Modern Times on TCM question
Deborah
Titina(sp?) was missing a verse. Is this the version in the new DVDs?
Deborah
"The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."
-Mark Twain
WaverBoy
"Deborah" <dzu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030731233556...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> Did anyone watch Modern Times on TCM a few weeks ago? Chaplin's song
> Titina(sp?) was missing a verse. Is this the version in the new DVDs?
Yep. Unfortunately, this version is now the "official" version. If you
want the full deal, you gotta go with the Image DVD, which you may still be
able to find if you have a Borders Books near you; apparently the Image
Chaplin DVDs have been showing up there fairly regularly. The new DVD does
present this verse as an extra, and, in a really strange extra, the song is
presented complete, but karaoke-style so you can sing along (!), but it does
not contain the verse in the film proper.
Deborah
>Yep. Unfortunately, this version is now the "official" version.
Blasphemy....how depressing. What is wrong with those Chaplin kids anyway?
Constance Kuriyama
Ahem!
My understanding is that this verse was cut from the release version
by
Chaplin, and that it was included in the Image DVD because it happened
to be in the excellent source material David Shepard used for that
disk. If so, the version without the verse is indeed official. Maybe
David could clarify this.
Connie K.
WaverBoy
"Constance Kuriyama" <ckur...@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote in message
news:2bac2741.03080...@posting.google.com...
We're not arguing about the officiality of this version. At least I'm not.
I'm just saying I like the version with the final verse of the song better.
Chaplin's children have the authority to put their offical stamp on whatever
version they choose, and I have the authority to choose for myself which
version I prefer. :-)
Constance Kuriyama
We both have that option thanks to the Chaplin estate. I happen to
like the last verse too, so in this case we apparently agree that
sometimes material Chaplin didn't include in his original release
versions is at least as good as material he did include. One of my
personal favorites in this category is
the medical exam footage that was not included in _Shoulder Arms_.
Connie K.
WaverBoy
Well, they let David Shepard put out that version on the old Image DVD, but
including the verse as an extra in the new DVD doesn't count, so, no thanks
to them on the new one. I'm glad I've got the old one. :-)
I happen to
> like the last verse too, so in this case we apparently agree that
> sometimes material Chaplin didn't include in his original release
> versions is at least as good as material he did include.
Definitely!
One of my
> personal favorites in this category is
> the medical exam footage that was not included in _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> Connie K.
Connie, I too LOVE that footage, as well as the previous footage with
Charlie's large unseen wife. In fact, I may like those two scenes more than
any of the scenes that DID make it into SHOULDER ARMS, at least the
reconstruction of it anyway. I'd love to lay eyes on that original print
that D. Shepard saw...
Deborah
>Ahem!
>
>My understanding is that this verse was cut from the release version by
>Chaplin, and that it was included in the Image DVD because it happened
>to be in the excellent source material David Shepard used for that
>disk. If so, the version without the verse is indeed official. Maybe
>David could clarify this.
My VHS version has that verse, and any time on TV, other than the most recent
airing on TCM, I believe the verse has been included. Are you sure about the
original release? It makes no sense for the end of the story to be cut. The
"punkawalla" diamond is the big punchline.
RFCSAC627N
>>ckur...@ttacs.ttu.edu (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>>Ahem!
>>
>>My understanding is that this verse was cut from the release version by
>>Chaplin, and that it was included in the Image DVD because it happened
>>to be in the excellent source material David Shepard used for that
>>disk. If so, the version without the verse is indeed official. Maybe
>>David could clarify this.
>
>My VHS version has that verse, and any time on TV, other than the most recent
>airing on TCM, I believe the verse has been included. Are you sure about the
>original release? It makes no sense for the end of the story to be cut. The
>"punkawalla" diamond is the big punchline.
>
From a post last month in a.m.c.:
<< It was cut out before release probably for flow issue >>
Ummm, contrary to the above, it was cut for the 1956 re-release. I assembled
the 1992 laserdisc edition from two fine grain masters manufactured in 1953
which were intact.
David Shepard
Constance Kuriyama
Which VHS version do you have?
I have the CBS/Fox, which is the only one I know of, and the pawnbroker
verse is not there. Nor, to the best of my recollection, is it on the
laser disk. It first appeared on the DVD, and according to the story I
heard, it was an accidental discovery. TV screenings in recent years were
probably all based on the DVD.
I agree that the last verse supplies a better punchline. But the estate
has in this case decided that the original release version (without the
last verse) is official, since that was Chaplin's edit.
Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
WaverBoy
"RFCSAC627N" <rfcsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030803162453...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Again, straight from the Shepard's mouth. This verse was in the film for
TWENTY YEARS before it was cut out. Both versions should be available; one
for the sake of "officialness", and the other for the sake of FILM HISTORY,
as this is the version that was originally released to great acclaim and
enjoyed by millions worldwide. Deborah, I hope you find the uncut DVD.
Constance Kuriyama
Thanks for clarifying this!
Then it was presumably there in '36, and the CBS/Fox VHS was based on the
re-release version--which is the only version I ever saw before the DVD.
I would defend some of Chaplin's re-release cuts, but even if he did this for
the sake of economy or pacing, it wasn't one of his better moves.
Constance Kuriyama
She has a good chance of finding it on Ebay.
In the case of _Modern Times_, what else was cut besides that one verse
of the song? Nothing comes to mind. If that's all, I'd be inclined to
think that _Modern Times_ was perfect as it was, that Chaplin was having
an off day when he decided to cut the last verse, and that only one version,
with the last verse of the song restored, would be necessary.
_The Gold Rush_, on the other hand, exists in such different forms that
we need both. As for _The Kid_, I'd prefer the re-release cut, with
the additional scenes as extras, for no reason in particular except that
I think the later cut is better--*and* has an excellent score.
Decisions based on considered aesthetic judgments are harder to justify,
but just saying that the criterion should be Chaplin's last cut *or* his
original release cut doesn't hack it either. What we want, surely, is
the version that shows Chaplin's art to best advantage.
WaverBoy
"Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bgk190$3ve$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Actually, Connie, you and I, for once, are in COMPLETE agreement here; I
would think only the complete version would be necessary as well. The only
reason I said both should be available is that I was accepting the
inevitable that the version with the missing verse would forever be dubbed
the "official" release, and would always be the version in print regardless.
So, if we have both, we have the complete version as well. Got it? :-)
> _The Gold Rush_, on the other hand, exists in such different forms that
> we need both.
Again, we are in complete agreement.
As for _The Kid_, I'd prefer the re-release cut, with
> the additional scenes as extras, for no reason in particular except that
> I think the later cut is better--*and* has an excellent score.
I prefer the uncut version of the reconstruction as contained on the old
DVD, which has the same excellent score (albeit re-edited a bit to fit).
Having both available would be nice; IMO they should have used seamless
branching to give the option of watching the film with or without those
scenes that weren't cut until the early '70s. They obviously should have
hired me as DVD option consultant. ;-) Actually, what I'd really like to
see (as you well know) is the original-take version of THE KID included as
an extra, which doesn't appear likely to happen any time this century. :-)
Constance Kuriyama
lifetime) on the laser, which would push back its appearance on TV by a
few years.
Connie K.
David Totheroh
And once again, the words "straight from the Shepard's mouth" are
potentially misinterpreted. Just as in the case of the "Chaplin
disappointment" comment made by David S regarding the 'Rollie'
versions of the FNs, which many here misinterpreted, you seem to be
running away with a possible meaning which may not actually be
supported by Shepard's statement. Shepard says the extra verse came
from "fine grain masters manufactured in 1953."
What he does NOT say is whether those fine grains necessarily
represent the content of release prints used from the film's original
release through the time the '53 fine grains were produced and used as
sources for the '56 releases.
WaverBoy
"David Totheroh" <dtot...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:31dd3eaa.03080...@posting.google.com...
And once again, David Totheroh is splitting hairs. My comment about the
verse being in the film for twenty years before it was cut out stands.
That's all I was really trying to say by "straight from the Shepard's
mouth", because others on this board thought that it was cut at or before
the time of its original release. He said, in response to a statement that
said the verse was cut out before release, "Ummm, contrary to the above, it
was cut for the 1956 re-release." Which any sane person would interpret as,
no, it wasn't cut before its release, it was cut for the re-release. Which
means that IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL RELEASE VERSION OF THE FILM. If you've a
different interpretation than that, I'd like to read it. No, I mean one
that makes logical sense. You're right, I suppose the '53 fine grains could
differ somehow from the 1936 release in some other way, and, if so, then it
would be nice if the real actual '36 could be released for the sake of film
history, if it exists.
David Totheroh
If you prefer to call being accurate "splitting hairs" then be my
guest. You and others thought I was "splitting hairs" and that it was
illogical to assume that "Chaplin's disappointment" with the FNs could
be anything other than aesthetic. Whose half of the hair ended up
being more accurate?
I think/hope we can all agree that the Claudius scene was part of the
original release version of LL but that Chaplin decided very quickly
to remove it from distribution prints. Who's to say that Chaplin
didn't do the same with the 'extra' verse in MT? The fact that a fine
grain was made in 1953, when Chaplin may have been somewnat distracted
by other matters, does not mean to me that the fine grain would
necessarily reflect that revision. I'm just not willing to jump,
without further evidence, to the conclusion that you've decided is the
only one "any sane person" would come to.
David Totheroh
If you prefer to call being accurate "splitting hairs" then be my
guest. You and others thought I was "splitting hairs" and that it was
illogical to assume that "Chaplin's disappointment" with the FNs could
be anything other than aesthetic. Whose half of the hair ended up
being more accurate?
I think/hope we can all agree that the Claudius scene was part of the
original release version of LL but that Chaplin decided very quickly
to remove it from distribution prints. Who's to say that Chaplin
didn't do the same with the 'extra' verse in MT? The fact that a fine
grain was made in 1953, when Chaplin may have been somewnat distracted
by other matters and other people not necessarily familiar with the
vault materials supervised the work, does not mean to me that the fine
dsulpy
Totheroh <dtot...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you prefer to call being accurate "splitting hairs" then be my
> guest. You and others thought I was "splitting hairs" and that it was
> illogical to assume that "Chaplin's disappointment" with the FNs could
> be anything other than aesthetic. Whose half of the hair ended up
> being more accurate?
I hope you aren't referring to my comments, because I didn't say that.
I also have no idea why you didn't come forth with the lawsuit story to
begin with - to me, there doesn't seem to be anything there to keep
such a big, dark secret about. It seems that for weeks you've tried
every possible argument - no matter how contorted - in an effort to
salvage the "tarnished reputation" of the bastard FNs, ignoring the
fact that their older cousin (the original FNs), has been locked up in
a closet and left to rot. It's the originals you should care about,
after all, because THEY'RE the real films of the artist you profess to
love!
Constance Kuriyama
We probably agree more often than it seems. This kind of exchange
tends
to emphasize points of difference.
I
> would think only the complete version would be necessary as well. The only
> reason I said both should be available is that I was accepting the
> inevitable that the version with the missing verse would forever be dubbed
> the "official" release, and would always be the version in print regardless.
> So, if we have both, we have the complete version as well. Got it? :-)
That really would be quibbling, and I think the "last word" argument
could easily be overcome in this case.
> > _The Gold Rush_, on the other hand, exists in such different forms that
> > we need both.
>
> Again, we are in complete agreement.
>
> As for _The Kid_, I'd prefer the re-release cut, with
> > the additional scenes as extras, for no reason in particular except that
> > I think the later cut is better--*and* has an excellent score.
>
> I prefer the uncut version of the reconstruction as contained on the old
> DVD, which has the same excellent score (albeit re-edited a bit to fit).
> Having both available would be nice; IMO they should have used seamless
> branching to give the option of watching the film with or without those
> scenes that weren't cut until the early '70s.
That might be the best solution.
Actually _Kid_ is the most difficult case of these three. To me the
'21 cut is less than perfect, because Chaplin was just working his way
into the feature
game, and he let himself get more involved with the Woman's psychology
than
was strictly necessary. (One could argue that he also does this,
though
more skillfully, with Georgia in '25.) When he recut the film years
later,
he clearly saw that this elaboration was unnecessary, indeed a bit
syrupy, and that it also slowed the film down, so out it went, with
excellent results.
I would have left in the scene on "suicide bridge," because it gives
stronger
impetus to the Woman's change of heart, but the rest is completely
superfluous.
However, this cut should be preserved for historical reasons, and for
study of
Chaplin's development as a filmmaker.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
I wasn't sure about this, and was glad to have David's clarification.
Obviously, if it was present in one copy of the film, it was in there
at some point, for some reason. But the more I thought about it, the
more likely it seemed that it was cut for re-release--in this case
quite whimsically, I'd say. But Chaplin was hardly immune to whims.
He said, in response to a statement that
> said the verse was cut out before release, "Ummm, contrary to the above, it
> was cut for the 1956 re-release." Which any sane person would interpret as,
> no, it wasn't cut before its release, it was cut for the re-release. Which
> means that IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL RELEASE VERSION OF THE FILM. If you've a
> different interpretation than that, I'd like to read it. No, I mean one
> that makes logical sense. You're right, I suppose the '53 fine grains could
> differ somehow from the 1936 release in some other way, and, if so, then it
> would be nice if the real actual '36 could be released for the sake of film
> history, if it exists.
This round goes to Waver Boy, David. But you were right about Chaplin
being involved in the work on the First Nationals in the '40s, about
his being happy with the results, and about him being displeased with
Rollie for other reasons.
Jeffrey's post also supports your positive assessment of the Chaplin
estate, and coincides with my own limited experience with them.
Posters who suggested that you were lying have been reading too much
Coulter, though I'm a little puzzled as to why you didn't outline the
circumstances yourself. Jeffrey's version of the story seems innocent
enough.
Connie K.
Deborah
>Which VHS version do you have?
>I have the CBS/Fox, which is the only one I know of, and the pawnbroker
>verse is not there. Nor, to the best of my recollection, is it on the
>laser disk. It first appeared on the DVD, and according to the story I
>heard, it was an accidental discovery. TV screenings in recent years were
>probably all based on the DVD.
I have the CBS/Fox version "Centennial Collection" and the verse IS there. I
just watched it. The box reads, 87 min., B &W, 1936.
>I agree that the last verse supplies a better punchline.
Definitely so.
But the estate
>has in this case decided that the original release version (without the
>last verse) is official, since that was Chaplin's edit.
How is this the original release version? I believe the one on my tape is the
original 1936 release.
RFCSAC627N
Some--if not all--of the CBS/Fox VHS Chaplins were rereleased using the
laserdisc masters.
Richard Carnahan
dsulpy
Kuriyama <ckur...@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
> Posters who suggested that you were lying have been reading too much
> Coulter
Who accused David of lying?
Deborah
>Ummm, contrary to the above, it was cut for the 1956 re-release. I assembled
> the 1992 laserdisc edition from two fine grain masters manufactured in 1953
> which were intact.
Thank you David.
>do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
>Then it was presumably there in '36, and the CBS/Fox VHS was based on the
>re-release version--which is the only version I ever saw before the DVD.
Connie, the verse IS on my CBS/Fox tape, which must be based on the 1936
original.
>I would defend some of Chaplin's re-release cuts, but even if he did this for
>the sake of economy or pacing, it wasn't one of his better moves.
It certainly wasn't, and that brings me back to my original post - what are
these Chaplin kids thinking? Anyone can see that the original is better. The
many versions of Chaplin's films only serve to dilute his brilliance as far as
I'm concerned. Too bad he didn't have the confidence to let his work stand.
Oh, I understand adding his own musical score once sound on film evolved, but
changing the content?! This just reeks of self doubt. Imagine if Michelangelo
went back to the Sistine chapel twenty years later and "tweaked" his work, or
Ansel Adams colored his B&W photos. The Chaplin kids should be able to have
perspective on this point.
WaverBoy
To my knowledge, I have never said anything on this board about Chaplin's
disappointment with the FNs. Only that the originals (you know what I mean)
should be restored where possible and released, preferably with the help of
the Estate. Also, that the Estate not saying that the current prints are
reconstructions was tantamount to fraud, an accusation that I have retracted
after having reflected on it. I was out of line there.
> I think/hope we can all agree that the Claudius scene was part of the
> original release version of LL but that Chaplin decided very quickly
> to remove it from distribution prints. Who's to say that Chaplin
> didn't do the same with the 'extra' verse in MT? The fact that a fine
> grain was made in 1953, when Chaplin may have been somewnat distracted
> by other matters and other people not necessarily familiar with the
> vault materials supervised the work, does not mean to me that the fine
> grain would necessarily reflect that revision. I'm just not willing to
> jump, without further evidence, to the conclusion that you've decided
> is the only one "any sane person" would come to.
David Shepard said it was cut for the 1956 re-release, and not for the
original release. Which means it was cut for the 1956 re-release, and not
for the original release. There are no hairs to split here. Unless you're
saying here that Shepard is full of excrement. Perhaps you should read the
post again. If you have any evidence to the contrary, let's have it.
WaverBoy
A-HA! That's what happened. Because I know that I've watched MODERN TIMES
on a CBS/FOX Centennial VHS, and the verse was definitely NOT there.
Thought I was losin' it for a second... :-)
David Totheroh
Actually, yes I am referring to your comments. Because not only have
you said, but you continue to imply that the '40s FNs are "bastard"
versions and that the estate is somehow responsible for the fact that
original FNs are "locked up in a closet and left to rot." The truth,
unless Vance is lying, is that the technique used to preserve the FNs
was not only reasonable and responsible in the '40s but it is still
being employed by highly respected archives today. If you want to
blame someone for not storing the original (damaged) materials, you
might as well blame J. Edgar Hoover and James McGranery instead of the
estate. Those materials were ordered destroyed as a result of the
required forced relocation of Chaplin's archive in '53. Had Chaplin
been allowed to stay in this country, there is no doubt in my mind
that those materials (and all the outtake materials as well) would
have been maintained in state of the art conditions.
You are dead wrong to imply I DON'T care about the original FNs. The
only thing I've argued against here over the last several weeks is the
absurd notion that the estate is somehow responsible for films they
don't own rights to or even possess. In fact, in those same weeks,
I've frequently urged others who either possess or think they know
where to access originals to produce and release them.
And I never said the legal issue was, or needed to be seen as, a big
dark secret. I merely said I didn't feel it was my place to talk about
the details of a private legal matter that didn't involve me. Others,
who either have permission or feel no such ethical compunctions are
more than welcome to talk if they want. Just be forewarned that you'll
be disappointed if you think I'll relax my ethical standards to match
yours in that regard.
Constance Kuriyama
Well, that explains why Deborah's has it and mine doesn't, since,
contrary
to my recollection, the laser disk has it. My VHS was bought before
the LD
was issued.
And it appears that the verse was in the 1936 release, but cut for
re-release, so the estate has reverted to the "last word" principle
for the new video.
In this case I think that was not the best decision. Chaplin's change
is too
slight to matter, and the version with the verse is definitely better.
Connie K.
dsulpy
> dsulpy <dsu...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:<040820030858388432%dsu...@optonline.net>...
> > In article <31dd3eaa.03080...@posting.google.com>, David
> > Totheroh <dtot...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If you prefer to call being accurate "splitting hairs" then be my
> > > guest. You and others thought I was "splitting hairs" and that it was
> > > illogical to assume that "Chaplin's disappointment" with the FNs could
> > > be anything other than aesthetic. Whose half of the hair ended up
> > > being more accurate?
> >
> > I hope you aren't referring to my comments, because I didn't say that.
> > I also have no idea why you didn't come forth with the lawsuit story to
> > begin with - to me, there doesn't seem to be anything there to keep
> > such a big, dark secret about. It seems that for weeks you've tried
> > every possible argument - no matter how contorted - in an effort to
> > salvage the "tarnished reputation" of the bastard FNs, ignoring the
> > fact that their older cousin (the original FNs), has been locked up in
> > a closet and left to rot. It's the originals you should care about,
> > after all, because THEY'RE the real films of the artist you profess to
> > love!
>
> Actually, yes I am referring to your comments. Because not only have
> you said, but you continue to imply that the '40s FNs are "bastard"
> versions..
Yes. Previously I have called them "the imitation First Nationals," but
I like the sound of "bastard First Nationals" better, so I will use
that one from now on.
> and that the estate is somehow responsible for the fact that
> original FNs are "locked up in a closet and left to rot." The truth,
> unless Vance is lying, is that the technique used to preserve the FNs
> was not only reasonable and responsible in the '40s but it is still
> being employed by highly respected archives.
Vance talked about spot replacement of shots from foreign negatives as
a matter of restoration, not shot-by-shot replacement of the entire
damn films. There's nothing comparable to the BFN's (Bastard First
Nationals).
> If you want to
> blame someone for not storing the original (damaged) materials, you
> might as well blame J. Edgar Hoover and James McGranery instead of the
> estate. Those materials were ordered destroyed as a result of the
> required forced relocation of Chaplin's archive in '53. Had Chaplin
> been allowed to stay in this country, there is no doubt in my mind
> that those materials (and all the outtake materials as well) would
> have been maintained in state of the art conditions.
Damn. What a brilliant connection. I have to confess I would never have
come up with THAT one. Are the Republicans also stopping the Estate
from locating, restoring and issuing the original versions of the
films? Hah! Probably so they can sell black market prints to their rich
oil buddies...
> You are dead wrong to imply I DON'T care about the original FNs. The
> only thing I've argued against here over the last several weeks is the
> absurd notion that the estate is somehow responsible for films they
> don't own rights to or even possess. In fact, in those same weeks,
> I've frequently urged others who either possess or think they know
> where to access originals to produce and release them.
Right. And I've pointed out - repeatedly, that the threat of legal
action FROM the Estate precludes any such action.
> And I never said the legal issue was, or needed to be seen as, a big
> dark secret. I merely said I didn't feel it was my place to talk about
> the details of a private legal matter that didn't involve me.
In other words, keep it a big, dark secret :-)
> Others,
> who either have permission
One doesn't need "permission" to talk about a 50 year old court case!
Geez.
> or feel no such ethical compunctions
Nor is one "unethical" by talking about it. What's the matter with you?
> are
> more than welcome to talk if they want. Just be forewarned that you'll
> be disappointed if you think I'll relax my ethical standards to match
> yours in that regard.
I am ashamed... you're so right... so deeply ashamed.... (sniff,
sniff)...
D.
George Shelps
>you might as well blame J. Edgar Hoover
>and James McGranery instead of the
>estate. Those materials were ordered
>destroyed as a result of the required
>forced relocation of Chaplin's archive in
>53. Had Chaplin been allowed to stay in
>this country, there is no doubt in my
>mind that those materials (and all the
>outtake materials as well) would have
>been maintained in state of the art
>conditions.
Don't you ever tire of repeating this untruth?
Newbies, Chaplin was not forbidden to
re-enter the US. He simply needed to
submit to a hearing which the INS realized would result in his
re-entry--because they knew that Truman's AG had a weak case.
Instead of availing himself of this
option, Chaplin chose self-exile
by turning in his re-entry permit
voluntarily.
>You are dead wrong to imply I DON'T
>care about the original FNs. The only
>thing I've argued against here over the
>last several weeks is the absurd notion
>that the estate is somehow responsible
>for films they don't own rights to or even
>possess.
They are morally and culturally "responsible" for the Chaplin legacy in
toto.
> In fact, in those same weeks, I've
>frequently urged others who either
>possess or think they know where to
>access originals to produce and release
>them.
Blowhardism!
You know full well that no one here has the wherewithal to manufacture
and release such a DVD.
>And I never said the legal issue was, or
>needed to be seen as, a big dark secret.
>I merely said I didn't feel it was my place
>to talk about the details of a private legal
>matter that didn't involve me. Others,
>who either have permission or feel no
>such ethical compunctions are more than
>welcome to talk if they want. Just be
>forewarned that you'll be disappointed if
>you think I'll relax my ethical standards
>to match yours in that regard.
Get off your high horse! You always play it cagey when it comes to
maintaining your status as a "Chaplin insider."
It's the same for your Rollie transcripts
that you refuse to disclose to the
"politically incorrect."
Not exactly a cooperative attitude in what
is supposed to be a free-wheeling discussion group.
Constance Kuriyama
Oh, nobody explicitly. But scornful dismissal implies such
a conclusion. You can figure out who did that for yourself.
Constance Kuriyama
> David Shepard wrote:
>
>>Ummm, contrary to the above, it was cut for the 1956 re-release. I assembled
>> the 1992 laserdisc edition from two fine grain masters manufactured in 1953
>> which were intact.
>
> Thank you David.
>
>>do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
>
>>Then it was presumably there in '36, and the CBS/Fox VHS was based on the
>>re-release version--which is the only version I ever saw before the DVD.
>
> Connie, the verse IS on my CBS/Fox tape, which must be based on the 1936
> original.
>
>>I would defend some of Chaplin's re-release cuts, but even if he did this for
>>the sake of economy or pacing, it wasn't one of his better moves.
>
> It certainly wasn't, and that brings me back to my original post - what are
> these Chaplin kids thinking?
I assume they're adhering to the "last word" principle, which keeps them
from making arbitrary judgments themselves. But in this case, given the
slight nature of the change, I think that's too rigid.
Connie K.
Anyone can see that the original is better. The
> many versions of Chaplin's films only serve to dilute his brilliance as far as
> I'm concerned. Too bad he didn't have the confidence to let his work stand.
> Oh, I understand adding his own musical score once sound on film evolved, but
> changing the content?! This just reeks of self doubt. Imagine if Michelangelo
> went back to the Sistine chapel twenty years later and "tweaked" his work, or
> Ansel Adams colored his B&W photos. The Chaplin kids should be able to have
> perspective on this point.
>
>
> Deborah
>
> "The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."
> -Mark Twain
>
>
--
Constance Kuriyama
This issue came up before with the _City Lights_ soundtrack. My (older)
CBS/Fox VHS has the original 1931 track. The later one has the Davis
re-recording.
So how do you stand on that? Do you want the inferior sound quality of the
original track, or the re-recording, which sounds better but is not
original? On the laser and DVD, you can choose.
Connie K.
David Totheroh
> DTotheroh wrote:
>
>
> > In fact, in those same weeks, I've
> >frequently urged others who either
> >possess or think they know where to
> >access originals to produce and release
> >them.
>
> Blowhardism!
>
> You know full well that no one here has the wherewithal to manufacture
> and release such a DVD.
I know no such thing. What I DO know is that there are at least 3
people who read here and 2 who post regularly who do just that as part
of their livelihoods. And knowing all 3 of them, I also know the
difference between them and the rest of us is that they decided to do
something other than simply bitch about what wasn't available. And I
for one am happy to reinforce their activities instead of pretending
they don't exist.
David Totheroh
Well, I'm not surprised. Other obvious truths seem to have eluded you
where the FNs are concerned as well.
> > And I never said the legal issue was, or needed to be seen as, a big
> > dark secret. I merely said I didn't feel it was my place to talk about
> > the details of a private legal matter that didn't involve me.
>
> In other words, keep it a big, dark secret :-)
>
> > Others,
> > who either have permission
>
> One doesn't need "permission" to talk about a 50 year old court case!
> Geez.
Not being a lawyer, and not being familiar with the details of the
case, I have no way of knowing what the ongoing ramifications of that
case might be (and I'd bet you don't either). If someone else wants to
talk about it, feel free. I've already said nearly as much as I know
and all that was relevant. It's not my fault you chose not to believe
me.
David Totheroh
Bad analogy for your side of the argument. I happen to have spent some
time with Ansel Adams and know for a fact that he revisited his
negatives on several occasions. I even saw an exhibit a few months ago
where different prints of the same negative were displayed side by
side. Some of you may know that Adams was also an accomplished
pianist. He often described his negatives as being like musical
scores, and the prints being individual performances of that score. He
intentionally experimented with variations in printing and the
evolution seen in the notes of printing instructions over time are
fascinating. He refered to the printing instructions as "conductor's
notes" where in his case the conductor and composer were one in the
same. And in fact, as with the Chaplin estate, the Adams heirs have
taken Ansel's last notes as the definitive printing instructions to be
used for making new prints. So, the question is, is a
composer/conductor or a photographer/printer so terribly different
from a director/editor?
Maybe the kids DO have "perspective on this point."
Mr. Moose
>It certainly wasn't, and that brings me back to my original post - what are
>these Chaplin kids thinking? Anyone can see that the original is better.
That is a dangerous assumption. It's just as likely that anyone can
see that the new one is better.
For example (and ONLY for example) show a grainy, chopped-up,
scratched up print of Modern Times with the last verse intact, and
then show the restoration without the verse, and guess which version
will win out? Reverse the scenario, and you probably will reverse the
preference.
On the new dvd, the segment with the original verse is very noticably
of inferior quality to the restored version, which raises a question
of what materials were used. I wonder if the last verse was left out
due to filme quality. I'll have to do some more comparing.
I agree that the original versions with the A takes are probably the
best for almost any audience, but I could never assume that to be true
for anyone.
>The
>many versions of Chaplin's films only serve to dilute his brilliance as far as
>I'm concerned. Too bad he didn't have the confidence to let his work stand.
>Oh, I understand adding his own musical score once sound on film evolved, but
>changing the content?! This just reeks of self doubt. Imagine if Michelangelo
>went back to the Sistine chapel twenty years later and "tweaked" his work,
Funny you should mention this - there was a news report about eight
years ago, during the restoration of the Sising Chapel, with art
historians complaining that the restorers were removing much of what
made the paintings great, even though they were removing other
people's painted-over additions! It seems that there's NEVER a
consensus when it comes to the restoration of old works, and I suppose
that's really a good thing, otherwise we'd all be clones!
Mark
TamaraKnight
> I prefer the original track (bet you could have guessed that :-) ), but I
> also think that having the re-recorded Davis track available as an option is
> an excellent idea. You can choose which track you prefer, and the other
> track is nice to have on hand for curiosity and comparison purposes.
I agree.
> For
> instance, even though I don't like the reissue version of THE GOLD RUSH,
> it's great to have it around for scholarly purposes, to note the changes
> Chaplin made, and their effect on the film and its audience.
Well, I wouldn't cry any tears if all prints of that abomination
spontaneously combusted. I can't watch 5 minutes of it without yelling
at the TV: "Shut up! Damn it, will you just SHUT UP!!!!" :-)
TamaraKnight
> ...Other obvious truths seem to have eluded you
> where the FNs are concerned as well.
Well, I COULD go through all of your attempts to justify the BFN's, and
it would make a very funny list of bullshit... um, uh, I mean "obvious
truths"... but it's not worth the bother.
[snip]
> Not being a lawyer, and not being familiar with the details of the
> case, I have no way of knowing what the ongoing ramifications of that
> case might be (and I'd bet you don't either). If someone else wants to
> talk about it, feel free.
Thank you for your permission. Are we morally absolved as well? LOL...
D.
RFCSAC627N
My, you certainly have your share of aliases, Doug. Do you crossdress with
this one? (:
Richard
WaverBoy
"TamaraKnight" <noad...@here.com> wrote in message
news:050820030834446050%noad...@here.com...
Point taken, but if they had spontaneously combusted, we wouldn't have the
bulk of the '25 restoration in such fine condition. :-)
David Totheroh
> In article <31dd3eaa.03080...@posting.google.com>, David
> Totheroh <dtot...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > ...Other obvious truths seem to have eluded you
> > where the FNs are concerned as well.
>
> Well, I COULD go through all of your attempts to justify the BFN's, and
> it would make a very funny list of bullshit... um, uh, I mean "obvious
> truths"... but it's not worth the bother.
I wish you would. Although I'm pretty sure that you won't "bother"
because you'll find that, far from the kind of bullshit like
'contending that Chaplin had to be disappointed with their content'
that came from you, 'Tamara,' you'd find a string of successful
"attempts to justify" an emminently justifiable and reasonable process
to preserve the FNs utilizing the best methods and materials available
at the time, that I offered. The fact that you refuse to concede that
your own personal criteria, Chaplin's performance, is both highly
subjective AND only one of several to be legitimately considered,
physical quality being merely one.
On the bullshit scale you already had me beat hands down (and now you
add the bogus 'rights hypothesis') in an ongoing attempt to discredit
a project to save a then rapidly deteriorating treasure, the FN
materials.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Not being a lawyer, and not being familiar with the details of the
> > case, I have no way of knowing what the ongoing ramifications of that
> > case might be (and I'd bet you don't either). If someone else wants to
> > talk about it, feel free.
>
> Thank you for your permission. Are we morally absolved as well? LOL...
>
> D.
I'm not in the business of absolution, especially of transvestites,
Doug/Tamara. You'll have to ask elsewhere for that.
Shush
> David Totheroh wrote:
> > Because not only have
> > you said, but you continue to imply that the '40s FNs are "bastard"
> > versions..
>
> Yes. Previously I have called them "the imitation First Nationals," but
> I like the sound of "bastard First Nationals" better, so I will use
> that one from now on.
Sounds a little overly dramatic to me. I just consider them the
"replacement First Nationals," since their only reason for being was
to serve as replacements for the battered originals.
--Shush--
Doug
> ... So, the question is, is a
> composer/conductor or a photographer/printer so terribly different
> from a director/editor?
Yes. Good to see you keep trying, though. Did Adams find alternate -
and inferior - shots similar to his "famous" photographs and try to
pass them off as the originals? That's what would be comparable.
> Maybe the kids DO have "perspective on this point."
Absolutely. Unfortunately, it's from the wrong end of the telescope...
:-)
D.
Doug
<rfcsa...@aol.com> wrote:
No, no. I put that one on for the Elvis group and forgot to change
back. :-)
Doug
Totheroh <dtot...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm not in the business of absolution, especially of transvestites,
> Doug/Tamara. You'll have to ask elsewhere for that.
Oh, fuck you, David. It's "Tomorrow Night". It's an Elvis song. Get
over it, and enjoy your newfound home in my killfile. :-)
RFCSAC627N
>> >TamaraKnight
>>
>> My, you certainly have your share of aliases, Doug. Do you crossdress
>with
>> this one? (:
>>
>> Richard
>
>No, no. I put that one on for the Elvis group and forgot to change
>back. :-)
>
Sounds like the name of a stripper I might have seen in North Beach back in
'66...
Deborah
>Bad analogy for your side of the argument. I happen to have spent some
>time with Ansel Adams
Well, at least you didn't claim to know Michelangelo, David.
>and know for a fact that he revisited his
>negatives on several occasions.
Yes, like Charlie adding his own soundtrack would be "revisiting." Or even his
making different prints of the same film, as you claim Adams did with his
negatives. However, as per my original post, Adams making *color prints* would
have been like the tampering Chaplin did with his films. Therefore my analogy
stands.
>And in fact, as with the Chaplin estate, the Adams heirs have
>taken Ansel's last notes as the definitive printing instructions to be
>used for making new prints.
As Connie wrote in another post, it seems to Chaplin kids are indeed using this
"last is best" rule.
>Maybe the kids DO have "perspective on this point."
I don't think so, because last is not always best. I mean, think of Renoir's
later works. Imagine if he went back and reworked his masterpieces. The work of
an artist in his prime is superior. Many artists of all kinds have peaked and
then declined. I thought most people in here agreed that the same happened to
Chaplin. If so, why rely on his last changes to what were masterpieces? The
fact that Chaplin couldn't leave well enough alone suggests a deep self doubt.
He wanted to be known for the Gold Rush, yet went back and changed its content.
Deborah
wrote:
>dzu...@aol.com (Deborah) wrote:
>
>>It certainly wasn't, and that brings me back to my original post - what are
>>these Chaplin kids thinking? Anyone can see that the original is better.
>
>That is a dangerous assumption. It's just as likely that anyone can
>see that the new one is better.
Dangerous? How?
>For example (and ONLY for example) show a grainy, chopped-up,
>scratched up print of Modern Times with the last verse intact, and
>then show the restoration without the verse, and guess which version
>will win out? Reverse the scenario, and you probably will reverse the
>preference.
Apples and oranges. Show equal quality prints with and without the final verse
and *anyone* can see that the original is better because it is complete.
>On the new dvd, the segment with the original verse is very noticably
>of inferior quality to the restored version, which raises a question
>of what materials were used. I wonder if the last verse was left out
>due to filme quality. I'll have to do some more comparing.
Maybe it wasn't restored like the rest of the DVD?
>I agree that the original versions with the A takes are probably the
>best for almost any audience, but I could never assume that to be true
>for anyone.
Well, I'm willing to assume.
>>The
>>many versions of Chaplin's films only serve to dilute his brilliance as far
>as
>>I'm concerned. Too bad he didn't have the confidence to let his work stand.
>>Oh, I understand adding his own musical score once sound on film evolved,
>but
>>changing the content?! This just reeks of self doubt. Imagine if
>Michelangelo
>>went back to the Sistine chapel twenty years later and "tweaked" his work,
>Funny you should mention this - there was a news report about eight
>years ago, during the restoration of the Sising Chapel, with art
>historians complaining that the restorers were removing much of what
>made the paintings great, even though they were removing other
>people's painted-over additions! It seems that there's NEVER a
>consensus when it comes to the restoration of old works, and I suppose
>that's really a good thing, otherwise we'd all be clones!
This is true. However, a film is a canned product, so the original intent of
the artist is usually available. If Michelangelo had left behind notes, or if
photos of his painting at the time were available, then we could be relatively
sure of the original product. Still, there would probably be debate about how
to go about restoring it. But, back to my analogy...Michelangelo didn't go
back in his dotage and remove whole scenes, like Chaplin did.
David Totheroh
If an artist makes sketches, are they superior to the 'finished works'
based on them? If that artist displays the 'finished work' at a
gallery, which does not sell in a few weeks, then does some minor
revisions on the same canvas which sells immediately, how do you
decide which is superior? What if he waits 6 months, 2 years, 10 years
to make the revision? Where's the cutoff? How do you define an
artist's prime for any particular work? I think it's more fluid than
the arbitrarily rigid restraints I see others applying.
I agree that last isn't always best, but at least in the case of
Modern Times I think you're making some potentially invalid
assumptions. You assume the editing out of the verse happened later,
probably for the '56 rerelease. I'm not altogether convinced of that.
The evidence is that David Shepard found fine grains made in '53 that
contained the verse, and presumably the '56 prints do not. However,
those '53 fine grains were produced, like all other preservation
materials produced at that time, from materials compiled by Rollie for
transfer from the Hollywood vaults to the London archive. If Rollie,
for the sake of completeness, packed a negative that contained more
than the release version, all the physical evidence would be
consistent with what we know exists. So, the fact the verse exists in
the '53 fine grains is not in my mind definitive proof that it was in
all previous distribution prints. Short any other evidence, it is
possible that Chaplin decided to remove the verse very shortly after
the premiere, exactly as he did with the Claudius scene in Limelight,
but it was still in the neg packed and shipped to London. I'm not yet
willing to concede that we know when that edit was actually made. IF
the edit was made immediately after the premiere (arguably the first
opportunity a filmmaker has to evaluate more objective responses than
those of himself and others directly involved) as was the case in
Limelight, can we argue Chaplin was past his prime merely because the
premiere had already taken place?
If you read the trades, Chaplin said EVERY film was his best just
after he made it. But with the Gold Rush in particular, the comments
that it was the film he wanted most to be remembered for came well
after '42, so the most rational assumption is that's the version he
was talking about (although I'm sure he would be happy to agree with
your assessment that '25 was a masterpiece, too).
David Totheroh
What a disappointment. I was so looking forward to becomming a
bisexual on the basis of the singlular encounter you offered in your
first sentence. Then you go and change your mind and get all huffy.
WaverBoy
"David Totheroh" <dtot...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:31dd3eaa.03080...@posting.google.com...
> I agree that last isn't always best, but at least in the case of
> Modern Times I think you're making some potentially invalid
> assumptions. You assume the editing out of the verse happened later,
> probably for the '56 rerelease. I'm not altogether convinced of that.
> The evidence is that David Shepard found fine grains made in '53 that
> contained the verse, and presumably the '56 prints do not. However,
> those '53 fine grains were produced, like all other preservation
> materials produced at that time, from materials compiled by Rollie for
> transfer from the Hollywood vaults to the London archive. If Rollie,
> for the sake of completeness, packed a negative that contained more
> than the release version, all the physical evidence would be
> consistent with what we know exists. So, the fact the verse exists in
> the '53 fine grains is not in my mind definitive proof that it was in
> all previous distribution prints. Short any other evidence, it is
> possible that Chaplin decided to remove the verse very shortly after
> the premiere, exactly as he did with the Claudius scene in Limelight,
> but it was still in the neg packed and shipped to London. I'm not yet
> willing to concede that we know when that edit was actually made.
Concede now, then. From Jeffrey Vance's recent post:
"One last thing. I have been asked about MODERN TIMES and the extra
verse. Chaplin himself made this cut for the UA 1954 (not 1956)
reissue. This reissue was a worldwide reissue except for the US and
Spain. The US may have seen this reissue as early as 1956, but it had
its big US release in 1959--through a distributor called Lopert. Two
fine grains exist: One with the verse (representing the original 1936
release) and one without the verse (representing the 1954 reissue).
David Shepard used both fine grains to achieve the best
looking/sounding MODERN TIMES in 1992 for his CBS/Fox Laser Disc."
Deborah
> How do you define an
>artist's prime for any particular work? I think it's more fluid than
>the arbitrarily rigid restraints I see others applying.
Defining an artist's prime "for any particular work" would be trickier than
defining an artist's prime creative period over the course of his lifetime,
which is to what I was referring. But in the case of film, since it is a
canned product, I still contend that it is less fluid than you seem to assume.
>I agree that last isn't always best,
Well, that's something. Do you agree the final verse of the song should not
have been cut from the DVD? Do you agree that the song is weakened by
excluding its final verse, where the punchline lies?
<snipped hypothetical argument since debunked>
If the verse *was* in the original release as it now seems, do you think the
Chaplin kids should have deleted it? I do not. This decision actually is
quite inartistic for a group of kids who seem to think they are artists in
their own rights. I realize that they had to make minute decisions about these
film's content, because Chaplin tampered with his own work instead of leaving
well enough alone. My point, and I'll make it again, is that as a result of
Chaplin's reworking his films, the films have various versions floating around,
which only serve to dilute the artistic power of them. Imagine several
versions of "Casablanca."
>If you read the trades, Chaplin said EVERY film was his best just
>after he made it. But with the Gold Rush in particular, the comments
>that it was the film he wanted most to be remembered for came well
>after '42, so the most rational
>assumption is that's the version he
>was talking about
If your timing is correct, then I agree with you.
>(although I'm sure he would be happy to agree with
>your assessment that '25 was a masterpiece, too).
The '25 version *is* the masterpiece. The reissue was folly. It did nothing
to improve upon the original, or do you think the '42 version is better?
RFCSAC627N
>>dtot...@aol.com (David Totheroh) wrote:
>> How do you define an
>>artist's prime for any particular work? I think it's more fluid than
>>the arbitrarily rigid restraints I see others applying.
>
>Defining an artist's prime "for any particular work" would be trickier than
>defining an artist's prime creative period over the course of his lifetime,
>which is to what I was referring. But in the case of film, since it is a
>canned product, I still contend that it is less fluid than you seem to
>assume.
>
It's not a "canned product" when the artist owns the can. Chaplin is one of
a very few film artists who ever have.
But he isn't only director with influence who has altered his films. The
Coen brothers revisited BLOOD SIMPLE and recut, remixed, and restored it.
Peter Weir went back to PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK and removed seven minutes. The
late Tony Richardson snipped seven minutes from TOM JONES and had the score
recorded in stereo.
Which version of these films should we consider the "difinitive" one 50 years
from now?
Richard Carnahan
Deborah
>It's not a "canned product" when the artist owns the can. Chaplin is one of
>a very few film artists who ever have.
This is a good point. It is precisely Chaplin's access to his films that
allowed him to tweak them many years later. Just because he could, didn't mean
he should. He also could have had the discipline to leave well enough alone.
I, for one, don't think his second guessing added anything to the films. Do
you think the exclusion of the final song verse enhances MT? For that matter,
are there any later Chaplin changes that improved his films, other than the
music composition?
These changes only make the task of determining the definitive version very
difficult, if not well nigh impossible. I think this is to the detriment of the
films.
Constance Kuriyama
>>dtot...@aol.com (David Totheroh) wrote:
>> How do you define an
>>artist's prime for any particular work? I think it's more fluid than
>>the arbitrarily rigid restraints I see others applying.
>
> Defining an artist's prime "for any particular work" would be trickier than
> defining an artist's prime creative period over the course of his lifetime,
> which is to what I was referring.
Most people would consider the '20s and '30s Chaplin's prime, but the changes
that occurred in the '40s were less clearly attributable to a decline in
creative power than to the transition to sound, declining physical ability
to play the Tramp character, etc. And artists don't consistently produce
good work in peak periods and bad work in decline, as I think you're
acknowledging in your statment about a particular work.
> But in the case of film, since it is a
> canned product, I still contend that it is less fluid than you seem to assume.
Since different versions of films are extremely common, it seems quite
reasonable to regard it as a fluid medium--much more fluid than one would
expect considering the cost of making a film.
>>I agree that last isn't always best,
True. Nor is first always best.
Best is always best, but who determines what is best?
> Well, that's something. Do you agree the final verse of the song should not
> have been cut from the DVD? Do you agree that the song is weakened by
> excluding its final verse, where the punchline lies?
>
> <snipped hypothetical argument since debunked>
>
> If the verse *was* in the original release as it now seems, do you think the
> Chaplin kids should have deleted it? I do not. This decision actually is
> quite inartistic for a group of kids who seem to think they are artists in
> their own rights. I realize that they had to make minute decisions about these
> film's content, because Chaplin tampered with his own work instead of leaving
> well enough alone.
I feel really uncomfortable with the use of the word "tamper" to refer to
an artist revising his own work, though you certainly aren't the only
person using it. Is any change in a work, good or bad, tampering? Or
do you think all of Chaplin's changes were for the worse? In the latter
case you'd have a hard time convincing me that Chaplin's recutting and
scoring of _The Kid_ harmed the film rather than improving it.
My point, and I'll make it again, is that as a result of
> Chaplin's reworking his films, the films have various versions floating around,
> which only serve to dilute the artistic power of them. Imagine several
> versions of "Casablanca."
One is more than enough for me. But I can imagine several improved
versions. :-)
>>If you read the trades, Chaplin said EVERY film was his best just
>>after he made it. But with the Gold Rush in particular, the comments
>>that it was the film he wanted most to be remembered for came well
>>after '42, so the most rational
>>assumption is that's the version he
>>was talking about
Someone raised this question on alt.movies.silent, and I've since tried
to pin down when he said this, without success. Every biographer I've
looked back at mentions the remark, but doesn't date it. Robinson
simply indicates that he said this "often."
> If your timing is correct, then I agree with you.
>
>>(although I'm sure he would be happy to agree with
>>your assessment that '25 was a masterpiece, too).
>
> The '25 version *is* the masterpiece. The reissue was folly. It did nothing
> to improve upon the original, or do you think the '42 version is better?
>
>
> Deborah
>
> "The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."
> -Mark Twain
I'm not at all clear why you think Chaplin's desire to make his film
appealing to a new audience with different expectations was "folly,"
especially since the venture succeeded. To him, the reissue was a
practical matter of keeping the film attractive and profitable.
I think that the differences between '25 and '42 are greatly exaggerated,
and that both are perfectly enjoyable if one comes to them without
preconceptions. The music in '42 is a heck of a lot better. :-) And
the narration has a breezy tone and a playful literary quality which
I enjoy, but you'll miss that if you just regard it as distracting
noise--which seems to be the way many silent film buffs react.
To each his own. You enjoy one version and I'll enjoy two.
Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
George Shelps
dzu...@aol.com (Deborah) wrote:
>rfcsa...@aol.com (RFCSAC627N)
>wrote:
>>It's not a "canned product" when the
>>artist owns the can. Chaplin is one of a
>>very few film artists who ever have.
>This is a good point. It is precisely
>Chaplin's access to his films that allowe
>him to tweak them many years later.
>Just because he could, didn't mean he
>should. He also could have had the
>discipline to leave well enough alone. I,
>for one, don't think his second guessing
>added anything to the films.
Deborah, don't you realize that if Chaplin
had decided to take his original negatives
to Tierra del Feugo to have them incinerated by a tribe of
fire-worshippers,
Connie and David and Richard would be defending his moral and artistic
authority to have done that?
Deborah
>I feel really uncomfortable with the use of the word "tamper" to refer to
>an artist revising his own work, though you certainly aren't the only
>person using it. Is any change in a work, good or bad, tampering? Or
>do you think all of Chaplin's changes were for the worse? In the latter
>case you'd have a hard time
>convincing me that Chaplin's recutting and
>scoring of _The Kid_ harmed the film rather than improving it.
I think tamper probably has a negative connotation. Tweaked, fiddled with or
revised will work. For the most part I think his revisions were for the worse,
but your example of The Kid is valid. However, the main improvement was the
score, not the deletion of the mother's scenes. These films are of a
particular time, and the sensibility of that time is genuine. Chaplin lived so
long, he was able to see where his earlier work was old-fashioned.
>I'm not at all clear why you think Chaplin's desire to make his film
>appealing to a new audience with different expectations was "folly,"
>especially since the venture succeeded. To him, the reissue was a
>practical matter of keeping the film attractive and profitable.
Exactly. It was artistic folly, but an economic success. Art always suffers
at the alter of profit.
Deborah
wrote:
>Deborah, don't you realize that if Chaplin
>had decided to take his original negatives
>to Tierra del Feugo to have them incinerated by a tribe of fire-worshippers,
>Connie and David and Richard would be defending his moral and artistic
>authority to have done that?
I'm not arguing whether or not Chaplin had the authority to do whatever he
wanted with his work. Of course he did. I'm saying he made some bad
decisions, probably because of that artistic perfectionism of his. Now the
powers-that-be must make their own artistic judgement calls and the
authenticity of the work is muddled.
If Chaplin set the negatives on fire in Tierra del Fuego... well, at least we
would know the definitive versions, right? :-)
RFCSAC627N
>Deborah, don't you realize that if Chaplin
>had decided to take his original negatives
>to Tierra del Feugo to have them incinerated by a tribe of
>fire-worshippers,
>Connie and David and Richard would be defending his moral and artistic
>authority to have done that?
>
I would defend CC altering--not killing--his work, although he certainly had
the legal right to do so.
RFCSAC627N
>>It's not a "canned product" when the artist owns the can. Chaplin is one of
>>a very few film artists who ever have.
>
>This is a good point. It is precisely Chaplin's access to his films that
>allowed him to tweak them many years later. Just because he could, didn't
>mean
>he should. He also could have had the discipline to leave well enough
>alone.
>I, for one, don't think his second guessing added anything to the films. Do
>you think the exclusion of the final song verse enhances MT? For that matter,
>are there any later Chaplin changes that improved his films, other than the
>music composition?
>These changes only make the task of determining the definitive version very
>difficult, if not well nigh impossible. I think this is to the detriment of
>the
>films.
I don't see it as a detriment. I >like< the idea of having two or three
versions of CC films to compare, just as I like the ability to be able to
listen to several different takes of Charlie Parker's CHI-CHI on a CD.
And of course, if CC hadn't revisited his films, we wouldn't--as you
said--have his scores. His scores aren't talked about much, but add
immeasurably to the viewing experience. THE KID is just not the same without
it.
Richard Carnahan
David Totheroh
> >dtot...@aol.com (David Totheroh) wrote:
> > How do you define an
> >artist's prime for any particular work? I think it's more fluid than
> >the arbitrarily rigid restraints I see others applying.
>
> Defining an artist's prime "for any particular work" would be trickier than
> defining an artist's prime creative period over the course of his lifetime,
> which is to what I was referring. But in the case of film, since it is a
> canned product, I still contend that it is less fluid than you seem to assume.
Maybe it's because I've made some, and because I grew up hearing about
the process instead of just seeing the product, that I disagree with
your contention.
>
> >I agree that last isn't always best,
>
> Well, that's something. Do you agree the final verse of the song should not
> have been cut from the DVD? Do you agree that the song is weakened by
> excluding its final verse, where the punchline lies?
Do I agree the verse should not have been cut from the DVD? No. For
whatever reason, the artist decided to cut the verse in '53-'54. It
was Chaplin's work to define as he sees fit. And I think the estate is
justified in respecting that decision. Am I glad the original release
version materials still exist? Absolutely. Would I like to see an
original version released. Sure. And when the film becomes PD (which I
think ought to happen far sooner than provided for in the
Disney-purchased legislation) or even before, I'm looking forward to
someone doing just that (on DVD instead of LD). But that doesn't
invalidate the estate's, or Chaplin's decision to omit it.
Do I agree the song is weakened? Probably, but my answer as to whether
it weakens the film is different. When I first saw that verse in the
film, about 10 years ago when it was released on laserdisc, my initial
reaction was that Charlie made a good decision to cut it. I didn't
know WHEN he did, but I thought I saw something in the performance of
that verse that wasn't quite up to par compared to the other verses. I
thought the point had been made in 3 verses and the extra one was,
well, extra. And the reality is that there are punchlines in each
verse. Maybe it was mostly a function of what I was used to. After
seeing it several times over, I don't feel that as much now. But I see
the decision to cut as a continuation of the editing process that
resulted in the original versions in the first place. Rollie talked
about that process in '64:
<<And I always said to him, "Charlie I wish you wouldn't cut so
short." He'd build something to where it got to be hilarious, jeez,
and you should sustain that laughter, hold it, let it go. Jeez, he'd
cut away from it right to an entirely different mood--not a mood but a
sequence--something new would start. Well right away, jeez, you cut
your laugh. They're interested in what's gonna happen now, or maybe
the laugh would carry over and you'll lose what he's gonna, what he's
givin' you now. We'd go in to cut and then right to the last minute
he'd come in and we'd go all the way through the thing and he'd clip
one frame off of this, two frames off of that, just a frame, see, off
of that. "I don't want to tire them, Rol. Leave 'em want more." Well
that part is alright. But when you have something, Jeez, leave that
laugh, keep it goin' if you possibly can.>>
So, it seems you agree more with Rollie's editing tendencies than with
Chaplin's. But I see Chaplin as the primary artist, and give him the
authority to define his work as he sees fit.
>
> <snipped hypothetical argument since debunked>
>
> If the verse *was* in the original release as it now seems, do you think the
> Chaplin kids should have deleted it? I do not. This decision actually is
> quite inartistic for a group of kids who seem to think they are artists in
> their own rights. I realize that they had to make minute decisions about these
> film's content, because Chaplin tampered with his own work instead of leaving
> well enough alone. My point, and I'll make it again, is that as a result of
> Chaplin's reworking his films, the films have various versions floating around,
> which only serve to dilute the artistic power of them. Imagine several
> versions of "Casablanca."
The "kids" didn't delete it. They didn't make the edit decision,
Charlie did. And if you don't grant him the right to "tamper" with his
own work, then you have to accept the fact that even the original
release versions were not the original versions, at least according to
Rollie. If he'd have left "well enough alone" the 'original' original
versions would be different from anything anyone except Charlie and
Rollie ever saw. Editing with Chaplin was a continuing, ongoing
process.
>
> >If you read the trades, Chaplin said EVERY film was his best just
> >after he made it. But with the Gold Rush in particular, the comments
> >that it was the film he wanted most to be remembered for came well
> >after '42, so the most rational
> >assumption is that's the version he
> >was talking about
>
> If your timing is correct, then I agree with you.
>
> >(although I'm sure he would be happy to agree with
> >your assessment that '25 was a masterpiece, too).
>
> The '25 version *is* the masterpiece. The reissue was folly. It did nothing
> to improve upon the original, or do you think the '42 version is better?
If it was such a "folly" why is it that ALL contemporary reviews are
positive? Is it a "better" representation of '25 than the 'bastard'
(to use Doug's term) Brownlow/Gill reconstruction? Probably not, but
they do contain a significant percentage of identical frames, so
exactly HOW different is very subjective.
BUT, ...if you're asking me about which score I prefer, or if you're
asking me about which will play most effectively to probably over 90%
of the audience between the late '30s and into the '80s, and probably
over half of today's audience that'd be willing to take a chance with
an 'old' film...if that's what you're asking when you ask if I "think
the '42 version is better" then, yep, I'd say of course the '42 is
better.
I have no idea what you consider the appropriate criteria for
evaluating what makes one film "better" than another. And even if you
spelled that out, there's no reason to believe those criteria would
find universal agreement.
David Totheroh
> >: rfcsa...@aol.com (RFCSAC627N)
>
> >It's not a "canned product" when the artist owns the can. Chaplin is one of
> >a very few film artists who ever have.
>
> This is a good point. It is precisely Chaplin's access to his films that
> allowed him to tweak them many years later. Just because he could, didn't mean
> he should. He also could have had the discipline to leave well enough alone.
> I, for one, don't think his second guessing added anything to the films. Do
> you think the exclusion of the final song verse enhances MT? For that matter,
> are there any later Chaplin changes that improved his films, other than the
> music composition?
> These changes only make the task of determining the definitive version very
> difficult, if not well nigh impossible. I think this is to the detriment of the
> films.
So, you agree that the new scores were a positive "tampering" that
can, and should be accepted as a legit part of the films? Well, if
that's true, then you also have to accept the stretch printing that
was, at the time, the obligatory side effect of adding scores to the
early silents. But others see the stretch printed versions as
abominations in spite of the scores, and ignore the fact that without
them, those films would have had no economic viability for decades,
until very recently when technological solutions caught up with the
physical reality of discrete frames and fixed projection speeds.
WaverBoy
> Do I agree the verse should not have been cut from the DVD? No. For
> whatever reason, the artist decided to cut the verse in '53-'54. It
> was Chaplin's work to define as he sees fit. And I think the estate is
> justified in respecting that decision. Am I glad the original release
> version materials still exist? Absolutely. Would I like to see an
> original version released. Sure. And when the film becomes PD (which I
> think ought to happen far sooner than provided for in the
> Disney-purchased legislation) or even before, I'm looking forward to
> someone doing just that (on DVD instead of LD). But that doesn't
> invalidate the estate's, or Chaplin's decision to omit it.
Someone did release the original version on DVD. The Image DVD contains it.
Of course, the laserdisc master was used, but it still looks damn good. If
you meant remastered for DVD, then I withdraw the comment. :-)
David Totheroh
You're right. I don't consider the same treatment on a different
medium to be a different version.
Constance Kuriyama
>>do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>>I feel really uncomfortable with the use of the word "tamper" to refer to
>>an artist revising his own work, though you certainly aren't the only
>>person using it. Is any change in a work, good or bad, tampering? Or
>>do you think all of Chaplin's changes were for the worse? In the latter
>>case you'd have a hard time
>>convincing me that Chaplin's recutting and
>>scoring of _The Kid_ harmed the film rather than improving it.
>
> I think tamper probably has a negative connotation. Tweaked, fiddled with or
> revised will work. For the most part I think his revisions were for the worse,
> but your example of The Kid is valid. However, the main improvement was the
> score, not the deletion of the mother's scenes. These films are of a
> particular time, and the sensibility of that time is genuine. Chaplin lived so
> long, he was able to see where his earlier work was old-fashioned.
He may have felt they were old-fashioned, but they're also somewhat
digressive. It's very clear how the woman feels in both versions. The
May-December wedding and the meeting with her former lover after her
success do nothing to advance the plot or clarify her character, so
I think they are unnecessary artistically. On the other hand, they have
historical interest, and so should be available for study.
>>I'm not at all clear why you think Chaplin's desire to make his film
>>appealing to a new audience with different expectations was "folly,"
>>especially since the venture succeeded. To him, the reissue was a
>>practical matter of keeping the film attractive and profitable.
>
> Exactly. It was artistic folly, but an economic success. Art always suffers
> at the alter of profit.
It can and often does, but it's also true that art flourishes when
there's ample wealth to support it. The Renaissance was driven by
money. Michaelangelo, like Chaplin, put a premium price on his work.
No pay, no Micky-A.
I can't separate the profit motive from the desire to have his
work remembered in Chaplin's case. Both were involved in his reworking
of _The Gold Rush_.
Connie K.
>
>
>
>
> Deborah
>
> "The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."
> -Mark Twain
>
>
--
Constance Kuriyama
>>G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps)
> wrote:
>
>>Deborah, don't you realize that if Chaplin
>>had decided to take his original negatives
>>to Tierra del Feugo to have them incinerated by a tribe of fire-worshippers,
>>Connie and David and Richard would be defending his moral and artistic
>>authority to have done that?
>
> I'm not arguing whether or not Chaplin had the authority to do whatever he
> wanted with his work. Of course he did.
Yes, of course he did. You're beginning to sound like a socialist, George--
individual rights must be sacrificed for the general good. Your next
logical step would be to advocate state seizure of the works and papers
of artists before they can change their minds about anything. ;-)
Connie K.
I'm saying he made some bad
> decisions, probably because of that artistic perfectionism of his. Now the
> powers-that-be must make their own artistic judgement calls and the
> authenticity of the work is muddled.
> If Chaplin set the negatives on fire in Tierra del Fuego... well, at least we
> would know the definitive versions, right? :-)
>
>
> Deborah
>
> "The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."
> -Mark Twain
>
>
RFCSAC627N
>You're beginning to sound like a socialist, George
Well, a "potential socialist" anyway.
Constance Kuriyama
That's how it is. If you go too far to the left,
you wind up on the far right--and vice versa.
Space is curved.
Connie K.
George Shelps
do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>Deborah (dzu...@aol.com) writes:
>>G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps)
>>wrote:
>>>Deborah, don't you realize that if
>>>Chaplin had decided to take his original
>>>negatives to Tierra del Feugo to have
>>>them incinerated by a tribe of
>>>fire-worshippers, Connie and David and
>>>Richard would be defending his moral
>>>and artistic authority to have done that?
>>I'm not arguing whether or not Chaplin
>>had the authority to do whatever he
>>wanted with his work. Of course he did.
>Yes, of course he did. You're beginning
>to sound like a socialist, George
No, dear, socialism involves redistributing
income---not protecting cultural artifacts.
>-- individual rights must be sacrificed for
>the general good.
I am not a libertarian. Sometimes the
greater good must be served, sometimes
not.
> Your next logical step
>would be to advocate state seizure of the
>works and papers of artists before they
>can change their minds about anything. ;-)
Yeah, right.
Shush
> I'm not arguing whether or not Chaplin had the authority to do whatever he
> wanted with his work. Of course he did. I'm saying he made some bad
> decisions, probably because of that artistic perfectionism of his.
Since we know Chaplin tampered with/tinkered with/re-edited/revised
"The Gold Rush" and "The Kid"... I'm wondering now if he made any
changes to "A Woman of Paris" before he re-released it.
I'm betting that he did. But who knows how the re-issue version
compares to the 1923 release version?
--Shush--
(nice to see you back, Deborah)
Constance Kuriyama
If stretch printing was necessary for adding soundtracks to the
_Chaplin Revue_ films, made in 1918 and 1922 (_The Pilgrim_), why
wasn't it also necessary for _The Kid_ (1921) and _The Gold Rush_ (1925)?
Did projection speeds of silents change that much between '22 and '25?
Because as far as I know it is only the _Revue_ films that are
targets of criticism, and the only one that I can notice the
effects of stretch printing in is _The Pilgrim_.
Perhaps some of the more technically sophisticated posters can
explain why adding a soundtrack would necessitate stretch printing
of older films--for the benefit of the rest of us.
WaverBoy
"Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bh23ce$rjc$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
A DOG'S LIFE also suffers heavily from stretch printing. Two of the best
scenes, where Charlie eats the cakes, and where he knocks out Albert Austin
and uses his own hands as Austin's, are nearly ruined by it. Luckily, I'll
never have to watch it this way again, thanks to the Shepard. :-)
Smiley
"Shush" <Shus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7767154c.03080...@posting.google.com...
David Shepard posted what would change in the new Warner/MK2 DVD's some time
ago. About AWOP he said:
A WOMAN OF PARIS Scenes will be eliminated, running speed will change.
Don't know which scenes though...
: )
RFCSAC627N
>If stretch printing was necessary for adding soundtracks to the
>_Chaplin Revue_ films, made in 1918 and 1922 (_The Pilgrim_), why
>wasn't it also necessary for _The Kid_ (1921) and _The Gold Rush_ (1925)?
>Did projection speeds of silents change that much between '22 and '25?
The cranking speed by cameramen definitely increased during the twenties.
Many mid-twenties silents were shot at close to sound speed (24 frames per
second). THE GOLD RUSH looks fine when projected at 24 fps. METROPOLIS was, I
believe, photographed at 26 fps!
Also, step printing had largely gone out of fashion by the Chaplin revisited
THE KID and his other First Nationals. They had decided to trade jerky for a
little too fast.
Richard Carnahan
Constance Kuriyama
Neither ever bothered me. The cake-eating was hilarious on the first go,
and the other quite amusing.
Maybe you could explain exactly what you saw that I didn't see?
Constance Kuriyama
> do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance=A0Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>>Deborah (dzu...@aol.com) writes:
>
>>>G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps)
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>Deborah, don't you realize that if
>>>>Chaplin had decided to take his original
>>>>negatives to Tierra del Feugo to have
>>>>them incinerated by a tribe of
>>>>fire-worshippers, Connie and David and
>>>>Richard would be defending his moral
>>>>and artistic authority to have done that?
>
>>>I'm not arguing whether or not Chaplin
>>>had the authority to do whatever he
>>>wanted with his work. Of course he did.
>
>>Yes, of course he did. You're beginning
>>to sound like a socialist, George
>
> No, dear, socialism involves redistributing
> income---not protecting cultural artifacts.
You need to read up on cultural life in
the USSR and Communist China, but I'm
sure you've heard of Socialist Art--
hideous stuff that it is. Socialist and
Communist countries, and controlled
societies in general, have an intense
interest in controlling and appropriating
art.
Artists must be free--even if they sometimes
destroy their own work.
> I am not a libertarian.
I hope not. We certainly don't need any more of them.
Connie K.
WaverBoy
The jerkiness of the stretch printing during those scenes severely
compromises them for me. Surely you notice the jerkiness...that's what
bothers me.
George Shelps
>>No, dear, socialism involves
>>redistributing income---not protecting
>>cultural artifacts.
>You need to read up on cultural life in
>the USSR and Communist China, but I'm
>sure you've heard of Socialist Art--
>hideous stuff that it is. Socialist and
>Communist countries, and controlled
>societies in general, have an intense
>interest in controlling and appropriating
>art.
Most totalitarian societies do.
Socialism is an economic system that
many of these societies have employed.
But it does not equate to government control of culture. That's a
broader issue of ideology.
>Artists must be free--even if they
>sometimes destroy their own work.
Oh, come on. I am not questioning
Chaplin's ~right~ to alter or destroy
his work, I am questioning his judgment.
I don't favor state action to prevent
a Chaplin from altering or destroying
his work, I do favor moral suasion.
jumping up and down, and screaming
"No! Don't do it!"
(In the case of SEA GULLS, the government required CC to burn the
negative and the prints in order to
take a tax loss. He appeared to
comply, but actually preserved a print.
I was happy to read that he defied
the ridiculous IRS ruling. It also
indicates that he thought the film had
some merit if he was willing to break
the law to save it.)
WaverBoy
"George Shelps" <G-H...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16538-3F...@storefull-2293.public.lawson.webtv.net...
I hear that Oona had this print destroyed...if true, that makes me very,
VERY sad.
Derek Gee
news:20030809115432...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> >do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
>
> >If stretch printing was necessary for adding soundtracks to the
> >_Chaplin Revue_ films, made in 1918 and 1922 (_The Pilgrim_), why
> >wasn't it also necessary for _The Kid_ (1921) and _The Gold Rush_ (1925)?
> >Did projection speeds of silents change that much between '22 and '25?
>
> The cranking speed by cameramen definitely increased during the
twenties.
> Many mid-twenties silents were shot at close to sound speed (24 frames per
> second). THE GOLD RUSH looks fine when projected at 24 fps. METROPOLIS
was, I
> believe, photographed at 26 fps!
There was a giant thread about Metropolis' "correct" speed on
alt.movies.silent. IIRC, it was photographed around 20-22 fps, but Murnau
requested it be shown at 26 fps for it's original German release. The new
restoration shows it at 24 fps, hence the controversy.
Derek
David Totheroh
Or he kept it in order to prove to some who would later claim
otherwise with no rational basis, that it was indeed a piece of crap
while simultaneously saving both Sternberg as director and himself as
producer unnecessary public embarrassment.
Bill Coleman
would be projected?
Bill Coleman
----------------------------------------------------
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@INVALID.twmi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:afhZa.255753$BA.60...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
doug
Gee <dgeeSP...@INVALID.twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> There was a giant thread about Metropolis' "correct" speed on
> alt.movies.silent. IIRC, it was photographed around 20-22 fps, but Murnau
> requested it be shown at 26 fps for it's original German release. The new
> restoration shows it at 24 fps, hence the controversy.
>
> Derek
I don't think the controversy is that it isn't fast enough... it's that
it's TOO fast. The DVD looks spectacular - the musical score is
terrific... and the whole things ruined by the fact that everyone's
running around like Mickey Mouse on speed. Thankfully, with the
exception of a handful of Keystones, this problem doesn't afflict
Charlie's films - if anything, I think they tend to run SLOWER than
they should in the reissues.
Doug
WaverBoy
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@INVALID.twmi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:afhZa.255753$BA.60...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
The new restoration shows it at 25 fps, and that's the speed it runs at on
the PAL DVD. The Kino DVD has been transcoded from PAL to NTSC at 24 fps.
From the Laser Examiner's interview with Metropolis restorer Enno Patalas:
TLE: On the DVD, for the first time in more than 70 years the original score
by Gottfried Huppertz is presented in a new recording, and the film is
projected at 25 frames a second speed, rather than the Schultheiss score
premiered at the 2001 Berlin Film Festival in 20 frames per second being
used. You have been a very strong advocate of a proper presentation of the
original state of METROPOLIS. In your view, is the film as it is now on DVD,
both in Video and Audio, presented in the maximum quality range that could
be achieved on Home Video? Or are there further possibilities ?
EP: There is no doubt that the film was presented at its premiere at a speed
of 25 frames per second - therefore the presentation speed of the European
DVD is correct (the U.S. edition by Kino was transcoded from PAL to NTSC
which does not quite match the accurate presentation, making the music also
slower - t.e.).
And now an excerpt from the Laser Examiner's interview with Metropolis
restorer Martin Koerber:
TLE: First let me put a comment to you by fellow METROPOLIS restorer Enno
Patalas that he made in interviews with THE LASER EXAMINER - he always
argued the point that the film should be projected at a speed of 25fps, as
indicated in the premiere music cue sheets (of the score of Gottfried
Huppertz) of 1927. Back in 2001, when we first talked about the issue of
projection speed, you were very clear that 20 fps would be the more correct
approach - hinting that you disliked seeing Disney cartoon-like movements of
the characters on the screen. Now the DVD is out - and it is in 25fps. What
happened ?
Martin Koerber: But that always depends on the music score. The Huppertz
score would never work at 20 fps, its already slow at 24. If it would be in
any way slower it would kill our idea of what a good film experience would
be like.
And, I'd still like to know what Murnau had to do with the premiere
projection speed of Metropolis...
Constance Kuriyama
He needed you there in 1953. ;-) I'd really like to
see you put on a demonstration of this.
> (In the case of SEA GULLS, the government required CC to burn the
> negative and the prints in order to
> take a tax loss. He appeared to
> comply, but actually preserved a print.
>
> I was happy to read that he defied
> the ridiculous IRS ruling. It also
> indicates that he thought the film had
> some merit if he was willing to break
> the law to save it.)
I don't know why he saved the film, but I'm glad
your opinion of him has improved re. _Sea Gulls_.
He obviously doubted it had enough merit to
do well on release, or he would have released it,
but there are many possible reasons why he
preserved a print.
George Shelps
>>I was happy to read that he defied
>>the ridiculous IRS ruling. It also
>>indicates that he thought the film had
>>some merit if he was willing to break
>>the law to save it.)
>I don't know why he saved the film, but
>I'm glad your opinion of him has
>improved re. _Sea Gulls_. He obviously
>doubted it had enough merit to do well
>on release, or he would have released it,
>but there are many possible reasons why
>he preserved a print.
I believe he shelved it because he thought that it didn't serve the
purpose for which
it was commissioned, to give Edna an
independent career.
George Shelps
>>I was happy to read that he defied
>>the ridiculous IRS ruling. It also
>>indicates that he thought the film had
>>some merit if he was willing to break
>>the law to save it.)
>Or he kept it in order to prove to some
>who would later claim otherwise with no
>rational basis,
The "rational basis" is that Sternberg was
one of cinema's greatest visual stylist who
could direct rings around Chaplin in terms of his use of composition and
lighting---indeed, he was a member of
the American Society of Cinematographers.
The presumption of any serious film historian should be in favor of
preserving
an early example of his work.
> that it was indeed a piece
>of crap while simultaneously saving both
>Sternberg as director and himself as
>producer unnecessary public
>embarrassment.
Just another example of your neurotic need to defend every Chaplin
decision.
One of the reasons Lady Chaplin gave for destroying the copy was that
she ~didn't
want~ anyone to learn that CC had defied the IRS.
WaverBoy
"doug" <dsu...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:090820032303225278%dsu...@optonline.net...
> In article <afhZa.255753$BA.60...@twister.columbus.rr.com>, Derek
> Gee <dgeeSP...@INVALID.twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > There was a giant thread about Metropolis' "correct" speed on
> > alt.movies.silent. IIRC, it was photographed around 20-22 fps, but
Murnau
> > requested it be shown at 26 fps for it's original German release. The
new
> > restoration shows it at 24 fps, hence the controversy.
> >
> > Derek
>
> I don't think the controversy is that it isn't fast enough... it's that
> it's TOO fast. The DVD looks spectacular - the musical score is
> terrific... and the whole things ruined by the fact that everyone's
> running around like Mickey Mouse on speed.
The only time it really bothers me is during the seductive dance of the
robot Maria, but I agree, the whole film would be better if it were slowed
down a bit. Perhaps one could rip the film from the DVD, slow it down a
couple fps, pitch-correct the audio, and reburn it?
Thankfully, with the
> exception of a handful of Keystones, this problem doesn't afflict
> Charlie's films - if anything, I think they tend to run SLOWER than
> they should in the reissues.
That's the only quibble I have with the Essanay restorations; they simply
run too slow, some moreso than others, especially SHANGHAIED. Were the
films really projected this slow originally, to the point of jerkiness like
SHANGHAIED?
RFCSAC627N
>Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>>I was happy to read that he defied
>>>the ridiculous IRS ruling. =A0 It also
>>>indicates that he thought the film had
>>>some merit if he was willing to break
>>>the law to save it.)
>
He skated around the IRS. He told them he destroyed the one and only
negative. He apparently said nothing about prints.
>
>>I don't know why he saved the film, but
>>I'm glad your opinion of him has
>>improved re. _Sea Gulls_. He obviously
>>doubted it had enough merit to do well
>>on release, or he would have released it,
>>but there are many possible reasons why
>>he preserved a print.
>
>I believe he shelved it because he thought that it didn't serve the
>purpose for which
>it was commissioned, to give Edna an
>independent career.
>
Even a financial disappointment might have boosted Edna's career, if the film
were well reviewed. CC obviously didn't think it would be.
Richard Carnahan
Constance Kuriyama
> "Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:bh39e2$our$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > "WaverBoy" (waverbo...@comcast.net) writes:
> > > "Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > > news:bh23ce$rjc$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > >>
> > >> _Chaplin Revue_ films, made in 1918 and 1922 (_The Pilgrim_), why
> > >> wasn't it also necessary for _The Kid_ (1921) and _The Gold Rush_
> (1925)?
> > >> Did projection speeds of silents change that much between '22 and '25?
> > >> Because as far as I know it is only the _Revue_ films that are
> > >> targets of criticism, and the only one that I can notice the
> > >> effects of stretch printing in is _The Pilgrim_.
> > >
> > > A DOG'S LIFE also suffers heavily from stretch printing. Two of the
> best
> > > scenes, where Charlie eats the cakes, and where he knocks out Albert
> Austin
> > > and uses his own hands as Austin's, are nearly ruined by it. Luckily,
> I'll
> > > never have to watch it this way again, thanks to the Shepard. :-)
> >
> > Neither ever bothered me. The cake-eating was hilarious on the first go,
> > and the other quite amusing.
> >
> > Maybe you could explain exactly what you saw that I didn't see?
>
> The jerkiness of the stretch printing during those scenes severely
> compromises them for me. Surely you notice the jerkiness...that's what
> bothers me.
Well, I looked at the VHS for the first time in years, and yes, now
that
you point it out, I can detect some jerkiness. What I mainly notice,
though,
is the blur that occurs with rapid motion. To my eye the jerky effect
is
less obvious and less distracting. I suppose people vary in their
sensitivity. I can't stand the sound of boom cars passing my house,
but they don't bother my husband at all. He does notice when they set
off my car alarm, though. :-)
When I first watched the VHS, I was probably just absorbed in the
story and
action and wasn't bothered by visual shortcomings. After all, VHS is
a
lousy system in general. The laser and DVD are vastly superior in the
case
of _A Dog's Life_. _The Pilgrim_, to me, a more debatable case
because
of the advantages of the later cut. I rather like Derek's idea of
cleaning
up the _Revue_ versions digitally to get rid of the no doubt unwanted
side effects of stretch printing.
Connie K.
Matt Barry
As far as I know, the version released on the old Image DVD is
basically what audiences saw in 1923.
The older video version, which derives from the 1976 re-release, is
missing a few subtitles and short scenes, which are detailed under the
main entry for the film in THE CHAPLIN ENCYCLOPEDIA by Glenn Mitchell.
The re-release version runs approx. 83 minutes while the original
release version runs 91 minutes.
The running times between the "originals" and the re-releases is
sometimes quite significant but often this can be attributed to
projection speed rather than any serious editing. THE GOLD RUSH
originally ran 96 minutes, but was reissued at 72 minutes. Some of
this has to do with the fact that all the subtitles were cut out, also
because of the difference in projection speed (20 fps vs. 24 fps).
There is less actual footage cut out than first appears.
Matt
Shush
> Well, I looked at the VHS for the first time in years, and yes, now
> that you point it out, I can detect some jerkiness. What I mainly notice,
> though, is the blur that occurs with rapid motion.
>
> I rather like Derek's idea of cleaning
> up the _Revue_ versions digitally to get rid of the no doubt unwanted
> side effects of stretch printing.
But Connie! Chaplin *wanted* "The Chaplin Revue" to have the
stretch-printing! Don't you respect the wishes of the artist?
--Shush--
WaverBoy
I believe it was posted somewhere here that Chaplin hated the effects of
stretch-printing after seeing the results of THE CHAPLIN REVUE, so he
scrapped the method and didn't use it on any other reissue of his films. I
don't know if this is true or not, I just remember seeing it here. Thoughts
anyone?
Derek Gee
news:z8iZa.4372$794....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Why would F.W. Murnau decide what speed a Fritz Lang film
> would be projected?
Spite? ;) My bad, many apologies to the Lang fans.
Derek
Derek Gee
Correct, that wasn't quite clear from my post, but if you looked up the
thread on Google, you'd see the complaints are exactly as Doug says.
Metropolis was shown in theaters before the DVD came out at 20 fps (iirc),
so folks watching the new DVD at 24 fps were kinda peeved.
Derek
Derek Gee
Interesting comments, WaverBoy, thanks for posting that. In answer to last
question, that was my mistake, me sorry.
Now here's a question for the group, should film visuals be compromised to
fit a score?
I'm not sure why they have to compromise much at all. Why not record the
score in segments, and time alter the music digitally to fit the film
segments? This should be possible to do with frame accurate results. Why
all the fuss over fitting the score to the film? Any film scorers out there
to add insight into this?
Derek
Shush
> I believe it was posted somewhere here that Chaplin hated the effects of
> stretch-printing after seeing the results of THE CHAPLIN REVUE, so he
> scrapped the method and didn't use it on any other reissue of his films.
Maybe so. In the same vein, after the "Gold Rush" re-issue, he
evidently hated narration so much that he didn't use it for his
re-issues of "City Lights," "The Kid," etc.
Still, he did carefully and deliberately employ stretch-printing on
"The Chaplin Revue," and he did release it that way. It was his film
and that's the way he wanted it. Therefore, to take the
stretch-printing OUT would be a corruption of Chaplin's vision for the
film. If we are to respect the artist's wishes, we must insist that
the stretch-printing be retained in any future re-issue.
--Shush--
The Wizard of Good-Natured Sarcasm