Responses from archives

[Doug Wulf]

I believe it was in 2002 that I saw a brief mention that a film archivists has stumbled across the trailer for the first Warner Oland Charlie Chan film from 1931. For fans of this film series, it would be an interesting find since the film itself (along with three other early Chan films) is considered lost with no known existing prints. The catch was that the trailer was on 35mm nitrate film stock and was described as highly degraded to the point where the film itself might just be thrown away rather than be a possible candidate for restoration.

I wrote an email to the archive and asked for news on whether the print would be restored or not. I received a reply stating that the film was unfortunately highly degraded and so was destroyed. This was obviously unfortunate news and I knew nothing more about it until yesterday.

Following a link that someone had posted to a Library of Congress website, I discovered that this 35mm print had actually been shown in public on July 26, 2005 at the Mary Pickford Theater in Washington, D.C. (near where I live).

********

Chan Carries On [trailer] (Fox, 1931) With Warner Oland. (3 min, 35mm) … To provide historical context, the evening begins with several trailers from the 1930s Hollywood Asian detective series, including the Pickford premier of the Library's restoration of the trailer of Charlie Chan Carries On, the first of the series to star Warner Oland. The trailer is all that survives of this now-lost Chan film, which marked Oland's switch from starring in a series on the villainous Fu Manchu to the sagacious, just Chinese immigrant detective of the Hawaiian police.

********

The official story I had been given was false. The print was not destroyed. It still existed, was restored, and was later shown in public. However, believing that I knew for a fact that it no longer existed, I had stopped even looking for any further information. Why bother? I knew it was gone. But I had been given misinformation.

What I think had happened was this: The person I contacted probably didn’t have any more information than I did. It would have taken effort to figure out the status of the print and be in a position to answer YES it would be restored. The person either didn’t have the time or inclination to make this effort. Saying I DON’T KNOW would have been honest, but wouldn’t have answered my question. The easiest thing to say was NO the print was destroyed.

The same phenomenon occurred with Doctor Who episodes in Hong Kong. After replying that nothing existed to be returned, the Hong Kong archive located Web of Fear 1. Again, there was supposedly nothing more to find. However, some time later, all four episodes of Tomb of the Cybermen surfaced in this archive. Now again, nothing more exists there (but perhaps it is true this time).

It is an interesting psychological phenomenon that those who should either make an effort determine if an answer in the affirmative is possible or who should otherwise admit no ability to confirm either way, instead confidently answer in the negative.

Was the person who replied to my email about the 1931 trailer a bad person? Probably not. The response I received was prompt and politely worded. However, it was also incorrect. I only wish to say that it could be possible that prompt and politely worded responses from archives stating that episodes were definitely destroyed could eventually prove to be incorrect. It would really take some extraordinary efforts to make an exhaustive search and officials probably do not want to admit not knowing, thus the path of least resistance is to state, “Those prints were all destroyed years ago.” I don’t know what might be done about this, but this might be cause for retaining a small amount of hope.

[Stuart Douglas]

Interesting story whichgoes to show that hope should never entirely be lost.

Cheers

Stuart

[emitron]

As with other professions, archivists aren't generally obliged to answer public queries. Doctor Who fans (or indeed anyone with a vague query) shouldn't morally be phoning up archives or writing to them.

If they have a genuine concern, they should contact someone on this forum. Otherwise, they waste time for those working in archives, to the detriment of everyone.

I can think of one person (not in the UK) who wil happily tell any film fan, the shortest possible answer to get them off thge phone and on with his real job. He doesn't want pestered with petty queries. Archives aren't a public information service, unless you are doing official business with them.

[ward]

I've been responsible to some extent for records/archives in several jobs throughout my life (including my current job in Baltimore,not so far from Mr. Wulf).

I once worked for the housing benefits department of a London council. My job was to send memo's down to the archives, on behalf of people who's claims had been lost. Most of these memo's were recycled without being looked at.

One Saturday, some colleagues and I decided to come in on our own time and look through the archives ourself.

After a couple of hours without any luck, we forced the door on the disused staff toilet at the back of the archive room, and found about fifty claims files stacked on the toilet, covered in dust.

The truth is, files that are not 'current' in any organization are often unfiled, or filed badly, often loose in storage boxes stacked in some forgotten cupboard. And the people who would get to go in and check are often entry-level staff who come and go.

[Bobby Clark (synthpopalooza)]

Sounds like the Vogons.

"Yes, I read the notice. It was stuck in a locked filing cabinet, in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

(gotta love Douglas Adams)

[Ash Stewart]

"That's the display department."

[Doug Wulf]

emitron said:

As with other professions, archivists aren't generally obliged to answer public queries. Doctor Who fans (or indeed anyone with a vague query) shouldn't morally be phoning up archives or writing to them.

If they have a genuine concern, they should contact someone on this forum. Otherwise, they waste time for those working in archives, to the detriment of everyone.

I can think of one person (not in the UK) who wil happily tell any film fan, the shortest possible answer to get them off thge phone and on with his real job. He doesn't want pestered with petty queries. Archives aren't a public information service, unless you are doing official business with them.

Thanks for helping to demonstrate my point. I think there may also have been archives who have told the BBC the shortest possible answer to get rid of them too. In short, it is far easier just to say 'negative... nothing is here' then to attempt to find out for certain otherwise. It may just be that they have better things to do with their time (as they see it) than looking through every film can for some missing episodes. It's understandable.

The other point I was trying to make though is that I was fully prepared to get no word back from the archive I contacted. Instead, I received a very politely worded reply. It's just interesting to me that it was total misinformation and had me believing for years that I knew for a fact that a film print had been destroyed.

[wrightblan]

I've had serious doubts about the seriousnes or the thorughness of archives searches for missing eps. Most who work in archives are probably career bureaucrats who got their jobs because they supported the winning side in the last civil war or coup.

[Ronnie McDevitt]

Andy Henderson said on Feb 4, 2007, 1:03pm
"As with other professions, archivists aren't generally obliged to answer public queries. Doctor Who fans (or indeed anyone with a vague query) shouldn't morally be phoning up archives or writing to them.

If they have a genuine concern, they should contact someone on this forum. Otherwise, they waste time for those working in archives, to the detriment of everyone.

I can think of one person (not in the UK) who wil happily tell any film fan, the shortest possible answer to get them off thge phone and on with his real job. He doesn't want pestered with petty queries. Archives aren't a public information service, unless you are doing official business with them. "

I have to agree with everything Andy said.
There are far too many self appointed experts on this subject now who are clearly hindering the search for lost programmes.
People who think that by posting on forums like this umpteen times a day and by starting new threads that they can be considered an authority on the state of archive television.
Although I have had a interest in this subject for the last 25 years or so I would never describe myself as an "episode hunter" as many claim to be.
Whilst I may have in the past contacted film dealers and the like I would never dream of approaching an overseas television company.
I do wish people would leave such contact to people who really do know what they are doing and have the authority to do so in an official capacity.
With the arrival of the internet it is now all too easy to bombard television companies with entire lists of missing Dr Who episodes.
These people do more harm than good and I dread to think the reaction of some foreign archivist when yet another message fills their inbox containing those dreaded words "Doctor Who."
I gather from another forum that Matt101 has in his own inimitable style contacted Singapore television. Don't you think people - with authorisation from the BBC - haven't already done so Matt?
No disrespect but please leave this type of thing to others with far more experience in the field.
I have also noticed a trend for people to update ongoing searches online.
Let me tell you no-one has ever turned up anything by going public before a recovery - succesful returns have been negotiated in private and not by people coming on boards like this trying to be a hero.
Take the recent Shibaden tape recently sold on eBay.
Had it not been promoted on this forum I am sure it would have gone for much less than the final bid in excess of £100.
Unfortunately Colin Young had to (and yes he had a choice) pay that sum in spite of the fact he was clearly the best person to recover the tape as he was in a position to have it viewed within a couple of days.
I have always been of the belief it is only a matter of time before a missing Dr Who episode turns up on eBay but I dread the consequences.
No doubt the seller would be bombarded with questions, requests for private viewings, DVD copies, photographs of the projected image, etc, not to mention abusive messages accusing him of selfish profiteering.
In this scenario it may well be the listing would mysteriously disapear amid rumours of a sale to a private buyer.
As Andy henderson says there are people on this board who are more than capable of answering questions regarding archlive holdings without individuals pestering tv companies.
A contributor to the Missing TV General forum on here spoke recently of having tried unsuccesfully for the information he requires with Granada for six months.
Has it not occured he may be becoming a nusiance?
I have even seen offers on boards such as this to physically check a television companies holdings - as if they are likely to let a bunch of anoraks loose in their film library!
Someone even suggested it should be ilegal for a tv company to refuse to take a copy of a recovered programme.
Yes I can see it now. Turn up with a film can and a couple of police officers with the threat "if you do not copy this print you will be taken into custody."
Such postings I am afraid do leave me shaking my head in disbelief.
It may come as a shock but not all tv companies even in this country are comitted to recovering lost material.
If I ever have any archive queries I always address them to contacts I have who work in television or people who have a respected knowledge of the subject rather than wasting the time professional people.

[Ash Stewart]

Ronnie, you speak (well, type...) great sense.

I, too, am of the opinion that it's only a matter of time before a genuine missing Dr Who turns up on eBay. I guess the outcome will depend on whether or not the seller knows how significant the item is; I can see someone popping up a whole heap of films from a dead relative's estate, just to get what they can for them and being overwhelmed by emails of all kinds from DW fans.

Of course, if someone who knows exactly what they have pops one on there, it'll certainly end up going for a hefty amount. Well into five figures, I reckon. Even for a lesser missing episode. Amdo knows what Tenth Planet or Power 1 would go for...

[Doug Wulf]

Just to clarify...

I have never contacted a foreign archive directly about searching for Doctor Who. I don't want to pester film archives about such matters. The incident I describe was related to a film trailer from 1931 that was already recovered and discussed in a press release from this archive. It was stated in the report that it might be restored or it might be junked. Having not heard anything in a long period of time, I wrote a brief email asking politely if the archive had an update on that story. The archivist could have not responded or responded "I don't know" or "Not yet determined" or forwarded my question along to someone who could have either not responded or responded in some other fashion. Instead, I received an immediate and polite response that happened to be misinformation. Whether or not I was out of line contacting an archive about a story that they themselves released to the general public may be argued. Yet, my surprise was that by accident years later I discovered that I had been given misinformation. The BBC also received misinformation about the holdings of the Hong Kong archive. For a combination of reasons (some of which may be valid), archivists may tend to respond in the negative rather than going to extreme efforts to check if it is possible to repond in the positive. Archivists may also not say "I don't know" when perhaps that would be the more accurate answer. That was my point. I don't support the idea of fans pestering archivists. I also think though that official requests from the BBC may have elicited negative responses that may not correspond with the actual situation. It's just so much easier to say "no."