects and documents all aspects of life around it then it is as worthy of preservation as books, paintings, movies or anything else you care to name....except that it is most certainly unique in having such a severely depleted history. Now, if the companies themselves wanted to junk programmes en masse fair enough, but surely they shouldn't have denied the NFA a chance to preserve them first on an "art for art's sake" basis? This is what happened a lot in the old days though and is the reason why more was not saved when it clearly could have been.
So who's talking about just cult TV here? No one, it seems. I have always been interested in everything from the serious to the trivial. Whether it's Dr. Who or a Cartier play, then it's all part of the tapestry of TV life. If we treat one part of it as ephemeral then it's only one step away from initiating a climate where we regard serious works the same way ("it's ONLY TV after all"). Anyway, WHO decides what is worthy? Certainly no one alive at the time of the original transmission - future generations are the most objective view on this!
Again, as someone else said, if we reduce everything to market forces / profit and loss, then we would not have had all those pieces of quality TV in the first place. On the other hand, if a more "self-sufficient" attitude was promoted with parts of the archives (e.g. BFI), then this money would help fund other archive work that is pressing.
No one wants to go on about the losses of the past but it's a fact that the "decisions" made in the past were so far-reaching that it affects and colours one's enjoyment / appreciation of the medium nowadays; so many of the things we would want to see now are just not there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2003 10:36:01 GMT
Anyway, WHO decides what is worthy? Certainly no one alive at the time of the original transmission - future generations are the most objective view on this! I agree with most points you make Laurence, except this one! 'Future' generations, IMHO, tend to be as subjective - and have as tightly a blinkered view, but in their own personal interests - as the previous generations. These views just don't overlap, that's all. I suspect the non-cooperation of the original TV companies (please correct me if you know better) was because while UK transmissions may have out of the question (anything older than three years used to be considered unrepeatable to the BBC), overseas sales were still feasible. ITV companies used independent companies for these (Global TV springs to mind) and may have been worried about commercial exploitation of their own products by other archives. Sounds a bit selfish (especially when such archives are junked willingly) but that's what commercial exploitation is about, ultimately!
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Aug 11, 2003 10:52:15 GMT
I'm not so sure about posterity. I think we can see much clearer NOW about what should have been saved in the past - but wasn't. When the dust has settled some years on, the view is clearer. Sounds a bit selfish (especially when such archives are junked willingly) but that's what commercial exploitation is about, ultimately! Yes, true. VERY selfish indeed. If it was going to be scrapped then a body like the BFI should have been given an easier ride in obtaining it first, given that they did warn of such mistakes occurring at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Aug 11, 2003 13:59:27 GMT
At the end of the day, most of the public couldn't give a damn about archive television. A generation is growing up who will not be keen on watching 'square' 4:3 pictures of any description. Old films are still popular, but they aren't fuzzy film recordings and had higher production values anyway. The world once laughed at Charlie Chaplin, but today it would be difficult to find a receptive audience. They are even less interested in watching a repeat of say, Charlie Drake in 'Bingo Madness'. Archive television is a minority interest (but expolitable on DVD) and anyone trying to sell a 'UK Silver' would have a terrible job on their hands (as copyright is such an issue). Also, constantly turning over the 'mistakes' of the past won't bring the programmes back. I still think we are lucky that so much DOES survive!
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Aug 11, 2003 14:56:08 GMT
But people have to TRY to recover material, have to TRY to gain wider access for this material. What good does defeatist talk achieve? It's definitely an art form and deserves greater respect than it has.
|
|
|
Post by beanisacarrot on Aug 15, 2003 11:40:37 GMT
Hi - I've found a website that lists most of the subjects of 'TIYL' from November 1969 to April 1993. www.geocities.com/Hollywood/5144/thislife.htmlBut does anyone know of any websites that list the subjects pre-1969? (And also post-1993?) Also, does anyone know if the 'This Is Your Life' on Peter Finch from December 1961 still exists? Thanks Thank you Helen for putting up this URL, it's a shame there isn't a site listing which episodes are archived or not archived. Actually it's a shame that doesn't exist for every programme ever.
|
|