Introduction to Bio-Fiction Classification Theory: Remix Methodologies and the Archivist

Introduction

One of the most problematic components in dealing with film restoration on any level is the subjective interpretation of the general terminology used in the. Almost everyone has their own definition, and more recently the term has come to be used in so many different ways that it seems to stand for any film re-released in some format that was once released prior, regardless of whether any effort has been made to "restore" anything. The term has always reflected questionable accuracy in that it will forever remain loaded in its insinuations of what is actually possible. Can one truly restore the past, or are there temporal limitations that prohibit such? In the case of film, there seems a divided philosophy, and for good reason. On the one hand, there are films [Begin Page 15] that are physically lost and cannot be restored, regardless of desire or definition; on the other, there are films that are considered restored because they have had material reinserted or soundtracks cleaned or intertitles translated. Although all these interventions can be monumentally helpful for progressing the posterity of cinematic heritage, and bringing a new audience to otherwise unavailable material, using the word restoration under certain definitions just seems to mislead what is actually taking place.

For sake of openness in the following argument, I will be using the definition put forth by Read and Meyer stating that when speaking of restoration, "we mean the whole spectrum of film duplication, from the most simple duplication with a minimum of interventions up to the most complex ones with a maximum of manipulations."¹ From this, we can extend our understanding of the inherent relationship the archivist has to restorative remixing and why classifications need to exist that go beyond dealing with whatmay be and identify that which simply is.

The next clarification I should address is that of ethics and where they fit into the following argument. Although I am an archivist first and therefore hope that ethical concerns are always at the forefront of the decision-making process, I cannot control those actions of others. I understand that the manager of a stock footage library will not always have control over the material he or she licenses, or that the desire to educate others in the field sometimes necessitates the out-of-context use of a clip or the projection of inferior quality material. Even deliberately unethical versions of filmic creations must be screened to illuminate the differences or problems one finds with such materials. The question being addressed is not one of moralistic patrol of the archivist but one of biographical clarity when dealing with work created where the archivist may even perform as some sort of mediated agent.

In part, this argument is that I believe nothing filmic to be real, only a filmic and subjective re-creation or interpretation of the real. This in essence should give the reader the general overview that this argument is presenting all filmic artifacts as a remix on at least some level.

Ultimately, this argument involves one of terminology and uses unpopular words such as "biography" and "repurpose" or "remix" in referring to film restoration. It seeks to challenge current thought by means of not accepting things because that was the way they have always been. Just as we are approaching the possible end of film one day, let us approach the end of ambiguity in the field. There is more manipulation of footage being done these days than ever before and yet somewhere the archival field has gone astray into a dominant discussion of semantics overpowering designations, leaving thismaterial unclassifiable. [Begin Page 16]

Existing Restoration Theories

The current theories often used for delineating film restoration fall grossly short of both encompassing that which exists and outlining the methodologies that are used.

One of the primary reasons for this seems to be coming from a fractured understanding of the medium at hand. I propose that rather than continuing to try and fit film into the ubiquitous constraints of other archival theories, the field on whole should learn to accept the uniqueness of...