The problem with preservation...

When it comes to silent film there are two types of preservation...and both are plagued with troubles. Consider this a twofer rant! And for what you can do to help either cause please see the bottom of this article. We need you!

Site Preservation

Now I'm all for progress. If people in the 1920s hadn't built up Hollywood it wouldn't be anything more than some gorgeous Orange Groves and Victorian houses. Neat...but not Hollywood. However it seems modern people have a different take on what constitutes 'progress'.

Again people of the 20s knocked things down themselves (the Famous Players Lasky Studio on Selma, the original Hollywood Church, the De Longpre House, etc) yet something more interesting always took its place. Los Angeles is filled with these beautiful buildings. Yet today its just a bunch of idiots who want sky scrapers for 'offices and condos'. Three particular ones come to mind (the one going up across from Pantages which I believe knocked down some particularly beautiful building, the one going up right past Selma, and the one that stands where Famous Players once did). All 3 look the same...just tall massive ugly hunks of windows (the one across from Pantages has to be an entire block wide at parts) which developers swear will be filled with hipsters and offices. There's trouble with this theory however. Not the least of which would the obvious that the Taft Building on Hollywood and Vine is begging for the same tenants.

All over the country similar ideas sprung into action especially in the early 00s. In Orlando where I came from (a town easily swindled by con men such as Lou Pearlman and Cameron Kuhn) developers swore up and down if they were allowed to build such and such ugly office/condo building THEN these hipsters and businesses would come and downtown would be revitalized again (it had been dead since the 70s not counting the boyband prison that was Transcon). So all around these ugly buildings started going up...especially around 2005-2006. I can remember at least 5 of them in one area. Then by 2007 the building stopped. Downtown was as dead as ever and the hipsters never came (because 'if you build it they will come' is a stupid theory that never works). Now many of those buildings sit half built, or the built ones sit unfilled and unsold. No $3 million penthouses occupied as promised.

It took until I moved to LA to hear they had done a similar thing downtown. I haven't followed it as closely but I hear its had similar results. Nothing much interesting is downtown these days...which is a shame when you consider what BUILDINGS are down there...and just how usable they are. In 2005 (sadly long before I was here) the city decided to raze The Ambassador Hotel which was built in 1921. Not only was it just so amazingly important to film history (everyone and anyone did everything there) but it had lived on past silents...the Cocoanut Grove (which was in the hotel) had been the hip spot well through talkies and RFK was shot at the hotel after his nomination. Nope not important enough! There goes the wrecking ball! Now an ugly school which poorly tried to replicate the building stands there. We need more schools...but we didn't need to raze the building for them. Go raze one of those ugly empty condo buildings instead!

Two other equally important hotels the Alexandria (where the Griffith company stayed when they first arrived) and the Knickerbocker (where Griffith died and Elvis wrote many of his songs) thankfully avoided a similar fate. The Alexandria became apartments (after decaying for many years), and the Knickerbocker an old folks home (and sadly since the adjoining cafe closed in 2005 outsiders cant come in and see the legendary bar or chandelier).

Los Angeles is built on two things: filming and tourism. I don't see any reason why neither can be used for these old buildings. Thankfully some things like The Los Angeles Theatre (where City Lights premiered) have been used this way...I mean look at those pictures are you telling me we need more stupid condos instead of THAT lovely palace? The only thing I find heartbreaking is they don't screen films anymore...and they just really should. Ah to have the days where you seen a film then followed the orchestra to the ballroom and danced the night away (then ran to the Ambassador for a drink)!

The biggest thing to me beyond the complex beauty of these sites (and their usefulness...not all these buildings dilapidated bum filled hellholes) is their importance. Many towns don't appreciate their old buildings but nowhere is it more important than somewhere like New York or Los Angeles. Many of these buildings were part of history (film history but like the RFK thing or the Elvis thing it goes beyond that as well) well into the 50s when LA started declining (took till the late 90s to get her going again!). I find it surprising that a building where RFK was shot or where Martin Luther King Jr spoke (Palladium which was recently renovated but had sat empty for a very long time) are deemed to be ''in the way''.

I have my favorite sites around LA. If I could ever make it downtown without getting severely lost I'm sure I'd have more (the Adams district, the old movie palaces, etc). Sadly my favorites are the ones on the chopping blocks. Chaplin's Studio seems to be safe (complete with a Kermit dressed as The Tramp) but Pickfair Studios (now known as The Lot) is not. Down the road from Charlie and the strip clubs (yes tis true...and hilarious) its right across from a Target shopping complex that is nice enough but really isn't lending value to the area. That is the studio where Mary and Doug filmed a good chunk of their films (including masterpieces like Thief of Bagdad) and Griffith and Valentino did as well. That studio lasted on well into talkies as Samuel Goldwyn Studios. However it declined in the 80s, and in the 90s it was purchased by an independent company and renamed (poorly) "The Lot" which is still the given name. It recently sold I believe only a year or so ago and the new developers wanted to take the wrecking ball to parts of it (and put in glass box pieces...WHY?!)...supposedly they were talked out of it but nothing new has been heard since last years article.

I've been in Santa Monica a lot lately for the Marion Davies Beach House thing (which should be opening early May I believe). Now Santa Monica has been better then LA as a whole on preservation (thank you for the Pier!) but still has their moments. One building I always liked was The Mayfair Theatre (or as it was last known 'The Majestic'). The Mayfair is a victim of bad luck. Built around 1909-1911 (depending where you read) it was originally a live theater and vaudeville house. The theatre was there when Keystone and Ince were causing mayhem! When Tillie's Punctured Romance was filmed! It later became a silent movie theater and tried to transition to talkies but apparently it had a subpar sound system. So it became a second run house where rowdy bratty 50s teens (damn 50s people ruined a lot of these preservation efforts) would go watch films. It continued this well into the 70s before it reverted back to some live acts as well.

In 1994 it reverted back to the original owners son, Karl Schober, just days before the earthquake. He stated in 2008 that originally he planned to rent it out for filming and events much like the Los Angeles Theater does. The earthquake severely damaged it, so badly it was red tagged. And for 15 years it has sat...red tagged and nothingness. Its boarded up so it wont fall over and kill anyone but no progress has been made. The owner said he wanted to raze it, as he didn't feel it was worth fixing (or maybe too expensive?). However its a historical site (you know that useless term most developers ignore and raze anyways these days) so he had a lot of red tape to go through if that's the move he wanted to make...and he refused to.

Literally a year ago he announced he was going to raze everything but the front, and turn the back into you guessed it: condos and offices. This building is right off the Third Street Promenade and a few blocks from the ocean. Being Santa Monica someone would probably inhabit it but I still find it unnecessary. They have a whole dead mall they could raze and make into ugly condos! Nope has to be the Mayfair. Now in fairness to the owner it wasn't his original intent...but I'm wondering where all the help is to save this place. In Santa Monica alone the Aero Theatre is just one of the restored old theatres certain groups saved and restored. However the conservancy apparently just said, "Its a shame but what can ya do?". A quick googling shows no effort to save the building or raise funds to preserve it. I wonder if the owner would be so opposed to it being saved and restored if such an organization bought and took control of it. Sure would save him a lot of trouble. Hes had 15 years and yet no one seriously approached him like that? I just find that all very sad and very curious.

But it should be of note I was just there last weekend (so same year later) and the entire building looks intact and I didn't see any destruction going on. Just boarded up, same as when I first visited Santa Monica (just shortly before that article). Of the 80 or so conservancy groups in the Los Angeles area can not ONE make an attempt?

Film Preservation

Now onto a more tricky and universal matter. On nitrateville not too long ago a discussion was initiated: when did we stop destroying films? The consensus was maybe we haven't, and another question was raised: how much preservation should occur? If we saved every film ever in safety stock 36mm we would have a lot of buildings full of film. And also would that literally be every film ever? Every stupid youtube vid and every indie that resembles Jay Sherman "L'artiste est Morte"? What about porn? Its film too! And then what about TV (who in all fairness has suffered way worse a fate than film when it comes to preservation)?

Its definitely a gray area. In all fairness to people of old before TV and even to a point before internet (what with its on demand films, youtube, and amazon) what was the point in saving old films? No one wanted to watch a silent in 1941! Theda Bara and Griffith were dying off but no one could quite remember why they were important. Old films were a funny memory to them...like a magazine article you might have read 20 years ago. Why would it be valuable?

Honestly even at best its still a gray area. What I find important others might not (Kiki) while what others find important I find silly (apparently bits of War and Peace have been found...and were spliced into a Swedish travelogue. Since its just outdoor scenes that have little to nothing to do with the plot or film why save it or even bother?) I guess much like the National Film Registry certain criteria could be set...hopefully not by people who have no clue what their talking about like usual.

I think overall what was important to the time it was filmed (the melodramas and the Keystones) should be saved, as well as what stars/artists were the most popular (Mary Pickford, Valentino, Theda, etc), and whatever was deemed artistically important at the time or after the fact (Keaton, Stroheim, the arty Ukrainian films, etc) should be saved by some type of organization. Maybe not every little piece (leave that to the fans and the stars if they are living) but the vital things. In Mary's case a lot of her IMP films are lost which I think is just fine overall...they weren't said to be very good. Keep Sparrows and Secrets and Little Annie Rooney. Those are the things future generations need.

Theda is an example of why this is vital. She was important for her time and people are curious about why and how. However only a few of her films still exist and mostly only one is available. She was as big as Mabel and Mary in her day...maybe even bigger as she was THE Vamp thank you very much. For those few years she reigned Theda was so very important to what we would now call pop culture.

I think a really good example of what I mean is Valentino. His pop culture films exist (Sheik, Four Horsemen, etc) as does the rest of his work which shows his talents (Monsieur Beaucaire, The Eagle, even All Night). He has an extremely high survival rate and the funny thing is for the time he was important (not a b actor) everything but a good chunk of his flops exist. The Young Rajah (which in hormones alone we mourn), Uncharted Seas, A Sainted Devil, are all lost. Monsieur and Cobra are his only flops to still exist. Sure it'd be nice as a fan to see those films, but if this had been done on purpose by some type of preservation body I wouldn't be too angered...much like Mary it just makes sense.

There is a major problem with Silent film which leads to a major problem with its preservation. Despite a revival in the 60s and 70s by college kids and the curious it really has not found its rightful place in history amongst the masses. And before video, before internet, was it even feasible? Probably not so much. The sad truth is unless it seems profitable most people wont bother. And when it comes to silent film there is a LOT of work to do. I think its criminal how underpaid (or not paid) most of these hard working people are. However with the internet I do think there might be a new profitability. Warner Brothers may prove me right or wrong on that.

Nowadays someone can see a film on TCM, hop on the internet and google, and get an answer which just might lead them over to amazon for a book about the star or the DVD. Or maybe another film of the stars on DVD. I quite adamantly believe there needs to be one massive silent film resource to help with this (instead of leaving it up to morons like Wikipedia who have literally declared me too smart to edit silent film articles). But such a resource would take a lot of time...and even possibly money. And no one is going to pay anyone to make such a resource. Passion is one thing, paid gigs are another. And there is no shame in that...beyond the fact that there isn't some organization out there trying to support such a project. I have come up with some various ideas on how to do it but sadly amongst 3 organizations, viewing actual films, and writing a book all on the free and the out of pocket I just don't have the time or the funds yet. Don't worry...I wont drop the idea. Someday!

Film preservation has always been shotily supported at best. They didn't quite get why they were doing it at first. If you read this article about preserving Mary Pickford's films and how the Library of Congress destroyed them well...you'll get the idea (lucky she didn't want her films saved I guess!). For that destruction they ran out of funding and Mary personally gave $10,000 to help. And they ran out again. Many of these film archives are horribly underfunded by whoever put them together (usually colleges and studios) and thus the work is horribly shoddy at best despite how hard the dedicated preservationists try.

Imagine one person trying to save several thousand films that take so much time to restore and make right. Heck imagine one person trying to do that and just stabilize said amount of film! Its kinda how regular jobs these days are making one employee do all the work for the fired employees with less pay and benefits (you know feudalism) with said employee to overworked and scared of getting fired to ask for more. Preservationists don't need to fear firing (at least for speaking up) but its not really going to do much to ask for help...the money just isn't there.

There is one of two ways this could be solved. Either a company or a government (worldwide take your pick) could step in and help or silent films would have to be viable financially again. Either via the internet or wonderful revival houses. But this would take more work...and there just isn't enough man power, interest by the masses, or funding at this point in time. And that is a shame.

What can you do?

Bitching does no one good. For both film and site preservation there are several groups out there dedicated to both. Donations of even $5 can help. There is a list of several preservation sites in our affiliates at the right. Feel free to click on any one of them and see what you can do. Even if you don't live in the Los Angeles area there are still ways to help (letter writing, calling, donations, media ruckising, etc). If you are in LA I suggest very much so you get involved. If that's still too much then the simplest way is to enjoy any number of screenings such places tend to put on. It shows the interest and it helps put some money into the organizations as well.

For film preservation there are many institutes and colleges you could donate to or volunteer at (UCLA, The George Eastman House, The Netherlands Film Institute, etc). A quick googling can show whats in your area. In addition there are always silent film screenings all over the US and the World. Yes its a bit LA focused on this site mainly because its easier for me and my perpetual laziness. I try to include all the major events though. For a more nation and worldwide view please click here as nitrateville lists those screenings much more thoroughly than I can. Libraries and Revival houses tend to show a lot of them. Again googling can help. If you know of any projects in your area I highly suggest getting involved...even grunt work helps! But sitting on your butt and enjoying the film doesn't hurt either.

And perhaps the easiest way to help film preservation is to support it as a medium. Watch your TCM and write them telling how you'd like to see more silents (might not happen but hey they know theres interest!) Buy DVDs, go to Film Fests (or start one!), buy and read silent film tinged books, use things like the Warner Brothers service, and just overall show you care! Don't forget free things like the internet archive! Also certain torrent sites tend to have silent films on them (both legally and illegally). Since I dont want the Chaplin family after me I wont link...but you can find them. One site had Doug's talkie "Mr. Robinson Crusoe" (hint: Wikipedia it)!

For the more artistic or driven bunch I'd especially suggest you find ways to bring new folks in. Rebirth of a Nation is the ideal of what I mean. Many local plays have used silent themes (there was an excellent Mary Pickford play I hear, but please dont use Mack and Mabel its just pathetic). Every little bit of public recognition can help. A guy on youtube likes to do reviews of modern film as a silent film (click here to see what I mean). Its hilarious and has brought him quite a bit of attention.

There is definitly an ignorance void out there about silent film...but its not stupidity or a lack of caring it is simply that: a lack of knowledge on the subject. A lot of people I meet might joke at first or write it off as something akin to watching a really bad Keystone in silence like a museum piece. But the more they know, and if they actually view a real silent (complete with music), the more interested they become. A good silent is just like a good talkie: a great film that gives you an emotional ride whatever the emotion may be. Sparrows or Son of the Sheik or Bed and Sofa or City Lights...you get the idea! When I watched Way Down East for the first time I was shoutin "Yo go girl!" by the time Lillian told that playboy off. You should have seen the crowd at the Silent Movie Theatre (mostly silent film no0bs) hold their breath as Mary and the kids crossed the swamp in Sparrows. And heard the cheer once they made it through. It was amazing. And more people need to know and expierence that...instead of watching crap like "I love you man" or "Bride Wars".

So not only support it yourself...but spread the word! If you cant take a friend to a film fest or a Silent Movie Theatre (and if you can you totally better or get off my site) then why not hold a Silent Movie night at home? Put out the booze and some pizza...trust me they'll be much more willing. I couldnt suggest anything that could be more helpful than getting the word and the information out there.