House Panel Seeks Pact on Colorization

While a congressional panel continued the public debate over colorizing classic films Tuesday, key players on both sides of the dispute met behind closed doors in a last-minute effort to hammer out a compromise before the issue comes before the full House.

Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, which has opposed limits on colorization, said negotiators had not yet produced an agreement. But talks were expected to continue.

“There was no culmination,” Valenti said. “We dealt with concepts and possibilities.” He described the meeting as “very, very cordial.”

Valenti declined to provide any details about the discussions. But it is believed that the association offered to agree to a labeling requirement on films that have been colorized or substantially edited--a proposal that falls short of demands by the Directors Guild of America. The directors have been vocal backers of legislation to restrict or halt the colorizing of films originally shot in black and white.

Valenti said House Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), who has been sympathetic to the concerns of the directors guild, brought key players from both sides to a 45-minute meeting Tuesday morning. Foley’s brokering role, observers said, suggests that a guild-backed proposal to create a National Film Commission stands a good chance of passing through the House Rules Committee on Thursday and moving on to the House floor next week.

Studios and broadcasters strongly oppose creating a National Film Commission, and they were stunned last week when the House Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 25 to 20, attached it to a funding bill. In the wake of that surprise coup by the anti-colorization forces, studio executives, broadcasters and many members of Congress have been complaining that the legislation circumvented normal congressional channels.

“It was approved without any notice or comment, either from our side or the public,” Turner Broadcasting System Inc. said in a statement released Tuesday.

But the proposal’s adoption by a major House committee after months of legislative stagnation on colorization appears to be a key factor behind the MPAA’s eagerness to find a middle ground with the directors guild.

Under the proposal, a government-created National Film Commission would determine which films qualify as classics and place them on a national registry. Those films could not be colorized without changing their titles and informing viewers. Viewers also would be alerted to any other substantial changes to the films.

On Tuesday, the House subcommittee on courts, civil liberties and justice considered a much broader attempt to limit colorization--the Film Integrity Act of 1987. This was the first hearing on the bill, proposed last year by Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) while he was running for president. It would prevent any significant changes to a film unless the principal director and screenwriter--or their designated heirs--give permission.

Director Arthur Hiller, speaking for the DGA, supported the legislation, saying it protects the “moral rights” of directors and writers.

“In the United States, you have the right to desecrate or mutilate the artistic intent and product of the artist,” Hiller told lawmakers. “Will there ever come a time when rights and decisions are made for moral (rather than monetary) reasons?”

Producer David Brown, speaking on behalf of the MPAA, said that it is “presumptuous for directors and writers to ask Congress to accord them special status” since films are a collaborative effort.

Producers, Brown said, are the initial creative forces behind a film.

“I take great exception to the idea that the principal screenwriter and the director are the auteurs ,” he said. “A movie is not a sculpture.”

Most of the lawmakers at the hearing gave a cool reception to the Gephardt bill.

“It’s hard to get kids to see black-and-white films,” Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Long Beach) said. “Perhaps if I could get them to watch it in the colorized version, that would intrigue them so they’d go see the original.” Lungren added that “there is a certain compromise an artist makes” every time he or she sells a piece of work.