Many film fans felt a tinge of sadness this past Sunday when we learned a major fire had broken out on the Universal Studios lot in Hollywood. Losses included the soundstage that housed a 'King Kong' attraction on the famous tram tour, New York and New England street facades and part of the courthouse square, most famous for the 'Back to the Future' films. Most controversially, however, was the loss of a vault that stored video tapes and film prints. Fears of the loss of Universal's storied history abound on the internet through the week.
On Sunday, Universal Studios president Ron Meyer was quoted that "nothing irreplaceable was lost." Theoretically, the only films found in this vault were archival prints, generally shipped to repertory theaters from this facility on the lot. The Vice President of Universal took the step of sending notice to exhibitors that "nearly 100%" of the archival prints had been destroyed and that bookings to be shipped from the lot were suspended pending inventory.
On Wednesday, Variety ran an article featuring interviews with film curators fanning the flames that the losses might be worse than reported. The curators suggest that new prints from older negatives may never look like the lost prints whether through fading, damage, or the simple change of materials and processes over time.
By most accounts, Universal has a great reputation for preservation and intends to replace the destroyed assets. But even though this may be true, there is bound to be a long-term effect felt primarily by the most devoted film buffs.
With the growing popularity of big-screen televisions and DVD, specialty film markets - independent and repertory film particularly - are attracting ever smaller audiences. And some art and specialty houses are resorting to cutting costs by dong screenings from DVD. I'm not sure if I am more saddened by the fact that I can walk into a classic movie house and be subjected to a DVD because actual film is too expensive, or that many people never notice the difference.
The fear is that even though Universal should be able to create new prints to replace the lost ones, there will be little or no demand for them to actually do so. With the cost of a single 35mm print in the neighborhood of $2,500-$6,000, potential return of $300-$500 every few years seems insufficient to justify the expense for obscure titles.
In the end, the damages suffered in the Universal fire become a reminder that the true experience of film - "as it was meant to be seen" as they say - is what is truly in danger. With increasing digital resolutions and decreasing costs for data storage, it becomes more and more likely that the public will primarily (or exclusively) experience classic films on video or computer screens.
Unless you live in a very large market, specialty theaters can't draw audiences for 35 mm screenings of anything but first run films or a handful of absolutely undisputed classics ('Casablanca,' 'The Wizard of Oz,' etc.). Repertory theaters in cities such as San Francisco are even feeling the pinch. And though high-resolution digital projection is becoming more widely available, I can't yet muster the excitement to see "classic" films (which I define rather loosely as anything over a year old that I enjoy) in this format.
So while Universal can truthfully claim the studio did not lose anything that was irreplaceable, the world's most devoted film buffs may not be able to say the same. While Universal may have the elements for some titles protected in deep storage, there will only be videos in general circulation, a merely adequate stand-in for the glorious celluloid that these films originated on.