dating films

[Randy Man]

There are a couple of other considerations that have historically resulted
in discrepancies in dating films:

1.    With Hollywood films that are premiered in, say, December, for Academy
Award purposes but don't go into general release until January of the
following year. The famous example of this is Casablanca, which currently
carries a copyright date of 1943 (by Turner Entertainment) but which
originally premiered in 1942. That's why the film has been dated both ways.

2.    Another is the discrepancy in European films between their European
and U.S. release dates (is Cabinet of Dr. Caligari a 1919 or a 1920
release?). If you're familiar with the multi-volume reference book The
Motion Picture Guide, you no doubt have discovered their irritating habit of
not only giving non-U.S. films their U.S. release dates as "the date" but
also cross-listing them under their U.S. titles rather than their originals.
This is so even in cases in which the original title is now the better-known
(Hitchcock's The Girl was Young instead of Young and Innocent).

----- Original Message -----
From: <silvernyc at earthlink.net>
To: <KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: dating films


> As a filmmaker, I always assumed that the copyright date was it.  And the
> copyright date is more or less the date of completion.  This does avoid
> problems when, for example, there are films that are not released for
> decades for political reasons (I'm thinking of several eastern european
> films now) or films that were made and not recognized or screened till
> years after (lets say, after the director had their big hit).  In these
> cases it seems like it would be a big disservice to give the first
> screening date..
>
> I'm trying to think.  from a scholars point of view, in the publishing
> world isn't it that the date of completion takes precedence over the
> publishing date (although both are usually noted when there is a large
> discrepancy)?
>
> >         At the British Film Institute (and Sight and Sound magazine,
> >         for example) we standardise on the date of the copyright line
> >         on the film wherever possible. The advantage is that the
> >         source is very clear and doesn't vary; the disadvantage is
> >         you have to look at the film.
> >
> >         Re-copyrighted films are an annoyance :)
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> Shelly Silver/silvernyc at earthlink.net
>