The EYE Study is slowly but steadily taking shape in the new Collection Centre. An important part of its rich collection are the film journals and periodicals. One of these, both in print and digitally available at EYE, is FIAF’s Journal of Film Preservation. FIAF stands for the International Federation of Film Archives and was established in 1938 in Paris. Its founding institutions are the British Film Institute in London, the Cinémathèque Française in Paris, the MOMA in New York City, and the Reichsfilmarchiv in Berlin. All were relatively new institutions at the time, with different ideas and goals about film preservation. (The Dutch Filmmuseum was only to be established in 1943, and joined FIAF in 1947). Of the four founders, the Reichsarchiv was the oldest, inaugurated by Hitler in 1933. Not coincidentally, Joseph Goebbels was known to be a film enthusiast with an understanding for its cultural and political and is therefore believed to be one of the motivators behind the Reichsarchiv’s founding.
In the following years, the war had far-fetching consequences for the cooperation between the FIAF members. Fortunately, after the war, the FIAF members (excluding the Reichsfilmarchiv) re-established their contacts and welcomed new archives as members. These new archives were often set up in the hausse of the post-war years in which national heritage became an important political issue. In the decades that followed, FIAF expanded both in activities and recognition. In 1973 the first FIAF Summer School was held. Ever since, these regular events have helped train archival personnel. In 2015, the number of 155 affiliates was reached, in 74 countries worldwide.
In 1972 the first issue of the FIAF Information Bulletin was published, which would in 1993 be renamed the Journal of Film Preservation. With issues published twice a year, it provides an international forum for current-day film preservation discussions that range from theoretical to technical and historical aspects of moving image archival activities (source). In the latest issue, EYE and the EYE collection play a prominent role. Ulrich Ruedel, Professor for Conservation and Restoration in Berlin, wrote a review on Jean Desmet’s Dream Factory: The Adventurous Years of Film (1907-1916). This book was published by EYE in 2014 and coincided with EYE’s exhibition by the same name. Ruedel takes readers through the different sections and contributions of the book while at the same time hinting to the importance of the Desmet collection for EYE. Not only did the Desmet films for a great part lay the foundation of EYE's collection in the fifties, it moreover was of great importance for films such as Peter Delpeut’s Lyrical Nitrate (1991), which was reissued on DVD at the time of the exhibition and book launch.
EYE’s head of Film Conservation and Digital Access Anne Gant has written a case study for a more elaborate article on the FofA group. This group first came together in 2012 and was formed by nine film preservation experts from the field, amongst them Giovanna Fossati, but also preservationists from Cinématheque Française and Library of Congress. Within an informal setting, the group gathers on a yearly basis, and have been discussing the many challenges that film-archiving community is faced with since the move to digital film production. Examples of this are the availability of raw stock, continuation of laboratory services (for example film lab Haghefilm Digitaal next to the former EYE Collection building at Overamstel) and the manufacturing of film digitization equipment. Other important issues are the imperatives of long-term preservation and staff training. By keeping to its original 2012 agenda (Raw stock; Laboratories; Scanning; Storage; Training and Succession; Formats and Materials), revision and continuous discussion makes for all kinds of impact and results. For more information on FoFA and its agenda, goals and debates, do read the main FoFA article in the latest Journal of Film Preservation issue, written by FoFA’s chair and BFI’s Head of Conservation Charles Fairall.
Interesting for people curious as to what EYE does regarding these preservation challenges, is Anne Gant’s case study that is one of three to follow Fairall’s text in this issue. Together with Jon Wengström from the Swedish Film Institute, PhD researcher Guy Edmonds from Australia and German conservation & restoration professor Ulrich Ruedel , she shows what digital film production and other facets of the fast-changing field of film preservation can mean for an organization such as EYE. Specifically, she speaks of the shifts in workflows that have come about both in digital and analogue activities. This is directly connected to the project “Images for the Future”, she explains, which had an enormous impact on how the department functions on a daily basis. The other case studies involve early cinema and cognitive creativity (Edmonds), moving image preservation studies at HTW Berlin (Ruedel) and sustaining photochemical laboratory processes in Sweden (Wengström).
When the EYE Study is up and running in October, feel free to reserve a desk and indulge yourself in this Journal of Film Preservation as well as the rest of EYE’s periodicals collection.
[For more about the history of FIAF, click here and here.]
Carpet in EYE Study (still from Man with a Movie Camera, Dziga Vertov, 1929)Tag:FIAF, EYE Study, Collection Centre, collection, collectie, Dziga Vertov, restoration, technology, collectie-informatie, digitalisering, digitization, Tweede Wereldoorlog
Joost Rekveld (1970) is a Dutch artist and experimental filmmaker. Since 1991 he has been making abstract films and light installations. In his early days he worked intensively with the medium of film, experimenting with all aspects of the process from printing, to manipulating, to developing the images himself. In 1994 he was already using a computer to make an animation film by writing his own software; a practice he returned to later on in his career.
His works display an intimate and embodied understanding of our technological world. They are deeply inspired by science and technology and the systematic dialogue between man and machine. By exploring the various spatial and sensorial aspects of light projection his works intrinsically relate to the early history of optics and perspective and, in many ways, can be understood as a type of visual music. His animated films are often mechanical compositions whereby the computer acts as a controller, orchestrating the precise movement of each optical element of the film-work or installation. Rekveld’s current works-in-progress include a number of projects that relate to his interest in the nature of “Open-Ended Machines,” the philosophy of technology, and the sensory nature of our material environment.
Over the past three decades Rekveld’s works have been presented at many international festivals. Most of his recent films have premiered at the International Film Festival Rotterdam and His film “#11, Marey <-> Moire” was the first Dutch film to ever be shown at the Sundance Film Festival. As well as festivals he has screened works at a wide range of venues for experimental film, animation and short film including the ICA and the Tate Modern in London, The Centre Pompidou in Paris and the Moderna Museet in Stockholm. He has presented a number of programmes about the history of abstract animation and light art, most prominently the 9th edition of Sonic Acts: Sonic Light 2003. Rekveld has a long history of curating programmes about abstract animation, visual music and the interaction between art and science and he is a regular guest at our weekly EYE on Art series where we present the history of the avant-garde. He has been giving lectures since 1993, and has been teaching interdisciplinary art since 1996. From 2008 to 2014 Rekveld was head of the ArtScience Interfaculty of the Royal Conservatoire and the Royal Academy of Art in The Hague. He is currently a board member of Sonic Acts (Amsterdam) and of the Centre for Visual Music (Los Angeles).
The Filmmuseum’s relationship with Joost dates back to 2004 when he was commissioned to curate a program and an installation called “A House in 4 dimensions”. In 2015 Rekveld’s films were added to EYE’s collection and we began the restoration and preservation of a number of his early works. These included #2, 1993, VRFLM, 1994, #5, 1994, and #7, 1996. The restoration work has been a joint venture between Joost, Simona Monizza, curator of experimental film and Gerard de Haan, the digital grader of Haghefilm Digital; the lab we used for this work. From the beginning we decided to opt for digitally restoring these films as well as producing digital projection copies. Two factors informed this choice. The first is that for most of Joost’s early films there were already existing negatives in relatively good condition; these form good elements for long-term preservation. The second reason was the wish to enhance the screening possibilities of these films in an era where 16mm projection becomes more difficult or unreliable.
In light of the premiere of these restored works, which will take place at EYE on Tuesday 17th May at 19.15 as part of our regular EYE on Art series, Ruth Sweeney asked Joost Rekveld to share his thoughts on the process of preserving his early film works. We’d like to share this short interview with you.
RS: How do you feel about having your work preserved by a National archive? What is the importance to you of preserving the works in this way?
JR: Hmm..How do I feel? I feel old! No but seriously…during the preservation process we talked a lot about one of the things that I found rather confronting. That was, especially with my first film #2, that I was more or less forced to revisit the mistakes I made 20 years ago. I mean it was my first film so I had no idea about lots of stuff. Technical things especially I had no clue about at that time. What came across during the preservation is that many parts of the original source material is really underexposed so in the lab you have this experience where somebody is looking at the material and saying “Oh that’s really underexposed!”. So yes, that’s very confronting.
In general I am very happy that people are interested enough to actually go through with this restoration and preservation work. For me, as a maker, what I like about film is that when they're finished they're really finished. I’m not really keen to be involved again. These are old films. I’m not distributing them myself and I’m happy to leave that to others so I can focus on new work. Im happy that other people can take control of preserving these films in order to keep them alive and make sure they can still be shown. In that light, however, one thing I do find difficult is that preservation is very archive centric. I want to make my work accessible. That’s very important to me.
RS: How did you feel about revisiting your early work with two other people in the room, the curator and the technician, who may have different perspectives and judgments as they are not filmmakers themselves?
JR: It did feel for me that in some way the restored films are indeed reinterpretations but the aim for me was always to stay as close as possible to the original material and my original intentions. In terms of preservation the goal for me was always about making these works accessible again in a world where technologies have shifted and evolved quite dramatically. Film used to be an easy choice as a medium but now it’s something that is actually rare. 16mm projections are hard to come by now.
Back to your question…the preservation process itself was very technical for me. It was about identifying obstacles and looking for solutions. In that sense I didn't feel that the perspectives of the curator and technician were alien, but rather I was happy to use their expertise. I used to be scared of the grading process because it was so expensive but now I know what I want and there has been some progress in my dialog with graders over the past 25 years.
RS: How do you feel about giving over your film cans to the archive and not having the physical film object with you and in your presence?
JR: I don’t mind really. I’m happy to not have to care so much! If you take the baby metaphor.. the children leave the house and they're on their own. I might be in touch once in a while but yeah..it’s OK they're out the house!
RS: Your early work is defined by the use of the film medium with its laws, rules and flaws, all inherent to the process of filmmaking. With this in mind how do you feel about having these early films now made available on digital format?
JR: That’s a good question! The thing is they also still exist as prints and these are good enough to project. I wouldn't hesitate if people wanted to show those print versions. I see the digital format as a new version of the film but not a replacement. I also understand that in 25-30 years from now it could be just these digital versions that are the ones that are available. Naturally I have thought about this. What I will say is I used to see myself as a film fundamentalist but that has changed. I now realise that these things are not at all binary. For a long time I've made films writing my own software and code so it isn't necessarily a historical progression for me, but instead this transition to digital is much more fluid.
RS: What were your original expectations when we started with the digital restoration?
JR: Well not so long ago I had DCPs made of some of my more recent films, for example #11, Marey <-> Moire which was originally shot on 35mm and had a certain aesthetic. I was actually really happy with the results. I will say I do miss the hummmm of the projector with a digital projection but visually, I’d say it’s different but I don’t miss anything.
RS: More specifically, how do you feel about the digital version of #7, one of the more complex films you made as it involves a hand painted roll?
JR: Yes - that’s a different story! The thing with this film is that it was basically an original that I had given up! I remember bringing it to EYE and thinking you can have it if you want it but to me it looked like a tree trunk because of the way it was all packed together. The paint was totally stuck! I thought I’m never going to touch this myself. I assumed that if we were ever going to restore this that it would have to be from the print copies I made back when I produced the original. In the end we did use the original though and I’m a bit ambivalent about this because unpacking it did do some damage. Sometimes I think maybe we should just roll it up and keep it as a tree trunk! I remember when I made this film. I didn't have money and I wanted to make a 30 minute film as cheap as possible which is why I arrived at this technique with the paint. I was only thinking about production rather than how the film would be stored or preserved. I didn’t store it properly at all and also hardly screened it. The original isn't the most audience friendly film!
RS: Would you say that since you've been through this process of restoring and preserving these early films that you now think more about preservation when making current works?
JR: Yes. I think I do. With the digital stuff, all the code etc I definitely think about it but I don't have secure practices in place. I lose stuff. Things disappear. Actually it’s hopeless. There’s a media artist called Rafael Lozano-Hemmer who makes very complicated installations involving technology and he has an amazing guide on how to preserve your work as a media artist. It’s amazing, very wise. I do think about formats too. I only use open source formats because this is advantageous for preservation. I remember talking to Bart Vetger about code and this open source thing. He was already working in a certain software environment. I remember at some point thinking specifically about what code language I would choose to work with and what would be the best long-term option.
RS: Can you say something about the changing of formats that took place due to the restoration and preservation process of for instance #2, which was originally shot on Super8. Do you regard this as an ethical issue?
JR: No, not anymore. I have done in the past but, like I said, I’m no longer a film fundamentalist. I remember when it was irresponsible and unethical for a programmer to ask an experimental filmmaker to provide a video version of a film work. That was unthinkable! In the beginning when films were scanned to video the quality was a load of crap! It was terrible! Now with HD screening digital versions are much better. What I have also noticed over time is that 35mm is much more stable than 16mm now. It’s more reliable to screen films on 35mm because 35mm projectionists are all trained and know exactly what they're doing. The 35mm projectors are all standardised and I rarely have trouble with 35mm projections. 16mm it’s a totally different story! It is rarely perfect. The reality now is that 16mm projections are mostly crappy so digital projections are preferable because they are much better quality. I see that there are still pockets of film fundamentalism that remain but for me, I now see working with film as a passing phase in my career. I do think about how to make work accessible online. I think it would be great to do, and platforms like vimeo are making this easier but still…what is made available online simply is not the film. It’s so far from the visual experience I want people to have.
RS: In your 2010 essay “Conversations with Machines” you talk about expanded cinema as compositions: “Many of the historic expanded cinema projects are compositions for two or more projectors in which the focus is on the compositional opportunities of several film “voices”, analogous to musical voices. These films necessitate a conscious focusing of attention, so that each spectator has his or her own experience.” How do you feel the restoration of #5 and the conversion of the work to a single-channel piece has effected the nature of the work?
JR: The thing is with #5 is that it was originally made to be shown in a gallery space, not in a cinema. What I liked then is that I could sort of reconfigure the work and adapt the screening format to the space. This posed an interesting challenge when the piece started to be integrated into film programmes, either with my other work or other single-channel works. I then found myself needing to present the work in the standardised space of the cinema. After some trials and experimenting I found that this single-channel screening is actually the optimum way to screen the work in the cinema space. I see this preservation as a way of freezing that choice in time in a way. The prints do still exist so it can still be shown in different ways and we also talked about making digital copies of each of the individual “tracks” as it were so there could still be various screening options. In a gallery space for example it still makes most sense for it to be screened as a three-channel work. I like to keep these possibilities open!
RS: Also in relation to #5, you mentioned before that you like the hummmm of the projector. With this in mind how important was it for you to consider the lack of the 16mm projector in the new digital version?
JR: For me, presenting #5 was always so exciting! However, it’s an excitement that I know the audience wouldn’t have experienced because for me it was about the anticipation. When I would screen this work using three projectors I would do a test run and figure out delays and syncs. There was always a lot of tension for me then. I would be anxious about if the projectors were running at the same speed. It was exciting in the same way a horse race can be! The projectors are three horses approaching the finish line and will they be in sync?! This moment gave me a sort of nervous excitement! Like I say this is purely personal and the audience don't know about this element or experience that tension. For that reason now when I think about the digital version of the film which is perfectly synced it’s actually just boring! I’m totally aware that there is no change here for the audience…for the audience it’s boring all along!
RS: So the final question is how do you feel these early works - in their restored form - relate to your current work?
JR: That’s an interesting question. If we go back to the baby metaphor; the child leaving the house and starting a new life of their own etc but then, at the end of the day, they're still family! That’s how I feel about my films. I can definitely learn a lot from revisiting the films but it’s a new kind of interaction, and of course I still have a strong connection. If I take #2 for example, a film which, until very recently, I hadn't screened for a very long time. Just before we started the preservation process I screened the film in Japan as part of a retrospective type programme and it was the first time i’d seen it again in maybe 15 years. It triggered a lot of thoughts. I was writing a lot of proposals at the time I revisited it and I realised then that this film captures something that I've tried to do in all my films. Something I didn't realise until that moment. I thought in some sense I have always been making the same film, and actually continue to do so! What I mean by this is that I have a fascination with processes where forms emerge and structures come into being. I see that I was doing that in #2 and it’s basically what I'm always doing. I always think my projects are completely different but in fact they're not. In that sense revisiting the films has been very interesting.
RS: Which restoration do you feel happiest with?
JR: I think I would say #5. Thinking of how Tuesday will go I feel very confident and I feel like it’s going to be really nice and thats not easy to do with 16mm screenings. My films were made at a time when you could just rent film projectors but thats becoming more and more exotic. Preserving films gives them a new life. I’m happy that this preservation process makes my films more accessible. This is so important to me! I want my films to be seen!
Blog post by Simona Monizza, curator Experimental Film EYE & Ruth Sweeney, student intern.Tag:collection, experimental film, Rekveld, restoration, EYE on Art
Tot 26 mei 2016 is in OBA-locatie Cinétol aan de Tolstraat in de Pijp nog de overzichtstentoonstelling “Kroniek Cinétol: van theosophische tempel tot bibliotheek: een historisch overzicht” te bezoeken. Het rijksmonument waar nu de openbare bibliotheek gevestigd is, werd gebouwd in 1926 onder de stijl van het Nieuwe Bouwen. Achtereenvolgens diende het gebouw als theosofische tempel, theater, synagoge, bioscoop, moskee en nu al dertig jaar als bibliotheek. Het huisvestte de bioscopen Thalia (1942-1944), Cultura (1946-1954) en Cinétol (vanaf 1954) tot de sluiting in 1979. Onder directeur en programmeur Cor Koppies werd Cinétol een belangrijke bioscoop met premières, klassiekers, festivals en discussies, met gasten als Jan Blokker, François Truffaut en Ingmar Bergman. Films van onder meer Akira Kurosawa, Jean Eustache, Eric Rohmer, Alfred Hitchcock, Charles Chaplin, Louis Malle, Federico Fellini en vele anderen werden vertoond.
AJR filmposter, EYE Filmgerelateerde collecties, 1957
Duikend in het archief van EYE zijn er vele publicaties te vinden over Cinétol, haar directeur en programmering. Mooi zijn bijvoorbeeld de posters van de Amsterdamse Jeugdraad, die voorstellingen in Cinétol organiseerde. Sowieso wist veel jeugd Cinétol te vinden, niet alleen de jeugd uit de Pijp. Koppies organiseerde er nachtelijke “teach-ins” die zelfs op landelijk niveau bekendheid verwierven. Zelf was hij op zijn achttiende als leerling-operateur begonnen bij datzelfde Cinétol, dat in de jaren vijftig samen met het Leidsepleintheater en de Uitkijk werd geëxploiteerd. Langs deze theaters wist hij op te klimmen tot chef-operateur en technisch bedrijfsleider. Toen werd besloten dat het noodlijdende Cinétolgebouw moest worden afgestoten, wist Koppies, amper 25 jaar, het zich toe te eigenen. Als directeur én operateur startte hij met een programma over Ingmar Bergman (“Is Ingmar Bergman een charlatan?”). Zo werd al gauw de toon gezet voor een bijzondere bioscoop. Koppies raakte geregeld in de clinch met de Filmkeuring of de Bioscoopbond, door themareeksen te organiseren over de Nouvelle Vague, de Britse Free Cinema en Italiaanse films, omdat de bond vereiste dat films een hele week draaiden.
Vele regisseursprogramma’s en themareeksen zouden volgen. Ook de nachtvoorstellingen, een unicum in die tijd, waren zeer geliefd. Koppies, die met zijn onafhankelijke bioscoop bekend stond als kleine zelfstandige in het commerciële bioscooplandschap, schroomde niet om tot onconventionele methoden over te gaan om titels te bemachtigen die hij wilde vertonen. Vond hij een film niet of te duur op filmmarkten in Cannes en Parijs, dan benaderde hij de Franse ambassade gewoon zelf voor de import. Hij zocht, zoals hij zelf zei, naar een andere manier van film verkopen. Desondanks was Koppies niet vreemd van een beetje amusement, naast de artistiekere titels. Zo haalde hij King Kong naar zijn Cinétol-theater, een kaskraker. Fantastische film, zo werd opgetekend uit zijn mond. (Artikel “Alles laten zien wat interessant is” in De Tijd/Maasbode, 2-12-1966). In 1979 sloot Cinétol en ging Koppies een nieuw avontuur aan op de Lijnbaansgracht, het welbekende Cinecenter.
Cinétol-button, EYE Filmgerelateerde collecties, jaar onbekend
Er zijn twee publicaties uitgegeven naar aanleiding van de tentoonstelling, beiden zijn opgenomen in de bibliotheek van EYE. Ook zijn er zoals gezegd veel posters, parafenalia en knipsels te vinden over Cinétol en Cor Koppies, die zeker de moeite zijn om na te slaan in de vernieuwde EYE Study vanaf oktober. Tot die tijd zijn er ook andere online bronnen waarin Cinétol terug te vinden is, zoals het In Memoriam-artikel over Koppies van Hans Beerekamp en de Cinétol-advertenties in de Delpher-krantenbank.
Tag:Cinétol, Cor Koppies, collectie, filmgerelateerd, Jan Blokker, François Truffaut, Ingmar Bergman, Amsterdamse Jeugdraad, kroniek
It has been well over a month since my first collection blog about the move to the new Collection Centre in Amsterdam Noord. Last week was an important and extensive stage in the moving process, as the technical move was carried out. Amongst the technical devices that needed to be rehoused carefully, were Steenbeck’s flatbeds and the Scanity filmscanner. These heavy machines were hoisted out of the Overamstel building by crane.
As you can see from the pictures, this was a great operation. Luckily, the Steenbeck company was present to prepare the flatbeds/viewing tables for the move. On these tables, varying from rewinding tables to editing tables with two screens and speakers, film and sound can be run individually and matched to synchronize. The originally German-based company was taken over by one of its former Dutch dealers in Venray, in 2003. Besides the maintenance that is involved with the delicate mechanisms of these machines, the company’s focus remains with developing viewing and editing tables as it has been for the last 60 years. (For more information on the history of Steenbeck, see their company's history page).
Film scanning: Scanity's technology
Scanity is another machine of great importance to the EYE archive and the Film Conservation & Digital Access department. With this, we have the possibility to scan 16mm and 35mm analog film image (and sound) up to a 4K digital format at a high pace. The demand for analog film scanned digitally is high. As digital born films are issued in 4K, the demand on historical film - and its gatekeepers - is changing because of it. The European Broadcasters Union (EBU) has set up guidelines that apply here, as quoted by Giovanna Fossati in her book From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition:
Technology is now available to scan and digitize the full information available in film images. Experience with such equipment shows that a pixel pitch of 6 μm (about 160 pixels per mm) is considered sufficient to reproduce current film stocks. This corresponds to a scan of 4k x 3k (actually 4096 x 3112) over the full aperture on 35 mm film. If film is scanned at lower resolution (corresponding to a larger pixel spacing), less information is captured and more aliasing artefacts are introduced” (EBU 2001 in Fossati, p. 77).
Besides the advantages of Scanity in high-paced scanning of EYE’s archival films for use within and outside of EYE, it has some other features that are most important for the sort of film the archive holds. Scanning film is often a precarious undertaking because of the state of many archival films. Scanning film is often a precarious undertaking because of the state of many archival film footage. It can suffer from shrinkage, warping, loose splices, rips, mold, etc. The process can be stressing the film and deteriorating the film’s state ever further. If we for example look at the perforations of a certain film copy, they can be torn in many ways, such as on this image (left). The perforations are used for the transport through most projectors, editing tables, and other machines. These systems, as well as many scanning systems, pick up the film by sprockets or pins that go through the perforations. Because of this, the perforations have a tendency to wear easily. Scanity on the other hand, does not use the perforations for transporting the film through the machine for the scanning process.
(Source: DFT Film)
The technique Scanity uses instead is based on a capstan and roller gate transport system. This entails that the film is not guided through the machine by fixed guides, but instead goes through the scanning process on a number of rollers.The capstan on the machine makes for a relaxed move of the film through the process. Still, for scanning the film it is essential to identify the film per frame. This because if the perforations are not located, the image stability of the digital scan will not be up to standards. To make this possible, Scanity uses a camera technology dedicated to detect the perforations without having to physically use them. This makes for a steady digital scan in the end. For more information from DFT’s perspective on digitization of analog film and how Scanity works, see DFT's datasheet.
At this point in time, gathering the EYE collection in this new Collection Centre has proven to be a great success: from February until today, about 85% of the 200.000 cans that needed to be processed and barcoded have found their new place into the shelves. It has been great to find titles that inspire your inner film geek to re-watch, not to mention the beautiful and/or completely ruined film cans. The film in the can below is for example taken out and put into a new can, left from the corroded one on the picture. Under the right circumstances, these cans are archived under the same roof as the Film Conservation & Digital Access department, the EYE Study and other departments that work closely with this collection. To keep updated on the different stages of the move to the Collection Centre, keep an eye (...) on this collection blog!Tag:archief, archive, digitalisering, digitization, technology, Collection Centre, Steenbeck, Scanity, barcoding project, collectie, collection
Vrij plotseling maar niet geheel onverwacht bereikte ons vorige week het bericht dat Theodore van Houten is overleden. Deze markante persoon had op een aantal manieren een band met EYE. Hij was bekend door zijn voorstellingen voor zwijgende film via zijn stichting Cinema in Concert. Deze voorstellingen werden weliswaar niet bij EYE georganiseerd en waren bedoeld voor muzikale begeleiding met groot orkest, maar uiteraard vormden zij een mooie aanvulling op de voortstellingen die EYE zelf met zwijgende film verzorgt en delen vooral de passie voor deze bijzondere kunstvorm.
Ondergetekende werkte in 1991 een drietal maanden intensief met Theodore samen aan de ontsluiting van EYE's collectie bladmuziek voor zwijgende film, die toen voornamelijk bestond uit de collectie afkomstig van de Utrechtse concertmeester Ido Eyl. Theodore beschreef de stukken inhoudelijk, waarna ik ze in zuurvrije omslagen verpakte en de data in de database invoerde.
Ik leerde Theodore in die periode kennen als een zeer eigenzinnige, om niet te zeggen eigenwijze man, die echter tegelijk een bijzonder humorvolle en aangename kamergenoot bleek. Zijn passie voor muziek galmde regelmatig door de ruimte en hij bleek bovendien zeer gedreven en productief.
Theodore vulde de Eyl-collectie nog aan met honderden stukken uit zijn eigen verzameling. Hij wist te bewerkstelligen dat alle op deze manier gegeneerde data in boekvorm verschenen bij uitgever Frits Knuf: Silent Cinema Music.
In 1991 vertelde Theodore regelmatig over zijn nog jonge dochters, waaruit tevens een warm vaderhart sprak. Toen kon ik nog niet vermoeden welk een bekendheid Carice en Jelka later zouden krijgen. Zijn trots om de prestaties van zijn dochters bleek in 2011, toen Theodore enkele dozen vol verzamelde publicaties over met name Carice aan EYE aanbood. Hij kon de stroom niet meer bijhouden en droeg de materialen daarom al vast over. In 2014 volgde zijn archief van Cinema in Concert. Alle drie genoemde collecties zijn bij EYE ontsloten en zullen binnenkort raadpleegbaar zijn in het nieuwe Collectiecentrum.
Friday, the 11th of March, the book launch of Exposing the Film Apparatus: The Film Archive as a Research Laboratory took place at EYE. Co-editors Giovanna Fossati (EYE, University of Amsterdam) and Annie van den Oever (University of Groningen), together with the present contributors, proudly presented the new book.
Exposing the Film Apparatus is a volume which is made possible by a collaboration between EYE and the Film Archive and Research Laboratory of the University of Groningen. The book offers essays on film apparatuses and media technologies by various media scholars and practitioners. It is a rich tribute to the various pioneers and creators of the cinematic medium. Furthermore, the book provides “a wider view encompassing the coming rewards in the context of the treasures left us by past experiences, possessions and insights”.
In Fossati’s introduction speech, she states that one of the main reasons to create the book was the material turn. As a reaction to the digital turn, the material turn spurs a strong longing for the materiality of film and its devices; its apparatuses so to say. By opening up the archival vaults it is possible to seek out for practical and interactive ways of dealing with the apparatus collection. Therefore, the book has an experimental archival approach by addressing the film archive as a research lab, van den Oever argues.
The afternoon was filled with five chapter presentations by Susan Aasman, Eef Masson, Leenke Ripmeester, Martin Koerber and Jan Holmberg. They provided the audience with inspiring and interactive ways of dealing with the apparatus collection. During Ripmeester’s presentation, the audience even witnessed a 35mm film reel changeover by a projectionist.
This book is the ultimate materialization of a collaboration between the many scholars who are involved in this project. The gathering ended with all the speakers and writers on stage to receive a great applause by the attendees.
Exposing the Film Apparatus: The Film Archive as a Research Laboratory
ISBN 978 90 8964 718 4
Price: € 39.90
By Sam Duijf and Anouk Kraan. Photo's by Tulta BehmTag:Filmapparaten, Filmapparatus, apparaten, apparatencollectie
An interesting time lies ahead of us. Lots has already happened since the move to EYE’s new Collection Centre was announced. The EYE library will be moving too, therefore many considerations have to be made. Especially given that more and more material is requested through the online catalogue instead of being consulted in the library. Needless to say, it is still key to hold on to the great collection of books and magazines. EYE has been focussing on its core task of maintaining the Dutch film heritage more and more. How does this affect what is moved to the Collection Centre and what isn’t?
Foreign magazine and book duplicates make up a significant part of the library collection. They have for long been stored elsewhere since they are the duplicates of material available. Since the first week of February, all these boxes with magazine duplicates have moved into the Overamstel library. In teams of two, EYE employees and volunteers have been going through over 90 cardboard boxes with material from all over the globe. This ranges from numerous Variety issues, to Finnish and Russian magazines, as well as beautifully designed Dutch Kunst en Amusement issues from the 1920s. The latter is of course kept and it will make the move to the new Collection Centre. These magazines are put in new boxes and registered on title. The foreign duplicates are certainly not thrown away, but are given to another film museum.
Kunst en Amusement (Nr.1, 1923)
As an intern at EYE, it has been really interesting handling all these beautiful magazines and preparing them for a place in a brand new building. As we are working meticulously over the next couple of months until reopening in October, these gems as well as others, are digitally available in the BIBIS library catalogue. This specific magazine gives a concrete overview of the Dutch commercial cinema circuit throughout the 1920s, and is one of numerous examples in EYE’s collection from throughout the twentieth and twenty-first century. Kunst en Amusement’s primary focus could be described as promoting the cinema circuit and caring for its future, for example by discussing the “Ontwerp Bioskoopwet” as well as dismissing the idea for restricting cinema admission for children. The latter was thought to be unnecessary, since the nationally centralized "filmkeuring” commission kept track of providing cinemas with decent films suitable for all ages. Moreover, the advertisements in the Kunst en amusement magazines offer a glimpse into the countless film businesses that were around in the 1920s.
From October onwards, it is possible to reserve a spot in the Collection Centre's EYE Study, where magazines such as this one can be consulted close to the main EYE Museum building. It will be more condensed and complete than ever: both the film collection and film-related collections under one roof. Sorting out these duplicates to make use of the new Collection Centre as efficiently as possible is only one of many tasks needed to prepare for the move. During the move, I will occasionally update this blog with interesting moments in the process.Tag:collectie, collection, Collection Centre, EYE Study, collectie-informatie, filmkeuring, Nederlandse film, Kunst en amusement, digitalisering, digitized
Recently EYE was part of a quite exciting project involving the re-enactment of the software code filmmaker and computer artist Bart Vegter used to create his computer abstract animation film ‘De Tijd’ in 2008.
In 2011 after the filmmaker passed away, his complete archive was donated to EYE. We had already previously worked on the restoration of his films, but this was the first time we received a filmmaker’s archive made up of a diverse range of media testifying to the different image-making techniques he used during his lifetime; together with previously unreleased 16mm or 8mm early films, the boxes also included old hard-drives and floppy disks containing the software code he wrote to make his computer films.
As the expertise of our film curators and restorers lies primarily in the preservation of analogue and digital film rather than computer art the computer-based artefacts in Vegter’s archive presented us with a number of challenges. In order to bring us closer to understanding and appreciating the working method of Bart Vegter, and his use of the computer as a creative medium, EYE commissioned Bram Bogaerts and Jesper Vos to respond to this archive. We asked the designers to focus specifically on the preservation and access of the self-written software code. The result is ‘Machine Room’; a large-scale spatial installation which is a real-time visualization of the computer code Vegter used to make his 2008 film ‘De Tijd’ and at the same time a study of the life-span of software codes.
Who was Bart Vegter and why is he important to us?
Bart Vegter (1940-2011) was an experimental filmmaker who lived and worked in Rotterdam. He is often considered one of the pioneers of abstract animation in The Netherlands.Initially Vegter did not train as a filmmaker. In his twenties he studied Electronic Engineering at Eindhoven University and, following this, went on to work as an engineer for a number of large corporations. After working in this field for almost two decades Vegter decided he wanted a career change. In 1976 he began to channel his energy into experimental cinema. He started attending Frans Zwartjes’ Cine Workshop at the Psychopolis Free Academy of Art in the Hague (Vrije Akademie). During his time here he was introduced to the work of a number of prominent Dutch experimental filmmakers and animators. Jacques Verbeek, Paul de Mol and Karin Wiertz, as well as the artists associated with 1960s and 1970s American experimental cinema, influenced Vegter’s early film work.
During his first years as a film-maker, he worked mainly with traditional animation techniques. In 1981 he made his first experimental film, Horizontalen. This film, along with In Need of Space (1983), De Hemel is Vierkant (1985), and Four Moves (1987), was filmed on 16mm and made by using traditional methods like cuts-outs, cell overlays and other printing techniques. From the 1990's Vegter started to use computer generated images in his films, the first one of this kind was Nacht-Licht (1993). The films that followed, Space-Modulation (1994), Forest-Views (1999), Zwerk (2004), and De Tijd (2008) all were made using his self-written computer software code. These computer-made films were transferred back to film for projection copies on 16mm and 35mm. Vegter continued to make films using this technique up until his death in 2011.
Still from De hemel is vierkantStill from Horizontalen Vegter’s switch to computers was based upon his desire to combine his technical background with his creative interests and to be able to explore a new medium. Though Vegter’s use of computers changed the aesthetics of his films, his overall approach to filmmaking remained the same throughout his life. He was interested in exploring the inherent qualities/rules of processes present in physical realities or perceptual experiences. As Joost Rekveld writes on Vegter: “He had an eye for intriguing visual phenomena…He took many pictures of sand patterns in the dunes, enjoyed the rhythmic circular waves in a puddle when it was raining, admired the light projections on his wall caused by the sun’s rays reflected off windows and through trees, and wondered why he could only see the reflection of his cactus in the window when he was moving it…In a way, besides their beauty and originality, perhaps the strongest statement the films of Bart Vegter make is that they share his admiration, curiosity and above all his pure attention for the visual world.” The computer-made films of Bart Vegter are the end result of a long process which starts with a self-written software code that either creates or manipulates an image. These codes could be considered the DNA of the film but contrary to film, they cannot be read or easily accessed by third parties. Researching the Bart Vegter software code for the project ‘Machine Room’ is a first step into understanding how he worked with the computer and could hopefully provide interesting insights into computer art in general and its preservation, an area of interest not yet widely spread among film archives but in need of attention due to the speedy technical obsolescence of equipment and softwares. In the future we hope to develop and expand upon this area of research. For more information on this project you can watch the short documentary we produced for Art-Tube with interviews of Bogaerts and Vos, Martijn van Boven and Simona Monizza.
On Tuesday 15th March 2016, in collaboration with ArtEZ, EYE will present ‘Machine Room’, the EYE-commissioned installation by interaction designers Bram Bogaerts and Jesper Vos.
To know more about the project Machine Room you can watch this short video reportage by Bram Bogaerts and Jesper Vos.
Simona Monizza, Curator Experimental Film & Ruth Sweeney, internTag:experimental film, computer, digital, technology, interactive, interaction, archive
In the early 2000s the EYE Filmmuseum received a large amount of film-related materials (in particular about Dutch silent film) through the estate of film collector and historian Geoffrey Donaldson (1929-2002). In a previous blog entry we already talked about the archive of the Kinsbergen family which was created from the materials from this particular archive. Another part of the collection which has recently been inventoried consisted of 2 boxes containing 8 binders with material about the British author Henry Rider Haggard. Six of which contained information about films adapted from Haggard's works. Haggard, who is most widely known for his adventure stories set in exotic locations (predominately the jungles of Africa), is widely regarded as one of the first people to popularize the so-called “Lost World” literary genre.
Henry Rider Haggard was born in Bradenham (Norfolk) on June 22nd 1856 as the eight of ten children. As the son of a barrister he was educated at Ipswich Grammar school and by private tutors. At age 19 he was sent to southern Africa as part of the staff of Sir Henry Bulwer, the governor of the South African province Natal. He was present during the signing of the treaty with the Boers (settlers in that region who had predominately Dutch ancestry) and the annexation of the Transvaal region by the British government. He later became head of his own government department. On August 11, 1880 he married Mariana Louisa Margitson and returned to England after the Transvaal gained independence in 1884. They had four children, one son (who tragically died from measles at age 10) and three daughters who he named after characters from his books. His first commercial success came with his fourth book, “King Solomon’s Mines”, an adventure novel in the vein of Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Treasure Island”. Among his most popular creations were Allan Quatermain, the hero of “King Solomon’s Mines” (and it's sequels), and Ayesha, the title character of his fifth book “She” (the novel that was most frequently adapted to the screen, at least 13 adaptations according to Donaldson).
Donaldson collected everything he could find about films made from Haggard's books ranging from the earliest silent versions till the most recent film adaptation of "Allan Quatermain", “Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold” (USA, 1987) with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone. The latter a sequel to the 1985 film "King Solomon's Mines" which tried but failed to reach the same level of success as Spielberg's Indiana Jones movies. The meticulously research contained personal notes in which Donaldson gave further details about the cast and crew and discussed whether the film should be considered part of the Haggard filmography. In some cases, as with the Méliès film “La Danse du Feu” (France 1899) he concluded that the film should not be considered as a adaptation of “She”, as some other film historians had suggested.
Among the materials collected were more than 300 photographs and (vintage) postcards aquired from a number of archives around the world as well as a few original publicity items such as brochures, pressbooks and posters.
Donaldson's research included information about some of the more obscure versions of Haggard adaptations such as a Musical version of "She" called "Malika Salomi" (India, 1953) from India and a TV version of "King Solomon's Mines" from South Africa as well as a variety of photographs from lost silent films such as two US films from 1917 "Heart and Soul" and "Cleopatra" starring the famous Vamp Theda Bara.
Those familiar with Dutch silent film might be particularily interested in the Austrian silent film "Die Sklavenkönigin" (1924), a version of the novel "Moon of Israel". One of the stars of the movie was the Chilean actor Adelqui Migliar who is most famous for appearing in a great number of Dutch productions. This connection is quite remarkable given the fact that Donaldson was particularily interested in Dutch film, spoke out against the claim by earlier Dutch filmscholars that the Netherlands had not been very prolific during the silent film era and is well-known for writing "Of Joy and Sorrow" an indepth filmography about the Dutch silent film period.
Dana Pastor, intern filmrelated collectionTag:silent film, sound film, Geoffrey Donaldson, H. Rider Haggard, stille film, archief, collectie, collection, archive, lost films, adaptation
Since the summer of 2014, films from EYE collection have been involved in numerous screenings of the project ‘Views of the Ottoman Empire’; a travelling film presentation aiming to discover and put into context archival images pertaining to former territories of the Ottoman Empire. This project grew gradually from the research into the hundred years ago programs and the WWI films, which revealed many short films, seemingly not belonging anywhere specific, but falling into the right place when viewed from the perspective of the Ottoman history and geography.
One of the most rewarding aspects of the project (which is always presented live to explain the underlying context) is bringing the films to the places they were originally shot. Screenings in places like Kosovo, Belgrade or Istanbul never fail to move the local audiences, confronting them with their home towns from a century ago.
In December 2015, when the project visited Istanbul for the second time, we brought a surprise from EYE: a 1926 film called Les fontaines de Constantinople contains the historic Tophane Fountain that is only 50 meters away from the cinema!
Since the project also hopes to improve the identification of these often scarcely catalogued images, it can be helpful to show the images to the locals. For example, at EYE we recently found and restored the film Pathé-revue n° 37 – Visions de Yougoslavie (Beelden Uit Yugoslavie, 1926). Despite its overall title referring to Yugoslavia, this compilation film appears to contain images of Istanbul’s Uskudar district (or ‘Scutari’, as referred to on the film); recognizable to the residents of the city (mainly thanks to the monumental Mihrimah Sultan Mosque), but not so obvious to us at EYE, due to the presence of many places called ‘Scutari’ on the Balkan peninsula.
Ottoman Project asserts that the films from these territories, though often considered lost, can actually be found in unexpected places. The film Der Kaiser bei unseren Türkischen Verbündeten, shot by the German Army in 1917 has so far popped up in the Netherlands (EYE/Huis Doorn Collection), Germany (Bundesarchiv), England (Imperial War Museum) and Turkey (Turkish Armed Forces archive held by theTurkish Film and TV institute). Unique footage showing Balkan War refugees camping outside Istanbul’s byzantine walls in 1913 arrived to EYE in 2013 from a private collection. Images of the Armenian orphans in the occupied Istanbul (1918-1923) were found at the Library of Congress in Washington and restored by the Cineteca di Bologna in 2015. Images of the ancient Armenian city of Ani, shot by the Italian cameraman Giovanni Vitrotti in 1911, was found within the collection of the Swiss priest Joye, curently held and restored by the British Film Institute.
After having visited Istanbul twice (during the 1st and 2nd Istanbul Silent Cinema Days); just as I thought we had run out of Istanbul images at EYE, a new film surfaced within a very recently donated batch of films only a couple of weeks ago: En Promenade Sur Le Bosphore (1928). Although not unique, this particular print is beautifully toned (as opposed to the French version that is b&w). At the moment there are no immediate plans to restore this particular film, but it is clear that the Ottoman project can continue to travel and gradually grow in the coming years.
Elif Rongen-Kaynakçi, Curator of Silent FilmTag:Silent cinema, Ottoman, history, archives, discovery, lost&found, nitrate film