Film is a good example of a mechanically reproducible art in which every copy is an original. This subject has been well covered by Walter Benjamin and others. I introduce it only to elaborate a fine point about the inequality of reproductions.
The Wizard of Oz has been re-released numerous times in different media (3-strip technicolor 1) on nitrate stock, re-released in 1949 (probably with a acetate base “safety film”), released in widescreen on acetate stock in 1955, adapted for television in 1956, 1998 (limited), and again in 2006. It has also been released on 2) (1989, 1993, 1996) a handful of DVDs (1997, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007) and soon on Blu-ray HD video.
Most often these re-releases were derived from sources other than the original negatives for reasons unknown to us. We note that the 35mm print we rented from Swank 3) has a soft appearance that probably comes from generations of reprints.
We note a hierarchy of reproductions and an idea of the Wizard of Oz that is the accumulation of interpreting all these different media. It becomes clear that the best version, the gold standard for a film with this provenance is a composite, an interpretation derived from a lifetime of viewings.
This gold standard exists only in the imagination.
Discussion
I found Lossless 1 to be quite tragic. The viewer is repeatedly reminded of unfulfilled desires, as the “flying house” (or the good witch? not sure which scene is being used) is replaced by a black rectangle for a split second. We are left with both a visual and imaginary blankness. We are also left with the painterly task of reimagining the absence represented by the black rectangle. I am thinking of the last sentence above, “This gold standard exists only in the imagination” as a statement on how the technical composite creates the possibility of an imaginary composite to create meaning. Was this the intention? And if not, can you talk about the intention of the time lapse between the loops?