I think it's a bit extreme to call it vandalism. Presumably the editor didn't give much thought to the archival value of the "reject" photos.

It's a bit easy to armchair quarterback now, when we can preserve and access data so readily. But I suspect a contemporary editor would have had no idea that anybody would ever want to look at the b-roll.

> a contemporary editor would have had no idea that anybody would ever want to look at the b-roll.

In that case, why was it necessary to mutilate the negatives? Why not just chuck them in the skip? That's why I called it vandalism.

I don't know what they used in depression era cameras, but at least with "modern" roll of film (i.e. 35mm) the "negatives" are one strip of film containing one image after the other. You don't have individual "photos" as individual physical artifacts, they're just one small part of the strip on which they're taken.

So if you're going to develop a roll of film, but don't want to develop everything, you could just mark the shots you don't want in some way (i.e. a hole punch or a marker) and you'd know to skip them.

Yes, that's a plausible explanation. I think I noticed sprocket holes on at least one of the frames.

It still seems rather destructive; celluloid film was pricey, so I thought they used to re-use it.