<<My first Virgil tape I edited out all the girls thinking it was too radical. My second one being released right now has one shot of girl in front of the SF Chief and a closeup of a leg (Virgil likes legs). If I don't get complaints you can bet that future programs will be loaded with the dolls. (I suppose I may lose my childrens audience though)>>
Your ideas raise interesting questions. Any of us old enough to remember will remember that Virgil Staff was "notorious" for getting published, primarily in Railroad Magazine, his pictures of trains passing bevies of beauties bathing in bathing suits, or less. Since that was Virgil's mileu, and since this was how he conceived (!) of his place as a railroad photographer, I am forced to ask just how it is that somebody can release an edited-to-have-no-babes Virgil Staff flick and honestly call it a Virgil Staff flick. This seems a disservice to Virgil. If one likes his photography, then that photography includes everything that was a part of his composition. This sort of nonsense has become pervasive. Ted Turner decides that black and white movies should be colored (will he next purchase and colorize the remaining Ansel Adams b&w negatives?). RCA issues recordings of classical and jazz music with "all the uninteresting sections edited out." Some museum puts a fig leaf over the genitalia of Adonis because its public sees the statue as salacious. Can't we leave these poor folk alone and simply reissue their works, warts and all? Why is it that we think we have to "correct" for all the "errors" they have made. What is proposed here about reissuing Virgil's movies is the release of something that is only partially Virgil's. Since an editor has taken upon himself such responsibility as to rewrite the whole of his work, then what is being offered is NOT the work of Virgil Staff. Poor man. He deserves better treatment. Ken H --> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects
