Looks like the Library of Congress doesn't seem to have copies for the original Star Wars - or even the special editions. "Written into George Lucas' contract with Fox is the line stating that any prints of the original that are found must be hunted up and destroyed." "While both STAR WARS (1977) and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980) are on the National Film Registry, the Library has not yet acquired new prints of either one. When the request was made for STAR WARS, Lucasfilm offered us the Special Edition version. The offer was declined as this was obviously not the version that had been selected for the Registry." http://savestarwars.com/lucas-nfr.html George Lucas talking about preserving film: http://www.film-foundation.org/common/11004/board/aboutBoardFounders.cfm?clientID=11004&sid=1&ssid=2 "The idea of film history, the idea of preserving films, which are so important to our heritage and culture, and which are part of what I think are a very significant art form, especially going into the future, I think is paramount. The reality that we face which is half the films before 1950 have been lost and we'll never see them again is a tragedy. And it saddens me everytime I think about the fact that I've seen stills, I've heard stories about certain movies and I'll never, ever be able to see them. Because they're gone now." - George Lucas
Trying to rewrite American cultural history by defrauding a government arts organization like this is just depraved. There should be some kind of formal investigation into this matter. This makes me sick to my stomach.
The link-article goes on to state that the Library of Congress does have original theatrical 35mm prints of the original trilogy, in archival prints of varying conditions, and have since around the time of the films' original releases. Sure, people can't go in and watch them, but that's the same with the official Registry prints, really. Furthermore, can we please stop with the quoting of this Lucas-before-congress thing out of context, already? Yeah, maybe it's a shame that he's talking about historical preservation in one case and acting against it in his films, but in the cases he's talking about, pre-1950, the films in question are ones that were either lost entirely or taken away from their filmmakers and cut down without their permission, the excised footage lost forever. He's talking about compromised masterpieces like "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "Greed", or the state that movies like "The Passion of Joan of Arc" or "Metropolis" were in before their missing footage was miraculously rediscovered. These are all very different cases than any of his own Special Edition treatments.
Not really. Also Furthermore, can we please stop with the quoting of this Lucas-before-congress thing out of context, already? Yeah, maybe it's a shame that he's talking about historical preservation in one case and acting against it in his films, but in the cases he's talking about, pre-1950, the films in question are ones that were either lost entirely or taken away from their filmmakers and cut down without their permission, the excised footage lost forever. He's talking about compromised masterpieces like "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "Greed", or the state that movies like "The Passion of Joan of Arc" or "Metropolis" were in before their missing footage was miraculously rediscovered. These are all very different cases than any of his own Special Edition treatments. I'm sorry, you're completely and utterly wrong. Lucas quote before congress isnt and never was being taken out of context. He was talking about preserving historic films as they were, because cultural heritage isn't dependent upon how directors wished their films turned out but how they did. Please re-read the quote again. Personally, this instance is pretty shameful to pull a fast one on the American people like this. If Lucas can't be bothered to pay for the OOT restoration, here is a government organization willing to foot the bill for the existing materials. But instead he tries to distort history. How this man justifies it all to himself I will never know.
Ignoring the quote issue for the moment (because really, it's been argued to death on both ends and is rather tedious by now, and people only ever cite portions of the speech at a time, hence things being taken out of context) I wonder if it's the National Film Registry's policy to only accept the original theatrical versions of films in all cases. Say, which version of Blade Runner is in their archives? The '83 one with the crap narration? The '92 one with the unicorn dream? The "Final Cut" that Ridley Scott worked on for its anniversary?
Hm, all I get is a red X there. Fair point then. Still, the comparison between "films lost forever" and the Special Editions, or genuinely butchered works like those of Welles, Von Stroheim, Lang or Dreyer and the Special Editions don't really work for me, personally. I'm still curious as to which Blade Runner is in the NFR, and how they treat the whole Director's Cut question in general.
Money isn't the issue when it comes to restoring the OOT, and it never really was. Lucas simply doesn't want it to happen, since they're not the versions HE wants preserved. He wants to see the OOT destroyed and forgotten. For that simple reason, the OOT will never be restored or released again. As I've said elsewhere, we were lucky to get the 2006 DVDs. They're the end of the road for the OOTs. There won't be any more releases, because that's the way Lucas wants it.
It's ok for GL to be proactive about preservation of films that aren't his, but he's not obligated to preserve the original OT because he's the "artist". I love it. ------ I would imagine as separate titles. The OT started out that way with "SE" appended, but that's been dropped while the changes stayed. It's really screwed up.
According to a librarian at LoC that I spoke with, the legislation states that they have to archive the "first published version," but they also collect alternative versions as well. But they have to start with the original.
Well, unless they're making sure to collect originals and director's cuts/special editions, that's some legislation that could use some ammendng.
I don't know about that. They are selective, as not all versions of the film are equal. They may recognize value in additional versions of the film, and I think the norm is to try to secure them, but the films they select are usually the ones originally released in theatres because those are normally the ones with the most cultural value, except in rare circumstances. Blade Runner may be one of those circumstances since the later revisions were more popular and established the film's place in the cinema pantheon. It would be hard to amend the law to make things solely up the organizations discretion, it could maybe get a big too judgemental, whereas "first version published" guarantees that in 95% of the cases the version of the film that is valued will be preserved.
Well, this is where I don't like the culture that supports the "original theatrical version is more valuable to cinematic history" philosophy. I can see holding original theatrical versions and director's cuts/special editions to be equal in value, and equally worth preserving, but if it came down to a choice between one or the other, I'd support the latter, and that goes for director's cuts I'm not as crazy about, like Michael Mann's generally pointless revisions to his films (I'd love to see this debate come up some day-- I doubt "Manhunter" will ever be up for the Registry, but "Heat" is a definite maybe). At the end of the day, it's a first ammendment issue, and an author has a right to control the preservation of their speech (just as, though I doubt this issue has ever come up, an author has the right to deny their work to be included in the registry). But in any case, I don't think it would be too hard for the NFR to adjust their charter and dictate that they make an effort to include two versions of every film-- the original theatrical version, and if such a version exists, the filmmaker's preferred cut. In the vast majority of cases the two are going to be one and the same, anyway.
Well, the NFR has a two-pronged approach that I think satisfies both society and the artist. Their mission statement is that they are there to preserve films of significant cultural and artistic value. So, they can preserve things based on its value to society and culture, or something may not necessarily be popular or have a cultural effect but is still a noteworthy entry for purely artistic means. The first usually refers to original theatrical versions, while the second would probably apply to cases where a later cut is deemed more important or equally important.
So, what are we supposed to interpret this? As validation that the original versions of the Original Trilogy are the only ones worth watching? I say CRAP to that. I'm not going to have my choices DICTATED by the National Film Registry. If they want to reject the Special Editions, fine. I don't give a crap.
I don't understand how you could have derived anything close to this from my post or the article. The National Film Registry archives BOTH the theatrical releases and "director's cuts". How are they dictating what version to watch?
Even if they only archived one version, the assertion that they dictate the films you watch is confused and nonsensical. They are just an archive, one that is problematically without public viewing access in the first place.
