Raiders of the Lost Archive

I watched National Treasure this weekend, which, while overall a standard Hollywood blockbuster, does reveal interesting attitudes towards archives.

The general plot is that long ago, a treasure was discovered - one which includes the library of Alexandria and innumerable treasures from around the world. It was believed to be too large for any one man to have, so it was hidden. Initially protected by the Knights Templar, the secret of the treasure's location was passed to the American founding fathers (freemasons), and then down through the family of Benjamin Franklin Bates (Nicholas Cage), our fearless protagonist. This secret, transmitted through multiple codes and ciphers, is heavy on the conspiracy theory, and thus, his educated family has been reproached by the academic community (portrayed as seekers of undeniable truth, not creative whims).

While searching for the treasure, Ben and his team realize that the back of the Declaration of Independence holds the next clue. Knowing that the National Archives will not allow them to test the document (since that could damage the document, and since Ben has no professional standing), Ben's partner suggests stealing the document. Ben does not agree with these techniques, and subsequent rift is the springboard for the action flick.

As Ben pursues his lofty goals, four camps of perspectives about archives become evident. The first is Ben's - he sees this treasure/archive as something tremendous and historical, worthy of great respect, and needing discovery, both for the world as a whole and in order to reclaim his family's good name. The second is Ben's former employer, who does plan to steal the Declaration; without Ben, his nefarious and money-hungry motivations are revealed (thus, the treasure/archive is something for individual gain of power and fortune). Third is the National Archive, whose job it is to protect and preserve archival materials; these materials are for the people, but in very specific contexts and with extremely limited access. Fourth is the Templars (and their descendants), who strive to hide the archive to protect it from greed and spoil, saving it for - well, that's never made entirely clear - but protecting and saving it all the same.

These positions are in constant interaction, revealing tensions about the purpose of archives, particularly those with monetary value: are they for the people? To be owned by individuals/organizations? To be protected or "exposed"? The movie's conclusion offers the "correct" position, one advocated by other treasure-hunting movies like Indian Jones or The Mummy. This position is that of the noble individual scholar, fighting against the greed of the individual and the desires for secrecy/protection of the academy. This (romantic) rogue will face any danger to protect the integrity of the archival material, respecting its intrinsic value like the academy; he is also not afraid to use the material when necessary - carefully, of course, but with brave disregard for the stuffiness of the academy. This individualism reflects that of the greedy enemy, but the rogue's intentions are pure; in NT, Ben declares that the treasure should be shared with the whole world, as it belongs to the whole world. He does, of course, take a modest 1% of the profit (still amounting to millions), which he splits with his goofy sidekick - because our rogue is kind, not a fool.

So is this the "proper" stance towards archives? Some Americanized middle-ground that leaves everyone satisfied?