Reconstructing History

This paper was written for MIAS 210: Preservation and Restoration. In this same quarter I was an intern at the Academy Film Archive, where I had the opportunity to work with home movies. One of the most exciting experiences I had while at this internship was getting to sit in on a color-correcting and timing session for several reels of home movies that had recently been digitized.

Because I was enrolled in MIAS 210 during the time of this internship, I was very attentive to the differences between restoring feature films and other theatrical media, and restoring home movies. For this paper, I initially set out to write about this difference but, in doing so, I realized that both forms of restoration, despite their different challenges, hinge on decisions made by those who are restoring the film.

 Reconstructing History: The Restoration of Film as a Historical Document

The preservation and restoration of nontheatrical films contain their own sets of issues. Unlike feature films, shorts, or animation many of these films are kept on the basis of historical relevance rather than for their esthetic value. Often times these films can be blurry or otherwise difficult to see, but they are still important enough to collect, to preserve, and to restore. With changing technologies, the

The Zapruder Camera
Zapruder’s 8mm Bell & Howell Camera, Photo from Flickr user Phil Hart

ways in which moving images are preserved and restored are also changing. The discontinuation of film stocks and their surge in price, for instance, have forced archives to think strategically about the ways in which films are reproduced. In many cases, this has led to the increased use of digital technologies for the preservation and restoration of certain types of moving image materials, specifically nontheatrical materials. With the rise in the use of these digital restoration techniques, many of these imperfections can be fixed or diminished, more so than with traditional photochemical restorations, bringing out more information from these documents of history. However, one must be wary of altering the original artifact too much, in order to prevent its distortion of what can be perceived as “the truth.”

While the restoration of ephemeral films—meant to serve as historical evidence— provides archivists with challenges beyond what is faced by cinematic film, they are still inherently similar in their process of reconstructing and reinterpreting the past. Restorationists must make decisions about how to restore, reconstruct, and re-contextualize a film based on the historical documentation available to them. At times, this involves making compromises such as adding stills in place of missing scenes, or replacing title cards. Janna Jones compares film restorationists to historians, in that the restorationist “also makes sense of the cinematic past by focusing upon and also overlooking parts of a film’s past. This is not to say that the restorationist resurrects a film entirely subjectively. Rather, particular moments in a film’s existence are emphasized, others are overlooked, so to construct a comprehensible restoration.”[1] Restorationists working with nontheatrical films also face these decisions, and they may choose to lighten or darken a film, or blow it up to see more detail. Ultimately, any changes made will result in a change to the historical record, just as many other archival decisions do. The very act of collecting films in an archive shapes the record of history that will live on into the future. In order to ensure that history is represented in its truest form, archivists should document these, and other decision they may make, in order to maintain transparency.

Film as Historical Documents
Boleslaw Matuszewski
Boleslaw Matuszewski, Photo from Kinema

As far back as 1898, when Polish cinematographer Boleslas Matuszewski called for the inclusion of film in the world’s libraries and archives,[2] film has been considered valuable as a historical document. Even though Matuszewski’s view of film as an unalterable record of truth was proven wrong by the development of visual effects and optical tricks in film, it has still retained its place of importance in the history of the world. Some of the earliest archives that began collecting film did so in order to preserve those moments in history that had been caught on film. The Imperial War Museum, for instance, first started collecting war films, including The Battle of the Somme, in order to retain a record of life in the trenches during wartime. E. Foxen Cooper, custodian of the film collection at the Imperial War Museum, argued for the collection of all types of “factual films,” including those about everyday life, birds and other animals.[3] Even the earliest film collecting at the Library of Congress was intended to capture the history of the people of the United States. In her book, The Politics of Preservation, Caroline Frick claims that the argument to collect films in order to protect “cultural heritage,” is really a way to build and preserve a sense of nationalism, especially important to the United States at that time, as it was, and is, such a young country.[4] In fact, collecting cinematic film, as an art form, was not in play until the development of the Museum of Modern Art’s Film Archive, advocated for by Iris Berry.[5]

Today collecting films as historical evidence has taken on more importance, as it has provided a way to document the marginalized groups, which are often represented in Hollywood productions as stereotypes, or omitted entirely. Several years ago the Japanese American National Museum (JANM), for instance, called out for the donation of home movies from the Japanese-American community.[6] These home movies provide valuable insight into the everyday lives of Japanese-Americans in the early to mid-twentieth century. Another example of films representing the underrepresented is the case of the home movies containing footage of one of the First Nation Schools of Western Canada, which were donated to the National Archives of Canada. Rosemary Bergeron explains the significance of the films, which were donated by the nephew of Anglican minister, George W. Fisher, who was the principal of a boarding school for aboriginal children in Canada in the 1920s-1940s.[7] These schools were highly controversial in Canada, and there was little talk of them during the years that they were in operation. As Bergeron states, “ Canadian society and the media were silent about the treatment of people in institutions such as boarding schools for aboriginal people, people with disabilities, orphans, and young offenders.”[8] The films contain very rare footage of one of these schools and, as such, are a valuable document. Despite the historical importance of these reels, various factors such as the length of each scene, the focus of the camera, and the graininess of the footage have greatly limited the ability to clearly identify the subjects of the film, “often Fisher underexposed shots, making it difficult to identify facial features, a problem compounded by the failure from time to time to get all of a person’s face in the frame…”[9] Still, the films can serve as a document to the people who attended those schools and their descendants, but has its limitations in that it only shows scenes of life from one point of view—that of the school administrators. Bergeron argues:

The emotionally charged history of native residential schools in Canada means that an archivist has to be all the more aware of the need to overcome the impediments posed by the unpolished aesthetic of amateur and small gauge films while at the same time recognizing the danger when trying to identify footage from the perspective of a person outside the era, geographic region, and culture of the people depicted.[10]

Here Bergeron points out one of the issues in collecting films of underrepresented groups, and maintaining the philosophy of “the other.” Just as ethnographic films sought to show off the wonders and mystery that were native peoples of far off lands, archives run the risk of creating “token” collections of other groups, such as aboriginal peoples of Canada. While these films could be used to help indigenous Canadians to reclaim their history, it also runs the risk of being misinterpreted and used in a way that does not depict the subjects truthfully. Many of the scenes feature the school children smiling at the camera, but this does not mean that their school years were always enjoyable, and were not filled with adversity and discrimination. As the films only contain limited footage of the school, it must be shown in the context of the entire history of First Nations Schools, or it runs the risk of misinterpreting the scenes.

While film is often represented as a factual document of the past, the ability to change and manipulate or distort the facts can make it untrustworthy as evidence, or the ‘facts’ that it contains may still be debatable to some. In recent news, the death of Eric Garner, who was killed by a New York City policeman while resisting arrest, gained nationwide debate and criticism, despite being documented on video. As evidence, the Grand Jury for the case saw four different videos, and yet protests over the case and the outcome occurred for many months afterwards.[11] It has been suggested that to avoid such issues in the future, police officers should be made to wear body cameras, an idea that is criticized by digital archivist Jarrett M. Drake, who argues that this increased documentation will serve no purpose, unless there is increased accountability.[12] With the current trend of suspicion towards video evidence, it is apparent that more historical evidence would receive just as much, if not more, scrutiny that its contemporaneous partner.

Even though archives attempt to be neutral, they affect history through practically all of the decisions they make. As Jones states:

Archivists and Preservationists are usually considered the guardians of the past and not the interpreters of it; yet, as this work demonstrates, during the last century they systematically interpreted the past by collecting and organizing a distinctive artifact using a unique historical method that ultimately created a peculiar narrative specific to the history of the twentieth century.[13]

Restoring Historical Film

The goal of film restoration is often to revert a film back to its original state, to make it look the same way that it looked when audiences first saw it. Admittedly, this is more of a guideline that a rule. For instance, some films are released with different versions, i.e. censored versions, or those edited for time. Oftentimes the film is not the “ideal version” that the creator had in mind when it was first released, another one of the major goals of film restoration. Jones explains, “keeping their eyes on the moment of a film’s premiere, restorationists also attend to a film’s multiple histories: its theatrical release, its alterations and cuttings, its fall into obscurity, its neglect, as well as its previous imperfect restorations.”[14] Despite all of the possible versions, there is generally some sort of documentation or idealized version for film archivists to look to as a goal. With nontheatrical films, however, the intentions of the creator can vary wildly. Home movies, for instance, are not generally the result of a specific artistic creation. Most of the time they are meant to serve as sentimental reminders of family vacations, or of children as they grew up. Unlike features, which are made with a specific look in mind, home movies are often made with much less thought in the way of how the film will ultimately look.

When restoring home movies, should film archivists stick to the same principles Several frames of film from a home movie, taken while inventorying films at the Academy Film Archiveas they do for restoring feature and narrative films? With advances in digital technology, unintentional mistakes such as overexposure or underexposure can oftentimes be fixed, in order to make the subjects of the film more recognizable. One could argue that the creators of these films would have preferred to make their works more viewable, had they possessed the photography skills or had better lighting at the time. As the significance of these home movies and other non-theatrical film lies in their importance as historical documents, then being able to see subjects of a film, and what is going on, may be more important than preserving the film as it was originally seen.

Jane Withers’ Home Movies

In my experience as an intern at the Academy Film Archive (AFA) during the Winter 2015 quarter, I had the privilege of attending a timing and color correcting session for several reels of home movies that had recently been digitized at Modern Videofilm in Burbank. Having heard many examples from the restorations of feature films, ranging from silent films, studio film, shorts and more, I have little experience with the methods that are used to restore home movies. The home movies that had been digitized by the Academy were from child actress Jane Withers, and they were to be used in a Hollywood Home Movies program that will play at the TCM Festival this year. The footage that had been digitized consisted of six reels of silent 16mm film, of varying degrees of damage and fading.

By the time I had seen the footage, the colorist at Modern VideoFilm had already performed some color-correction on the digital file. In the course of the session, Lynne Kirstie, the AFA’s Home Movie Curator who had arranged to have the film digitized and who was planning on putting the Jane Withers home movie program together, proceeded to view the footage, having the colorist adjust the color in order to make the faces more visible. Some of the shots were very dark, and were able to be lightened, and some of the shots were very overexposed. For the over exposed film, often darkening the film did little to help see the faces, but it did make for a more pleasant viewing experience for those watching it. The footage would often jump from dark to light, and back again, making it hard on the eyes. At times, changing the film to see faces would have a negative impact on other aspects of the scene. For instance, darkening the film would at times crush the blacks. Depending on what was happening in the scene, it was decided that seeing the faces of the people represented in the home movies was more important than losing some of the background image information.

Once the home movies were color corrected, we had to determine the speed at which the film was shot, in order to present it accurately. This process involved a lot of trial and error, as we attempted to determine this by watching the footage at varying speeds. Having watched the silent footage at 24 frames per second most of the morning, both 16 and 18 frames per second seemed slow at first. Initially, we believed the different films were shot at varying speeds, both 16 and 18 frames per second. However, after viewing the reels at a more accurate speed, we were able to determine that the entire film was actually shot at 16 frames per second. Unlike some silent films, which have cue sheets that provide clues as to the speed in which silent films were recorded and projected,[15] we had no other documentation or information that helped us to determine the speed at which the film was originally shot. As the films were home movies, it was evident that the speed was going to be within a range, based on the home movie conventions of the time. Luckily, we were able to view the film at different speeds, and change the speed mid-reel even.

Finally, the last change made to the film was the edge creep, which was fixed by zooming in slightly on the frames that were affected. The edge creep was only fixed when it was minor, however. The cases of it that were more prominent would have involved affecting the image far enough up into the picture that fixing it would have been more difficult and may have had a detrimental effect on the picture. Because of the method that was used to scan the film, there were other errors that had to be fixed in the digitization process. Certain parts of the reels, ones that were more warped than others, were scanned backwards in order to get a better scan, causing what was referred to by the colorist as a “roll-over.”

The restoration of these particular home movie reels first sparked my interest, as I was curious as to the differences between cinematic restoration and nontheatrical restoration. While restorationists traditionally tend to be more conservative when it comes to altering an item from its “original” state, these particular home movie reels had been digitized so that Jane, and TCM attendees could see behind the scenes footage of Jane’s life. The public presentation of the reels, and the perceived value of the collection is more for entertainments purposes, rather than as historical evidence. It is there to serve as a stand-in for memory. While this type of restoration of home movies may be suitable to this material, some would argue that restorations should remain more true to the original.

In his article “Out of the Attic: Archiving Amateur Film,” Jan-Christopher Horak summarizes comments made by the University of Paris’ Professor Roger Odin, who claimed that “If home movies are badly done, i.e. technically inept, this too is an aesthetic strategy, because it is the act of production and reception which are important, not the product itself.”[16] He believed that the act of sharing home movies was more important, and that narrating them when they were difficult to see was a way to create a family narrative. If this is true, then what does it say about the restoration of home movies? Clearly Professor Odin would object to the color correcting of Jane Withers’ home movies. However, these home movies are no longer being collected and shown within the context of a family; there is no one there to identify people, or to narrate what is going on when the film is out of focus or difficult to see. In this case, the restoration or the restorationist must provide the missing information, if possible.

The Zapruder Film
Frame # 366 from the Zapruder Film
Frame # 366 from the Zapruder Film, Photo from Flickr user Julie Jackson

While restoring something such as a home movie may, in many cases, be harmless and, in fact, even beneficial, there are times when any sort of alterations made to a film may be incredibly controversial and unwanted. What is perceived as “the truth” suddenly becomes cause for suspicion, and speculation. One of the most extreme cases of this is the Zapruder film. Though she is speaking of archival moving images in general, Jones sums up the situation quite accurately when she states, “both the overwhelming inundation of archival moving images and the public’s re-enchantment of archival films help to create the conditions that resist historicism, enabling the mysteries, the collisions, and tangled cinematic stories to persist like stubborn weeds.”[17]

When Abraham Zapruder was filming President John F. Kennedy’s motorcade outside his shop in 1963, he probably did not put much thought into how important those approximately 26 seconds of Kodachrome II 8mm film would become.[18] It just so happened that Zapruder was to catch the assassination on film, a film that was then used as prime evidence in the investigation into Kennedy’s death. Despite the fact that the assassination was caught on film and, in fact, maybe even because of it, it has become the subject of many conspiracy theories. While the presence of visual evidence should lay to rest any doubts, the limitations of the film itself, and its very existence, have actually seemed to encourage the scrutiny and the distrust of the “record” of the event.

The Zapruder film became a key piece of evidence in the investigation, and it was very influential in the Warren Committee’s final decision than Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone that day in Dallas. Despite their conclusion, many have used the film to point to the possibility of more than one shooter, or that Oswald could not have been the assassin. Because of the intense speculation, the government hired Rollie Zavada, a former Kodak employee and one of the inventors of Kodachrome II, to inspect the film in order to determine if it had been tampered with in any way. Zavada came to the conclusion that the film was the camera original, and that no alterations were made.[19] Still, those 26 seconds of 8mm film have been under the scrutiny of those hoping that eventually someone would uncover the secrets of the film. In an online article about the film, the author states, “All the newest technologies have been thrown at Zapruder. The limitation, ultimately, isn’t the resolution of the 8mm film stock, but the quality of the lens. A rash of theories about JFK continue to revolve around the film, which, despite being such a landmark testament to what happened, hasn’t brought questions about the assassination to rest.”[20]

Part of the intrigue of the film lies not just in what it shows, but what it fails to show. So-called “restored” videos of the Zapruder film are available in abundance online, and in 1997 the Zapruder estate hired McCrone Associates, Inc. to perform a “restoration” of the film in order to “digitally enhance the film not only for preservation purposes, but also to improve resolution and clarity, and help visualize the information located between the sprocket holes of the original 8 mm film.”[21] Because the camera that Zapruder used captured more information along the sprocket holes, that projecting of the film would have left out, Joseph G Barabe, Director of Scientific Imaging at McCrone Associates, sought to create a more complete picture of the scene that day. As Barabe specializes in photomacrography, the methods used for digitizing and scanning the film were very different from how film is typically digitized today. The original 8mm film was photographed, frame-by-frame, and blown up into 4” by 5” transparencies. These transparencies were then scanned and digitally “stitched” back together.[22] The film was also digitally “enhanced” and the color and brightness levels were adjusted, in order to make the pictures more clear. The original film had been damaged while being handled years before, and several of the frames were missing. There were also damaged frames surrounding where the splices were that McCrone and Associates were not able to digitally repair, for fear of introducing digital artifacts into the picture. [23] Despite the so-called improvements on the quality of the film, some distrust it still to this day.

Other Restorations

While these particular restorations have remained fairly true to the original, there are some instances where films are re-contextualized in order to make the film into an artistic statement. The screening of Something Strong Within (1995) at the FIAF symposium in Cartagena in 1997 consisted of amateur footage of Japanese-Americans in internment camps, set to music. Of the screening Jan-Christopher Horak notes, “their reworking of images with music aestheticized history, turning these historical home movies into an aesthetic object,” and that “it is also a depoliticization, making the event both safe and consumable to a larger public.”[24] The reconstruction and exhibition of these particular films changes the way in which the viewer perceives the event that is occurring on screen and, thus, alters history for the viewer by inspiring in them emotions and feelings surrounding the event.

Sometimes historical events are culled together from different, incomplete sources, in order to present a more complete version of events. This is the case

Marian Anderson: The Lincoln Memorial Concert
Marian Anderson: The Lincoln Memorial Concert, Photo from UCLA Film & Television Archive

with the footage from the Marian Anderson concert in front of the Lincoln Memorial in 1939.[25] Having been banned from singing at the Constitution Hall and in the auditorium of a white high school, Marian Anderson, the world-renowned African American contralto, gave a concert in front of the Lincoln Memorial on Easter Sunday in 1939. The controversy surrounding the ban on Anderson performing helped to usher in the civil rights movement, and also brought together people of America, regardless of race.

The concert was covered by several different news sources, including the Hearst Newsreels, which the UCLA Film & Television Archive now holds. The Archive, with funding from the NEH, sought to re-create the events from that day with footage from multiple sources. The reconstruction of events included audio and picture from the NBC radio recording of the performance, and the footage from the Hearst newsreel collection. The “truth”, while apparently contained in these films, it still a gray area, and restoration, digitally or otherwise, is seen as a way to make those historical documents better, and more useful. However, any sort of outside influence on an item will eventually affect its value in history and will alter it somehow.

The Preservation and Restoration of Film: A Decision Making Process

In her article “Documenting the Process of Film Preservation,” Karen Gracy states: “I am most interested in revealing the context within which decisions are made. The situation and values of the individual making the choice have a profound effect on the outcome of many decisions.”[26] I would argue that beyond affecting the preservation of items, the choices and decisions made by archivists, even unintentional ones, affect the course of history. Every act that an archive performs is, in some way, affecting the historical record.

Of all the historical documents created in the history of time, archives contain only a fraction. Jones points out that through collecting, film archives “have constructed an exemplification, a representation, and a chronicle of the twentieth century that in and of itself is an act of interpretive history making.”[27] Those items that archives have acquired have been selected for a variety of reasons, varying from donor relations, to institutions’ missions, to the perceived value of the collection, and many of them simply ended up in archives by chance. Despite their journey into the archive, these are the films that will be kept for all time, above other, more unlucky films that may have already met their end. Even decisions such as cataloging affect the items within a collection. Methods such as More Product Less Process[28] can limit the access to certain materials, and institutions can choose to catalog items with more or less detail depending on their institutional needs. When items are not cataloged, or if they are cataloged less fully than others, it can restrict access to those items. For moving image collections, access is also determined not just by findability, but also by the format and condition of the material itself.

Because moving image formats are susceptible to decomposition, and because equipment for viewing these items is becoming more and more difficult to come by, access can be determined by the condition or format of the item itself. An institution’s own viewing policies or their equipment can also factor into the accessibility of materials, and soon very little will be accessible if it is not made available online. Says Jones, “…archivists in the near digital future will have to make choices about which materials to make digitally accessible. In their choosing of which histories to make visible, digital archivists, like their analog counterparts before them, will shape how and what we understand of our filmic and cultural pasts.”[29]

Finally, the choice of what items to preserve can affect history. By choosing to preserve or restore certain items over others, archivists are essentially determining which materials will make it into the future, and which items will be allowed to decompose until they are no longer able to be saved. Due to the lack of resources, and because some materials are more historically significant than others, eventually certain items will decompose entirely and be lost forever. Whether an active decision by an archive, or simply a coincidence, archives will affect the course of history. “The current discourse of film restorationists is a model for history making because it makes transparent the ways that a history is spliced together.”[30] If all decisions made by an archive will eventually affect the course of history, then it becomes increasingly important to document those choices.

The idea of archives as holders of power is not a new one, and much has been written on the subject.[31] If simply collecting and retaining information gives power to the archives, then restoration, both for its ability to encourage interest, and for its capability to shine new light on events, or to “improve” upon them, is an even more powerful tool.

Film restoration can achieve a clearer picture of the past, as is the case with the Jane Withers home movies, and it can also serve to reconstruct the truth, like with the Marian Anderson concert. However, documents lose their historical value when taken out of context, and they often lose their credibility if under suspicion of tampering. Having a clear picture of the past—or a grainy 8mm Kodachrome print of it—does not imply that it is hard evidence. Like cinematic restorations, the restoration of nontheatrical films—home movies, newsreels, and the like—are achieved through a set of decisions that a restorationist must make, after taking into account the spectrum of documentation and history surrounding the item. Whatever the restoration entails, in order to preserve history, archivists and restorationists must admit that they have had some sort of hand in the shaping of it. Complete transparency is the key to ethical restorations, of both theatrical and historical films.

Works Cited

[1] Janna Jones. The Past Is a Moving Picture: Preserving the Twentieth Century on Film. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2012, p 161.

[2] Matuszewski, Boleslas, Laura U. Marks, and Diane Koszarski. “A New Source of History.” Film History 7, no. 3 (October 1, 1995): 322–24.

[3] Houston, Penelope. Keepers of the Frame: The Film Archives. British Film Institute, 1994, p 15.

[4] Frick, Caroline. Saving Cinema: The Politics of Preservation. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 18-19.

[5] Frick, Caroline. Saving Cinema, p. 35.

[6] Becker, Snowden. “Family in a Can: The Presentation and Preservation of Home Movies in Museums.” The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 1, no. 2 (October 1, 2001): p. 101.

[7] Bergeron, Rosemary. “Identifying and Documenting the Small Gauge Image: Researching Rare Footage of a First Nations School in the Canadian West.” The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 2, no. 2 (October 1, 2002): p. 26.

[8] Bergeron, “Identifying and Documenting the Small Gauge Image,” p. 26.

[9] Bergeron, “Identifying and Documenting the Small Gauge Image,” p. 28.

[10] Bergeron, “Identifying and Documenting the Small Gauge Image,” p. 30.

[11] Peralta, Eyder. “Grand Jury In Garner Case Heard From 50 Witnesses, Saw 4 Videos.” Accessed March 15, 2015.

[12] “In Defense of Cops Without Cameras.” Medium. Accessed March 12, 2015.

[13] Janna Jones. The Past Is a Moving Picture, p. 9.

[14] Janna Jones. The Past Is a Moving Picture, p. 138.

[15] Brownlow, Kevin. “Silent Films What Was the Right Speed?” Monthly Film Bulletin, Summer 1980.

[16] Horak, Jan-Christopher. “Out of the Attic: Archiving Amateur Film.” Journal of Film Preservation 56 (Spring 1998): p. 52

[17] Janna Jones. The Past Is a Moving Picture, p. 136.

[18] “The Other Shooter: The Saddest and Most Expensive 26 Seconds of Amateur Film Ever Made.” Motherboard. Accessed March 14, 2015.

[19] Howell, Peter. “JFK Assassination: Searching for the Final Secrets of the Zapruder Film | Toronto Star.” Toronto Star, November 21, 2013.

[20] “The Other Shooter”

[21] “Zapruder Film of Kennedy Assassination | McCrone Associates.” Accessed March 15, 2015.

[22] “Zapruder Film of Kennedy Assassination | McCrone Associates.”

[23] MPIs Digital Restoration of the Zapruder Film / How It Was Done.

[24] Horak, Jan-Christopher. “Out of the Attic: Archiving Amateur Film.” p. 51-52

[25] Leigh, Andrea. “The Marian Anderson Lincoln Memorial Concert: An Event Re-Creation.” The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 2.1 (2002): 90–106.

[26] Gracy, Karen F. “Documenting the Process of Film Preservation.” The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 3, no. 1 (April 1, 2003): p 4.

[27]Janna Jones. The Past Is a Moving Picture, p. 8

[28] Greene, Mark, and Dennis Meissner. “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing.” American Archivist 68, no. 2 (September 1, 2005): 208–63.

[29] Janna Jones. The Past Is a Moving Picture, p. 174.

[30] Janna Jones. The Past Is a Moving Picture, p. 138.

[31] Some examples include Helen Samuels’ “Who Controls the Past,” and the Randall C. Jimerson book, “Archives Power: Memory, Accountability, and Social Justice.”