By Marjorie Arnold,2014-11-25 10:59
16 views 0


    By Sandra Gibson


The following is an archival study of an experimental film: Internal Systems (1974) by

    Coleen Fitzgibbon. The scope of this paper is two-fold: 1) to document the preservation of Internal Systems, and 2) to state in practical and theoretical terms what is at stake in the preservation of what we will refer to as “imageless” films.


    There is indeed, an “image-free” if not an empty frame, which begins in the late

    1960‟s to infiltrate advanced work in film. […] I will now indeed propose it as the

    icon and the emblem of advanced film-making in this country as it has matured

    into the energetic and refined exploration of the epistemology of filmic enterprise

    in all its aspects and parameters. Annette Michelson, “Paul Sharits and the 1 Critique of Illusionism: An Introduction”

    It is not until the mid 70‟s that film historians and theorists begin to acknowledge what Annette Michelson refers to in the passage quoted as the iconic or emblematic nature of the empty film frame. The absence or evacuation of the image in film is not the negation of film itself, not anti-film, but a certain infiltration of philosophical rigor as an acute

    2filmic concern. Michelson, in the same article, brandishes this as the “ontology of film”.

    In our study we will recast this filmic adaptation of ontology in an effort to conceptualize and frame preservation strategies in and around the so-called empty frame, or imageless film.

     1 Film Culture, no.65-66, 1978; 84. 2 Ibid., 86.


    The ontology of film concerns not only the so-called structuralist or materialist film practices of the late 60‟s and into the 70‟s but it is becoming an essential aspect informing current debates and practices of the emerging discipline of film preservation. Thus the medium-specificity of formalist and often reductivist logic operating in structuralist/materialist discourse more than often informs the very optic through which film preservationists frame their given object. What Michelson says of “advanced film-

    making” in and around an “image-free” aesthetic, can be said of “advanced film-

    preservation” (if we can call it that) not as an isolated phenomenon but as a collective

    3 A collectivity in and around reality: “The ontology of film is their collective concern”.

    filmic ontology can indeed be encountered today in progressive preservation circles.

It is with this collectivity in mind that preserving imageless work such as Internal

    Systems preserves not just another work in need of preservation but the ontological apparatus which drives our passion to preserve essential work of this and any other kind that happens to be on film. When the novice of cinema handles the materiality of the

    perforated filmstrip for the first time, he or she is merely restaging the materialist encounter with the object as elaborated and ultimately celebrated (even in its creative demise) in advanced or avant-garde filmmaking. When the student of cinema learns to see the projected film as an intermittent phenomenon composed of the modulated interaction of celluloid and shuttered light, the elementary elegance of this mechanism automatically, as it were, recruits its own militia (its avant-guardians) who remain committed to its perpetual persistence (of vision).


    It seemed interesting to make a film that was concerned with no more than its

    own theory and mechanics as content of the film. Simultaneously, I was interested

    in logical structures, what the mechanics of logic were. In a recording system

    could it record its own process, expose its mechanics. A problem like trying to see

     3 Ibid., 86.


    the back of ones own head. Coleen Fitzgibbon, Artist statement for Internal 4Systems in EXPRMNTL 5 catalogue.

In 1974 Coleen Fitzgibbon made FM/TRCS and described it as “a study of image

    destruction and its subsequent effect on recognition and suggestion of new images.” In

    this film she reworked Super-8 reversal footage into a series of reframings: blow-ups, contact printings, and extreme granular manipulation to arrive at a 16mm film that

    radically departs from the original camera footage. The film was initially shot with a Super-8 camera strapped to different parts of her body as she dressed and undressed in her studio, while living in Chicago. Her description for the film continues: “The film is a series of images and recorded sound of a woman getting dressed re-edited into short sequences and optically printed until the high contrast characteristics of the film refuses to carry the image. I attempted to combine my images with the film process carried to its extreme processes of disintegration.” The final 16mm film is the result of “processes of disintegration” which as the filmmaker states “refuses to carry the image”. What is radical, if not completely unsettling, is that Fitzgibbon‟s following film, Internal Systems,

    takes a completely different approach to the idea of a film that “refuses to carry the image”. The work short-circuits the labor of refusal by dispensing with the image

    altogether from the outset. It is as if the work of disintegration had already taken place, not in the interface between footage and optical printer but in the interface between the film emulsion sensitive to light, a sound-synch camera, and a film projector as a light source.

What is disintegrated into discrete units is the process of processes itself, that is the filmic

    act of filming. The film unfolds with a kind of technical “scroll” which informs the viewer of the entire cast of “technicians” involved – not human agents but the technical

    ensemble which comprises the totality of the production. The scrolling text is

    5accompanied by the sound of the film‟s perforations double-perforated footage that is

     4 EXPRMNTL 5: Fifth International Experimental Film Competition organized in thKnokke-Heist by the Royal Film Archive of Belgium from December 25 1974 to ndJanuary 2 1975. 5 Referred in the technical manuals as “motorboating”. Student Filmmaker’s Handbook,

    (New York: Eastman Kodak Company, 1997); 155.


    abruptly spliced at the head and tail of the film. The following is an inventory of the equipment used for the production of Internal Systems, in the order of appearance:






    10X12A/F.12-120MM 1:2.2 # 1245719. ANGENIEUX-ZOOM. RA-31-ADZ





    F/BRN HR/125LBS/1951/J. ELAM. F/BRN HR/135LBS/1950/C. FITZGIBBON

Disintegration of the elements is not arbitrary and random but systematic and internal to

    the materials at hand. If an image is “refused” in this particular constellation it is so as to defuse it in order to redirect perception. The formal approach in this case is to ward off or suspend representation in order to allow for something else to enter the picture, so to speak. What is refused in one sense, namely the use of the medium as a carrier of an image, is an act of negation that displaces conventional uses of the medium itself, thus shifting it into (or onto) a place that it has never before occupied a jolt in the direction

    of the interior of a system which is none other than its very own reflection (of itself).

    This turning-in-on-itself of the apparatus is the ontological moment of self-reflexivity. The process of processes takes its cue from post-minimalist process-based art of the 70‟s,

    in particular the aesthetics of dematerialization as heralded by the conceptual title of

    6 Lucy R. Lippard‟s edited book Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object.

    Processes of production are clearly marked in the opening and closing titles of the film.

    With this technical information there is a sense of “testing” the limits of the given media (film, camera, projector light, etc.). But the “testing” of equipment also carries over into the realm of perception. As a viewer, one struggles between an awareness of the known variables (technical schemata) and the phenomenological effects of pure light and color.

     6 (New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1973)


    One lapses between the refusal to be reminded of the technical mastery which fashions this ecstatic experience and at the same time the desire to gain knowledge of the precise procedure used for achieving this or that effect. What is “tested” is/are the limit(s) of one‟s perception.

    For the duration of 45 minutes, not including the titles which make up less than several minutes, the soft pulse of filmed light from a 16mm projector fades in and out of various hues of color saturation from red-to-yellow moving from light-to-dark, from dark-to-

    light, and so on. To achieve this effect, a mathematical formula was worked out that functioned as the “score” for the openings and closings of the various position of the lens diaphragm (i.e., f-stops) to expose in every possible way the light-sensitive emulsion. A similar process was used to expose a variable density soundtrack with the sound-on-optical film camera. The filmstrip itself can be viewed as a document of a performance of filming the interaction of film, camera, and light. But as an autonomous object, the filmstrip is an aesthetic work that shows every possible variation of light and dark, transparency and opacity, thus exposing the total length and breadth of its emulsive resource. The systematic testing out of every possible orientation is a relentless and exhaustive procedure. Internal Systems sustains with utter force its processual integrity.


One of the major obstacles in preserving Internal Systems is that the original Agfa-

    Gavaert Gevachrome stock no longer exists. Shot on reversal film, no negative exists, nor was a release print ever made. The film exists as a unique work on 16mm. We cannot even refer to it as a “print” as it is an original. Four 400‟ cans of raw stock by the Belgian company Agfa-Gavaert were awarded to Fitzgibbon by EXPRMNTL 5 in

    7Knokke-Heist in conjunction with the Royal Film Archive of Belgium. FM/TRCS was

     7 “Agfa-Gavaert will offer to the maker of each film chosen by the Selection Jury a quantity of unexposed 16mm colour film, equal to twice the length of the selected film.” (EXPRMNTL 5 poster with film festival regulations.)


    submitted some months prior to the festival and the award arrived just in time for a

    8 The four premier of Internal Systems in a non-competitive section of EXPRMNTL 5.

    rolls were shot in one evening at Millennium Film Workshop in New York; the Auricon camera and Bell & Howell projector that was used to make the film were part of Millennium‟s equipment arsenal at the time. After processing the footage at Palmer Laboratories in San Francisco, the four rolls were spliced together from end-to-end, and the scrolling equipment list was added at the head and repeated at the tail of the 1600‟ film. The title was shot using Kodak 1722 color negative, double-perforated stock; the positive is at the head of the film and the negative at the tail.

    Agfa-Gavaert Gevachrome 6.15 color reversal was considered a high-speed daylight film.

    9In her preliminary production notebook, Fitzgibbon rates its affinity with Kodak‟s

    Ektachrome 7241, also a high-speed daylight reversal film with an index exposure of 160.

    10Elsewhere in the notebook, the spectral sensitivity (i.e., the color most sensitive to light)

    of the Gevachrome stock is rated as red whereas the Ektachrome is cyan. The latter, according to the filmmaker, has a tendency towards brown. In Internal Systems the reds

    are extremely prominent the less exposure there is, whereas with more exposure yellow becomes the dominant color (previous to its disappearance or submergence into white light). The film itself can be viewed as the ultimate vehicle to test the specific spectral sensitivity of Agfa-Gavaert Gevachrome 6.15.

    The screening record for the film is extremely vague and suggests that it was rarely projected, beginning with its premier in 1974-75 at EXPRMNTL 5, followed by a one-

    11person show at Anthology Film Archives, and finally recent programming of the work

     8 Other films that screened with the Agfa-Gavaert/Royal Film Archive of Belgium award were: Objection (1974) by Marjorie Keller, The Struggle with Meat (1974) by Anne

    Severson, and Leica Job (1974) by Diego Cortez. 9 Green facsimile notebook on Internal Systems. 10 “SPECTRAL SENSITIVITY: The relative sensitivity of a particular emulsion to

    specific bands of the spectrum within the films sensitivity range.” Student Filmmaker’s

    Handbook, (New York: Eastman Kodak Company, 1997); 171. 11 The screening, in 1975, was titled “Your Basic Film” and also featured FM/TRCS and

    Exposed Film (1975).


    by myself and colleague Luis Recoder. In researching Coleen Fitzgibbon in 2005 we discovered that the film, deposited at the Film-makers‟ Cooperative in New York and

    1213never rented (according to their records), was, to our surprise the camera originals.

    We immediately contacted the filmmaker and she took swift action to pull Internal

    Systems out of distribution until a suitable replacement could be made. Upon inspection of the film (first on a flatbed, then on a projector), we noticed that the film showed light vertical scratches (base scratch and cinch marks) appearing randomly but consistently

    14throughout. As the film shows nothing but the extremely slow fadings and reappearings of colored illumination, the perceptual effect is that the scratches become evermore prominent, even though they remain the same. And this is precisely the problem we encounter with surface imperfection when it comes to the imageless film.

    Other than the light array of scratches, the film, including the pastel palette characteristic of the original color stock, retained its overall integrity. Even the tape splices (5 total) still manage to hold the film together. With the cooperation of the filmmaker, Internal

    Systems was taken in for preservation assessment at Du Art Laboratories, Inc. in New

    15York. Working closely with lab specialist Steve Blakely, an inspection of the film was

    made and possible directions as to how best to proceed with making a suitable, if not faithful, copy from the original. Given the variables and cost, we (Fitzgibbon, Blakely, and myself) agreed that the best and most economical way to make a copy is to strike a Super-16mm internegative of the original reversal, thereby printing both picture and soundtrack at the same time. The main problem we encountered was in the length availability of the polyester internegative stock, which is the stronger base (as compared to acetate) though only available in lengths far exceeding the required 1600‟; the solution

     12 A Coop memo lists the film as received on June 17, 1976. A single inspection entry on July 7, 1976 notes in the “additional comments” column as “very scratchy!!” 13 Another film by Fitzgibbon, Restoring the Appearance to Order (1975), was also

    original material. 14 In a recent interview with the author (December 6, 2008), Fitzgibbon vaguely recalls that the scratches could have been the result of the camera, either dirt in the gate or improper threading. 15 The text for this and the following paragraph was approved by Steve Blakely in an email confirmation sent to the author on December 8, 2008.


    was to use the available in-house acetate internegative stock, Kodak 7272. The problem then was that the available length of the acetate, manufactured in 1200‟ rolls, was some 400‟ short than the required length; the solution was to make one cement splice between two lengths of the acetate internegative at exactly the same place where an original splice had been made.

    Once the Super-16mm contact internegative had been achieved, a Super-16mm positive answer print was made using polyester base film, Kodak 3383. The print mostly departs from the original in the addition of a greenish hue, noticeable in the brighter passages where there should only be yellowish hues. Another noticeable alteration is in the soundtrack. Because the acetate Super-16mm internegative was never intended for the contact printing of optical tracks, slight muffling of the original sound is apparent, especially in the higher registers. This is not so bad, since the sound recording of the film i.e., the sound of the camera motor is on the low end, with long stretches of silence.

    Even in the original the volume must be raised over the normal position so that when there is silence the sound of film grain and occasional surface noise is audible. Where there is improvement in the original is in the reduction in the number of scratches. A noticeable difference between the original and the new print can be detected. In particular, the finer scratches have been eliminated through wet-gate printing whereas the more dominant ones, which are few in number, remain.

    A frame-by-frame comparison of the original film vs. the new print (we will call it the “Du Art” print) clearly demonstrates the changes. (Refer to Appendix 1 for this and the

    following paragraph.) Beginning with the title sequence, frame no. 410 in the original reversal shows a faint base scratch just to the left of center, faint cinch marks at the extremities of the frame, and overall surface particulates; the same frame in the Du Art print shows the main scratch but in general appears much cleaner, with the removal of cinch marks and debris. What is not in the original is what appears to be a new scratch close to the left edge of the frame. Also, as we have already noted, the overall greenish discoloration. We could also note that the focus on the grain is less sharp in the Du Art print, hence the lettering.


    Imageless frame no. 2790 (foot 69: frame 30) demonstrates the excellent wetgate contact printing achieved at Du Art. All but the main scratch on the left third of the frame has been improved. Cinch marks and embedded particulates in the original picture and soundtrack area have for the most part disappeared. Imageless frame no. 63066 (foot 1576: frame 26) shows some inconsistencies in the “improvement” process when exposure of the print is higher or brighter than the original. In this case the extremely fine base scratches and cinch marks, especially to the right of frame, are raised to relief in the Du Art print. Moreover, a dispersed network of lines is clearly visible throughout the frame in the latter whereas this is not the case in the original which conceals these


The work at Du Art Laboratories, Inc. was to coincide with a screening of Fitzgibbon‟s

    rdfilms, including Internal Systems, at Los Angeles Filmforum on November 23, 2008.

    The original film was brought into the lab on November 3rd, 2008 and a print was ready by November 20th just in time for the screening. The next phase of the project is to work closely with the color timer to strike a more suitable color rendition, or at least reduce the

    17greenish hue. Another aspect, and far more radical to the task (and I hesitate to say “ethics”) of preservation is in the drastic modification of the original film itself. I am

    18referring to a recent conversation with the filmmaker (not long after the screening of the

    Du Art print in LA) she revealed that the original film failed to render accurately the mathematical formula i.e., the “score” modeled around the passage of light as occurs in the changing of the seasons. Basically, the fade-to-black is never dark enough in the film, as the smallest diaphragm along the circumference of f-stops did not prevent light from striking the emulsion. As the film was shot in reversal, and no tests were made prior to making the film, the results of the lab were final. At the moment Fitzgibbon is entertaining the possibility of a new print that would be a more accurate interpretation of

     16 Particulates in the original camera gate must remain as they cannot be removed without turning to digital software. Top and bottom particulates can be masked during projection by adjusting the frameline. 17 We are currently awaiting a new quote from Colorlab in Colorado. 18 Coleen Fitzgibbon interview conducted by the author on December 6, 2008.


    the original conception. It may be the case that different versions of the film will be available in the future. But that remains to be seen.


    19 of the What can we, as aspiring film preservationists, learn from the radical aspirationsavant-garde? Does the film we take up and preserve prescribe its manner and mode of preservation? And what, in this work of preservation, is the role of the filmmaker in this process? Without the participation of the filmmaker, it is difficult to know much of what informs the efforts that contributed to the production of a particular work. Fortunate for this project, the filmmaker was willing and able to collaborate in the work of preservation. Her scrupulous notes on the film were not only helpful in unfolding the nature of the filmic script but also testifies to the rigor of an approach that any aspiring archivist should be willing and able to emulate. With this in mind, we can return to Annette Michelson‟s insight and modify it so that it reads: The ontology of film is our collective


The preservation of Internal Systems demands that we meet it with equal rigor and

    sensitivity to the materials at hand. If the materials are no longer at hand, as with the Gevachrome stock, we must engage in tireless research to locate the next best possible solution. Even when Gevachrome was an option, the filmmaker did her own research to learn its specific characteristic. She drew up a chart in order to compare it to similar light-sensitive values available through Kodak. (See Appendix 2.) Similar values between different film manufacturers allow for dissimilarities in chemical and dye structure differences that are maximized in imageless work. The minimalist filmmaker maximizes the differences, and in so doing exposes the radical heterogeneity of manufactured goods. In researching her materials, Fitzgibbon mastered the variables of her medium. Gevachrome was not an option or choice for the young filmmaker but a gift

     19 Annette Michelson, “Film and the Radical Aspiration”, in Film Culture, ed. P. Adams

    Sitney, London, 1971.


Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email