Tweet NEW National Film Registry titles!

Not sure this is current, but these are the Board members.

https://www.loc.gov/programs/national-f ... d-members/

The Goonies?

Yes! One of my absolute favorites! (And Titanic too!)

Yes, The Goonies. What a treasure, and in such dire need of preservation. As was mentioned on the documentary last night on TCM, "culturally, historically or aesthetically"significant can mean almost anything. Apparently, according to the blurb explaining why The Goonies is so culturally significant, the main reason for ensuring its preservation is that it puts us in the head of Steven Spielberg. What's left unsaid is how flattering the filmmaker's ego will help with fund-raising.

Has "preservation" ever been the primary motivator for a selection, rather than if the film is "culturally, historically or aesthetically" significant?

This happens every year, as more and more films pass the 10-year mark: complaints about picks being from the '80s, '90s, and now '00s. Personally, while I despise Memento, I'd take The Goonies over a few of the accepted "classics" on that list. But that's just chatter.

It's not always just about us as cinephiles—it's also about creating more awareness of the riches this medium has to offer. If it gets more people to seek out and love films as different as Ace in the Hole and Dumbo, how is that a bad thing?

I see nothing!

Seriously folks, we should suggest that the LOC read the erstwhile comments of Nitratevillains here as regards the films we like?

More like the LOC pay attention to modern Hollywood film trends and how they tie in with classic films including film serials

Not sure this is current, but these are the Board members.

https://www.loc.gov/programs/national-f ... d-members/" target="_blank

Motion Picture Association of America
Member: Senator Chris Dodd


Really? LOL

Mary, folks, the truth of the matter is that all organizations are funds-seeking; give them any amount of money, they'll find ways to spend it. Given it's the Library of Congress, we like a lot of what they do, some Nitratevillains work there, they run events we approve of -- Mostly Lost springs to mind, as well as their accommodation of the restoration-by-kickstarter-and-dvd efforts that we so enjoy supporting -- well, we sometimes forget there are other constituencies, like the Aerospace stuff and bed historians * that must be catered to. It all takes money, and private donors are important. If you think not, look at the David Packard Campus next time you're there to watch the Silent Comedy Mafia identify something no one's seen in more than a century.

Of course, we would like to see them spend that money restoring and making available the Tom Tyler FBO silents (in a pinch; I think we need more Hoot Gibson and there's a universe of silent shorts from the 1920s that's barely recognized), but other people have different agendas, and the people who are more likely to contribute millions are the people with a financial stake in more recent films. How many Martin Scorseses do you think there are in Hollywood? Don't you know that the movie people lost the top spots in the industry in the 1980s, when it became clear that movie franchises could be worth billions? Oh, they needed movie people to run the business, but the reason the industry has been in decline for so many years has been the triumph of the business people. Neither Disney nor Pixar will be releasing an original animated feature for at least two years. It's all sequels, because those have a clearly recognizable ROI (Return on Investment) that anyone can plug into an Excel Spreadsheet (except me -- I looked at the spreadsheets 30 years ago, saw they didn't work in any way that my double-entry mind didn't recognize and never bothered) and sell to someone who doesn't know anything about the movies. Or anything except how much will this investment earn me and what starlet do I get to f**k? **

Just be glad for the underground efforts -- as Ben points out, 35 of the winners have been posted to the LoC's Youtube site in high-quality prints (drawn, in some cases, from the paper prints -- Gad, Hart looks good) with freshly composed scores. That takes money stolen from the big boys. Let them preen.

Bob


* There's some discussion of this unlikely-sounding discipline in the Murphy Bed thread in the Talking About Silents Section
**And if you think that world has ended, then you think that Arab Spring ended all tyranny in that part of the world and we've all been singing "Kumbaya" in this country since Johnson got his voting rights bill through Congress.

Face it, Die Hard and Titanic are old enough to be classics, and it's hard to overstate how they're culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.

^This.

It's plain truth. Presentism sucks - but Pastism is a distortion, too.

Merriest,
-Craig

P.S. - And I don't even like TITANIC.

Face it, Die Hard and Titanic are old enough to be classics, and it's hard to overstate how they're culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.

^This.

It's plain truth. Presentism sucks - but Pastism is a distortion, too.

Merriest,
-Craig

P.S. - And I don't even like TITANIC.

Clearly you are not a teenaged girl.

Bob

Has "preservation" ever been the primary motivator for a selection, rather than if the film is "culturally, historically or aesthetically" significant?

This happens every year, as more and more films pass the 10-year mark: complaints about picks being from the '80s, '90s, and now '00s. Personally, while I despise Memento, I'd take The Goonies over a few of the accepted "classics" on that list. But that's just chatter.

It's not always just about us as cinephiles—it's also about creating more awareness of the riches this medium has to offer. If it gets more people to seek out and love films as different as Ace in the Hole and Dumbo, how is that a bad thing?

The longer the LOC relies on industry sources, and not historians, for advice, the sooner the older and less well known films will fade into insignificance. Probably I wouldn't agree with all the picks of the historians either, but I'd feel better about their judgment than I would about the judgment of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences or the Screen Actors Guild. Attracting interest in preserving old films by tying them to the new is not necessarily a bad thing, if that's what happens; but most folks are not going to care about the oldies no matter what. The nominating process will always be biased toward the recent films. I'd feel better if our government gave a damn and funded film preservation instead of making the LOC rely on industry hacks and their trickle down dollars. The less subjectivity the better.

Every year cranky comments about National Film Registry. Every year defenders of "new" movies, complaints that more "old" movies aren't included, assertions that no one knows what he or she doing.

Surprisingly for this site, many seem to have no memory. Or no desire to seek out the facts. I wrote in depth about the selection process here: https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/the-ch ... -registry/ I even wrote two books about the entries. You don't even have to buy them since they're widely available on Chinese and Indian bootleg sites.

The board of the registry is not a bunch of know-nothing industry dudes trying to make money. It's not a lot of silent movie haters determined to lower cultural standards by suggesting that James Cameron might be an important filmmaker. It's actually a pretty serious attempt to bring attention to areas of cinema that might not otherwise be noticed. With some loss-leaders tossed in to grab headlines.

If your film isn't on the list, prepare an argument for why it should be. Or continue to grouse about how nothing good is ever done anywhere.

Now I can go be cranky somewhere else.

I see nothing!

Seriously folks, we should suggest that the LOC read the erstwhile comments of Nitratevillains here as regards the films we like?

If you think the folks at the various film archives are not lurkers here, guess again.

Every year cranky comments about National Film Registry. Every year defenders of "new" movies, complaints that more "old" movies aren't included, assertions that no one knows what he or she doing.

Surprisingly for this site, many seem to have no memory. Or no desire to seek out the facts. I wrote in depth about the selection process here: https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/the-ch ... -registry/" target="_blank I even wrote two books about the entries. You don't even have to buy them since they're widely available on Chinese and Indian bootleg sites.

The board of the registry is not a bunch of no-nothing industry dudes trying to make money. It's not a lot silent movie haters determined to lower cultural standards by suggesting that James Cameron might be an important filmmaker. It's actually a pretty serious attempt to bring attention to areas of cinema that might not otherwise be noticed. With some loss-leaders tossed in to grab headlines.

If your film isn't on the list, prepare an argument for why it should be. Or continue to grouse about how nothing good is ever done anywhere.

Now I can go be cranky somewhere else.

Thanks for the info.... It seems possibly more effective ... possibly ... to lobby directly with board members than to fill out anonymous forms.

In other news, the LoC has launched a playlist of NFR titles on their YouTube channel and on their own online "Screening Room". One of the 35 films posted by the LoC online is a new scan of their material on THE ITALIAN (1915) with a new piano score by yours truly.

Ben

I appreciate your side note! Most of these NFR titles were previously unavailable on YouTube in HD. Also, I fixed the link to The Italian as it was doing something weird with target=_blank. The piano is a nice accompaniment!

I see nothing!

Seriously folks, we should suggest that the LOC read the erstwhile comments of Nitratevillains here as regards the films we like?

If you think the folks at the various film archives are not lurkers here, guess again.

Some don't lurk. Some are regular members of our little band, incognito. I mention no names and wouldn't know whom you meant if you suggested one or three. And vicey versy.

Bob

In other news, the LoC has launched a playlist of NFR titles on their YouTube channel and on their own online "Screening Room". One of the 35 films posted by the LoC online is a new scan of their material on THE ITALIAN (1915) with a new piano score by yours truly.

Ben

I appreciate your side note! Most of these NFR titles were previously unavailable on YouTube in HD. Also, I fixed the link to The Italian as it was doing something weird with target=_blank. The piano is a nice accompaniment!

Thanks! Glad you liked the score.

Every year cranky comments about National Film Registry. Every year defenders of "new" movies, complaints that more "old" movies aren't included, assertions that no one knows what he or she doing.

Surprisingly for this site, many seem to have no memory. Or no desire to seek out the facts. I wrote in depth about the selection process here: https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/the-ch ... -registry/" target="_blank I even wrote two books about the entries. You don't even have to buy them since they're widely available on Chinese and Indian bootleg sites.

The board of the registry is not a bunch of know-nothing industry dudes trying to make money. It's not a lot of silent movie haters determined to lower cultural standards by suggesting that James Cameron might be an important filmmaker. It's actually a pretty serious attempt to bring attention to areas of cinema that might not otherwise be noticed. With some loss-leaders tossed in to grab headlines.

If your film isn't on the list, prepare an argument for why it should be. Or continue to grouse about how nothing good is ever done anywhere.

Now I can go be cranky somewhere else.

Daniel, thanks for your astute comments and writing on the subject. It's pretty humorous to see the crankiness, as if older films are being slighted. From this year's list, I spot four silent films, and sixteen before 1980. From the 2015 list, four silents, twenty pre-1980.

Considering they have to look at every film ever made yearly, those numbers are pretty good.