Dear Irene, while I understand your sentiment that you think the big Hollywood film companies should be paying for film preservation - I mean they have the bucks, don't they ? - , your email is clearly misinformed. First of all, your cacky comment about Martin Scorsese does not take into account that Scorsese has indeed single-handedly preserved a whole host of films. NO ONE HAS DONE MORE FOR FILM PRESERVATION than Scorsese, both out of his own pocket and as the founder of a film archives foundation. I can think of dozens of other big names in Hollywood who should be hit up for funds, but Scorsese has certainly done his share. Secondly, film preservation is much more expendive than a "villa". The preservation oif a single silent film can cost $20,000. A sound and color film can cost $50,000. There are still literally thousands of films still unprotected and unpreserved in the nation's film archives. Thirdly, the major Hollywood film companies in business today are actually funding film preservation. Disney, Sony-Columbia, as well as Warner Brothers, Universal, and Twentieth Century-Fox are actively taking care of their vaults. And they are not using money from ticket sales, since such income is divided between the exhibitors, distributors and the producers. The problem is they are basically only in a position to preserve those films which are still controlled by them through copyright. That means virtually all silent films are no longer of interest to them. All those thousands of films made by companies now dead, defunct, out-of-business, are not their problem. What about all those historically valuable documentaries, avant-garde films, industrial and educational films. They, too, are homeless. We call such public domain films "orphans", because no one has been willing to take responsibility for them, except such public film archives as George Eastman House, Museum of Modern Art, Library of Congress, and UCLA Film & TV Archives. If the "public" and/or government does not fund the preservation of these titles, they will disappear. Even now 50% of all films made before 1950 are irretrievably lost. The creation of the National Film Preservation Board and National Film Preservation Foundation is necessary to fund those archives doing this important work. Finally, funding film preservation does not take money away from artists. Indeed, NEA cut film preservation funding before they cut grants to artists. Certainly artist funding need to be continued, even expanded. But our cultural history is just as important. Taking a percentage from every ticket sold in America as a film preservation tax, is actually not a bad idea. But I hardly think you will be able to get either Congress, or the film industry, or the public to accept yet another tax. In lieu of such a proposal, we need the public to preserve all films, if we want future generations to understand our culture. Chris Horak Director Munich Filmmuseum ---- To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]