Sunday, July 5, 2015

ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE: ACCESS AND REUSE OF ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE -SOME CRITICAL ISSUES



Ethics and competence in using archival footage.

"...The Devil is in the Details..."

The aim of the presentation of my paper is to highlight issues related to incorrect use of archival footage in new films, television and radio productions. New historical documentaries are released on the market annually. National television corporations worldwide are transmitting programmes where the content is based on an active and creative reuse of transmitted films, radio and television productions. The selection of the sources for the productions is an important task. Written documents are evaluated by the producers, sound recordings are selected and excerpts from movies and television productions are evaluated for the new productions. My paper is a critical approach to the selection of the sources. The written work is still the most commonly used source. Stock footage from audiovisual archives has been used in historical movies and programmes in an incorrect way. The story told by reusing real shots of the event must content excerpts relating to the event. My paper is dealing with misuse and lack of studies of dependable primary documentation. Above all: The famous idiom: “ ...The devil is in the details ...” has been a reminder of the research of different documentaries viewed. Unknown facts hidden in the details must be highlighted.?

The idiom " The devil is in the details"derives from earlier phrase, " God is in the detail", expressing the idea that whatever one does should be done thoroughly. For academic papers details are the essential objects for the studies.What about the production of documentaries contenting photos, sound recordings and archivaal footage from television productions and movies?


NORWAY IN 1940 – GERMAN INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF NORWAY – CRITICAL USE OF SOURCES.

The city of Oslo taken by a German military orchestra only?
April 9, 1940: The German attack on Norway came as surprise for the Norwegian military leaders who were of the opinion that the main threat was Russia, not Germany. From a military point of view, the invasion of Norway, “ Operation Weserubung”  ,was a success.[1] The German generals were told that the Norwegians would not defend themselves. Therefore a German military orchestra was embarked on the new German cruiser “ Blucher “ . The task of the orchestra was to play and march for the people of Oslo to make the invasion as friendly as possible. The German soldiers were told that they came to Norway to avoid a British invasion of Norway. The German cruiser “ Blucher “ was attacked by Oscarsborg fortress resulting in the sinking of the ship together with the German military orchestra. When the German soldiers arrived at Oslo there were no orchestra to play. The archival footage showing German soldiers marching together with an orchestra on April 9 is not correct. But a new orchestra played for the inhabitants of Oslo on April 10 the very day after the invasion. It was important for the German military propaganda to show the success of the invasion of Norway and Oslo. Therefore a new orchestra was brought to Oslo by airplane, Junkers G.38 on April 10 to Fornebu airport close to Oslo. The orchestra came from Fliegerhorst kommantur Staaken close to the city of Berlin, Germany.[2]

APRIL 9 OR APRIL 10, 1940? THE ORCHESTRA PLAYED WHEN?
New historical documentaries are released in year 2015 dealing with Norway and The Second World War. The story of the German in invasion of Oslo is highlighted in more than one programme showing the German orchestra playing and marching together with the German soldiers on the day of the invasion – April 9. The incorrect use of archival footage creates a wrong picture of the event that took place in Oslo, April 9. The atmosphere among people in Oslo was relaxed in favour of the German army but not that relaxed as the official German propaganda wanted to show.
The head of the German invasion of Norway, Lieutenant General Nicolaus von Falkenhorst, took it for granted that the Norwegian Government would cooperate with the German generals. He had booked a room at KNA-Hotel in Oslo before the invasion took place to be sure that he got a nice place to stay.
He planned and commanded the German invasion of Denmark and Norway in 1940
He was born Nikolaus von Jastrzembski in Breslau, Silesia  ,in Prussia, January 17, 1885. He belonged to Polish-Prussian nobility. He was promoted to Colonel General (Generaloberst) after the invasion of Denmark and Norway. He died in 1968.







OSLO ATTACKED BY AMERICAN BOMBERS IN APRIL 1940?

The question has to be asked when you are viewing a newly released documentary about Norway and the Second World War. The title of the documentary is: “ Offer eller Spion? “ (Victim or Spy ? ). The film has been released in year 2015 for public viewing at cinemas only. No television transmission of the film, so far. Stock footage of aircrafts in the production is used in a way not possible for the audience to decide the kind of aircrafts used. The Germans attacked Oslo with Messerschmitt Bf 110c. The archival footage selected for the invasion scene used in the film: “ Offer eller Spion ?” (Victim or Spy ?) shows the American bombers attacking the capital of Norway, Oslo.


Boeing B-17, Flying fortress.

“Flying Fortress “ Boeing B-17-Fortress. US Army Air Force.

Messerschmitt Bf 110c which was used by the Germans in April 1940 during the attack and invasion of Norway and Oslo.

My research for misusing of archival footage in documentaries released for public viewing has been focusing on events related to The Second World War and Norway. My attention is not to highlight the official content and the story dealt with in the documentaries but important details presented as facts leading to misinterpretations of the actual event.

GENERAL CARL GUSTAV FLEISCHER – THE NORWEGIAN GENERAL WHO WON THE FIRST MAJOR VICTORY AGAINST THE GERMANS IN WWII

The site is Vadsø in Finnmark in the Northern Norway. When the Germans attacked Norway in April 9, he was on duty in Vadsø. Due to extreme weather conditions in Vadsø he could not leave Vadsø either by ship or by naval aircraft. He had to make it to the city of Trømsø as soon as possible. On April 10 he managed to set off for Trømsø by M.F11 naval aircraft. He arrived atTromsø after flying in terrible weather conditions. As commander-in chief of the Norwegian armed forces in North Norway in 1940, he issued orders for a total civilian and military mobilization. The Northern Norway was declared a theatre of war.[3]
A documentary[4] transmitted on the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) in year 2015 about General Fleischer (1883-1942) , shows that he left Vadsø by an aircraft. Take a look at the archival footage of the aircraft used. It is a Catalina aircraft made in Canada and not in active service in Norway in 1940. The aircraft was a good plane. The tour to Tromsø would have been comfortable for the general flying a Catalina aircraft. The true story is that he left Vadsø in an old Norwegian naval aircraft: M.F. 11.


The Norwegian general Carl Gustav Fleischer (1883 – 1942) was the first Allied general who defeated the German Army at the Battle of Narvik in 1940 in the Northern part of the country.


Naval aircraft: M.F. 11
A detail only ?– no. Making use of incorrect archival footage is the beginning of making the real story not trustworthy. The drama of general Fleischers attempt to reach his soldiers has been reduced from being a dramatic flight to a nice tour lasting for about six hours with a modern plane-Catalina aircraft. The Norwegian commander – in chief- wanted to fight the Germans as soon as possible- and bad weather conditions were not an obstacle for making it clear to all that Norway was at war with Germany – and not Soviet-Union. A detail only? – no.  But “ ...The devil is in the details ...” .

THE EVACUATION OF BRITISH, FRENCH AND ALLIED SOLDIERS IN DUNKERQUE IN FRANCE IN 1940
What about Norwegian commandos during the evacuation from Dunkerque in France? Did Norwegian soldiers assist the British to evacuate in France in 1940?
If you are viewing a documentary dealing with the Battle of Britain and if you are a strong believer of historical facts presented and published by a serious documentary titled: “ The Battle of Britain “, you might be right. But the true story is a different one. The Norwegian commandos were fighting at the Dutch island Walcheren in year 1944. No Norwegian soldiers were present on the beaches of Dunkerque in year 1940.


To control the facts, I paid a visit to The Norwegian Defence Media Centre situated in Oslo at Akershus Castle. The film: “ Norske commandos på Walcheren “ (Norwegian commandos at Walcheren) was viewed by me. To my surprise I saw the same shots used in the documentary mentioned. The film was a realistic film about the hard fighting at Walcheren in 1944. The battle of Walcheren is dealt with by the Norwegian writer, Arnfinn Haga, in his book: “ Klar til storm” published in Norway in 1984.
Details only? Details are important to any researcher wanting to report about a historical event with the intention to be taken seriously.

US CARABINE AND THE BRITISH MADE SUB-MACHINE GUN “ STEN GUN”
The story of the youth of the famous Norwegian saboteur, Max Manus (1914-1996), was told by a friend in the documentary about Max Manus: Max Manus, mannen og myten ( Max Manus, The Man and the Myth). The boys where living at Ljan that is a residential neighbourhood in the borough Nordstrand in Oslo, Norway. Ljan is located in the eastern rolling hillsides of the fjord Bunnefjorden. Both boys were interesting in shooting. Max Manus owned a gun, a Winchester 22 cal. Kjell Staff, a close friend, told a story about how they tested the shooting qualifications of Max Manus. Archival footage is used. But we do not see the boys making use of a Winchester 22 cal. Rifle, but a US Carabine and the British sub-machine gun, Sten Gun. The story told in the film and the archival footage used is not matching.This is a US Carabine which the boy to the right in the photo is carrying.
Max Manus is carrying a Sten Gun to the left in the photo. We do not see any Winchester 22 cal., rifle at all.[5]
Max Manus was bodyguard for the Norwegian crown prince Olav in 1945. The war was finished. The crown prince was driving in an open car to be greeted by the population of Oslo. Max Manus got the work to protect the crown prince at any cost. Max Manus is armed with a Swedish submashine, Carl Gustav, not the British Sten Gun. The photo taken of the two men has been a historical source. People remember the photo. When the Norwegian periodical, History (Historie), published an article about the British submaschine Sten Gun the famous photo was used with the text that Max Manus was armed with a Sten Gun.The periodical was published in 2012, nr.18. Librarians like me want to believe in the written words. We believe that the content of the books published are more reliable that newspapers, radio news and television news.A mistake published in a book or a periodiacal might be selected as a source for future studies. The devil is there and the devil is in the details.

Crown prince Olav to the left in the photo and Max Manus to the right armed with a sub mashine made in Sweden.

MEDIA ARCHAEOLOGY: ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE IN MOVIES          
My private collection of movies and documentaries contents about 2000 titles. The collection has been an object for different research projects aiming at searching for hidden archival footage used in movies and documentaries. To search after “ the reality “ used in movies is a time consuming business. News of events believed lost might be found in films made for light entertainment only. The result of my private research is a list of 164 movies dating from 1941 to 2014 where I discovered stock footage used. In some movies the archival footage has been used not to be discovered as stock footage. The viewer of the film is not supposed to see that real news reels of events have been put together with fictional scenes. No information about the source for the shots is given on the credit list at the end of the film. The main reasons for making use of archival footage are:
-For economic reasons only. It is less expensive making copies of films made during an historical event than to make a reconstruction of the event.
-To make the moviegoers aware of the time of the historical events dealt with in the film.
-To avoid making reconstructions of the events in a studio.
-Because the reality is better on television news than made in the film studio.
-Copyright is no problem when it comes to German news reels from the Second World War.
-To portray a person by using real shots of the person might make the film better than using actors.[6]

COMBAT SHOTS USED: A WARNING GIVEN TO THE VIEWER-THE BATTLE OF MIDWAY.


It is not common that you find an introduction to the movie warning you that actual combat shots are used. The aircrafts destroyed by the enemy are not fictional scenes but real shots from the battle. The shots were taken by service men and news people during the battle.
The historical movie, Midway, about the naval Battle of Midway in Pacific in June 1942, was produced in 1976. A written introduction to the docudrama is presented at the beginning of the film contenting a statement about the shots used. Actual film shots taken during the combat are used.
 ...Ethical competence is a key distinguisher between simply having skills and having a true sense of professionalism...

AN ILLUSTRATION OF FEAR
From an ethical point of view the sources used must be identifies clearly. “ Fear “ expressed or shown by making use of clips from movies without a note about the title of the movies is not acceptable. “ Psycho” is a famous horror film known by many. The scenes are well-known. Photos or clips of the face of the American actor, Janet Leigh, expressing fear has been used as an illustration without mentioning the original movie from which the scene is taken. The clip is put on the final credit list at the end of the documentary but few read the credit list. [8]


The American actor, Janet Leigh, in the horror movie “ Psycho”.

PHOTOS OF HISTORICAL EVENTS AND PERSONALITIES AS SOURCES FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH 
The site is The Museum of Leon Trotsky (Museo Casa Trotsky) situated in Mexico City. I paid the museum a visit in 2011. On the walls in one of the buildings photos of Leon Trotsky are shown. Leon Trotsky stayed in Norway from 1935 to 1936. He had many friends in Norway. One of the photos on the wall shows Leon Trotsky with family and Norwegian friends having a picnic party at the sea in the southern part of Norway in August 1936. The site is Stangnesholmen. No names of the persons are  put up close to the photo.  
During research work later on I discovered that the photo had been used to illustrate papers and books dealing with the life of Leon Trotsky making use of incorrect information about the site for the party and of the names of the persons on the photo.[9] The outdoor picnic party took place close to the sea and not in the mountains of Norway as one writer has written.[10]
The mistake made once was repeated by writers who wanted to make use of the famous photo.
During my private visit to the museum in Mexico City I bought a DVD about the life of Leon Trotsky in Mexico: “ Trotsky y Mexico: Dos revoluciones del Siglo XX “, direccion Adolfo Garcia Videla. 2007.
The photo has been used in the documentary without any information about the content of the photo. Besides, the photo has been made smaller. This means that an important friend of Leon Trotsky who is sitting in a chair has been cut out of the photo. His name is Olav Scheflo who was an important politician in the Norwegian Labour Party. The stay of Leon Trotsky in Norway was a matter  of political conflicts and debates. Editor Olav Scheflo and editor Konrad Knudsen supported the stay of Leon Trotsky in Norway.

From the left:Hilda Knudsen, Bjørn Hilt (in the background), Inge Scheflo, Natalia Sedova, Beret(Mosse) Scheflo, Trotsky, Kathinka (Thinka) Zahl, Martin Skjærseth(accounter in the newspaper Sørlandet), Konrad Knudsen, Botolf Flood-Engebretsen (Samorg-sekretær)and Olav Scheflo sitting in the chair.[11]

WHO WAS LEON TROTSKY AND WHAT WAS THE AIM OF HIS VISIT TO NORWAY IN 1935?
Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein on November 7, 1879. He was a Bolshevik revolutionary , Marxist theorist, an agitator, a leader in October Revolution of 1917 in Russia and later a commissar of foreign affairs and of war in Soviet Union. In 1929 he was removed from all positions of power and later exiled. When he came to Norway in 1935 the aim of his visit was not to advocate for better political relations between Norway and Soviet Union. On the contrary: He had been expelled from the Communist Party and deported from Soviet Union. In Norway he was a guest of Konrad Knudsen. The stay in Norway was not a nice experience for him. In 1936 he moved to Mexico where he was assassinated in 1940 after order from Josef Stalin.
The photo of the picnic close to sea in Norway has been used to illustrate normal relationship between Norway and Soviet Union in a newspaper article. The mistake is made once more due to the fact that the content of the photo has not been described in a correct way.[12]






CONCLUSION
The sources presented might give you a superficial impression that the matter is of no importance. What does it matter making use of wrong aircrafts describing historical events? An aircraft is an aircraft, and the viewer of the movie, the film or the television transmitted programme is not able to see the difference between the shots due to the speed of the moving pictures. Small, invisible- but important details have been highlighted in my paper aiming at making use of archival footage must be dealt with in a serious way. “ ...The Devil is in the details ...” -making use of cars, guns, aircrafts to describe an event known to many, must not be treated as realistic as possible. If the president of any nation is driving a car “ Ford” at an official parade, you have to get shots of a car “ Ford” for the documentary.  Above all: We see an increasing lack of respect and recognition of the sources selected from radio programmes, television programmes, movies among the researchers and producers of the documentaries. Selection of photos and archival footage means that you know what you are searching for. A practical recommendation is to study books where you find photos of the shots you want. “ Warbirds/Illustaded .Arms and armour Press. London “  is the title of a company published  books about aircrafts worldwide - a tool to be recommended for any researcher in the business of finding good sources for the film.[13]

Documentary filmmakers and journalists must take full responsibility for the information provided for the work regardless of medium. Information selected must be verified before releasing. The sources need to be identified clearly. Visual information, facts, photos and written documents should be treated as equal sources for the work of the documentary filmmakers for whom ethical behaviour is at the core of their projects. Facts or context including visual information used must not be distorted to create a story of interest for the audience and as a need for economic profit of the work.


























[1] Asbjørn Øksendal: Operasjon Weserubung. Vidkun Quisling og forspillet til 9.april 1940
[2] Cato Guhnfeldt: Fornebu 9.april. Wings Forlag A/S. Page 303-306
[3] Torkel Hovland: General Carl Gustav Fleischer. Storhet og fall. Forum-Aschehoug. 2000. Page 82-83
[4] Makten og Æren ( The Power and The Honour) .AS Videomaker. 2005. The documentary was transmitted by NRK in 2015.
[5] Max Manus, mannen og myten. Dokumentar. Prod.år.:1996
[6]Tedd Urnes: Media Archaeology: A critical approach to the policy of active reusing of archival footage in  audiovisual archives worldwide.  2010. Pages 23.
[7]Tedd Urnes: Audiovisual Archives: An Essay on the Policies of Access to Audiovisual Archives for Academics, Teachers, Researchers, and Students. IASA Journal, no 43, January 2014. Page 80 -88.



ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: THE STORY OF ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE OF A FAMOUS AMERICAN AIRCRAFT

The Untold History of the United States is documentary series directed, produced and above all: Narrated by Oliver Stone. The film is devoted to fostering critical thinking and debate about US foreign policy during the past few decades. The series contains no interview subjects. The introduction to and the conclusion of the series are made by Oliver Stone himself. Each episode consists of archival material: Stock shots, photographs, video and audio recordings, computer generated maps, diagrams, and clips from fictional movies. Oliver Stone has used clips from about 60 fictional movies and television shows in the documentary about the history of United States. Archival footage shows American dive-bombers, Douglas SBN Dauntless, in action.

Pearl Harbour is attacked in 1941 by American aircrafts?

The listed documentaries and movie have used the same archival footage as  the series about the history of United States produced by Oliver Stone: “ From here to Eternity” (movie), “ The Century of Warfare “ , “ SEMPER FI: The United States Marines in World War II” and “ Days that shock the World. Attack on Pearl Harbour “. The American dive-bombers , Douglas SBN Dauntless, are seen in action in all mentioned productions.

Documentary filmmakers must verify information before the final releasing of the film because -as mentioned- " The Devil is in the details". The correct use of sources is important for the content of
any audiovisual archives worldwide.

Tedd Urnes
Teddview Audiovisual Archival Management (TAAM)
July 6, 2015



[8] The Untold History of the United States. Documentary by Oliver Stone.
[9]Joar Hoel Larsen: ”Gjentar historien seg? Fra Leo Trotskij i 1936 til Dalai Lama 2014”
[10] Modkraft.Dk-Progressiv portal
[11] Oddvar Høidal: Trotskij i Norge. Et sår som aldri gror. 2009. p. 224
[12] Klassekampen, 16.juni 2015: Tina Åmodt: Frykt og forventninger.
[13] Tedd Urnes: Television Archives: Content description of the collection of television archives. 2010.

No comments: