duplicazione. Ma come abbiamo detto in precedenza, la duplicazione produce di !.
!. Cesare Brandi, Teoria del restauro, Torino, 1963 e 1977, p. 7. (Nelle note i riferimend alla pagi-
per se stessa dei cambiamenti, talvolta profondi, neUorigmale. Non é quindi
chiaro come sia possibile differenziare la preservazione dal restauro, se non indi-
cando col primo termine un intervento preliminare, o di restauro di "primo livel-
lo , che si discosti dal restauro vero e proprio secondo un criterio qualitativo e
non sostanziale. Il termine preservazione inoltre suggerisce implicicamente che sia
possibile effettuare una duplicazione in modo scientifico o neutro, puramente
tecnico, quindi trasparente e oggettivo. Se perö tale duplicazione/preservazione
impone di fare delle scelte, e se queste scelte hanno effetti diversi sui materiali sot-
toposti alFintervento, non é semplice accettare la tesi della trasparenza delFope-
razione, e ancora meno della neutralitå delle decisioni prese dalFoperatore, che
saranno innegabilmente influenzate dalFepoca in cui egli agisce, dalla sua cultu-
ra e storia personale. E non avrå nemmeno valöre la definizione secondo la quale
il restauro é caratterizzato dalFutilizzo di tecniche che "modificano" le caratteri-
stiche dei materiali originali, visto che queste modifiche sono comunque intro-
dotte anche dalla semplice riproduzione.
In sostanza, la preservazione non pare avere caratteristiche diverse dal restauro
e sarä quindi sottoposta alle stesse regole, alla stessa prassi, allo stesso metodo.
Per quanto riguarda la ricostruzione, come abbiamo detto, questa tende a
confondersi, a sovrapporsi e a sostituirsi al restauro. Ma ciö é vero solo se accet-
tiamo la definizione corrente di preservazione. É infatti owio che in un sistema
concettuale che vede la preservazione e la duplicazione come processi "neutri", il
restauro puö sostanziarsi solamente in una fase di modifica al testo filmico, alla
sua struttura narrativa. Da cui deriva che gli interventi di "ricostruzione" che ven-
gono atati in questo contesto sono praticamente sempre di tipo editoriale, di
montaggio, mai riferiti alla sfera formale, che é spesso ignorata.
Come si vede, la confusione e le sovrapposizioni fra i termini sono notevoli, e
impediscono sostanzialmente la definizione di un "sistema" del restauro del film
organico e logico, che preveda interrelazioni chiare fra fasi diverse, che possono
(ma non necessariamente devono) essere svolte da operatori con diverse compe-
tenze e che concorrono a un lavoro di insieme che definiremmo "restauro".
^Perché non provare allora a definire il restauro come unattivitå unica che aspi-
ri a dotarsi di un metodo, che abbia alla base quel rigoroso esame critico dei mate-
riali a cui abbiamo accennato in precedenza, al quale, con una precisa documen-
tazlone degli interventi e delle fasi, segua un restauro tecnico sui materiali-di cui
la duplicazione é un aspetto - e si affianchi in parallelo un restauro editoriale o
ricostruzione, che andrå a concludere idealmente e a fondere le istanze dei due
processi suddetti? In questo modo, potremmo förse avere un sistema e una ipo-
tesi di lavoro sui quali misurare interventi concreti, verificare soluzioni e discute-
re problemi: in sostanza, come si diceva alFinizio, esercitare quella "critica del
restauro" senza la quale non avremo mai un metodo e una teoria degni di questo
nome. Senza la quale, ancora, non ci sarå mai restauro, ma soltanto "bricolage".
nasi riferiscono alfedizione 1977).
2 Fin troppo owio é rimandare a Walter Benjamin (Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter serner techmscben
' Reproduzierbarkeit, Frankfurt am Main, 1955), ma förse non inopportuno.
3 Cesare Brandi, Postilla teorien al trattamento delle lacune, Comunicazione al X X Congresso di
' Storia delfArte, New York, 1961, pubblicato in Cesare Brandi, Teoria del restauro,Tonno 1977,
4 Come esempio illuminante di questa prassi, e dei problemi che pone al restauro, rimandiamo
a Luciano Berriatua, I cinque "Faust" di Murnau, in «Cinegrafie», n. 7, Bologna, 1994, p.40 e
sgg-
• As we all know, a "theory of film restoration" does not yet exist. The reason
for this is simple: we are dealing with a young art, and an industry that is still
powerful and active.
"Restoration" (I shall refer to it in inverted commas until we hnd an accep-
table definition - it is not so much a term as a shapeless conglomerate of
meanings which are often mutually contradictory), has been practiced for
decadesln film archives and laboratories all over the world, but it has not yet
managed to meditate upon itself and become a procedure, still less a
"method". ..
Indeed, it does not even appear be going down this road, or at least not until
there is open discussion of what restoration work reaily is, and the crudeness of
the choices it imposes, as opposed to restoration as an abstract "concept", not
connected with ptactical results of its practiee. We need to initiate a healthy
"restoration criticism", foilowing in the footsteps of others who, starting out from
the practiee of restoration, thought about it and came to identify a procedure
from which they derived a method.
First consequence: in the absence of a critical discourse on restoration we do
not even have the tools to guide us through all the problems, both theoretical
and practical in nature (we do not want a GPS: a compass would do).
We do not even have a secure, common lexis. And it is hardly surpnsing: as
restoration is not defined, neither are the terms that support it, nor the activities
in which it consists.
And so here is what I shall try to do in this publication: nominate some con-
cepts and some objects that are in some way "on the side of restoration", con-
vinced as I am that a good starting point for a discussion on method (and
which will therefore take us onto a "theory") consists in patiently seeking a
definition of "restoration", or at least understanding what we mean when we
use that term.
I shall therefore extrapolate a series of terms (like footnotes - hence the title),
removing them from the context of the discussions in this and other publica-
tions, and I shall try to put them into a context, and consider them as a pro-
blem.
 Film
Let us start from the obvious: cinematographic restoration has to do with film.
But it deals with film in the double sense that we attribute to this term. Film as
a concrete object (reel of film contained in a can) which constitutes the manife-
station of a "film", this time considered as a work or text.
As the theory of art restoration teaches us, "we only restore the material of the
work ofart" . But we know that the material, as understood in that context, has
1
the undoubted advantage of being the same things as the work of art itself; it is
an unicum in a precise place and time, and it cannot be reproduced without
losing its "aura" of authenticity .
2
In cinema, we work with a very high number of artefacts and "testimonies",
because there are so many copies (positives) but also because the elements at our
disposal are of various kinds (negatives, positives, internegatives, interpositives,
etc). This could distance us from the area of art restoration and direct us towatds
the terrain of textual philology, in the search for support and road signs.
But in so doing, we must not forget that film is highly "physicai", a technologi-
cal aspect that cannot be ignored in favour of the "text" in the sense of a simple
narrative structure. In other words, the text/film has a "formål" content which is
much more relevant than that of a book, and the ways in which the cinema expe-
rience is perceived and works are clearly different. Variations on a text, such as foot-
notes, square brackets, etc, cannot be made in a film, otherwise the narrative struc-
ture instead of being enriched becomes fragmented, and thus destroyed.
Therefore, film restoration deals with the material, i.e. the objects/films, with
the manifest purpose of restoring the film/text, the film/work. This will necessa-
rily be a dialectic relationship, i.e. according to the case in hand, one will neces-
sarily dominate over the other. Then there is the case of the last copy left, possi-
bly incomplete, that alone has to account for the whole work, or, on the contrary,
the case of dozens of mutilated copies, possibly of different versions, that have to
compete to reconstitute the original work, each of which is in some way "disap-
pearing" in its uniqueness. But it is precisely the uniqueness - the specific cha-
racteristics of each material available to the restorer - that allows the history of
the filrn to be teconstructed, and, therefore, the pattern of the restoration to be
defined.
Duplication / Reproduction
"Restotation" therefore deals with the material, and it does so by removing the
images (in a broad sense, including sound) that the material supports and sub-
stantiates and transferring them onto a different support. In other words, resto-
ration largely consists in duplicating the original material. The reasons are essen-
24
tially technical, and are linked to the decay of film supports and the development
of technique. Duplication satisfies both the need to recuperate the functionality
of the film (be able to project and print it) and to guarantee the survival of the
work (thanks to mote stable supports). These two needs can be in conflict with
each other. For example, when a coloured film from the early 1900s is duplica-
ted onto colour internegative, the dyes used in the new film stock will probably
decay before the original ones. Thus functionality prevails over preservation.
This is only one example - many could be given in the opposite sense - but it
serves to identify another characteristic of duplication, i.e. its limits. These are very
serious and remove the possibility of any illusion regarding "transparent duplica-
tion", i.e. that does not introduce distortions. This is firstly because duplication is
an analogue process, and as such is subject to losses at each "step". Secondly, the
technologies available to restorers (films, printers, scanners, etc.) are not appro-
priate as they are specially created for contempotary production. The changes and
distortions created in the duplication stage are obviously different according to
the procedures used (optical, contact, dry or wet-gate duplication, tegarding the
field of images). On the basis of the condition of the material, the restoter will
chose the least "harmful" procedure.
As cinema is based on duplication and reproduction, it is hardly shocking that
film restoration depends mainly on duplication. The question that naturally an-
ses is probably another: if it is true (and it is true) that an intrinsic part of cine-
ma is reproduction - not only in the sense of the production of multiple copies,
but above all of multiple "matrices", i.e. internegatives and duplicates, that have
a temporal sequence and that coexist contemporaneously - what does the speci-
fic nature of duplication for restoration purposes consist in (if it exists)? This is a
legitimate question, as the two kinds of duplication are substantially different,
both in technique and method.
Technically, the difference lies in the fact that the duplication processes applied
to current production use technologies that are optimised for contemporary use.
For example, duplication films are designed to reproduce optimally the colours
of the modern day film negatives. The same cannot be said for a coloured posi-
tive from the early 1900s or a Technicolor film from the 1940s. In these cases,
special duplication techniques must be used to take into account the limitations
and losses in the reproduction of colour, contrasts, and the characteristics of the
original in general.
Methodologically, the testorer works on materials that are products of a past more
or less distant from him, which do not belong to him but that he must know and
study. Applying a method that is both historical and aesthetic, he acts on a work
that had its own history until the day it came to be restored. That is to say the object
of the restoration will have different characteristics from the restoration in terms of
time and place, and this must be given due consideration. Otherwise historical inac-
curacy is created (and unfortunately there is no shortage of examples of this).
25
 the size of the lacuna, but also its position and its effect on the overail equilibrium
of the film. Paradoxically, I believe it is less important to indicate the absence of
an entire reel (when it is obvious on the narrative level) than the absence of a sin-
gle shot or of few frames.
It is a different matter when it comes to the practiee of filling a lacuna with
images from some other material, possibly another version.
In conclusion, we cannot help but recall the words of Cesare Brandi on the
matter. He identifies two "fixed points" concerning the treatment of lacunas:
"•make the integrations that lead to the potential unity of the image totally and easily
recognizable, diminish the emergence of the lacuna as a figure'?.
This is a clear pronouncement of a method and not a rule, as Brandi says, that
leaves us with the problem of finding the terms of application to film restoration,
but which undoubtedly deserves consideration.
Versions
Anothet relevant characteristic of film is the extreme ease with which it can be
modified. All we need is a pair of scissors and glue to make "our" version of any
film. Using the same tools, the censors can radically change a film, as can pro-
ducers, disttibutors, directors (and restorers!).
It is not easy to define with certainty how important a difference is (in editing,
to remain within the context of the narrative structure, or colour, to move onto
the formål, figurative aspect). Traditionally, literature on the matter establishes a
difference between variation and version, even if the definition lacks clarity in the
context of cinema. It would seem reasonable to make the distinction on the basis
of the relevance of the modification to the film in its "original version", that is to
say it must be carefully assessed during critical examination of the material.
The problem is further complicated by the fact that different versions and
variations may exist in parallel. In the history of a film they do not necessarily
happen one after the other, detaching themselves from a unique and stable "ori-
ginal". Thus, for institutional reasons (censorship) and märket reasons (produc-
tion and distribution strategies), different changes may be made in different
countries, and these differences may already have been made during filming and
editing. This would mean that the film "has always and will always" exist in two
or more parallel versions. In this case, it may perhaps be easy to distinguish
between the various versions, but not to attribute the predominance of one over
another.
Furthermore, the various versions may be the result of practices that were fully
accepted and normal at the time the film v/as produced. This is the case of the
multiple versions of silent films. These multiple negatives were justified by the
impossibility of producing distribution copies equal for all countries, or by the
28
need to replace damaged sections of negatives. Negatives were thus edited using
different takes for every shot. One silent film will therefore exist in many diffe-
rent versions. Some of these have teached us, while others are to be considered
lost .
4
.
In recent years, the problem and its possible solutions have attracted an mcrea-
sing amount of attention, partly thanks to a series of cases that are exemplary in
their complexity. The current trend recognizes the substantial impossibility of an
interpenetration of the different versions, for the purpose of preserving a formål
"unity" of the film, which would be overturned by putting together images, shots
and intertitles that have never coexisted on the screen.
It is not only a question of formål purism; in real terms it is complicated, mcor-
rect and above all arduous to edit shots ftom different versions in which the
action, pace and acting have often imposed different editing solutions. A recon-
struction could cancel out or deeply change these solutions, to the point where a
new version is produced, i.e. a restored version that never existed before.
This principle naturally must take into due consideration the problem of nar-
rative continuity and completeness of the structure of the film, when the only
materials available are all lacuna-ridden in different ways, to the extent that it is
no longer possible to reconstruet a single coherent version. To the question
"What should be done in these cases?", two answers have been given. The first
accepts "defeat" and declares as rhe goal of restoration the reconstruction of a sin-
gle version, even if it has lacunas not present in the original (for example the one
ficensed by the director or distributed originally) but which has an inherent cohe-
rence of its own.
In other cases, the preference (or only choice possible) has been to make a com-
plex reconstruction, using materials from various sources. In these cases the resto-
rers have generally ttied to rnaintain an internal coherence, even where there is a
considerable mixture of sources and versions. The different sequences may come
from different versions, but they will be coherent, and the shots and editing will
follow one of the versions available.
Whenever there are two possibilities, the serious problem of choosing between
one version and another remains. All too often, restoration projects are defined
as "reconstructions of the original version", without specifying which criteria
were used to decide which of the versions available was the "original".
To take just one example, let us suppose that we find ourselves with a film sent
to a film festival where it will have its "world premiere". Låter, on the basis of the
reactions to the film, the director himself re-edits the film and removes some sce-
nes, making the film shorter by a few minutes. This is the form that will be distri-
buted and seen by the general public. In this case, in out opinion, k is very dif-
ficult to sustain that one of the two versions is automatically the "original", sim-
ply because both of the vetsions belong to two different moments in the history
of the film and the creative experience of the author. We have deliberately cho-
29
Damage / Defects / Errors
The aim of restoration is to restore a work that has undergone modifications,
that is to say one that has reached us in a "corrupt" version, either in its narrati-
ve orfigurative(formål) form. It is difficult enough to distinguish between either
of these levels, which are clearly linked and not separable from each other, and
we only do so for the sake of clarity. It is difficult to distinguish between corrup-
tion at a narrative orfigurativelevel, for example, in the case of a silent film that
has reached us in black and white. This is both because the colour has a complex
value in silent cinema, one of which is certainly narrative, (at least in a certain
period), and because black and white, in the silent period, is in itself a true colour
to all effects and purposes, which also has a precise value. Not only was it an
important formål characteristic at the end of the 1920s, but also a careful distinc-
tion was made between the shots to be left in black and white in a film and those
to be coloured.
In otder to testore a film correctly, primary importance must be given to a step
we shall call "critical examination of the material". This step involves the appli-
cation of a method of analysis and subsequently of criticism to the various mate-
rials of a patticular film that have reached us, and on which we can base the resto-
ration work. I will proceed by comparing these materials, and using them to
understand and describe the history of the film (before, during and after its pto-
duction and distribution) and each individual element (original negative, dupli-
cates, positive copies). For each piece of material, we will have to understand its
relationship to the othet pieces and, by comparing them, we should be able to
put forward hypotheses (more or less founded) on the chatacteristics the film had
before being "corrupted" as demonstrated by the various materials. Only at this
point will it be possible to proceed with the true restoration work, on the basis
of the results of this preliminary "critical examination".
In this stage it will be obligatory to make a distinction between damage, defects
and errors.
We define damage as injury that the element has suffered during its history. It
may have been caused by decay, for example, or it may be small or large lacunas,
or physicai damage.
An error, instead, refers to a change made to the film that does not belong to
the text, but rather to the events the element we are analysing has been subjected
to. This will include shots or reels that have been inverted, or shots that ate the
wrong way round (right/left), or a reversed intertitle. It may also be an ettor made
during the production of the element in question, such as an out-of-rack print
(frameline in the picture), or a copy that is too bright or too dark, or unsteady
because of printing, or with a distorted soundtrack.
A defect is an error or damage that produces a visible or audible effect in the
film and that is an integral part of the original characteristics of the film. It may
26
be an imperfection or a technical limit typical of the period or the conditions in
which the film was produced, or damage that was present in the film ftom the
moment it was produced, and that has thus become an integral part of it.
Once we have correctly identified and categorized the damages contained in the
film, we can decide which ones have to be eliminated and corrected, and which
are to be kept, so as not to incur in historical inaccuracy. Therefore, we must do
something about the extreme unsteadiness of a badly duplicated copy of a
Lumiére film, while it is doubtful whether we should "improve" the steadiness of
a Skladanowski film, known for having failed in the competition against other
producers precisely because of the inability to produce steady images.
A deep scratch on the emulsion certainly needs to be eliminated, but the deci-
sion will not be so obvious when we discover that the scratch was made by the
camera in the shooting stage and that at the time of distribution no one had wan-
ted to cotrect it. And so on, the cases are infinite, as are the solutions. However,
the need to equip ourselves with a method remains.
Lacunas
A "lacuna", clearly, is a laceration in the narrative structure of the film. It is a
missing element, an interruption that we will notice once we have established the
narrative structure with certainty (from the sources found, be they films or docu-
ments). It is a typical problem when reconstructing the text of a film, starting
from mutilated and incomplete elements. It is worth pointing out here, however,
that a "lacuna", in the sense of a missing element, interruption, or removal of an
image, may be present not only at the level of natrative structute (shots, scenes,
episodes, intertitles), but also within a single frame (decay marks, deep abrasions,
localized loss of colour, etc).
At any level, a lacuna is a problem not easily overcome, and it substantially dif-
ferentiates film restotation from similar activities in a philological context, for
example, or infigurativeart, at least in the solutions proposed.
On the one hand, it is undoubtedly necessary to mark the lacunas, especiaily
those that would otherwise be "invisible". It could be said that when a shot is
"dropped" it unbalances the editing of the film, or that the original structure pro-
vided for an entire scene that was then eliminated, and consequently, two episo-
des or two shots end up adjacent only because of the lacuna. This could give a
cömpletely different meaning to the editing of the film. The procedure that
would seem obligatory in these cases is to insert brief träets of blank film to indi-
cate the existence of the lacuna. This procedure is appropriate, but not in all
cases. It could lead to a lack of continuity if a film is continually interrupted by
black flashes that bteak up the viewing. What is therefore needed is a method
that is both qualitative and quantitative, that accurately assesses the nature and
27
 sen a clear example, in which there are no other relevant influences at work, such
as production, which in a great deal of cinema and in particular periods of its
history has had a decidediy predominant role over that of the author.
Preservarion / Reconstruction / Restoration
Let us now deal with the last item in this brief list, taking into consideration
the terms most frequently used when speaking of restoration, and that we often
find in literature on the subject. Let us start from commonly understood rerms.
Preservation defines a work of "active conservation" aimed at guaranteeing the
passing on to posterity of the contents of the material. In its current sense, pre-
servation means the simple act of duplication, carried out without making chan-
ges (for example editorial changes) to the original material.
Restoration is on a higher level than preservation, in that it provides for inter-
ventions to modify the content of the single elements available. In one of the
most commonly used interpretations, the term describes an intervention that
uses more refined or complex duplication techniques in order to recover charac-
teristics (for example colour or contrast) that are compromised in the material
available, or to remove very noticeable damage and defects. In some cases it invol-
ves editing and reconstruction.
Reconstruction normally means an operation to restore the narrative structure,
especiaily in terms of editing. It presupposes the existence of different materials
to be collated together, or materials without intertitles, or versions in which the
editing has been changed.
As we can see, the terms definitely börder onto each other.
The concept of preservation seems to be associated with a simple "duplication"
job.
But as we have already stated, duplication in itself produces changes to the ori-
ginal that can sometimes be profound. It is therefore not clear how it is possible
to differentiate preservation from restoration, except by using preservation to
mean a preliminary intervention, or "first level" restoration, which differs from
true restoration on the basis of a qualitative as opposed to substantial criterion.
Furthermore, the term preservation implicitly suggests that it is possible to make
a duplication in a way that is scientific, neutral, purely technical and therefore
transparent and objective. However, i f this duplication/preservation involves
making choices, and if these choices have various effects on the material being
worked on, it is hard to accept the thesis of the transparency, still less the neu-
trality of the decisions made by the restorer. These decisions will undoubtedly be
influenced by the historical period in which he is working, and his cultural and
personal background. The definition that states that restoration is characterized
by the use of techniques that "modify" the characteristics of the original material
30
has no value either, as these modifications are in any case introduced by mere
reproduction. _ _
In essence, preservation does not seem to have chatactenstics that are ditterent
from those of restoration, and will therefore be subject to the same rules, the
same procedure and the same method.
As far as reconstruction is concerned, as we have said, it tends to blend into,
overlap with and replace restoration. But this is only ttue if we accept the current
definition of preservation. It is in fact obvious that within a conceptual system
that sees preservation and duplication as "neutral" processes, restoration can only
•rain substance in a phase of modification of the film text and its narrative struc-
ture. What derives from this is that the "reconstruction" interventions mentioned
in this context are almost always editorial, have to do with editing, and never
touch the formål sphete, which is often ignored.
As we can see, thete is considerable confusion and overlapping of the terms,
and this prevents us from defining an organic and logical "system" of restotation
that sets out clear interrelations between different phases, and that can be (but
not necessarily must be) carried out by people with different skills who come
togethet to perform the complex task we refer to as "restoiation".
I would rather tend to define restoration as a complex activity that aspires to
provide itself with a method, that is based on that rigorous "critical examination
of materials" we mentioned earlier, to be followed by a "technical restoration of the
materials", with precise documentation of the various stages and work done.
Duplication would be one aspect of this restoration, accompanied in parallel by
an "editorial restoration , or "reconstruction , that would ideally conclude and
combine the two processes mentioned before. In this way, we could perhaps have
a system and a standard to measure actual operations, assess solutions and discuss
problems. In other words, as I said at the beginning, exercise that "restotation cn-
ticism" without which we shall never have a method and a theory worthy of the
name. Without this theory, we shall have do-it-yourself jobs without ever attai-
ning true restoration.
1. Cesare Brandi, Teoria del restauro, Turin, 1963 and 1977, p. 7. (In the notes the page referen-
ces refer to the 1977 edition). Unfortunately I am not aware of an English translation of any
of Brandis texts.
2. It is even too obvious to refer to Walter Benjamin (Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner teehmschen
Reproduzierbarkeit, Frankfurt am Main, 1955), but perhaps not inappropriate.
3. Cesare Brandi, Postilla teorien al trattamento delle lacune, communication to the XX History of
Art Congress, New York, 1961, published in Cesare Brandi, Teoria del restauro, Turin 1977, p.
71.
4. As an enlightening example of this procedure, and the problems it creates for restoration, see
Luciano Berriatiia, I cinque "faust"di Murnau, in "Cinegrafie", n. 7, Bologna, 1994, p.40 e sgg.
31