I recall some discussion in the past - somewhere, anyway - about the relative merits of the two American Film-Index volumes by Einer Lauritzen and Gunnar Lundquist. Any thoughts from the group as to their reliability?
Frank
Lauritzen and Lundquist
-
- Godfather
- Posts: 2911
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm
Re: Lauritzen and Lundquist
Frank Flood wrote:I recall some discussion in the past - somewhere, anyway - about the relative merits of the two American Film-Index volumes by Einer Lauritzen and Gunnar Lundquist. Any thoughts from the group as to their reliability?
Frank
Those books are rife with errors, frequently made-up credits with no basis in reality or research.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
-
- Cugine
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:04 pm
Re: Lauritzen and Lundquist
Richard - Thanks, that's what I had recalled hearing. Too bad; they're such nice big books.
Frank
Frank
Re: Lauritzen and Lundquist
The American Film Index volumes are quite useful, but not definitive. The basic stuff--transcribing information from "The Moving Picture World" is a great help, putting all this info together in thumbnail form. Did they miss things from MPW? Probably, but not much.
Where the books become problematic is in the use of secondary sources to fill out film credits. The compilers often seem to have incorporated the work of earlier researchers without checking.
There are problems with any such attempt to document films. One would think it would be easy, but there are always issues--especially in the days before the Screen Actors Guild insisted that actors have unique individual names. But even with the most diligent researchers it is easy for errors and omissions to creep in. And, in fact, even studio publicity materials can be wrong. I have copies of notes made by Hobart Bosworth correcting printed Selig bulletins regarding incorrect printed credits. How could one blame a researcher getting this information wrong without a "Rosetta Stone" like Bosworth's notes? And similarly, anyone who had access to such a "Rosetta Stone" would risk being "corrected" by those who only had access to the trade ads. Much as one might try, no such compilation of information is ever going to be perfect.
I have found the American Film Index to be a valuable (if not always perfect) resource through the years--more than worth the $300 or so I paid when they were published.
Where the books become problematic is in the use of secondary sources to fill out film credits. The compilers often seem to have incorporated the work of earlier researchers without checking.
There are problems with any such attempt to document films. One would think it would be easy, but there are always issues--especially in the days before the Screen Actors Guild insisted that actors have unique individual names. But even with the most diligent researchers it is easy for errors and omissions to creep in. And, in fact, even studio publicity materials can be wrong. I have copies of notes made by Hobart Bosworth correcting printed Selig bulletins regarding incorrect printed credits. How could one blame a researcher getting this information wrong without a "Rosetta Stone" like Bosworth's notes? And similarly, anyone who had access to such a "Rosetta Stone" would risk being "corrected" by those who only had access to the trade ads. Much as one might try, no such compilation of information is ever going to be perfect.
I have found the American Film Index to be a valuable (if not always perfect) resource through the years--more than worth the $300 or so I paid when they were published.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 96 guests