The rapid digitalization of the film industry has necessitated restoring and digitizing much of film’s library, to both adhere to the current digital climate and to hold up to new standards of fidelity, especially on home video. Technological advances in scanning and color correction, along with generally being based on the original camera negatives means that these restorations can surpass the fidelity of the film at original release. These new restorations are given an aura of “finality”, and is how the film will look from now on.

This has led to an increased discourse surrounding the authenticity of restorations, especially as filmmakers will sometimes use the restoration to update or alter their films, leading to outcry and accusations of revisionism from the audience. This is compounded by the fact that a digital restoration involves taking the ever-changing and inexact medium of celluloid and turning it into a singular constant. Add to that how a film might have already changed throughout its lifetime, such as on previous home video releases.

The unavailability of previous versions has led some dedicated fans to become rebel preservationists. Either transforming available material to create versions more like the one they are familiar with, or even scanning and restoring films from physical release prints. Especially the fan scanned prints provide a potentially exciting alternate approach to restoration.

Through a case study of the restoration of the original Star Wars trilogy, examining both the official one done in 1997, and through an interview with Robert Williams of Team Negative 1 (who scanned release prints of the original trilogy), this essay compares these two differing process and where they derive their authenticity. Using materials such as FIAF’s guidelines, frameworks presented by Giovanna Fossati, this essay examines criteria from which authenticity can be judged. Through Jean Baudrillard’s theory of hyperreality, it also demonstrates how every restoration is in part a simulation. I come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a singular authenticity, and it is to a certain degree in the eye of the beholder. I also conclude that there is a potential risk in only wishing to preserve the authentic, and that the methods of rebel preservationists could be a way forward.