The value of Film Archival Sales as facilitator of reflection on film heritage holdings through Curatorial Reuse, Participatory Reuse, and Commercial Reuse

(1)

“The value of Film Archival Sales as facilitator of

reflection on film heritage holdings through Curatorial

Reuse, Participatory Reuse, and Commercial Reuse”

Chava Bulthuis UvAnetID: 10002490

Heritage Studies: Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image University of Amsterdam – Faculty of Humanities

Supervisor: prof. dr. G. Fossati 17 november 2018

(2)

Creative Commons: archivist versus non-archivist...23

Other solutions/Film Archival Sales...24

1.5 CHAPTER CONCLUSION...26

CHAPTER 2 – DETERMINING EYE’S REUSE FACILITATION...29

2.1 EYE AS AN EXAMPLE FOR SALES THROUGHOUT THE FILM HERITAGE FIELD...29

Audiences: re-evaluating terms...30

2.2 WHAT KINDS OF REUSE ARE TAKING PLACE?...31

2.2.1 Participatory Reuse: Open Images and Celluloid Remix...31

Open Images/Celluloid Remix as platforms...31

Case studies: EYE de souffle and Walvisgebed...33

Relation to Film Archival Sales...35

2.2.2 Curatorial Reuse: Multus #2: Dance on Piano...36

Relation to Film Archival Sales...38

2.2.3 Commercial Reuse: Nederland in 7 overstromingen...39

2.3 OVERLAPPING REUSE, REUSE CHANNELS AND USER GROUPS...40

2.3.1 Overlap in reuse channels...41

Practice...41

Literature...44

Call for openness and continuation of archival ethics...47

2.3.2 Role of Film Archival Sales in the digital access era...49

2.4 CHAPTER CONCLUSION...53

CHAPTER 3 - CONCLUSION...56

NOTES... 61

(3)

Introduction

In 2016, I carried out an internship at the EYE Filmmuseum in Amsterdam within the department of Film Conservation & Digital Access. By witnessing the day-to-day practices of film archives and their relationship with the public, be it film archiving students, scholars, commercial television- or

filmmakers; as a film archiving student myself I discovered a different perspective on film archiving informed by practice rather than solely based upon scholarly literature. During my internship I developed an interest in the specific field of Film Archival Sales. Although I had knowledge of the role of curators in supplying film heritage holdings to other museums, galleries and artists, I never encountered mention of the importance of Film Archival Sales in facilitating reuse of film archival holdings in the literature.

Through previous work at a film festival I was familiar with EYE’s distribution and archival loans channels and their routines from a user’s perspective. Yet, Film Archival Sales proved to be something entirely different. What is Film Archival Sales at EYE? To formulate a description of the practice; Film Archival Sales (hereafter FAS) is where the scans or analogue copies of excerpts, stills, clips or larger quantities of collection material are made available through sales. Embedded in the department of Film Conservation & Digital Access, the branch is directly responsible for the conservation and digitization of EYE’s film heritage collection, FAS is in, both literally and figuratively, the collection center. EYE’s FAS is located in EYE’s Collection Centre, whereas the distribution team is working from the museum building itself. FAS therefore seems to be facing inward, towards the collection, rather than facing outwards to reach for publicity. As will become apparent in the first chapter, the Theoretical Framework, it is just beyond this description of FAS where the ambiguity starts: what is known of the workflows concerning other facilitators and forms of reuse; and what of the theory on FAS?

An important aspect of FAS that will appear throughout this thesis, is that it is fundamentally different than its surrounding department, a nationally funded archive such as EYE: it is commercially driven. FAS differs for it is driven by motives different from the other departments within the EYE Collection

(4)

department, such as Film Conservation & Digital Access. These departments within EYE, a nationally funded, not-for-profit institution, are non-profit driven since they follow the requirements regarding non-profit (re)use of film archival material set by FIAF (International Federation of Film Archives).1_It is here that the approach to this thesis started to develop: might it be that the commercial nature of FAS within a not-for-profit-organization is a reason for the scarce role it serves within film archival literature?

Why Film Archival Sales at EYE?

This idea was further fueled by what I, as an intern, could only begin to grasp; that FAS has a major role in facilitating access and reflection on film heritage holdings. This was affirmed by the interview I had with Leenke Ripmeester, Sales Manager at EYE, in October 2016. In this thesis I limit myself to EYE’s FAS and the reuse of EYE’s film heritage holdings since these form a solid example for the greater film archival field. EYE is one of the largest leading film archives in the world: it has an extensive collection of 50.000 titles, 240.000 film cans (some 30.000 nitrate), as well as many newer forms of audiovisual footage (EYE Filmmuseum, “Collectiebeleidsplan 2018-2021” 13). An essential condition for choosing EYE’s archival audiovisual collection for the case studies in this thesis, was EYE’s focus on digitization and reuse. In a field where analogue still outnumbers digital, EYE has made it one of its core collection priority to make as much of its collection as possible digitally available to the public as much as possible and sees digitization as the most important step for

obtaining optimal access (EYE Filmmuseum, “EYE Collection Policy 2014-2017” 11). Regarding the focus on reuse, EYE’s Collection Policy 2014-2017 states that “the collection should be accessible and should be used for: exhibitions and special film programmes; cinémathèque programming (including retrospectives, film programmes as part of exhibitions, etc.); online presentations; reuse/sales of films, film fragments, etc.” (EYE Filmmuseum, “EYE Collection Policy 2014-2017” 6).

In this focus on reuse rather than mere access, EYE resembles other influential national film archives such as the British Film Institute.2_{Moreover, EYE is setting an important example for the film} archiving field because it focuses on strengthening the relationship between film archives and the

(5)

academic world. An example of this is the chair, held by Giovanna Fossati, chief curator at EYE and lecturer for the Master’s programme Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image, in Film Heritage and Digital Film Culture at the University of Amsterdam. All of these characteristics make EYE, specifically FAS at EYE, suitable for obtaining my case studies. These case studies stand on their own in setting an example, but also show what the role is of FAS in the wider film archival field. More on this and why FAS at EYE in particular is exemplary for Sales in the wider film archival field will become apparent in chapter 2.1 – ‘EYE as an example for Sales throughout the film heritage field’.

Thesis structure

Through my experience at EYE, I developed an interest in finding out the scope of FAS in enabling reuse beyond merely the commercial. Therefore, my main research question for this thesis is ‘Is Film Archival Sales a form of reuse that facilitates access and reflection on film heritage holdings?’. To answer this, this thesis starts with a Theoretical Framework (Chapter one). The theory laced

throughout this thesis will touch upon a few dominant discussions and areas of attention in chapter one – ‘theoretical framework’. Firstly, chapter 1.1 explores the possible reasons for and consequences of the lack of reflection on and discussion of FAS. This is then compared to the important role that FAS has already proven to have within current-day film archival practice, for example with examples from the Ripmeester interview. By describing this, an understanding of the current situation of FAS and the reuse it facilitates, will arise - especially more broadly related to not-for-profit national archives such as FAS at EYE. Then secondly, chapter 1.2 discusses the historical preservation-presentation

discussion to see in how far it influences the current state of FAS. Thirdly, chapter 1.3 considers the influence of digitization and with this, the changing of archives’ audiences. This on-going change has put the relationship between archivists, scholars – as well as old and new users – on edge and is therefore important to take into account. Lastly, chapter 1.4 examines the role of Copyright/Creative Commons in facilitating reuse of film archival holdings. Through this theoretical framework, the particular timeliness of this thesis will appear since so little has been written on FAS, as well as its importance in the current and future development and safeguarding of audiovisual archiving.

(6)

After chapter one, chapter two – ‘Determining EYE’s reuse facilitation’ follows. Chapter 2.1 argues just why EYE serves as an example for the wider film archiving field. EYE’s reuse facilitation is categorized in Participatory Reuse; Curatorial Reuse; and Commercial Reuse. The primary idea that is explored in this chapter is that by knowing its audience, an archive can improve facilitating its reuse. Chapter 2.2 introduces the thesis’ case studies by linking them to the aforementioned categories of reuse, framed as responses sub-question one: ‘what kinds of reuse are taking place in film archives and to what extent is Film Archival Sales responsible for this?’. This chapter shows how traditional reuse practices resurface in contemporary digital reuse, such as the inclusion of analogue footage within digital animations. This underscores the importance of the aesthetic traits of archival material within ongoing reuse forms and practices. Moreover, it gives information about in how far FAS is responsible for instances of reuse beyond being the direct facilitator for Commercial Reuse. Each of the specific case studies were selected as such either for the amount of information that is available on them, or because they showcase how reuse forms are in a continuous state of flux and can be facilitated by more than one reuse channel. This is exemplified through a comparison between the case studies and two other reuse examples of EYE’s film heritage collection.

Participatory Reuse (2.2.1), focuses on case studies hosted on the platforms Open Images & Celluloid Remix.34_{This chapter discusses the films EYE de souffle (beauludget., 2012) and Walvisgebed (Hans} Nauta, 2012). Both cases deploy various techniques in their creation, such as collage, through which its reuse offers a current-day reflection on the archival material depicted. Quite literally, beauludget. and Nauta participate both in the Open Images project and in opening up the EYE archive. Curatorial Reuse (2.2.2) makes use of the performance case study Multus #2: Dance on Piano (Tomoko

Mukaiyama, 2014). This raises interesting questions surrounding public outreach and the mixing of traditional reuse traits (such as the in-house element of this performance) as well as more topical ones. FAS serves a role to take Curatorial Reuse beyond the traditional conventions. Lastly, chapter 2.2.3 discusses Commercial Reuse through the case of Nederland in 7 overstromingen. This particular case study shows how FAS caters to different types of audiences that cannot simply be referred to as being

(7)

commercial users. This case study adds yet another perspective to the multifaceted role of FAS as facilitator for both Commercial Reuse as well as other forms of reuse. Here, reflection on film archival holdings is as important as it is for more traditional reuse channels.

After this, Chapter 2.3 addresses the remaining sub-questions: ‘In what way do the channels overlap or create a gap for certain types of reuse?’ (2.3.1) and ‘What is the role of Film Archival Sales in the digital (access) era compared to archives’ more traditional curatorial channels for access and reuse?’ (2.3.2). Chapter 2.3.1 argues that the reuse channels of EYE, of which FAS is one, work together to provide parties with film archival footage for reuse and that through this, EYE has an overlap in the reuse that it facilitates, rather than create gaps in which possible reuse might be missed out on by reusers. By and large, FAS is directly or indirectly involved in creating or facilitating this overlap, or could receive new requests because reusers are directed from one channel to that of FAS.

Nevertheless, chapter 2.3.2 places this positive image under scrutiny: FAS has not been given enough scholarly attention to be able to assure and support reuse of film archival holdings in the broadest sense, with the broadest audience and the broadest use of material. As will be explained, there is a substantial role for a change in policy, too. This Chapter 2.3 provides this thesis with the conditions under which Chapter 3 – ‘Conclusion’ argues that FAS is a form of reuse that facilitates access and reflection on film heritage holdings.

In Chapter 3 – ‘Conclusion’ of this thesis, I conclude on the research question of to what extent FAS is a form of reuse that facilitates access and reflection on film heritage holdings, but even more so, to see if it is a facilitator that supports even the more traditional reuse channels as well as that it facilitates reuse that goes beyond Commercial Reuse. With this thesis I hope to make way for a better

understanding of FAS, not just in film archival theory, but also in policies. I make a case for the essential role FAS already has in current day film heritage holdings and argue for an even more significant role possible, as this discipline is clearly capable of even more.

(8)

Chapter 1 - Theoretical framework

Introduction

By aligning the most important and relevant historical discussions for this thesis’ subject, FAS, this first chapter tries to accomplish two things: one, to show the timeliness of this thesis when discussing the importance of FAS in the development of audiovisual archiving. Two, this chapter explains how the history of audiovisual archiving developed up until this point in time where this thesis’ subject can be seen as a logical consequence. In doing so, the thesis will show itself framed by and interlinked with the abundance of historical narratives and discussions that surround film archival theory.

What is FAS? Keeping in mind the historical narratives and discussions regarding film archival theory that contributed to the current shape and position of film archives and the role of FAS within them, which will be introduced shortly, one must first define the term.5_{FAS is the name for the set of} disciplines or, in practice, the department in a film archive where scans or copies of excerpts, stills, clips or larger quantities of collection material are made available through sale. The buying party can be either a television programmer, a film producer, a museum curator looking for exhibition material, etc. In general terms, those that make use of FAS are familiar with the workings of a film archive: they know how to search the database online and are willing to pay for high quality scans or analogue copies. If the request is not financially interesting for EYE, or if lower resolution files that can be accessed through open access channels such as YouTube are sufficient for meeting the request, FAS will direct customers to other channels, such as Open Images[ CITATION Lee16 \l 1043 ].

It is important to note that FAS operates separately from Archival Loans and distribution departments. If a film festival or museum is looking to borrow (analogue or digital) material from the collection, this often concerns a film in its entirety. This goes through Archival Loans and is different from Sales, where the format is almost always a digital one. There are exceptions, happening several times each year, when FAS sells analogue copies or fragments thereof. Distribution concerns loans that are specifically targeted towards cinema projection. Films from recent EYE retrospectives, new titles as

(9)

well as older ones are offered and presented through a catalogue (EYE Filmmuseum, “About the collection”).

In terms of theory, FAS is difficult to trace in film archiving literature. The next chapter (1.1) will interpret what the reasons for, and consequences of this, are. This is the first part of this theoretical framework which explores several discussions concerning the future of film archives and the role of FAS in this.

1.1 Lack of reflection on and discussion of Film Archival Sales

The department of FAS in a public archival body such as EYE’s, handles the requests of buyers ranging from television broadcasters to filmmakers and from museum curators to commercial directors. How does a department that operates by demand fit into a public archival body? Moreover: how are these aspects reflected upon and given meaning in film archival discussion?

The reflection on and discussion of FAS in film archival literature leaves much to be desired. It can be said that – as of today – FAS is not included in the discussions surrounding the access and reuse spectrum as a factor of importance. Most examples given in literature – both recent and more dated – speak of all but commercial examples of access to and reuse of film archival holdings. This whilst - and this will be substantiated in this thesis – FAS plays an important role in providing commercial and professional users with digitized film collection material. In the present and future where film archives as cultural institutions are expected more and more to demonstrate their relevancy and find ways to generate income and remain viable by reinventing themselves, FAS can play a key role. It is important to state that there has been significant attention for the economic value of film heritage, though it has not yet been taken further to discuss the role of FAS. This chapter departs from the view of scholar Peter Bosma, who in his book chapter “Curating Film Archives” (2015) states that of the five possible values of film heritage, being historical; connecting value; educational value; entertainment value; and economic value, the latter is “realized by re-use by the creative industry”[CITATION Bos15 \p 92

(10)

\n \l 1043 ]. By connecting this to his statements in the same text that “film heritage has become a hybrid phenomenon” and that although film was first and foremost created for screenings in cinemas, “this dominance of the public domain is over”, Bosma sets the example for discussing and thereby challenging traditional ideas on film. His text goes beyond this to indicate what is both necessary for the vitality of film heritage and for the institutions that govern this heritage[CITATION Bos15 \p 92 \l 1043 ]. Simultaneously, Bosma hints to the potential still awaiting in what Bosma calls “economic value”. Departing from Bosma, who does not include FAS, I want to add FAS to this discussion, more specifically: the idea of economic value and its realization through application by the creative

industry. By means of a note: the term “economical value” is not an inclusive enough term for

discussing FAS since the overall purpose of this thesis is conveying that the role of the department can be of greater importance than merely economic.

With his text Bosma overcomes the general idea that film heritage is to be shown either in theaters or art galleries, or that the presentation of archival film is discussed exclusively in terms of supervised, curated forms. This is fed by the perception of the overprotective archivist as gatekeeper of a closed, gated “fortress archive”, as described by Penelope Houston in her book Keepers of the Frame (1994). Ray Edmondson in his “A Philosophy of Audiovisual Archiving” (1998) states:

Reconstructions, compilations, excerpting, abbreviation, format transfer or other ways of manipulating collection material for the purpose of presenting it to a contemporary audience shall (a) not threaten the preservation, unchanged, of the source material and (b) shall be documented in terms of the purpose, parameters and actual work done6_{, so that an}

audience need be in no doubt as to the true nature of the new work so produced. (“A Philosophy of Audiovisual Archiving” 43)

Edmondson gives the preliminary conditions that are supposed to not only keep the collection material physically safe when it is screened or used otherwise, but moreover to keep the aesthetic and historical value; thereby its possible perception as close to the nature of the material. Edmondson represents the

(11)

somewhat old-fashioned perception of archival presentation being governed by several guidelines, provided and enforced by the archive to which the collection belongs or is entrusted. Through the case study of EYE’s FAS, later on in this thesis, it will become clear how some of these guidelines or ones similar to these, are in place as part of the collection policy. Nevertheless, the role of FAS within the institution and how Sales works for the forms of reuse of an international collection such as EYE’s, makes it impossible to enforce all of these guidelines. This is a clear example of where practice in film archives – and specifically FAS - has surpassed film archival theory and the guidelines that stem from them.

The problem with FAS’ reflection in literature in this regard, is that it often references any commercial reuse as an unwanted type of reuse, instead of focusing on what sets FAS apart from curatorial and participatory reuse. Thus FAS could contribute, and in many ways already is contributing to these more traditional types of reuse. More succinctly, whenever commercial application of archival holdings is mentioned, it is often criticized. Alexander Horwath’s “The Market vs. the Museum” (2005) is a case in point. Horwath sees a market construction being installed in museums that threatens the critical and political functions of museums and more importantly changing the creation and curation of various forms of engagement with artefacts to mainly access, meaning

consumption[CITATION Hor05 \p 6-8 \n \l 1043 ]. The idea surfaces that the digital turn is the equivalent of a downfall in museum and archival ethics. An example of these ethics, as will be described later in the theoretical framework, is the perceived added value of curators in establishing, as Horwath describes it, “various forms of engagement” with the archival material. The example of Horwath shows that a role for scholarly attention for FAS as one of the market-driven yet valuable assets for audiovisual archival institutions, is – however pressing – yet to be fulfilled.

On a broader level of reuse, Katherine Groo in her article “Cut, Paste, Glitch, and Stutter: Remixing Film History” (2012) indicates that there is also a more positive stance towards this matter. She emphasizes how remix, as she calls it, is fundamentally part of film history, instead of seeing it as a recent, (re-)invigorated phenomenon using material with historical value.7_{Groo moreover emphasizes}

(12)

how thinking in terms of openness opposing the safeguarding of archival holdings proves problematic for the position of access in film archiving.8_{It is this prevailing understanding of film archiving and} access which makes that FAS is still left out of film archiving discussions and literature.

1.2 Preservation-presentation

The discussion of the lack of reflection on and discussion of FAS should be seen in the light of another discussion, one that goes back as far as the field of film archiving itself: the topic of preservation versus presentation.

Building blocks or opposites?

One of the most classic discussions concerning film archiving, is that of preservation versus presentation and, more specifically, access. On the one hand, this seems logical: presentation may compromise preservation when copies deteriorate through screening or handling. On the other hand, why go to great lengths to preserve film heritage if it is not presented and accessible to the public? The discussions largely stem from different understandings of what is considered to be the primary task of a film archive.

One perspective is offered by scholar and curator Leo Enticknap in the article “Have Technologies Reopened the Lindgren/Langlois Debate?” (2007). Enticknap raises awareness to the misconception that a not-for-profit moving image archive has it as its primary task to provide access to moving images, as a “lending library”[CITATION Ent07 \p 1 \n \l 1043 ]. He shows how the focus on this singular function is at odds with the three equally important, co-depending building blocks formulated by Ray Edmondson in his “The Building Blocks of Film Archiving” (1995). Professional film

archivists are taught to take these building blocks into account: acquisition, preservation, and access (Enticknap 10). The problem lies in the fact that only one of the three, access, is visible from outside the building, whilst acquisition and preservation are equally important for maintaining the archive and its holdings (Edmondson, The Building Blocks 55).

(13)

This raises the idea that preservation and presentation as concepts might not be as opposed and conflicting as it would appear at first glance. Rather, looking into film archival principles and ethics, one will find that preservation and presentation, and thereby the surrounding discussion, have always been inherent to the archiving practice. FIAF, the International Federation of Film Archives, founded in 1938, states the following in their Code of Ethics:

Film archives and film archivists are the guardians of the world’s moving image heritage. It is their responsibility to protect that heritage and to pass it on to posterity in the best possible condition and as the truest possible representation of the work of its creators. (…) Film archives recognize that their primary commitment is to preserve the materials in their care, and – provided always that such activity will not compromise this commitment – to make them permanently available for research, study, and public screening. (“FIAF Code of Ethics” 5)

FIAF fulfills a vital role within the field of film archiving, as it “has been dedicated to the preservation of, and access to, the world’s film heritage since 1938” (“FIAF’s Mission”). Moreover, FIAF is connected to 164 institutions in 75 countries as of May 2017 (“FIAF Code of Ethics”). FIAF’s guidelines correspond with other archival ethics as discussed in literature.9

Langlois/Lindgren

The preservation-presentation discussion is often retraced to Ernest Lindgren (1910-1973) and Henri Langlois (1914-1977), two archetypes of the discussion. Ernest Lindgren (1910-1973) was the first to head the curatorial department of the British Film Institute and Television Archive (now British Film Institute). Together with Henri Langlois (1914-1977), founder and head of Cinématheque Francaise, they became the spokesmen of the film archiving field in its seminal stage. This stage began roughly in the 1950s when many of the now famous film archives were established[CITATION Hou \p 37 \l 1043 ]. They could have hardly been further apart in their preservation policies. Lindgren the modest Brit that prioritized preservation over access, be it use or reuse; and Langlois the flamboyant

(14)

Frenchman, known for organizing as many screenings as possible and thereby foregrounding access. Lindgren and Langlois found themselves in heated confrontations over multiple decades, and are still often referred to in film archival literature when explaining the complicated relation between the two most important archival tasks. 10

Future of the discussion

Lindgren and Langlois’ illustrative histories are exemplary even in today’s state of the preservation-presentation discussion, that is in turn reinvigorated through the digital turn.11_{Circumstances} surrounding preservation such as formats, restoration processes as well as types of deterioration will be forever changing. This is also true for presentation, therefore, reflection on this discussion must never come to a halt. The discussion must be furthered with every new invention and user expectation as reflection through discussion contributes to safeguarding the relevance of the archive. Rather than keeping close to the original experience of a large screen in a dark room such as in a cinema, other possibilities for presenting film heritage material need to be welcomed if film heritage institutions want to prevent becoming “a remnant of a glorious past”[CITATION Bos15 \p 92 \l 1043 ].

An example of how this can be prevented, lies in the domain of reuse. In a time where access to and openness of the archive is of greater importance than ever in determining presentation, archives need to move swiftly with the expectations of users to reinterpret the balance between preservation and presentation. Reuse is the next step in this movement: rather than solely providing straightforward access, users expect to be permitted to reuse archival material for either private, commercial, political or artistic use. The boundaries between these forms are fluid, and therefore neat, consistent

categorization is not easy to maintain.

The research question of this thesis: ‘Is Film Archival Sales a form of reuse that facilitates access and reflection on film heritage holdings?’ is deliberately directed towards reuse as facilitator for it can mean more than access can; to provide reflection on film heritage holdings. By enabling an abundance

(15)

of reuse, both professionals and non-professional, new contexts that welcome different meanings – and thereby understandings – can rise. This in turn increases the visibility of both film archival holdings and the institutions that govern them. To understand that reuse is a powerful tool for

promoting film heritage holdings, helps to understand why there is a need for more reflection on FAS and its role within film archives.

We cannot fully foresee the future role of the preservation-presentation discussion for film archival reuse. While the call for access and the need for reflection on FAS will likely persist for some time, the practices of preservation and presentation as building blocks of film archival institutions will continue to exist as long as there is a need to safeguard film heritage and to educate people through presenting this heritage.

What is evident, however, is that the current state of the preservation-presentation discussion is largely connected to the enthusiasm towards digitization of archival collections. Digitization is seen as benefiting both preservation and presentation purposes and the enthusiasm comes from the archives and archivists themselves, not so much the scholars and scholarly attention that it might need for keeping the discussion stratified. This can be shown by the example of Jon Wengström, curator of the Archival Film Collections in the Swedish Film Institute, who, in his article “Access to film heritage in the digital era – Challenges and opportunities” (2013), sees the connection between digitization in archives and the wider multimedia environment in society as essential to the future of film heritage, both for finding new audiences as well as for safeguarding the availability of over a century worth of film heritage[CITATION Wen13 \p 126 \l 1043 ]. Also, Wengström explains that new technologies have forced film archives to explore other usage of film heritage (in shorts, non-fiction films, commercials, etc.) and thereby bringing these forms to the limelight.12

To a lesser extent this thought can be found within scholarly literature. The apprehension found in what can be described as the scholarly view on digitization in archives surfaces in Enticknap’s

(16)

states that the archival profession should be the actor in reasserting its ethical values to access as one of the three cornerstones of film archiving.13_{Through this vision on digitizing the archive, what can be} concluded is that digitization can mean both the continued valorization and safekeeping of the heritage holdings; through digitization, preservation and presentation could finally – by archivists, users and scholars – be understood and dedicated towards the shared goal of ensuring the future of film heritage, instead of compared and juxtaposed. The perquisite according to Enticknap however, is that archivists adapt their ethical values to show their willingness to embrace all facets of digitization, by opening up the archive.

If we connect this vision of Enticknap to the aforesaid difference that should be made between access and reuse and what discussing the entirety of reuse (including FAS) in film archival literature can mean for film archives and the prolonged safeguarding of their holdings, a solid base is laid out for the future of film archiving and the role in this for FAS and reuse in its broadest scope. In the next

chapter, 1.3, the effect of digitization on both the preservation-presentation discussion and FAS will be discussed in more detail. The theoretical framework for answering sub-question 3 (‘What is the role of Film Archival Sales in the digital (access) era compared to archives’ more traditional curatorial channels for access and reuse?’) in particular, is outlined here.

1.3 Digitization/changing audience

As can be taken from the latter chapter, the friction between the preservation and presentation principles has been present for as long as film archives have existed. However, the digital era has taken this discussion to a new level. The digital turn started before internet found its way into archival literature and practices. By referring to this far-reaching alteration that challenged film archival ethics, ‘turn’ indicates that this change did not happen suddenly. Rather, the breeding ground for intensive ethical challenges in film archives lies in the analogue era. On the end of the user, the introduction of the domestic videotape recorders that became popular in the early 1980s, meant an important change. It affected how users interacted with media, explains Enticknap (14). Now, people could record

(17)

television broadcasts and play them at any given moment in time.

The consequences of this rise of video was twofold; on the one hand, people became accustomed to having their media intake on-demand. On the other hand, rights holders of preserved films could easily release their titles for profits (Enticknap 14). In this way, film archival use, user groups and user expectations of audiovisual archives started to shift greatly. The expectations users acquired – that every form of media is available to them by the flick of a switch – now reached into heritage

institutions as well. This works in two ways. Firstly, through the internet, people that might not have known about film archives have started to look for access to certain film holdings. Secondly, because of the expanded possibilities of other media that have made media consumption on-demand, these new user groups expect film archives to work in a similar way. An issue that has boosted this shift of film archival use, user groups and user expectations, is the changed perspective on state-funded institutions. National film archives hold heritage of people, regions and countries are often funded by the state. As a result, the audience is expected to be granted access to these archives as widely as possible. If film archives decide to provide access to their holdings in the same way other media can be accessed, film archival procedures and offered ways of access will have to change with these expectations. If not, film archives jeopardize their place in the public sphere.

Simultaneously with the flow towards individualized on-demand viewing, a development of “archives fans” arose, according to archivist Rick Prelinger’s 2007 article “Archives and Access in the 21st Century” (114). This is in line with the, on the one hand, disappearing user group that was now catered by the previously mentioned (re-)released preserved titles, and on the other hand an audience with higher expectations through the changing media landscape of the 1980s.14_{One of the consequences of} this rise in attention, is an affirmation of the importance of educated archivists and other staff. Before the late 1990s, archival staff would have been trained ‘on the job’, whereas now, the availability of academic courses have led to an increase in academically trained archivists and preservationists.1516

(18)

The arrival of the internet

Specifically in the late 1980s and early 1990s independent, avant-garde and activist media-makers found their way to the archives. These users were more than “archives fans”: they were interested in reusing film archival material in the making of new films. According to Prelinger’s web-article “We Have Always Recycled” (2015), during these archive heydays an adherence to a collage-oriented aesthetic arose. Although Prelinger discusses examples of commercial and advertorial background, there is no mentioning of (Commercial) Sales.17_{What consequences would the by then on-the-brink} internet bring for reuse of film archival material, specifically through FAS?

For archives, the turning point of internet was in San Francisco, in 1996, when the Internet Archive was founded[ CITATION Int17 \l 1043 ]. It was one of the first internet archives to make film material available online (Enticknap 15). The film section was curated by Prelinger. From this development on, film archives were confronted with initiatives (from both inside and outside the field) which embraced digital availability of (archival) film material, that in turn raised overall user expectations to gain access to information as quick as a search on Google.18_{The arrival of the internet was an important} moment in the history of archives. In particular, the fear of providing access that would jeopardize preservation as voiced earlier in the discussion surrounding Langlois and Lindgren, found its way to becoming a fear of unconfined access. Yet, the internet also reinvigorated the discussion on access that, as Prelinger describes it, “has always been a sticky door” (“Archives and Access” 114). This in part explains why, although mainstream internet has been around for two decades, digital access to most moving image collections is still minimal. This is not just a matter of archives failing to serve their audience by making access and reuse possible, but moreover a communication matter. Archives do not seem to be able or understand how to cater to their audience the way the audience expects it to, and the audience does not see the problems (copyright legislation, costs etc.) that lie beneath open access. Again, the only visible building block to the audience is that of access.

This perspective is underlined by Kate Theimer, who like Prelinger is an advocate of digital access to archives. In her book Web 2.0 Tools and Strategies for Archives and Local History Collections (2009),

(19)

she differs from most authors discussing archiving: “Archival materials are not usually preserved because of their intrinsic value (their value as objects); they are preserved because of the use to which they can be put. Archives are for use” (Theimer, “Introduction” 1). Further, Theimer indicates that embracing technology and the Web can benefit both the users and the archives, by aiding to overcome the gap between the user expectations and what archives can and are willing to offer. Theimer

emphasizes that even in the twenty-first century, archives are still portrayed in a stereotype manner. By taking technology and the Web seriously, “archivists can begin to break down these stereotypes, showing that we are not, in fact, out-of-touch guardians of crumbling paper, but rather open, engaged and tech savvy” (Theimer, “Introduction” 6).

‘Fear of access’: the perspective of the non-archivist

Theimer can be seen as a progressive archival theorist who understands the perspective of the archival world but urges to work towards closing the gap between the traditional archive and that of the digital. Yet, there are also more critical texts addressing the role of the archive and archivist in reusing heritage. Melissa Terras focuses on the perspective of the user in her article “So you want to reuse digital heritage content in a creative context? Good luck with that.”(2015). Terras adheres to the user’s point-of-view in demanding to improve online access, openness and overall presence of heritage collection holdings. She explains that reuse of heritage collections is where creative interpretation takes place, which should be encouraged by the collections’ governing institutions rather than feared, limiting users to low-resolution access[CITATION Ter15 \p 5 \l 1043 ].

Unlike Theimer and authors such as Prelinger and Enticknap, Terras argues that the problems that archives are dealing with – such as copyright – are no excuse for the apprehensiveness towards digital access.19_{However she does not mention any tangible solution for overcoming these problems and} therefore it is not clear where Terras would see a role for FAS. The idea of evolving to consider the user’s demand has obvious parallels with Sales, where the demand by the user is what makes a sale and consequently, determines what collection material is reused. Another parallel can be seen between

(20)

Sales and what Terras calls “co-creation”[CITATION Ter15 \p 36 \n \l 1043 ]. In both the given description of Sales as well as Terras’ idea of archival reuse, the emphasis does not lie on a confined idea of what artistic reuse should be or should not be. It is rather a plea for those who take the effort and costs for granted that come with reusing archival material. They should be welcomed into the archive, instead of met with apprehension[CITATION Ter15 \p 38 \l 1043 ].

There are other reasons to embrace a user-centered-approach to audiovisual archival reuse. Theimer states that it could change the age-old stereotype of the dusty, dark archive available only to scholars, but maybe more importantly even, this change could mean the gathering of much-needed funds.20 What the Web has done for archives is to “put them on the same playing field with other information providers such as libraries and museums – as well as sites like Wikipedia” (Theimer, “Introduction” 4). A last strong point for why this should happen, voiced by both Theimer and Terras, is that current online access to heritage collections, at least in terms of image quality, is insufficient for how users would like to reuse it.21_{This is also where FAS comes in, since users looking for higher quality will} have to purchase a high-resolution version (Theimer, “Introduction” 17-18). It becomes clear here, although it is only hinted upon, that in finding the needed digitized collection, there is a large difference between what different user groups expect and what they are given freely. It seems that a lack of understanding between users and archives is the primary reason why the expectations are not met by archives. Could it be said that this is the case, rather than unwillingness on behalf of the archives and archivists? This will become clear in the next section.

‘Fear of access’: the perspective of the archivist

What is it then that makes archivists position the digital turn as an external influence on archives’ practice, rather than something that is – or should be – internalized and used for good? What makes archivists distrust the digital turn? On the part of the archivists and scholars, Enticknap not only explains the fear of access, but also the problem of misunderstandings between users and archivists. On one side, there is the user perception that archives’ primary task should be to provide access (Enticknap 1). On the other side are the archivists, who have been taught the three equally important

(21)

building blocks: acquisition, preservation and access (Enticknap 10). These building blocks are at the fundament of archivists’ ethos, by which they will protect archives from turning into lending libraries.

Here, the most important problem that archivists have with digitizing and sharing their holdings is represented. Rather than misunderstanding the needs of users or unwillingness to cater to their needs, the problem seems more complex. The stance archivists might take against digitization and (or) digital access without limitations, cannot be labeled as fear for the unknown. Enticknap, as well as Theimer later on in her text, has pointed towards the difficulties that digitization seems to have brought to archives. This can succinctly be described as the changing audience expectations, as explained before from the perspective of the non-archivist. Archivists’ responsibilities have expanded into the digital domain because of an audience that was not familiar with archives and its routines prior to finding archival holdings online. This new audience requires more help from archivists and other archive staff with finding specific holdings, since they are lacking experience in researching within archives (Theimer, “Introduction” 3).

The misunderstandings between archivists and their new clientele are not the only effect of altered user expectations. Enticknap draws attention to the workflows in the archive: what cannot be seen by those demanding access, they cannot be expected to take into consideration[CITATION Ent07 \p 1 \n \l 1043 ]. Meaning, if the user group who is new to audiovisual archives and its principles, does not see any other building block than solely access, this is what they expect from an archive. As earlier mentioned, this is at odds with the training and ethos of archivists.22_{There is a lack of awareness on} the user end of the responsibilities of archivists to support what constitutes an archive’s entire being, credibility and, most importantly, longevity of its holdings. Therefore, in short, criticizing archivists for ‘being afraid’ of access is missing to address the many facets of film archiving that archivists have to take into account when safeguarding film archival holdings.

There is however, some rationale behind this fear. Rick Prelinger explains how archivists are anxious to make collections available to “just anyone” because of possible misuse, copyright infringement and

(22)

overall loss of control over the collections as gatekeepers (“Archives and Access” 115). This fear can be traced back to the Lindgren/Langlois discussion: should access be limited to the extent where it does not affect the collection? This apprehensiveness of digital means in film archives does however not directly translate to Lindgren’s apprehensiveness towards widespread access. Nevertheless, if online access to film collections is compared to Langlois’ belief in access to justify an archive’s existence, there is an unmistakable likeliness.

Where sources discuss the fear for access, it seems that this is either done from the idea that the digital turn should be embraced to safeguard the future of audiovisual archives, as Prelinger does, or from the idea that the digital turn should be embraced because user expectations are no threat to audiovisual archival holdings, of which Terras is an example. It is clear that a role for FAS in discussing to overcome this fear, as a facilitator that supports a commercial, digital demand by a broad variety of users, is still out of reach. Although archives are in the process of changing by trying more and more to make digitized collections available to a larger audience, which is reflected upon in the literature discussed here, there are still various steps ahead. Since there are many difficult obstacles such as copyright limitations that prove difficult to solve, the steps of overcoming them are yet to be taken.

1.4 Copyright/Creative Commons

The discussion regarding copyright and Creative Commons is submerged in the question of how far archives should or could legally go to provide digital access to their collections. In turn this has consequences for what FAS can mean to purchasing parties interested in access and reuse. A strong connection exists between copyright legislation and the previous chapter. Since the digital turn has pushed archives towards digitizing their collections and providing online access to them, copyright issues have increased. Consequently, copyright issues can explain – in part – why the problem with digitizing archival collections is more complex than users might understand at a first glance.

(23)

more complex copyright questions than prior to the digital turn, which is not their expertise, adds to their workload and asks sacrifices from their ethics. On the other hand, archivists need and want to cater to a growing digital demand, without which archives will not survive.23_{Wengström is an}

exemplary spokesman for archivists facing this dilemma. Most national archives do not hold the rights to the films in their collections. Clearing rights can be a full-time job that demands expertise in law besides archiving. It is time-consuming, and sometimes costly.24_{Where Wengström’s plea ends, he} misses to address that before the urge for digital access to archival collections, it was rarely the responsibility of the archivist to clear these rights (Theimer, “Conclusion” 223). This adds to the already increased workload of archivists due to the expanded user base. It contributes to why archivists are not heralding broad digital access to their archival collections, let alone reuse. As Theimer explains: “how comfortable are you publishing something on the Web if you aren’t able to contact the copyright holder and get permission?” (“Conclusion” 223).

Creative Commons: archivist versus non-archivist

There is however, a recent development that provides an alternative solution: Creative Commons licenses. As a relatively new phenomenon, it was called to life to overcome the time-consuming hurdles presented by the process of locating and identifying rights holders.

Tom Evens’ article “Creative Commons licences in cultural heritage institutions in Flanders” (2016) provides a perspective that, coming from an academic scholar not affiliated with audiovisual

institutions, is different than that of Wengström. It presents a perspective that is not ‘burdened’ by a background in archiving, nor is it a user-centered approach such as Melissa Terras’ publication. By incorporating Evens’ perspective on copyright/Creative Commons issues that are in part responsible for how and to what extent film archives can facilitate access and reuse, I want to compare these to the perspectives from within the field, such as Wengström’s. Much like his perspective from inside the archival field, Evens recognizes that the situation is complex. He sees a challenge in where copyright should protect but at the same time leave room for transformations in the use of media[CITATION Eve16 \p 210 \l 1043 ].

(24)

Evens explains that Creative Commons licenses differ from the traditional copyright framework in that the author of the work decides which conditions apply for users to reuse his or her work[CITATION Eve16 \p 211 \n \l 1043 ].Moreover, Creative Commons licenses are shown to not only benefit film archives and their collections, but also eventually bring forth greater digital creativity compared to traditional copyright[CITATION Eve16 \p 210-211 \l 1043 ].Although Evens has not specifically carried out the surveys for his article in film archives25_{, it is interesting to see how he forms similar} conclusions to Wengström’s. Both conclude that a change in rights clearance is needed. Where Wengström introduces the orphan film, hinting to a desired freeing of the field-specific difficulties he mentions, Evens adheres to Creative Commons. 26_{He indicates that by seeing how these licenses gain} ground in the archival field “many organizations are relatively positive about creating less restrictive conditions for user actions that go beyond those enabled by traditional copyright”[CITATION Eve16 \p 215 \l 1043 ].

1.5 Chapter conclusion

This theoretical framework has shown the ongoing influence of discussions that are intrinsically linked to the history of audiovisual archiving on the everyday workings of film heritage institutions. By describing these discussions, this chapter set out to show the timeliness of this thesis in the discussion of the importance of FAS in the development of audiovisual archiving. Moreover, in this chapter I have tried to explain how, for the preservation versus access dynamic, the history of audiovisual archiving developed until present day and into where FAS fits into this.

Chapter 1.1 showed that there is a discrepancy between the role FAS has in archiving practice, versus the role it holds within film archiving literature. Through works such as that of Bosma, the chapter showed that film is becoming more and more of a hybrid phenomenon, in which a role is laid out for film archives to encourage more diverse means of presentation. This should go beyond granting access but rather encourage meaning making. It is here that reuse is introduced as crucial vehicle for creating engagement with film heritage holdings. Yet in itself, texts such as Bosma’s and Groo’s are proof of the lack of reflection on FAS: even though they speak of reuse and how it should be encouraged, they do not display awareness of the role of FAS might play in this in practice.27

Another important discussion, tied closely with the overall film heritage field, is that of preservation versus presentation (1.2). From the time of Lindgren and Langlois until now, this discussion has been in continuous evolution. The fact that access is the only archival building block that is visible from outside the archive, makes it difficult for users to understand access is but one of an archive’s priorities and depends on many variables. Digitization has improved this somewhat, and has shown

(27)

archivists how access and reuse can have a positive effect on preservation, as well as presentation, of film heritage holdings. Again, meaning making is crucial in this; since through this process, reflection on the holdings is carried out, which in turn increases the public knowledge of film heritage. In this way, the gap between preservation and presentation could tighten. The first step that was taken in accomplishing this, was the creation of academic training with an emphasis on both preservation and presentation, whereas earlier, archivists would have been trained solely on the job, with a focus on preservation.

Nevertheless, despite internet being integrated in our lives for two decades, presentation of film heritage material is not meeting the demand of today’s users (1.3). In large, this is due to the

relationship between digitization and the preservation-presentation discussion, which also has an effect on FAS’ role within archives. Ethical challenges have emerged as a result of a rise and broadening of archive user groups that have different expectations of what an archive’s purpose is. Keeping in mind Prelinger’s sticky door of access, the increased user expectations have been met with precaution from the archives (“Archives and Access” 114). Many users and critics, including academics such as Theimer, feel like archives should function in a user-centered manner, in order to dismiss stereotypes and keep the archive viable.

This is where FAS comes in: if the ethical considerations that archivists have been trained to take into account to prevent archives from becoming mere lending libraries and ensure meaning making, reuse should be encouraged and actively promoted. Through communication, users could learn of the possibilities as well as limitations (such as copyright, 1.4) that an audiovisual archive entails. This theoretical framework has shown how archives currently fall short in catering for their users and has laid the ground works for the case studies in the next chapter to show what FAS can contribute to the longevity of film archives by giving reuse a boost, either as direct facilitator or indirect motivator of reflection on film heritage holdings.In regard to the primary research question: ‘Is Film Archival Sales a form of reuse that facilitates access and reflection on film heritage holdings?’, the theoretical framework has proved to be a first step in acknowledging that there is a need for reuse, where meaning

(28)

making and reflection is made possible, rather than mere access. The primary reason for this is that, given the new broader user groups of audiovisual archives, there is a need and a way to cater to these groups without turning the archive into a lending library.

(29)

Chapter 2 – Determining EYE’s reuse facilitation

2.1 EYE as an example for Sales throughout the film heritage field

In the introduction I have argued that EYE is an overall symbol for film heritage institutions for – amongst other reasons – its world renowned archival collections. Here, it is crucial to point out why this thesis centers EYE as an example of film heritage reuse in the field. As many national archives have contributed material to new film productions, EYE offers such an example that combines

commercial reuse with creative reuse: the 2011 Scorsese film Hugo. For this theatre-length fiction film EYE provided their copy of George Méliès’ 1906 film Les quatre cent farces du diable (The 400 Tricks of the Devil) (EYE Filmmuseum, “The Scorsese Times” 1). This example shows how commercial reuse can work for the archive and its holdings by portraying the reused material in a historical but fictional context. It highlights the historical importance of the material and introduces it to a new audience that is not familiar with Méliès.

Furthermore, this shows that the commercial nature of FAS strengthens the goal to encourage creative reuse, rather than striving for commercial profits. However, EYE does not just serve as an example for how FAS enables reuse through feature length productions. On an operational level, it can be

compared to other prime national film archives, such as the British Film Institute. The BFI’s Archive Footage Sales is the equivalent of EYE’s FAS. On the former department’s webpage, BFI’s CEO Amanda Nevill states that “the BFI should be a world-class information provider delivering excellent services to customers in a way that benefits the UK economy as a whole” (BFI, “BFI Archive Footage Sales”). In the same statement, however, Nevill connects this focus on “customers” to the importance of creative, easy-access reuse, like EYE does. Nevill does so by stating that she is “committed to reducing as far as possible the administrative burden on people who want to re-use public sector information” (BFI, “BFI Archive Footage Sales”). This indicates how EYE’s FAS works in a similar way to one of the largest film archives in the world, by striving towards open-access, encouraging creative re-use, and incorporating a form of information-sharing that puts the archive on the level of other media players in the public sector.

(30)

Audiences: re-evaluating terms

Since Commercial Reuse answers to a commercial demand whereas traditional reuse channels work by curatorial insight, Commercial Reuse seems to hold an isolated position within the archive.I would argue, however, that Commercial Reuse can fulfill an important role in facilitating both access and reflection on film heritage holdings. It is often overlooked that not only Commercial Reuse through FAS starts with the user. Rather, if an institution is not aware of its user groups that are interested in reuse, it cannot be facilitated in the best suitable form. EYE acknowledges this by classifying four “target groups”: general public; academia; educational users; film industry (“EYE Collection Policy 2014-2017” 28).

These target groups are interesting in light of the reuse categories EYE distinguishes. The EYE Collection Policy categorizes reuse as follows: collection material used for exhibitions and special film programmes; cinémathèque programming (including retrospectives, and as part of exhibitions etc.); online presentations; reuse/sales of films, film fragments, etc. (“EYE Collection Policy 2014-2017” 6). In this thesis this division will not be used, for I do not see online presentations as a separate type of reuse, since offline and online reuse is growingly intertwined and it says nothing of the commercial or non-commercial nature of the presentation.

This thesis addresses reuse categories as fluid, since they often overlap. However, for the current, ever-changing media landscape with archives amidst of this, there needs to be a better division; one based on audience.28_{This is because user groups in the current media landscape are more important} than ever before and because all reuse starts with an understanding of who makes up the audience. In this thesis the following categories for reuse will be used: Participatory Reuse; Curatorial Reuse; Commercial Reuse.

(31)

2.2 What kinds of reuse are taking place?

2.2.1 Participatory Reuse: Open Images and Celluloid Remix

Between 2007 and 2014, an extensive nation-wide digitization project in The Netherlands ran by the name of Images for the Future. During this project EYE and three partners digitized as much audiovisual archival material of their collections as possible.29_{With a budget of around 30 million} euros, it was the largest ever granted by a European government in support of audiovisual preservation and digitization[CITATION Fos11 \p 175 \l 1043 ]. When the project ceased, over 90.000 hours of video, 20.000 hours of film and about 100.000 hours of audio were restored, conserved and digitized (Nederlands Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid).The incentive was to preserve, digitize and make

accessible the large quantities of nitrate and acetate material in EYE’s vaults. Without this, they would deteriorate beyond repair[ CITATION Ned15 \l 1043 ]. Thus, on the one hand, Images for the Future was a rescue operation. On the other hand, it considered the future: to safeguard the collections so that future generations can watch and learn from their heritage.

Open Images/Celluloid Remix as platforms

Whereas Images for the Future has ceased to exist, its digitally-based platform by the name of Open Images is still operable as of 2018. Open Images was the medium through which EYE and the other Images for the Future partners shared the newly digitized material for the broad public to view, use and reuse. Users are encouraged to contribute to the platform by uploading clips of reused Open Images material and can download clips in several formats (low-resolution). The interface shows download and share options, but also an easy-to-understand explanation of the copyright license applicable to the particular clip. To most of the clips on Open Images the Creative Commons license applies, which varies from “Attribution”; “Attribution – Noncommercial”; to “Attribution – No derivative works”. The search engine on Open Images can even be consulted by selecting types of licenses.

(32)

was held. Targeted at amateurs and professionals, it challenged them to ‘remix’ film heritage into shorts, according to a theme. It was held twice, in 2009 and 2012, and the results can, in 2018, still be consulted on the Celluloid Remix website. 2012 winner Dániel Szöllosi incorporated three

smartphones in one shot, arranged to play Open Images footage, in which each phone seemingly corresponds to the other two. The clips include footage of cameras and a closing shot of Szöllosi himself, holding a digital camera to film the smartphones.

Browsing for reuse on Open Images, there are few clips to be found that are made by amateurs. Celluloid Remix has proved to, as opposed to what was promised at the outset, primarily cater to artists. Szöllosi, for example, is an established filmmaker.30_{However, the case studies that will follow} are part of the 2012 contest, because Open Images itself does not provide enough information to provide insight into what was facilitated by EYE, how the reuse offers reflection on EYE’s archival holdings and what this means for the possibilities of reuse of EYE’s archival holdings.

EYE provided some 40 clips from the “Bits & Pieces” collection to be reused (EYE Filmmuseum, “Bits and Pieces”). In the following consideration of the two parts of the case study, it is essential to reflect on the ways in which the reuse on the one hand represents the historical value of the reused archival footage; and on the other hand shows individual, creative initiative that reflects the possibilities of reusing film archival material in new ways. As such, we can trace reuse and the reflection on film archival footage therein to argue that FAS might not be responsible for the

Participatory Reuse taking place through Open Images and Celluloid Remix. Rather, these platforms bring reusers closer to the possibilities of reusing film heritage. As a consequence of this, reusers that become familiarized with the possibilities and limitations of Open Images (limited quality of the material, limited availability of material) might find their way to FAS. In this way, platforms such as Open Images and Celluloid Remix can increase the participatory element of other instances of reuse, by lowering the barrier. FAS’ reach and audience can grow as a result.

(33)

Case studies: EYE de souffle and Walvisgebed

The first part of the case study is EYE de souffle by ‘beauludget.’ (2012). Appearing as a cinema trailer for films ranging from À bout de souffle (Godard, 1960) to the voice-over taken from Amélie (Le fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain (Jeunet, 2001) introducing the people in her neighborhood (Fig.1). The clip begins with the classic announcement “prochainement sur cet écran” (soon in this theatre/on this screen). Intertitles show the title of the clip, EYE de souffle, but without the corresponding scenes it seems as though it is the announcement for À bout the souffle itself: in chronological order, the names of Godard, Truffault, Chabrol (fig.2) and protagonist Belmondo are called. The voice-over describes every piece as it passes, some two or three seconds. It is clear that the voice-over does not belong to what is depicted. The different scenes do not seem to stem from the same source, yet the voice-over tells a continuous story. Because of this mismatched voice-over with the filmic fragments, the viewer is drawn in: what is the coherence of it all?

Fig.1 Fig.2

An example where audiovisual archival material is reused in a similar fashion, is Walvisgebed (Hans Nauta, 2012). Historical footage of whale hunting is supplemented with digital animations both in a like manner through layering, as well as alternation. The viewer is reminded of the collage-frenzy from the curatorial heydays in the 1980s. Additional meaning is given through digital

(34)

of the time in a retrospective manner. The intertitles speak of mankind’s urge to control new

territories. By juxtaposing digital animations - in which the whale is depicted as a harmless creature - with unrestored, flickering footage (Figure 3 and Figure 4), Nauta teaches us a lesson of how our modern way of thinking clashes with the idea of ‘man at the top of the food chain’. While it might seem pedantic, there is another message: historical footage should always be considered in its historical context.

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Both EYE de souffle and Walvisgebed are available through Open Images in the same way the

available collection material is; downloading and sharing options are given, as is the license statement (Figure 5). Moreover, these examples show how the Celluloid Remix contestants were provided with the same Bits and Pieces collection material, shown in the reuse of the footage of the boy (Figures 6 and 7).

The value of Film Archival Sales as facilitator of reflection on film heritage holdings through Curatorial Reuse, Participatory Reuse, and Commercial Reuse