‘Moral Rights’ Issue Pits Directors Guild Against Valenti

Even while Jack Valenti wrestles to keep his studio chiefs in line, the emotional isssue of film colorization has driven a wedge between the Motion Picture Assn. of America and a group of traditional policy allies: Hollywood’s movie directors.

Technically, filmmakers are not part of Valenti’s constituency. But on Capitol Hill, Valenti often has been perceived as the man who represented the entire movie business, not just the industry bosses.

That’s all changing.

Valenti’s vigorous legislative duels with the likes of Frank Capra, Steven Spielberg, even Jimmy Stewart--first over attempted restrictions on colorizing black-and-white movies, more recently over the directors’ push for “moral rights” legislation--has elevated him to near pariah status among some activist directors and actors.

“For years, Jack Valenti was an articulate, forceful, passionate speaker for what he labeled ‘the industry,’ ” said director Elliot Silverstein. “But when the subject of film defacement and moral rights surfaced, it became clear that Jack was speaking solely for the business interests.”

Silverstein is leading the Directors Guild of America’s efforts to secure “moral rights” legislation, giving directors the ability to sue production companies that substantially change their films after they are released. While moral rights legislation faces an uphill battle in Congress, opponents already are uniting for battle. They include such diverse interests as the MPAA and TV broadcasters, as well as publishers and record companies concerned about their artists obtaining similar rights.

Relations between Valenti and prominent Hollywood directors began to deteriorate when the Directors Guild launched a lobbying effort in Congress to ban colorizing and substantially editing movies over the original filmmakers’ objections.

But it wasn’t until last fall that the directors began accusing Valenti of breaking his word--a charge that Valenti has strenuously disputed.

At that time, the directors’ allies in Congress introduced legislation to establish a National Film Preservation Board with the authority to designate any movie it desired as a “national treasure.” The legislation was a watered-down version of the restrictions on colorization and other alterations that the directors really wanted. Under the measure, films that the board designated as “national treasures” would simply be required to carry prominent warning labels if they were substantially altered from the original version.

The sponsors of the legislation surprised their opponents by circumventing the normal congressional channels and gathering sufficient support in two key committees. When it became clear that the MPAA would lose an important committee vote, Valenti sought a compromise.

The bill’s sponsors agreed to some changes, including limiting to 25 the number of films chosen as “treasures.” In return, Valenti agreed not to lobby against the measure.

Weeks later, though, he publicly attacked the legislation in a letter to several hundred industry figures. Asked about his agreement not to fight the bill, Valenti insisted that he was not “lobbying” against the measure in Congress.

Valenti’s relationship with the directors took another turn for the worse last month, when he publicly stated his refusal to participate in the voting of the National Film Preservation Board, even though he had been appointed as one of its 13 members.

Rep. Robert J. Mrazek (D-N.Y.), sponsor of the legislation establishing the board and a key ally of the directors, called on the MPAA president to resign “if he doesn’t feel he can make a contribution” to the board. Mrazek hinted that some legislators may intervene if Valenti continues to refuse to take part in voting.

But to Valenti, his refusal to participate is a matter of consistent philosophy. After two decades of fighting foreign-government involvement in the movie business, Valenti said, he’s not about to take part in a “government body making a movie list of any kind.” And nothing, he firmly insisted, is going to change his mind.