young people into silent films?
Fudge
instance, I'm really into old time radio and at 33 seem to be one of
the youngest ones. Are silent film fans replicating as fast as they're
dying out?
Ben
Voice of Bullwinkle's Sherman in Peabody & Sherman,
Leroy on The Great Gildersleeve & more.
The Walter Tetley biography
http://www.waltertetley.com
JMozart17561791
can undersand what you mean though.Most of the people who seem to share a lot
of my interests are older,and I've just never really been able to relate to a
lot of folks my own age.Anytime I'm around a lot of other twentysomethings,I
feel like I'm from another planet.I just don't get the mass appeal of Britney
Spears,and MTV.And I'd much rather listen to Helen Kane and "Whispering" Jack
Smith.Perhaps I was born in the wrong era.
But nevertheless it's good to know that there are other young folks who enjoy
early cinema.
Best Wishes,
James
>Subject: young people into silent films?
>From: Fudge b...@musicdish.com
>Date: 12/23/2003 6:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <tnihuvcq30cajhm4n...@4ax.com>
Ja50nch3a5er
I'm younger (I refuse to give my age) and i've only been watching them for
around eight. Thats basicly all I can add to this topic.
Joytwo1977
liked classics like WC Fields, The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy and Harold
Lloyd is my new favorite.
Fudge
and have loved silents (comedies only) for 20 years. I suppose I got
into the whole genre because of Abbott and Costello.
Daneldorado
> Just curious how many under 30 silent film fans there are here. For
> instance, I'm really into old time radio and at 33 seem to be one of
> the youngest ones. Are silent film fans replicating as fast as they're
> dying out?
>
> Ben
This is not the most direct answer to your question, but... This
past summer, my daughter started a "program" of bringing her three (3)
children to my house one evening a week to watch and enjoy silent
films. Their ages are 12, 9, and 6. And I must admit, the little
tykes seem to be enjoying what they see.
I began with "The Kid," since it is both funny and poignant, and I
thought the Jackie Coogan character would resonate with the
youngsters. Sure did. My grandchildren were exposed to some twelve
(12) silent films -- shorts and features -- over the summer, and at
the end, their mom promised that next summer we would pick up where we
left off.
BTW, the films are all on either Super-VHS or DVD, we have a large
screen, and we do have popcorn and soft drinks during the show.
Dan N.
Laughing Gravy
told me that today he was gonna stay home and watch movies all day. So
he calls me at work this morning and says, "Hey, dad, where's the
Charlie Chaplin boxed set?"
Max Nineteennineteen
everyone here, since he's a five-year-old who's been a fan of Buster
for at least two years. He likes the ones with Buster and Fatty the
best. It's also pretty impressive to see him pick Buster and Stan and
Ollie out in cartoons like Mickey's Gala Premiere, and I can tell he's
already losing faith in Dad that Dad can't identify everyone else
("That's, uh, Hugh Herbert... Ned Sparks... the Boswell Sisters? Hell
if I know, kid").
Eric Miller
then for more than a year. My biggest area of cinematic interest is the
1930s -- comedy, exploitation, and (mostly Poverty Row) horror. But I'm also
very much into the silent era -- again, comedy and horror. I'm a huge fan of
silent comedy from the 1910s, especially the mid-1910s, Keystone being the
primary example. I've been collecting silent comedies on video for many
years now.
Unfortunately, I think I'm a pretty big exception. This may become too
detailed an answer...What bothers me is not that I don't know anyone who is
"into" silent films. It's that people my age don't seem to have the capacity
to appreciate them. Two of my roommates are film students, so they have a
broader knowledge on the subject and wider interests than most other college
students. And they like a lot of old movies. But whenever they watch them,
it's still from a decidedly modern standpoint. They're prone to get bored,
fast-forward through them, make fun of them, just like everyone else in
their early 20's and younger. They prefer new movies to old ones, and I'm
the opposite.
I don't know if this fosters my deep hatred for modern franchise movies like
"The Matrix" and "The Lord of the Rings" series, or if it is independent
from it. Some people who know me well have accused me of being biased
against newer movies, to the point that I overlook their better qualities. I
don't think this is true, because there are several recent films that I
like. But something about the aggressive brainwashing, corporate synergy
campaigns with which a lot of these movies are marketed, not to mention the
digitial artificiality with which they are created, is deeply offensive to
me. I saw the first two Matrix and LOTR movies for social reasons, but I
don't think I can bring myself to do it a third time.
I know a girl who says she's a fan of Buster Keaton, even that he's one of
her favorite actors. But the only tape she owns of his films is one of those
cheap, public domain videos of that early '50s TV thing he did. And she
still hasn't seen the vast majority of his silent work, nor is she likely to
seek it out on her own. (I haven't had the chance to loan her any).Same with
people whose only L&H is "Atoll K." I don't know if the fact that I do seek
out other things on my own (and that I know the years films were released
and stuff like that) makes me a fan, or abnormally obsessive. Some would say
the latter.
So what this boils down to is that I'm afraid silent film fans are not
replicating. Silents and older movies are exposed less and less on TV, and I
don't have to tell you how peoples' attention spans are changing for the
worse. Not to mention the fact that a lot of young people don't know who
Charlie Chaplin is. I think part of being into silent films is based on a
certain kind of intelligence and sensitivity as far as history goes, not
just an interest in the past but also an ability to put things in a cultural
context.
Maybe we've lost this as a society.
OK, I could go on, but I'll stop there, and try to end on a positive
note...I think it's cool that so many other people have responded to this
post.
eric
Lloyd Fonvielle
> I'm 20 (I'll be 21 next month), and I've been posting here every now and
> then for more than a year. My biggest area of cinematic interest is the
> 1930s -- comedy, exploitation, and (mostly Poverty Row) horror. But I'm also
> very much into the silent era -- again, comedy and horror. I'm a huge fan of
> silent comedy from the 1910s, especially the mid-1910s, Keystone being the
> primary example. I've been collecting silent comedies on video for many
> years now.
>
> Unfortunately, I think I'm a pretty big exception. This may become too
> detailed an answer...What bothers me is not that I don't know anyone who is
> "into" silent films. It's that people my age don't seem to have the capacity
> to appreciate them. Two of my roommates are film students, so they have a
> broader knowledge on the subject and wider interests than most other college
> students. And they like a lot of old movies. But whenever they watch them,
> it's still from a decidedly modern standpoint. They're prone to get bored,
> fast-forward through them, make fun of them, just like everyone else in
> their early 20's and younger. They prefer new movies to old ones, and I'm
> the opposite.
This is the general rule, but there are intriguing exceptions. Jack
White, one half of the coolest rock band now performing, the White
Stripes, is a big Keaton fan. Neve Campbell, whatever you may think of
her, wants to make a movie about Louise Brooks. I have a sense that
very hip young people see silent film as an antidote to modern corporate
cinema, in a way that has nothing to do with nostalgia.
> I don't know if this fosters my deep hatred for modern franchise movies like
> "The Matrix" and "The Lord of the Rings" series, or if it is independent
> from it. Some people who know me well have accused me of being biased
> against newer movies, to the point that I overlook their better qualities. I
> don't think this is true, because there are several recent films that I
> like. But something about the aggressive brainwashing, corporate synergy
> campaigns with which a lot of these movies are marketed, not to mention the
> digitial artificiality with which they are created, is deeply offensive to
> me. I saw the first two Matrix and LOTR movies for social reasons, but I
> don't think I can bring myself to do it a third time.
People of all age groups have this response to corporate cinema.
> So what this boils down to is that I'm afraid silent film fans are not
> replicating. Silents and older movies are exposed less and less on TV, and I
> don't have to tell you how peoples' attention spans are changing for the
> worse. Not to mention the fact that a lot of young people don't know who
> Charlie Chaplin is. I think part of being into silent films is based on a
> certain kind of intelligence and sensitivity as far as history goes, not
> just an interest in the past but also an ability to put things in a cultural
> context.
> Maybe we've lost this as a society.
Absolutely -- we have lost this as a society. But silent film is
emerging as an icon of pre-Enron-era movies. A symbol of what has been
lost as financing entities become the "authors" of films, instead of
filmmakers. Jean-Luc Godard said that the whole principal of the French
New Wave was "getting everyone out of filmmaking who didn't belong in
filmmaking" -- like studios, financiers and distributors. Silent film
will always constitute a vision of what movies can be when filmmakers
are in practical control of the art form -- complex and precarious as
that control often was.
PT Caffey
> Just curious how many under 30 silent film fans there are here?
136.
delovely
"PT Caffey" <ptca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84498e9.03122...@posting.google.com...
135..I just turned 30
James Neibaur
at Laughing...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/23/03 11:32 PM:
And if you said "Get outside and get some fresh air" I am going to weep.
JN
Frederica
"JMozart17561791" <jmozart...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031223185754...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> Well,I'm 23 and I've been watching silents for about the last twelve
years.I
> can undersand what you mean though.Most of the people who seem to share a
lot
> of my interests are older,and I've just never really been able to relate
to a
> lot of folks my own age.Anytime I'm around a lot of other
twentysomethings,I
> feel like I'm from another planet.I just don't get the mass appeal of
Britney
> Spears,and MTV.And I'd much rather listen to Helen Kane and "Whispering"
Jack
> Smith.Perhaps I was born in the wrong era.
>
> But nevertheless it's good to know that there are other young folks who
enjoy
> early cinema.
Go figure, James. I think there's a new silent film fan born every minute.
I know about the sense of isolation you feel, though. It wasn't easy to be
a huge Bing Crosby fan during the 60s...especially when you loathed (and
still loathe) Bob Dylan. I always had the weirdest feelig that I was born
years too late. I would have made a fabulous flapper.
Frederica
Joanne Capella
But something about the aggressive brainwashing, corporate synergy
> campaigns with which a lot of these movies are marketed, not to mention the
> digitial artificiality with which they are created, is deeply offensive to
> me.
Excellent posting, Eric. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement
above. Much of the "product" Hollywood has been recently pushing seems
to me like full length advertisements thinly disguised as
entertainment. It's even more heinous when that "product" is aimed at
younger audiences like this season's CAT IN THE HAT.
It's also encouraging to see that someone your age can write so
effectively.
Joanne
Mr. Moose
>Just curious how many under 30 silent film fans there are here. For
>instance, I'm really into old time radio and at 33 seem to be one of
>the youngest ones. Are silent film fans replicating as fast as they're
>dying out?
Well, I'm 32, so I guess I don't count, but I do expose my 3rd graders
to silent films - they just about broke the classroom with laughter at
Big Business.
As far as replicating goes, I guess we're doing our part - the wife
and I are expecting our first in July.
Mark
Bob Birchard
I had the benefit of parents who could pick out Ted Lewis, Ned Sparks
and Wheeler & Woolsey in the Hollywood character cartoons, but I'd be
willing to bet there are more silent film fans being created at early ages
now than there were 40 years ago--in part because you can actually see
silent films in more or less main stream media today, and you couldn't
then.
Then you might have seen chopped up silent comedies on local kiddie
shows, or perhaps reruns of "Movie Museum" or the handful of episodes of
"Silents Please." If you wanted to see something else (meaning mostly
silent Laurel & Hardy's and Buster Keaton in "Cops") you could borrow
Blackhawk films from your local library (if you were lucky enough to have
a library that had a film library), or end up becoming a collector and buy
to watch--standard 8mm B&W--no tints, no musical scores (unless you played
a record)--and the only extras were the long-winded Blackhawk explanatory
titles (which were added to give the films "educational" value to qualify
for 4th class shipping)
The only "silent" features that occasionally played on TV--and this
was in L. A.--smaller towns probably didn't even show these--were "The
King of Kings" and "The Jazz Singer."
In a high school with nearly seven hundred students in my graduating
class I was the only bonafide silent film fan. I got one other student
interested in silents and collecting Blackhawk films, but he soon lost
interest. A couple of others would go to occasional screenings--I
remember going to a program at Occidental College with Robin Tucker and
Karen Boegler--but they went because Karen's father wanted to go, and I
invited myself along. A kid a year behind would go to an occasional
screening, etc. But the truth is that latter-day interest in silents has
always been a specialized and rarefied thing.
The big difference that I notice is that the younger fans do not come
to the film conventions the way they once did. Sam Gill, Leonard Maltin
and I all attended Cinecons in our Teens--I don't see any Teenagers
today. But there are other factors involved. Cost, may well be one. A
different world may be another--Parents are inclined to be more protective
today than in yesteryear, and probably with good reason. And the
availability of silents on TCM, tape, and DVD has certainly made it a
cheaper hobby today (I paid $50 plus shipping for "The Hunchback of Notre
Dame" in 8mm in 1963. You can get it (or its equivalent) today for less
than $30 on DVD--so it's possible to build up a sizable collection and not
have to travel just to see rare films. Forums like a.m.s. also make it
possible to find others in this small community to talk with.
Being a silent film fan as a Teenager can be a lonely avocation--few
others are interested. On the other hand, such an interest fosters the "I
know something you don't know" [besides the fact that Injun Joe is
ticklish] attitude that some Teens cultivate as a way of distinguishing
themselves from the crowd.
One thing that is different s that there are now women interested in
silents and early sound films. There were no women at all interested in
these films forty years ago. The main requirement for a Cinecon hotel in
the 1960s and even into the 1970s was that it be near a shopping mall,
because that's where the wives and girlfriends would spend their time.
As I've said before, we're living in a golden age for silent film fans
today. The only thing missing are those pioneer film folk who were still
around to share memories when some of us were younger.
--
Bob Birchard
Coming from the University Press of Kentucky in June 2004
“Cecil B. DeMille’s Hollywood”
by Robert S. Birchard
I.S.B.N. # 0-8131-2324-0
http://kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=1&Group=42&ID=1113
Laughing Gravy
*L* No, I told him where it was (it used to be atop the TV along with
some other boxed sets, but it got moved for Christmas decorations,
which is probably more than you wanted to know). Anyway, I thought he
was going to watch MODERN TIMES, one of his fave films (mine, too),
but instead he watched THE GREAT DICTATOR again. He loves the scene
with the Dictator and the globe. Don't we all? I think it's time to
introduce him to the original TO BE OR NOT TO BE ("Heil myself!").
Our Christmas Friday night show this week includes the 1962 Canadian
cartoon CHRISTMAS CRACKER, the 15th and final episode of our exciting
chapterplay THE PHANTOM, our feature attraction GREMLINS, and of
course Stan & Ollie selling trees in BIG BUSINESS. We're going to
watch the German DVD version this year, which according to my pal Tony
has a swell yuletide organ soundtrack.
Frederica
"Bob Birchard" <bbir...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FE9D300...@earthlink.net...
> Being a silent film fan as a Teenager can be a lonely avocation--few
> others are interested. On the other hand, such an interest fosters the "I
> know something you don't know" [besides the fact that Injun Joe is
> ticklish] attitude that some Teens cultivate as a way of distinguishing
> themselves from the crowd.
Teens? Usenet is littered with people who have that attitude! It leads to
making lists of great films (or books, or restaurants, or whatever), and
inevitably to the demise of culture, and finally to mad cow disease.
> One thing that is different s that there are now women interested in
> silents and early sound films. There were no women at all interested in
> these films forty years ago. The main requirement for a Cinecon hotel in
> the 1960s and even into the 1970s was that it be near a shopping mall,
> because that's where the wives and girlfriends would spend their time.
Hey! I was interested, I just didn't know there was such a thing as
Cinecon. I probably would have shown up had I known. And then I would have
taken one look at all you geeky teenage cinephiles, and I would have run for
my life.
Just kid...oh, no, wait. I'm not kidding.
We gals do occasionally get the feeling we're treading on sacred male
territory.
Frederica
Mile Films
here, since he's a five-year-old who's been a fan of Buster for at least two
years.>>
Does it count that when my son was about that age, he hit an Academy
Award-winning director in the crotch? We can assume it was due to it being a
sound film, can't we?
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
email: Mile...@aol.com
website: www.milestonefilms.com
S D
available. I get to do watch , listen to, only about 1/4 of the things I
enjoy. I record masses of films, cable shows, and 30`s music I`ll
probably never get to enjoy. I am heavily into TCM and I stocked up on
animal movies from Grapevine. I have varied tastes and am way behind on
silent comedies. I`m nearly twice 30, but anything I have not seen is
"new" to me.
Unknown
Well, I was a teenagers when I went to my first Cinecon (in the early
1970's) and I sure don't remember there being hordes of teenage silent
film buffs milling about. In fact, many of the older Cinephiles
starting calling me "The Kid" because of the generational difference.
I was also the only one in my large HS school class that was
interested in silents, but I think what was different then is that
most kids were at least *aware* of silent films and had some sense of
what the 1920's were like. They may have chosen not to investigate
further, but at least they had a feel for the period.
Today, the 1920's are what I like to call 'dead history'..just as dead
as The Civil War was to us in the 1970's. Dead in the sense that
practically none of the teenage kids today know anybody who was alive
during the 1920's who could give them a sense of what it was like to
live back then...and what impact the movies and music of the time had
on them.
If you ask a teenager today about the 1920's, you are likely to get an
answer like, "Oh, yeah, that is when Teddy Roosevelt was President" or
something similar.
The current accessability of silents that Bob describes is no doubt
true, but I don't believe it has had any appreciable effect on young
people. I'm sure that if Milestone or Kino could afford to do a
survey of their customer base, they would find this to be true.
I have shelves with literally hundreds of silent DVDs and LDs on them,
but when my teenage son has a friend over for a movie, they will
invariably ask for Pirates Of The Caribbean not The Black Pirate.
Being a teenage silent film buff would still be a lonely proposition
today, imho.
--John A.
Dziadsj
When I was a kid, every fan of Bing Crosby was in their 60s!!!
Steve
TMRIEGLER
>Hey! I was interested, I just didn't know there was such a thing as Cinecon.
I probably would have shown up had I known. And then I would have taken one
look at all you geeky teenage cinephiles, and I would have run for my life.
>Just kid...oh, no, wait. I'm not kidding.
>We gals do occasionally get the feeling we're treading on sacred male
>territory.
Yeah, but there's a certain sweet revenge to walking into the lobby of the
Egyptian Theatre and waving at the guys in line for the Men's Room as we gals
waltz directly into the nearly deserted Ladie's Room.
Terri Riegler
"France is a country where the money falls apart and you can't tear the toilet
paper."
Billy Wilder
greta de groat
Bob Birchard wrote:
>
>
> One thing that is different s that there are now women interested in
> silents and early sound films. There were no women at all interested in
> these films forty years ago. The main requirement for a Cinecon hotel in
> the 1960s and even into the 1970s was that it be near a shopping mall,
> because that's where the wives and girlfriends would spend their time.
>
> As I've said before, we're living in a golden age for silent film fans
> today. The only thing missing are those pioneer film folk who were still
> around to share memories when some of us were younger.
>
>
Hey, my best friend and i were interested in silents as teens back in the
70s--especially anxious to see all the Lon Chaney and German Expressionist
films we could manage. But we didn't know about film festivals, and couldn't
get out to many screenings--we considered ourselves so lucky to get my Dad to
take us to see The Unknown with French intertitles at the PFA. I'm still
with silents, while she now specializes in vintage horror and sci-fi--and
frequently finds herself the lone female on fan panels at horror film
conventions.
greta
R H Draney
>
><< Well, I'd say my son Myles stands a pretty good chance of beating everyone
>here, since he's a five-year-old who's been a fan of Buster for at least two
>years.>>
>
>Does it count that when my son was about that age, he hit an Academy
>Award-winning director in the crotch? We can assume it was due to it being a
>sound film, can't we?
Please, oh *please* be referring to _OLIVER!_....r
J. Theakston
> Frederica wrote:
> >Hey! I was interested, I just didn't know there was such a thing as Cinecon.
> I probably would have shown up had I known. And then I would have taken one
> look at all you geeky teenage cinephiles, and I would have run for my life.
> >Just kid...oh, no, wait. I'm not kidding.
> >We gals do occasionally get the feeling we're treading on sacred male
> >territory.
>
> Yeah, but there's a certain sweet revenge to walking into the lobby of the
> Egyptian Theatre and waving at the guys in line for the Men's Room as we gals
> waltz directly into the nearly deserted Ladie's Room.
Pfff... it still takes you guys twice as long to get done in there
than the entire men's line!
-J. Theakston
Did I hear an intermission break?
James Neibaur
missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com wrote on 12/24/03 10:27 AM:
> I think there's a new silent film fan born every minute.
> I know about the sense of isolation you feel, though. It wasn't easy to be
> a huge Bing Crosby fan during the 60s...especially when you loathed (and
> still loathe) Bob Dylan. I always had the weirdest feelig that I was born
> years too late. I would have made a fabulous flapper.
Yeah, I seem to recall that the 60s and early 70s spawned a lot of fans of
older films, but not older music. The college campuses were filled with
well-attended revival movies, and even back in high school there were kids
embracing everything from Buster Keaton to The Marx Brothers to Humphrey
Bogart. But that was also such of an explosive time for music, these same
kids did not give much attention to the roots from which then current music
sprang. It was as though Elvis Presley/Chuck Berry represented Year Zero in
popular music and nothing came before. When I was only 13 or so, I would be
buying 8mm Blackhawk movies and had large groups of friends eager to come
over and "see Jimmy's latest silent movie" be it comedy or otherwise. In
high school I started a popular film club and our weekly screenings were
very well attended. I don't think I would have generated the same interest
if I were buying 78rpm records back then, or if I decided on a pre-rock &
roll music club. Maybe a little initial curiosity, but for the most part
they would indeed have opted for Bob Dylan over Bing.
Ya gotta admit, we lived through a very interesting era!
JN
James Neibaur
mutan...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/03 11:24 AM:
> Well, I'm 32, so I guess I don't count, but I do expose my 3rd graders
> to silent films - they just about broke the classroom with laughter at
> Big Business.
I also have enjoyed some real success showing older films to my students
over the years. It proves that all these youngsters need is to be exposed
to these films.
JN
James Neibaur
bbir...@earthlink.net wrote on 12/24/03 11:49 AM:
> In a high school with nearly seven hundred students in my graduating
> class I was the only bonafide silent film fan. I got one other student
> interested in silents and collecting Blackhawk films, but he soon lost
> interest.
At least two of my closer friends started collecting films, obviously
stemming from my enthusiasm about doing the same. Years later when I was
still into it and they had long gotten past it, they each came to my house
(at different times, years apart) and gave me all the films they had
collected way back when, stating, "here, I never look at these anymore" or
"I don't even have a machine to run these on anymore."
Oh well....
JN
James Neibaur
wrote on 12/24/03 2:56 PM:
> Being a teenage silent film buff would still be a lonely proposition
> today, imho.
Heck, being a Rolling Stones fan would probably be lonely for a high school
kid. Being a silent film fan is a bit lonely for "kids" in their 30s!
JN
Fred Wiebel
>older films, but not older music.
I think you're a little wrong here. Most of us grew up with the 30's cartoon's
jazzy music.
78s were around and abundantly available for .25 or less. All the record
players had 78 needles and speeds.
When I played my 78s for my friends they got a kick out of it saying it was
cartoon music.
I grew up liking Bix Beiderbecke as much as Jimi Hendrix and Spkie Jones as
much as Frank Zappa.
Remember "Winchester Cathedral" and all the copycat recordings.
There was quite a revival of 20s and 30s music with a lot of LPs re-issuing
material.
RPalmer151
>>here, since he's a five-year-old who's been a fan of Buster for at least two
>>years.>>
>>
>>Does it count that when my son was about that age, he hit an Academy
>>Award-winning director in the crotch? We can assume it was due to it being a
>>sound film, can't we?
We are silent comedy fans, you must further illuminate us on this slapstick
moment!
-roger P.
Bob Birchard
This is what we can hope for. That younger people will get some exposure
and sense of appreciation along the way. Let's face it. The sort of devoted
interest we show is rare in any field.
Bob Birchard
These sorts of revivals are possible because of technology--record players,
film, VCRs, DVDs, etc. And because current artists (or people with interest)
discover and champion the art and commerce of the past.
There were certainly anomalies in music in the 1960s and 1970s--starting with
"Midnight in Moscow" by Kenny Ball and his Jazzmen, which had quite a lot of
airplay (and even reached # 1 for a week) at a time when "Duke of Earl", "The Lion
Sleeps Tonight", and "The Twist" were what the hip and hep were jiving to.
Novelty numbers like "Frankfurter Sandwiches" (a 1920s revival), or Tiny Tim's
recording of "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" also caught on briefly (giving Nick
Lucas's career a new burst of energy in his fading days). But these are gimmicks
that come and swiftly go--offering hope to the deluded that these odd revivals
will lead to a return to the wistfully imagined golden age.
The Fields, Marx Bros., Bogart revivals were more genuine cultural phenomena
in the 1970s, but I think that timing was everything here. These movies were
having their last gasp on commercial TV as the words "In Color" were becoming the
obligatory beginning of every program title on television, and essentially the
merits of these iconic characters were being appreciated once again just as they
were passing from the scene--a sort of farewell tour delayed because technology
allowed it. In any event, it was the rebellious and anarchic aspects of these
stars that was in step with the political mood of the time, and I'd wager that the
sayings and posters had more impact than the actual films did at that time.
James Neibaur
fredw...@aol.com wrote on 12/25/03 10:43 AM:
>> Yeah, I seem to recall that the 60s and early 70s spawned a lot of fans of
>> older films, but not older music.
>
> I think you're a little wrong here. Most of us grew up with the 30's cartoon's
> jazzy music.
As cartoon background music indeed, but I don't recall it being appreciated
very much by many. In any case, they didn't seek out this music where they
did look for Marx Brothers movies on the late show. At least that is my
recollection.
> 78s were around and abundantly available for .25 or less. All the record
> players had 78 needles and speeds.
they had 16rpm too -- to this day I have never seen a 16rpm record.
> When I played my 78s for my friends they got a kick out of it saying it was
> cartoon music.
> I grew up liking Bix Beiderbecke as much as Jimi Hendrix and Spkie Jones as
> much as Frank Zappa.
So did I. But that was not really the norm among our age group at that
time, whereas old films did have a mainstream popularity.
> Remember "Winchester Cathedral" and all the copycat recordings.
Yeah, but I didn't know anyone who bought them. I don't think it was our
age group that caused Hello Dolly to knock the Beatles out of the Number One
spot on the charts back in '64.
> There was quite a revival of 20s and 30s music with a lot of LPs re-issuing
> material.
But it was generally being purchased by our parents and grandparents. In
fact it wasn't until The Beatles that I recall a lot of albums being bought
by our peers.
JN
James Neibaur
bbir...@earthlink.net wrote on 12/25/03 11:17 AM:
> In any event, it was the rebellious and anarchic aspects of these
> stars that was in step with the political mood of the time, and I'd wager that
> the
> sayings and posters had more impact than the actual films did at that time.
I remember back in college there were many who tore down the posters around
campus (after the film had played) and kept them up in their dorm. I still
have a few (!)
JN
George Shelps
>Absolutely -- we have lost this as a
>society. But silent film is emerging as an
>icon of pre-Enron-era movies. A symbol
>of what has been lost as financing
>entities become the "authors" of films,
>instead of filmmakers. Jean-Luc Godard
>said that the whole principal of the
>French New Wave was "getting everyone
>out of filmmaking who didn't belong in
>ilmmaking" -- like studios, financiers and
>distributors.
Yet the amount of money to be made by
the "blockbuster" plus the cost of a
mortgage of a home in Bel Air and one
at the beach will continue to drive the
medium...and it has nothing to do with
Enron. Even directors are turning
themselves into corporate franchises.
__________________________________
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
George Shelps
>The big difference that I notice is that the
>younger fans do not come to the film
>conventions the way they once did. Sam
>Gill, Leonard Maltin and I all attended
>Cinecons in our Teens--I don't see any
>Teenagers today.
Perhaps this is a good argument for
single film admissions at Cinecon.
Max Nineteennineteen
availability-- I'm still sitting here being amazed at my new DVD of
the Evgeni Bauer films, which just a short time ago were what Donald
Rumsfeld calls an "unknown unknown"-- but I'm not so sure we live in a
golden age of their ubiquity. I know that silent films and 30s comedy
came at me unbidden from all directions in the 70s, though admittedly
in the sometimes bastardized form Bob Birchard talks about-- if you
went to have pizza there was a good chance the parlor would be showing
Laurel & Hardy or Keystone Kops on the wall. Ironically you could
probably check out more silent films from the public library then, in
Blackhawk Super 8 prints, than you can now on VHS and DVD. And the
local film society was a fixture, and made sure to show a few silent
comedies every year. Now you don't need a film society because you
can just rent and watch The General and Citizen Kane and so on
whenever you want, and because you can, there's no urgency to do so,
and so you don't....
Max Nineteennineteen
problems and I have never actually seen a 16 rpm music disc. I have
run across talking book recordings once in a blue moon at 16 rpm and I
think it may have been widely used in recordings for the blind
programs and such. It is certainly odd, though-- the number of
players which could play 16 rpm must have vastly exceeded the number
of actual 16 rpm discs in circulation, a ratio which is probably
unique in electronic media of any sort.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> . . . the amount of money to be made by
> the "blockbuster" plus the cost of a
> mortgage of a home in Bel Air and one
> at the beach will continue to drive the
> medium...and it has nothing to do with
> Enron. Even directors are turning
> themselves into corporate franchises.
Not directly with Enron, but it's part of the whole movement of America
from democracy to plutocracy. Corporations determine who is elected to
public office, what news the public sees, and are increasingly the
"authors" of popular art. The corporation is replacing the individual
citizen as the primary unit of social organization.
One of the main reasons I'm hoping we can help establish a
democracy in Iraq is so people in America will be reminded of what a
fine form of government it can be.
George Shelps
navi...@earthlink.net (Lloyd Fonvielle)
wrote:
>>. . . the amount of money to be made by
>>the "blockbuster" plus the cost of a
>>mortgage of a home in Bel Air and one
>>at the beach will continue to drive the
>>medium...and it has nothing to do with
>>Enron. Even directors are turning
>>themselves into corporate franchises.
>Not directly with Enron, but it's part of
>the whole movement of America from
>democracy to plutocracy.
Plutocracy has ~always~ prevailed
in Hollywood. Chaplin, for example,
was a major Hollywood plutocrat
who admired William Randolph Hearst
yet made noises about "the people"
with whom he had very little social
contact.
> Corporations determine who is elected
>to public office, what news the public
>sees, and are increasingly the "authors"
>of popular art. The corporation is
>replacing the individual citizen as the
>primary unit of social organization.
Money and power has ~always~ thrown its weight around. Yet,
most of Bush's money comes from
small donations, as does Dean's.
The "people versus the powerful' theme
(run up the flag and almost successful
by Gore in 2000) is just tired old populism.
For why shouldn't successful
and powerful people have a major
impact? Unions have a countervailing
impact; they provide armies of free
foot soldiers to candidates.
Society is composed of forces in
conflict. and democracy ain't beanbag.
It's up to the film-makers to join forces
and take back control of the medium.
But first they'd have to give up their
egocentric ways and give up the perks
of LA success. I wonder if they're
willing to do that.
> One of the main reasons I'm
>hoping we can help establish a
>democracy in Iraq is so people in
>America will be reminded of what a fine
>form of government it can be.
Democracy in Iraq will be a struggle between the Shiites, the Kurds
and the Sunnis played out through new Iraqi institutions...not beanbag
either,
but not tyranny.
Fudge
school, reading about Costello's life, dotting it with their best
routines on video, and getting almost complete silence from my English
class. What a horror that was.
Ben
On 24 Dec 2003 11:24:42 -0600, Mr. Moose <mutan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:09:59 GMT, Fudge <b...@musicdish.com> wrote:
>
>>Just curious how many under 30 silent film fans there are here. For
>>instance, I'm really into old time radio and at 33 seem to be one of
>>the youngest ones. Are silent film fans replicating as fast as they're
>>dying out?
>
>Well, I'm 32, so I guess I don't count, but I do expose my 3rd graders
>to silent films - they just about broke the classroom with laughter at
>Big Business.
>
>As far as replicating goes, I guess we're doing our part - the wife
>and I are expecting our first in July.
>
>Mark
Voice of Bullwinkle's Sherman in Peabody & Sherman,
Leroy on The Great Gildersleeve & more.
The Walter Tetley biography
http://www.waltertetley.com
greta de groat
Fudge wrote:
> Interesting. I remember doing a report on Abbott and Costello in high
> school, reading about Costello's life, dotting it with their best
> routines on video, and getting almost complete silence from my English
> class. What a horror that was.
>
> Ben
Oh, i know what you mean.
my aforementioned friend and i did a skit in junior high on the immigrant
experience in America which lifted wholesale large chunks of Groucho-Chico
dialog. Total silence from our classmates, but though our act died, we had
a ball and didn't care.
Gee, you guys think you were geeks, imagine being a girl interested in this
stuff! I can't believe my luck in their being two of us at the same school.
To make matters weirder, her name is my middle name and we both became
librarians and married teachers named Ray. And we're still best of
friends, i'm going over to her house tomorrow to watch some vintage horror
film (and, yes, she's getting a silent DVD for Christmas). And, by the way,
her teacher husband shows his students old horror films and serials and
silent comedies and they love it!
greta
Lloyd Fonvielle
> It's up to the film-makers to join forces
> and take back control of the medium.
> But first they'd have to give up their
> egocentric ways and give up the perks
> of LA success. I wonder if they're
> willing to do that.
Probably not in Los Angeles, where the corporate forces are too
entrenched and the take-no-chances ethos too powerful. The change will
come when a majority of American homes have broadband Internet access,
at which time the distribution of short films on the Net will become
practicable. It will be an anything-goes landscape then, very much like
the early days of the nickelodeon, when anyone with a storefront and a
projector could join the ranks of film exhibitors, and anyone with a
camera could be a supplier. The same sort of boom and bust cycles will
be repeated, with a lot of losers and a few winners -- but from such a
freewheeling system Griffith and Chaplin and the new art of cinema emerged.
It's going to be fun, for a certain kind of pioneering spirit --
death to the corporate packagers of committee-made entertainment.
James Neibaur
b...@musicdish.com wrote on 12/25/03 11:13 PM:
> Interesting. I remember doing a report on Abbott and Costello in high
> school, reading about Costello's life, dotting it with their best
> routines on video, and getting almost complete silence from my English
> class. What a horror that was
Whenever I have shown A&C it always has gone over well. Back in school a
friend and I did Who's On First in the talent show and it went over
extremely well. Also did a Laurel and Hardy bit in jr. high that went over
well.
From my experience, everyone sort of liked older movies, especially
comedies. They didn't try to learn about their background as I did, but I
was certainly not an outcast as a result of my interest. Kids today are
less familiar with these movies, but when I have shown them in the classroom
they've gone over well.
I was Christmas shopping only weeks ago, and a Best Buy cashier who was a
former student (from around 10 years ago or so) when I was teaching Drama at
the middle school level, told me that she has been into Charlie Chaplin ever
since I showed some of his short films in class. So, exposure is often all
that is needed.
JN
ChaneyFan
of homeschoolers (including my own kids) who are ages: 13, 9, 10, 6, 4, 6, 14,
13, 18, 10, 13, and 14, plus 7 parents, so I'll let you know in a few months
how they handle it. (My own kids already like silents so I'm not worried about
them.)
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Stephen Cooke
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:
> This is the general rule, but there are intriguing exceptions. Jack
> White, one half of the coolest rock band now performing, the White
> Stripes, is a big Keaton fan.
And he looks like Cesare from Caligari.
swac
Stephen Cooke
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Bob Birchard wrote:
> Novelty numbers like "Frankfurter Sandwiches" (a 1920s revival), or Tiny Tim's
> recording of "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" also caught on briefly (giving Nick
> Lucas's career a new burst of energy in his fading days). But these are gimmicks
> that come and swiftly go--offering hope to the deluded that these odd revivals
> will lead to a return to the wistfully imagined golden age.
There was a revival of Frankfurter Sandwiches? I first heard it on the
amazing From Avenue A to the Great White Way CD (this chronicle of Yiddish
pop records and their influence on mainstream music is a must have). And
then I saw that incredibly fey comedian (the name escapes me) doing it in
one of those early MGM shorts on the Dawn of Sound box set. I love the
song, but have never heard it in a more recent context.
swac
Still waiting for that big Happiness Boys revival...
William Ferry
forget who recorded it. If I can find the tape, I'll let you know. It had an
appropriately jazzy orchestra and a female vocalist. (She knows her onions!)
--
Yours for bigger and better silents,
Bill Ferry (who, instead of popping the question, is too busy digesting
frankfurter sandwiches)
"Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.10...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
Bob Birchard
> Fudge wrote:
>
> > Interesting. I remember doing a report on Abbott and Costello in high
> > school, reading about Costello's life, dotting it with their best
> > routines on video, and getting almost complete silence from my English
> > class. What a horror that was.
> >
> > Ben
>
> Oh, i know what you mean.
> my aforementioned friend and i did a skit in junior high on the immigrant
> experience in America which lifted wholesale large chunks of Groucho-Chico
> dialog. Total silence from our classmates, but though our act died, we had
> a ball and didn't care.
>
> Gee, you guys think you were geeks, imagine being a girl interested in this
> stuff! I can't believe my luck in their being two of us at the same school.
> To make matters weirder, her name is my middle name and we both became
> librarians and married teachers named Ray. And we're still best of
> friends, i'm going over to her house tomorrow to watch some vintage horror
> film (and, yes, she's getting a silent DVD for Christmas). And, by the way,
> her teacher husband shows his students old horror films and serials and
> silent comedies and they love it!
>
> greta
So, which one of you is the "evil" twin?
George Shelps
navi...@earthlink.net (Lloyd Fonvielle)
wrote:
>It's up to the film-makers to join forces
>and take back control of the medium.
>But first they'd have to give up their
>egocentric ways and give up the perks
>>of LA success. I wonder if they're
>>willing to do that.
>Probably not in Los Angeles, where the
>corporate forces are too entrenched and
>the take-no-chances ethos too powerful.
I don't blame just the corporatists. The
"talent" has been co-opted, too, by the size of their fees and the
plenitude of their
perks.
>The change will come when a majority of
>American homes have broadband
>Internet access, at which time the
>distribution of short films on the Net will
>become practicable.
Yes, true. The convergence of the web
and television. It's not far off. Streaming DVD quality over the
internet is right around the corner.
> It will be an anything-goes landscape
>then, very much like the early days of the
>nickelodeon, when anyone with a
>storefront and a projector could join the
>ranks of film exhibitors, and anyone with
>a camera could be a supplier. The same
>sort of boom and bust cycles will be
>repeated, with a lot of losers and a few
>winners -- but from such a freewheeling
>system Griffith and Chaplin and the new
>art of cinema emerged.
God, I hope so! I share your assessment
of corporatist Hollywood---though not
your political spin. I think the high
costs of "talent" is just as responsible as "the suits" for the
excessively cautious
and demographically-calculated "creation
by committee." You and I both know
that the question "Who is attached?" to
a project is more important than the content of the script or the
concept
of the director.
(While internet transmission of films
will probably have the salutary impact
you describe, I consider the theatrical
exhibition of films to be "the movies"
and I am not a big fan of any video-based
technology.)
George Shelps
>I was Christmas shopping only weeks
>ago, and a Best Buy cashier who was a
>former student (from around 10 years
>ago or so) when I was teaching Drama
>at the middle school level, told me that
>she has been into Charlie Chaplin ever
>since I showed some of his short films in
>class. So, exposure is often all that is
>needed.
True. My wife was teaching a film course at a small all-female junior
college. She
introduced the girls to silent films, particularly to IT and Clara Bow.
They
loved her! (And these were kids who
didn't even know who Cary Grant was!)
James Roots
> Jim N wrote:
>
>>I was Christmas shopping only weeks
>>ago, and a Best Buy cashier who was a
>>former student (from around 10 years
>>ago or so) when I was teaching Drama
>>at the middle school level, told me that
>>she has been into Charlie Chaplin ever
>>since I showed some of his short films in
>>class. So, exposure is often all that is
>>needed.
>
My older kids (ages 12 and 9) have enjoyed Keaton and Chaplin,
so I thought it was time to try moving them on to other silents.
Last weekend we started with THE BELOVED ROGUE. I picked it
because it was a lot of fun and had a jaunty attitude similar
to the silent comics.
Within five minutes, they were out of the room. What a
mistake!
Lesson learned: if you want them to stick around, show something
with big laughs in the first few minutes before it gets into
the more subtle mood.
Jim
greta de groat
Bob Birchard wrote:
> greta de groat wrote:
>
> > Fudge wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting. I remember doing a report on Abbott and Costello in high
> > > school, reading about Costello's life, dotting it with their best
> > > routines on video, and getting almost complete silence from my English
> > > class. What a horror that was.
> > >
> > > Ben
> >
> > Oh, i know what you mean.
> > my aforementioned friend and i did a skit in junior high on the immigrant
> > experience in America which lifted wholesale large chunks of Groucho-Chico
> > dialog. Total silence from our classmates, but though our act died, we had
> > a ball and didn't care.
> >
> > Gee, you guys think you were geeks, imagine being a girl interested in this
> > stuff! I can't believe my luck in their being two of us at the same school.
> > To make matters weirder, her name is my middle name and we both became
> > librarians and married teachers named Ray. And we're still best of
> > friends, i'm going over to her house tomorrow to watch some vintage horror
> > film (and, yes, she's getting a silent DVD for Christmas). And, by the way,
> > her teacher husband shows his students old horror films and serials and
> > silent comedies and they love it!
> >
> > greta
>
> So, which one of you is the "evil" twin?
Oh, i'm sure we'd both jump at that honor! She does better Halloween costumes,
though (my favorite was Ed Wood in drag, complete with the blond wig and cashmere
sweater).
greta (being sorry i missed the Christmas Past broadcast the other night with the
good and evil twin Santas running around on the streetcar)
Lloyd Fonvielle
> (While internet transmission of films
> will probably have the salutary impact
> you describe, I consider the theatrical
> exhibition of films to be "the movies"
> and I am not a big fan of any video-based
> technology.)
I love the Moviola, too, but you'll rarely find one in an editing room
these days, as almost all post-production has gone digital. The days of
film in general are numbered, and I will miss it.
But the quality of video will eventually rise to a near film-like
level and we will just have to live with it. There will probably always
be theatrical exhibition of movies -- at least as long as teenagers have
a desire to get out of the house on weekends, but theatrical films will
be increasingly targeted towards that audience alone.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> My older kids (ages 12 and 9) have enjoyed Keaton and Chaplin,
> so I thought it was time to try moving them on to other silents.
> Last weekend we started with THE BELOVED ROGUE. I picked it
> because it was a lot of fun and had a jaunty attitude similar
> to the silent comics.
>
> Within five minutes, they were out of the room. What a
> mistake!
>
> Lesson learned: if you want them to stick around, show something
> with big laughs in the first few minutes before it gets into
> the more subtle mood.
A case in point. I found a copy of the definitive version of "The Kid",
David Shephard's out-of-print edition for Image, which I gave my niece &
nephew, 6 & 10, for Christmas. We watched it last night. The minute
Chaplin appeared on screen, walking towards the camera from a distance
down an alley, they laughed, remembering that walk from "The Circus",
and they were riveted from then on.
Halfway through, the 10 year-old boy said, "The pace is really
slow -- I like that." At the end, the 6 year-old girl was crying.
The art of Chaplin is an eternal miracle.
R H Draney
>
>"Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.10...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
>
>> There was a revival of Frankfurter Sandwiches? I first heard it on the
>> amazing From Avenue A to the Great White Way CD (this chronicle of Yiddish
>> pop records and their influence on mainstream music is a must have). And
>> then I saw that incredibly fey comedian (the name escapes me) doing it in
>> one of those early MGM shorts on the Dawn of Sound box set. I love the
>> song, but have never heard it in a more recent context.
>Yes, I heard it once on a Dr. Demento show. I made a tape of it, tho I
>forget who recorded it. If I can find the tape, I'll let you know. It had an
>appropriately jazzy orchestra and a female vocalist. (She knows her onions!)
According to Jeff Morris's Dr D playlist database at
http://php.indiana.edu/~jbmorris/search_pl.html :
drd00.0924.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - The Streamliners w/ Joanne
drd98.0215.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - The Streamliners w/ Joanne
drd96.1124.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - The Streamliners w/ Joanne
drd90.0610.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - Joanne & The Streamliners
drd89.0108.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - Joanne & The Streamliners
drd87.0719.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - The Streamliners w/ Joanne
drd86.0427.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - The Streamliners w/ Joanne
drd81.0412.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - The Streamliners w/ Joanne
drd75.0112.html:Frankfurter Sandwiches - Ian Whitcomb
Speaking as we were of later musicians imitating the style if not the material
of the jazz age, who here remembers Hurricane Smith with "Oh Babe, What Would
You Say?"...or Weird Al's theme song "This Is The Life" for "Johnny
Dangerously"?...r
Feuillade
> I found a copy of the definitive version
> of "The Kid", David Shephard's [sic]
> out-of-print edition for Image, which I
> gave my niece & nephew, 6 & 10, for
> Christmas.
I think you're misusing the term "definitive" here.
You may believe that the Image DVD version of "The Kid" is preferable to the
one recently put out by Time-Warner, but it is not "definitive" by any accepted
definition of the term.
Let me give an example.
Although most publishers choose to reprint the first edition of a Henry James
novel such as "Roderick Hudson," it is the revised "New York Edition" of the
book that is the "definitive" version, as it represents the author's final
thoughts on the text.
The Image version of "The Kid" represents the version of the film that Chaplin
originally released (although I believe that, like "Shoulder Arms," much of it
may be outtakes because of damage to the original negative).
The Time-Warner version represents Chaplin's final thoughts on the film, and
thus it is to be considered "definitive," even if one thinks the earlier
version artistically stronger.
This is the rationale behind the current crop of DVDs -- that Chaplin's final
thoughts about his films are to be respected.
While I don't necessarily agree with this assessment, it makes a certain amount
of sense.
In any event, the Image version is not the "definitive" one, even if you think
it's better artistically -- and even if I agree with that opinion.
Tom Moran
"I'm 47 and I've never been married, and I consider that
the greatest accomplishment of my life.''
-- Bill Maher
George Shelps
navi...@earthlink.net (Lloyd Fonvielle)
wrote:
>>(While internet transmission of films
>>will probably have the salutary impact
>>you describe, I consider the theatrical
>>exhibition of films to be "the movies"
>>and I am not a big fan of any
>>video-based technology.)
>I love the Moviola, too, but you'll rarely
>find one in an editing room these days,
>as almost all post-production has gone
>digital. The days of film in general are
>numbered, and I will miss it.
I suppose you're right. Luckily, I'm
old enough not to have to "look forward"
to many years of that brave new world of filmlessness.
> But the quality of video will
>eventually rise to a near film-like level
>and we will just have to live with it.
I won't. I simply will cut down on my
video usage---as I have already.
> There will probably always be theatrical
>exhibition of movies -- at least as long as
>teenagers have a desire to get out of the
>house on weekends, but theatrical films
>will be increasingly targeted towards that
>audience alone.
Maybe. The experience of a movie projected via light with the real
presence
of the artifact (the physical image)
in a social setting is, to me, the
complete definition of movies.
One reason for the abandonment of
the "Eisenstein-Griffith" montage
approach to film-making stems from
the inroads of the video esthetic...where
shots contribute to a whole without
seeming to be vital parts of a design.
Lloyd Fonvielle
Shepard's version for Image is definitive in every other sense of the
word. It is closest to the film as originally released and reflects
Chaplin's best judgment about the work at the height of his creative
powers, not his second thoughts at a time of relatively diminished
creative capacity.
The Time-Warner version is definitive in the sense that Virgil's
decision to destroy the "Aeniad" is definitive, representing the
author's final thoughts on the text. An academically responsible
editor of Virgil should therefore perhaps devote himself to destroying
all existing copies of the "Aeniad", in accordance with the author's
last wishes, and should certainly not publish it in any authoritative
edition of Virgil's works.
In other words, one can take academic correctness too far -- as I
believe the Chaplin estate has in regard to these recent editions of
Chaplin's films.
James Neibaur
Shelps at G-H...@webtv.net wrote on 12/26/03 1:46 PM:
> The experience of a movie projected via light with the real
> presence
> of the artifact (the physical image)
> in a social setting is, to me, the
> complete definition of movies.
Sadly, I just read an article which states that the number of theaters in
the USA that use digital discs instead of film will double in 2004. I would
say that within the next five-to-ten years, the only theaters using film
will be retro revival houses.
Remember how fast vinyl records went away (or even shellack, going back a
bit further).
JN
Early Film
>Just curious how many under 30 silent film fans there are here.
This is probably an appropriate thread to note that today, December 26th, is
Big Bird's 70th birthday!
Yes, Sesame Street's Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch are and always have been
puppeteered by Caroll Spinney who just turned 70 today.
Earl.
Feuillade
> I take your point as a matter of
> academic terminology.
It's not academic terminology. It's common usage.
> But David Shepard's version for Image
> is definitive in every other sense of the
> word.
I would dispute that. From a linguistic standpoint, if nothing else. You're
just wrong factually.
Even if you approve of David's edition (and I'm not going to hide the fact that
I prefer it to the more recent Time-Warner edition), it is clearly not
definitive in *every* other sense of the word. That is, in fact, an
impossibility.
> It is closest to the film as originally
> released [...]
Closer. Keep in mind that the film that is on the earlier DVD issue represents
Chaplin's 1940s reconstruction. So it's no more representative of the original
cut than the version you find wanting.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, no Chaplin First National film on VHS or DVD
that is exactly what the original audience saw.
> [...] and reflects Chaplin's best
> judgment about the work at the
> height of his creative powers, [...]
Chaplin was not "at the height of his creative powers" in the 1940s.
> [...] not his second thoughts at a
> time of relatively diminished creative
> capacity.
I'm not saying I agree with his recutting his old pictures. But he did so --
the way Spielberg, Coppola, Bogdanovich and Friedkin have all recut their old
films for reissue or DVD release. But they have the right to do so -- and
their final thoughts on the film are generally considered to be the definitive
ones.
> The Time-Warner version is definitive
> in the sense that Virgil's decision to
> destroy the "Aeniad" is definitive,
> representing the author's final thoughts
> on the text.
Cute. Very cute. Why not throw in Kafka while you're at it?
> An academically responsible
> editor of Virgil should therefore
> perhaps devote himself to destroying
> all existing copies of the "Aeniad", in
> accordance with the author's
> last wishes, and should certainly not
> publish it in any authoritative
> edition of Virgil's works.
The Emperor Augustus settled that question roughly 2,000 years ago.
And his opinion was definitive.
> In other words, one can take academic
> correctness too far -- as I believe the
> Chaplin estate has in regard to these
> recent editions of Chaplin's films.
I'm not saying that I agree with their decision, that I *am* saying that their
decision is very defensible. Even if it's not what I would have done under the
same circumstances.
George Shelps
jnei...@wi.rr.com (James Neibaur)
wrote:
>>The experience of a movie projected via
>>light with the real presence
>>of the artifact (the physical image)
>>in a social setting is, to me, the
>>complete definition of movies.
>Sadly, I just read an article which states
>that the number of theaters in the USA
>that use digital discs instead of film will
>double in 2004. I would say that within
>the next five-to-ten years, the only
>theaters using film will be retro revival
>houses.
Well, perhaps some entrepreneur will
hook up a chain of these houses and as
long as each major city has one of them,
movies will be preserved.
>Remember how fast vinyl records went
>away (or even shellack, going back a bit
>further).
Yes. But the loss was not as acute
as the loss of the filmed image will
be...which I regard as a core element
of the ethetics of film.
You're seeing the effect of the "electronization" or "videozation" of
movies now...and have been for years.
Movies have become big budget cable
shows. And I wonder whether the
craftsmanship of, say, a Hitchcock enters into the editing or
composition of shots
any longer? It's just one damn thing
after another, no sense of visual design
attached to a meaning or a film
language.
Bruce Calvert
Eric Miller stated...
>
>Unfortunately, I think I'm a pretty big exception. This may become too
>detailed an answer...What bothers me is not that I don't know anyone who is
>"into" silent films. It's that people my age don't seem to have the capacity
>to appreciate them.
I'm on the wrong side of 40 now, but I became interested in silent films in my
early teens when I was given an 8mm projector. Until I discovered
alt.movies.silent in 1998, I thought that there were very few silent film fans
in the world too. Thanks to the internet, I've since been to two Cinecons, one
Kansas Silent Film Festival. I've found other comedy and 16mm collectors in my
area and helped form a Sons of the Desert (Laurel & Hardy) tent. Thanks to
eBay, I've been able to buy lots of vintage silent film memorabilia. I just
wish that I had known about film festivals and I had a source of film stills 20
years ago.
Going to Cinecon was really a revelation. I couldn't believe that there are
people that like silent and early sound films even more than I do!
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://home.comcast.net/~silentfilm/home.htm
Remove the "xspam" to reply
Bob Birchard
> I'm not saying that I agree with their decision, that I *am* saying that their
> decision is very defensible. Even if it's not what I would have done under the
> same circumstances.
Frankly I fail to see what all the fuss is about on the new Chaplin DVDs.
There are some extras we haven't seen before and new transfers, but these are
essentially the same versions that have been commercially available in various
forms since 1972, and though they may represent Chaplin's last word on the films,
they very clearly do not represent his best word on them. The scores for "The Kid"
and the other late scores for "A Day's Pleasure", "Sunnyside", "A Woman of Paris",
"Pay Day" and "The Idle Class" are dreadful by any objective measure and an
embarrassment to Chaplin and Eric James. The stretch printing is also a
problem--especially now that one can speed correct in telecine.
I suspect that the real reason that Chaplin family chose to ignore David's
reconstructed versions is that they'd have to pay him again for his work--something
the new distributor was probably reluctant to do.
Bob Birchard
This is pure hogwash. I've seen several digital presentation of films,
and in general (and I'm an old film guy from way back) you can't tell the
difference between projection of a good film print and digital
projection.
I think universal digital cinema is still many years off. Costs of
equipment, maintenance, loading the drives, need for film back up anyway
in case something goes wrong with the digital set up all argue that film
prints will be projected for a long while yet.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Frankly I fail to see what all the fuss is about on the new Chaplin DVDs.
> There are some extras we haven't seen before and new transfers, but these are
> essentially the same versions that have been commercially available in various
> forms since 1972, and though they may represent Chaplin's last word on the films,
> they very clearly do not represent his best word on them. The scores for "The Kid"
> and the other late scores for "A Day's Pleasure", "Sunnyside", "A Woman of Paris",
> "Pay Day" and "The Idle Class" are dreadful by any objective measure and an
> embarrassment to Chaplin and Eric James. The stretch printing is also a
> problem--especially now that one can speed correct in telecine.
>
> I suspect that the real reason that Chaplin family chose to ignore David's
> reconstructed versions is that they'd have to pay him again for his work--something
> the new distributor was probably reluctant to do.
Finally, a rational explanation for these new editions.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Lloyd Fonvielle navi...@earthlink.net writes:
>
>>I take your point as a matter of
>>academic terminology.
>
> It's not academic terminology. It's common usage.
Not in my world.
>>But David Shepard's version for Image
>>is definitive in every other sense of the
>>word.
>
> I would dispute that. From a linguistic standpoint, if nothing else. You're
> just wrong factually.
>
> Even if you approve of David's edition (and I'm not going to hide the fact that
> I prefer it to the more recent Time-Warner edition), it is clearly not
> definitive in *every* other sense of the word. That is, in fact, an
> impossibility.
1 : serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation <a
definitive victory>
O. k. -- you've got me on that one. People are going to be arguing
about the texts of Chaplin's films as long as they exist.
2 : authoritative and apparently exhaustive <a definitive edition>
Hard to imagine a more authoritative or exhaustive edition of "The Kid"
than the one David Shepard prepared for Image -- unless you pay
excessive respect to the academic use of "definitive" as meaning the
LAST, as opposed to the BEST, thoughts of the artist. This is often an
absurd position, as my cute example of Virgil makes clear.
The question is, of course, what authority do you privilege? It
is a question of judgment.
3 a : serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws> b :
serving as a perfect example : QUINTESSENTIAL <a definitive bourgeois>
Shepard's edition comes close to this.
4 : fully differentiated or developed <a definitive organ>
5 of a postage stamp : issued as a regular stamp for the country or
territory in which it is to be used.
I concede these senses of the word, too, though they don't exactly
constitute common usage of it.
>>It is closest to the film as originally
>>released [...]
>
> Closer.
Then which edition is closest?
George Shelps
>>Movies have become big budget cable
>>shows. And I wonder whether the
>>craftsmanship of, say, a Hitchcock
>>enters into the editing or composition of
>>shots any longer? It's just one damn
>>thing after another, no sense of visual
>>design attached to a meaning or a film
>>language.
> This is pure hogwash. I've seen
>several digital presentation of films, and
>in general (and I'm an old film guy from
>way back) you can't tell the difference
>between projection of a good film print
>and digital projection.
You're confused and befuddled.
I am arguing esthetics
not technology in the quote.
Don't tell me movies are shot and cut
with the same sense of visual design
linked to meaning as originally envisioned
by Griffith and elaborated by Eisenstein--and which stood as the model
at least until the late 60s.
But I have also encountered "old film
guys" who say what you say---but they--like you--have tended to be
people
who work in the business and are wary
of challenging the new direction of the trade.
Ja50nch3a5er
>You're confused and befuddled.
>
>I am arguing esthetics
>not technology in the quote.
>
>Don't tell me movies are shot and cut
>with the same sense of visual design
>linked to meaning as originally envisioned
>by Griffith and elaborated by Eisenstein--and which stood as the model
>at least until the late 60s.
>
>But I have also encountered "old film
>guys" who say what you say---but they--like you--have tended to be
>people
>who work in the business and are wary
>of challenging the new direction of the trade.
OOOH! There is gunna be a fight tonight! Oil up, girls! (brings out a tub of
pop-corn)
William Hooper
> George Shelps wrote:
>
> > jnei...@wi.rr.com (James Neibaur)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>The experience of a movie projected via
> > >>light with the real presence
> > >>of the artifact (the physical image)
> > >>in a social setting is, to me, the
> > >>complete definition of movies.
>
> > >Sadly, I just read an article which states
> > >that the number of theaters in the USA
> > >that use digital discs instead of film will
> > >double in 2004. I would say that within
> > >the next five-to-ten years, the only
> > >theaters using film will be retro revival
> > >houses.
That's probably the Reuters article that's been making the rounds
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031224/tc_nm/column_pluggedin_dc_2
An incredible piece of superficial & wilfully unresearched
attention-grabbing junk.
> > Well, perhaps some entrepreneur will
> > hook up a chain of these houses and as
> > long as each major city has one of them,
> > movies will be preserved.
> >
> > >Remember how fast vinyl records went
> > >away (or even shellack, going back a bit
> > >further).
> >
> > Yes. But the loss was not as acute
> > as the loss of the filmed image will
> > be...which I regard as a core element
> > of the ethetics of film.
> >
> > You're seeing the effect of the "electronization" or "videozation" of
> > movies now...and have been for years.
> >
> > Movies have become big budget cable
> > shows. And I wonder whether the
> > craftsmanship of, say, a Hitchcock enters into the editing or
> > composition of shots
> > any longer? It's just one damn thing
> > after another, no sense of visual design
> > attached to a meaning or a film
> > language.
> >
>
> This is pure hogwash.
Talking through your hat is one thing, but posturing is information
that leads to folks wondering why.
> I've seen several digital presentation of films,
> and in general (and I'm an old film guy from way back) you can't tell the
> difference between projection of a good film print and digital
> projection.
The digital projection formats are lower resolution, & work best for
simplified images. Folks have noticed that what works best for
digital projection are simplified images like animation & CGI. It's
really good at that glass-shattering-on-concrete look. Photographic
images are degraded due to limitations of the system: aliasing due to
static mirror positions, etc. The only ways to minimize them are to
further degrade an image which is often at the resolution of a laptop
monitor. Digital projection even degrades "2K" digital intermediates.
And the resolution of digitally projected images are not all the
same.
To say "there is no difference because I can't tell a difference" is a
blast of ego & posturing beyond excusability. I've heard it from
people running VHS on LCD projectors comparing the image to 35mm in
the same house, & from people saying that a piano doesn't need to be
tuned. You may not be able to tell a difference with 50+ year old
eyes watching animation from 3 screen heights away, or even closer
with photographic subject matter. If you say that to your eyes
there's no difference, then there is no difference at all, what's
going on here? Because yours are the eyes of god? Lots to think
about.
> I think universal digital cinema is still many years off. Costs of
> equipment, maintenance, loading the drives, need for film back up anyway
> in case something goes wrong with the digital set up all argue that film
> prints will be projected for a long while yet.
That's old dilettante scuttlebutt. Digital projection installations
are increasing fast. It had been thought that the incredibly high
cost of digital projection systems in comparison to film projection
installations would keep it from being a significantly installed
projection format. But what is driving digital projection installs is
consolidation in the exhibition industry & digital projection's
agility to provide screen ads. The largest installed base of digital
projectors in the US is Regal Cinemas, which are using them to provide
the 20 minute advertising segment before each feature they call "The
2wenty". Having them there to provide ad revenue solves the problem
of installed base, & will give them the leverage to cut better deals
with the distribs for using digital titles to save on print costs.
This is a huge threat to Carmike, which are getting the ball rolling.
It's not about the image quality; it's about additional revenue
streams like ad sales, cutting costs, & undercutting the competition.
Steve Kraus
> That's old dilettante scuttlebutt. Digital projection installations
> are increasing fast. It had been thought that the incredibly high
> cost of digital projection systems in comparison to film projection
> installations would keep it from being a significantly installed
> projection format. But what is driving digital projection installs is
> consolidation in the exhibition industry & digital projection's
> agility to provide screen ads. The largest installed base of digital
> projectors in the US is Regal Cinemas, which are using them to provide
> the 20 minute advertising segment before each feature they call "The
> 2wenty". Having them there to provide ad revenue solves the problem
> of installed base, & will give them the leverage to cut better deals
> with the distribs for using digital titles to save on print costs.
Huh? What are you talking about? The projectors that theatre chains are
typically installing to run pre-show ads are not actual digital cinema
projectors. These are basic projectors like you'd see in business meeting
rooms etc. Fraction of the price. "Digital projection installations" may
indeed be increasing fast if you count preshow projectors but ACTUAL
DIGITAL CINEMA projection installations? I doubt it, especially with the
several firms that were part of the first push having spectactularly
fizzled and exited the market.
And if all these installations are happening as you say then can you tell
us what sort of machines are going in? Still the 1280 units? Anyone who
spent northwards of US$ 100K of their own money (as opposed to a
middleman's money) on a d-cinema projector with resolution that is not even
HD was pretty foolish since it was evident from day one that higher rez was
just around the corner. I haven't heard anything about large numbers of 2K
installations. Are they having a fire sale on 1.25K units? I can't
imagine anyone dumb enough to buy those now otherwise.
Bob Birchard
Cinema has always been an evolving medium, and I don't buy your
argument that the cinema was somehow a different medium in the past.
Griffith can be credited with his editing of last minute rescues and many
other innovations as well, but much of his work (take a look a "Broken
Blossoms" for example) consists of letting his actors play scenes in long
shots and then cutting in mis-matched close ups where he feels he needs to
emphasize a point or to bridge action in the master. Still, Griffith's
films have a humanity that is completely lacking in your other "white
knight" of the cinema, Sergei Eisenstein.
Eisenstein relies on carefully composed, almost graphic, images. He
utilizes "montage" within a scene to create meaning in a way that Griffith
almost never does (except say in the shooting of the Musketeer of the
Slums in "Intolerance"), but there is a not a single human character in
any of Esisenstein's films. Think of the caricatured capitalist in
"Strike" this sort of characterization is pure agit-prop b.s. and greatly
detracts from the overall effectiveness of Eisenstein's films, though they
are certainly filled with great moments.
The fact is that the cinema is not represented, nor is it contained in
the work of Griffith and Eisenstein. What makes the movies a living
medium is that it can encompass the world visions and the various visual
styles of Sternberg, Ford, Chaplin, Hitchcock, Mamoulian, Hawks, Anthony
Mann, and Steven Spielberg as well as such unsung (and under-rated)
talents as Roy Del Ruth, Roy William Neill, or Lew Seiler.
I know for a fact (because the producer Bruce Block, who is also a
latter day film theorist of some note, is a friend) that the visual style
of the current release "Something's Got to Give" was given great attention
(that is one of the reasons Nancy Myers likes working with Bruce--he helps
shape the look of her films) and one need only look at films like "Mona
Lisa Smile" or the new "Peter Pan" to see that the art of cinema and
visual storytelling is not only not dead but in capable (if different)
hands.
Bob Birchard
> To say "there is no difference because I can't tell a difference" is a
> blast of ego & posturing beyond excusability. I've heard it from
> people running VHS on LCD projectors comparing the image to 35mm in
> the same house, & from people saying that a piano doesn't need to be
> tuned. You may not be able to tell a difference with 50+ year old
> eyes watching animation from 3 screen heights away, or even closer
> with photographic subject matter. If you say that to your eyes
> there's no difference, then there is no difference at all, what's
> going on here? Because yours are the eyes of god? Lots to think
> about.
Except, William, that I may be in a slightly better position to observe because I make my living
working with moving images on a daily basis.
You are certainly correct that animation is easier than live action, and I can say that having
seen back to back comparisons of the 35mm film output and the digital cinema output on several Disney
animated projects that there is no appreciable difference on the screen.
On a film like "Pirates of the Caribbean" I have only seen digital projection, and it looked just
like a real movie to me with none of the degradation you describe--except in the end titles, where
there was some noticeable "stair-stepping" in the small crawling title credits.
And, I would add, that this is in Los Angeles, where first run theaters often receive first rate
film prints. Many theaters across the country get rather n.s.g. prints from dupes that are not
properly inspected, and that have indifferent color timing, "printer weave," too little light from
the projectors, and a host of other problems that generally degrade the theatrical experience.
>
>
>
> > I think universal digital cinema is still many years off. Costs of
> > equipment, maintenance, loading the drives, need for film back up anyway
> > in case something goes wrong with the digital set up all argue that film
> > prints will be projected for a long while yet.
>
> That's old dilettante scuttlebutt. Digital projection installations
> are increasing fast. It had been thought that the incredibly high
> cost of digital projection systems in comparison to film projection
> installations would keep it from being a significantly installed
> projection format. But what is driving digital projection installs is
> consolidation in the exhibition industry & digital projection's
> agility to provide screen ads. The largest installed base of digital
> projectors in the US is Regal Cinemas, which are using them to provide
> the 20 minute advertising segment before each feature they call "The
> 2wenty". Having them there to provide ad revenue solves the problem
> of installed base, & will give them the leverage to cut better deals
> with the distribs for using digital titles to save on print costs.
> This is a huge threat to Carmike, which are getting the ball rolling.
> It's not about the image quality; it's about additional revenue
> streams like ad sales, cutting costs, & undercutting the competition.
George Shelps
Bob Birchard wrote:
> Still, Griffith's films have a humanity
>that is completely lacking in your other
>"white knight" of the cinema, Sergei
>Eisenstein.
> Eisenstein relies on carefully
>composed, almost graphic, images. He
>utilizes "montage" within a scene to
>create meaning in a way that Griffith
>almost never does (except say in the
>shooting of the Musketeer of the Slums
>in "Intolerance"), but there is a not a
>single human character in any of
>Esisenstein's films. Think of the
>caricatured capitalist in "Strike" this sort
>of characterization is pure agit-prop b.s.
>and greatly detracts from the overall
>effectiveness of Eisenstein's films,
>though they are certainly filled with great
>moments.
All true, but I am not talking about the
content of these two film-makers, rather
of their conscious approach to film
as a language (I also rate IVAN THE
TERRIBLE higher than Eisensetin's
silent agit-prop classics.)
> The fact is that the cinema is not
>represented, nor is it contained in the
>work of Griffith and Eisenstein.
But it is---or was---based on their conception of film as a language.
> What makes the movies a living medium
>is that it can encompass the world
>visions and the various visual styles of
>Sternberg, Ford, Chaplin, Hitchcock,
>Mamoulian, Hawks, Anthony Mann, and
>Steven Spielberg as well as such unsung
>(and under-rated) talents as Roy Del
>Ruth, Roy William Neill, or Lew Seiler.
Oh, I agree completely. And no one
today is working in the tradition that
these directors worked in (with the
exception of Spielberg, that is)
> I know for a fact (because the
>producer Bruce Block, who is also a
>latter day film theorist of some note,
What is a "latter day film theorist of
some note?"
> is a friend) that the visual style of the
>current release "Something's Got to
>Give" was given great attention (that is
>one of the reasons Nancy Myers likes
>working with Bruce--he helps shape the
>look of her films) and one need only look
>at films like "Mona Lisa Smile" or the
>new "Peter Pan" to see that the art of
>cinema and visual storytelling is not only
>not dead but in capable (if different)
>hands.
I don't believe it. No one is using film
as a language, Films today have
brilliant parts, but the whole is less
than the sum of these parts because
no "world view" is being presented.
Movies don't express a worldview
in a unique language anymore. That's
why box-office numbers have become
such popular touchstones and why
performers like Julia Roberts are
paid enormous fees to market a movie
by providing a big opening weekend.
Because "the buzz" is all there is now.
Does the public go to see movies today
because they want the unique experience
of seeing reality represented on film?
I doubt it. They go to see bigger and
better cable shows.
I would say Stanley Kubrick was the
last director who worked in what I called
the "Griffith-Eisenstein" tradition.
James Neibaur
bbir...@earthlink.net wrote on 12/27/03 11:03 AM:
> I know for a fact (because the producer Bruce Block, who is also a
> latter day film theorist of some note, is a friend) that the visual style
> of the current release "Something's Got to Give" was given great attention
> (that is one of the reasons Nancy Myers likes working with Bruce--he helps
> shape the look of her films) and one need only look at films like "Mona
> Lisa Smile" or the new "Peter Pan" to see that the art of cinema and
> visual storytelling is not only not dead but in capable (if different)
> hands.
I haven't seen Peter Pan, but I sure would hate to think Something's Gotta
Give and Mona Lisa Smile represent the best that contemporary American
cinema has to offer.
JN
Feuillade
> Feuillade wrote:
>> I'm not saying that I agree with their
>> decision, that I *am* saying that their
>> decision is very defensible. Even if
>> it's not what I would have done under
>> the same circumstances.
> Frankly I fail to see what all the fuss
> is about on the new Chaplin DVDs.
> There are some extras we haven't seen
> before and new transfers, but these are
> essentially the same versions that have
> been commercially available in
> various forms since 1972, [...]
True, but in some ways they represent a counterevolution from the Oona versions
of the films on the Image DVDs.
> [...] and though they may represent
> Chaplin's last word on the films,
> they very clearly do not represent his
> best word on them.
I agree.
> The scores for "The Kid" and the other
> late scores for "A Day's Pleasure",
> "Sunnyside", "A Woman of Paris",
> "Pay Day" and "The Idle Class" are
> dreadful by any objective measure
> and an embarrassment to Chaplin
> and Eric James.
I would disagree when it comes to "The Kid," since I think that score is pretty
effective.
> The stretch printing is also a
> problem--especially now that
> one can speed correct in telecine.
True, but it was not available to Chaplin in the 50s, and you can argue that
it's the kind of "improving on the original" that I have deplored elsewhere.
I don't think you can make a *strong* argument, mind you, but the argument can
be made.
> I suspect that the real reason that
> Chaplin family chose to ignore
> David's reconstructed versions is
> that they'd have to pay him again
> for his work--something the new
> distributor was probably reluctant to do.
You may have a point. :)
Dr. Giraud
Date: Thu, Dec 25, 2003 2:58 PM
Message-id: <1963-3FE...@storefull-2296.public.lawson.webtv.net>
LLoyd Fonvielle wrote:
>Absolutely -- we have lost this as a
>society. But silent film is emerging as an
>icon of pre-Enron-era movies. A symbol
>of what has been lost as financing
>entities become the "authors" of films,
>instead of filmmakers. Jean-Luc Godard
>said that the whole principal of the
>French New Wave was "getting everyone
>out of filmmaking who didn't belong in
>ilmmaking" -- like studios, financiers and
>distributors.
Yet the amount of money to be made by
the "blockbuster" plus the cost of a
mortgage of a home in Bel Air and one
at the beach will continue to drive the
medium...and it has nothing to do with
Enron. Even directors are turning
themselves into corporate franchises. >>
Yup. So Joe Carnahan goes from NARC to (possibly) MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3, and the
director of Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN moves on to Harry Potter. There are exceptions,
of course.
Shawn Stone
Dr. Giraud
<<big snip>>
<< Digital projection installations
are increasing fast. It had been thought that the incredibly high
cost of digital projection systems in comparison to film projection
installations would keep it from being a significantly installed
projection format. But what is driving digital projection installs is
consolidation in the exhibition industry & digital projection's
agility to provide screen ads. The largest installed base of digital
projectors in the US is Regal Cinemas, which are using them to provide
the 20 minute advertising segment before each feature they call "The
2wenty". Having them there to provide ad revenue solves the problem
of installed base, & will give them the leverage to cut better deals
with the distribs for using digital titles to save on print costs.
This is a huge threat to Carmike, which are getting the ball rolling.
It's not about the image quality; it's about additional revenue
streams like ad sales, cutting costs, & undercutting the competition.
>>
"The 20" is the worst thing to happen to the movies since Michael Bay. Sitting
through ads for cable repeats of network shows like Law & Order is unbearable.
(Does ANYONE in the US not know that Law & freakin' Order is in repeats on TNT
for 5 hours a day?????)
Shawn Stone
RFCSAC627N
>"The 20" is the worst thing to happen to the movies since Michael Bay.
>Sitting
>through ads for cable repeats of network shows like Law & Order is
>unbearable.
I'd much rather watch that than 20 minutes of slides for a local pizzeria or
dog-grooming establishment.
>(Does ANYONE in the US not know that Law & freakin' Order is in repeats on
>TNT
>for 5 hours a day?????)
>
As a recovering LAW & ORDER addict, I still need my taste.
Richard Carnahan
Dr. Giraud
a huge Bing Crosby fan during the 60s...especially when you loathed (and
still loathe) Bob Dylan. I always had the weirdest feelig that I was born
years too late. I would have made a fabulous flapper.
Frederica >>
Then you should see Dylan's film MASKED & ANONYMOUS . . . it was the worst film
of the year. (Even worse that GIGLI!)
Shawn Stone
Dr. Giraud
Date: Sat, Dec 27, 2003 4:35 PM
Message-id: <20031227163554...@mb-m17.aol.com>
>From: shawn...@aol.commie (Dr. Giraud)
>"The 20" is the worst thing to happen to the movies since Michael Bay.
>Sitting
>through ads for cable repeats of network shows like Law & Order is
>unbearable.
I'd much rather watch that than 20 minutes of slides for a local pizzeria or
dog-grooming establishment.
<snip>
Richard Carnahan >>
I disagree, if only because slides are silent w/musical accompaniment. "The 20"
is: 20 minutes of commercials for L&O, Fritos, sneakers, scents and more;
nonsensical video clips (not even complete videos) of songs by everyone from
Elvis to the Black Eyed Peas; and ALL w/loud, irritating sound. This amounts to
audience abuse IMHO.
Shawn Stone
(I like LAW & ORDER too, but jeez . . .)
Feuillade
> Feuillade wrote:
>> Lloyd Fonvielle navi...@earthlink.net writes:
>>> I take your point as a matter of
>>> academic terminology.
>> It's not academic terminology. It's
>> common usage.
> Not in my world.
Sadly, this is probably true.
Bob Birchard
> I haven't seen Peter Pan, but I sure would hate to think Something's Gotta
> Give and Mona Lisa Smile represent the best that contemporary American
> cinema has to offer.
I never suggested they represent the best of anything, only that they are
several films I've seen recently that utilize fairly well developed senses of
visual storytelling. George seems to think that the movies have lost the
technique of visual storytelling established in the silent era--though I'd offer
up films like "The New Klondike" or "Volcano" or "The Big Killing" and beg to
suggest that there were a lot of "visionless" buptkies made in the "golden age,"
too.
Constance Kuriyama
> Lloyd Fonvielle navi...@earthlink.net writes:
>
> > I found a copy of the definitive version
> > of "The Kid", David Shephard's [sic]
> > out-of-print edition for Image, which I
> > gave my niece & nephew, 6 & 10, for
> > Christmas.
>
> I think you're misusing the term "definitive" here.
>
> You may believe that the Image DVD version of "The Kid" is preferable to the
> one recently put out by Time-Warner, but it is not "definitive" by any accepted
> definition of the term.
"Definitive" is a vague honorific word used to express an arbitrary
(or self-interested) preference for one object over another, as in the
publisher's favorite description of the newest item on their list as
the "definitive biography." It's hard to misuse a word like that.
Early film buffs are generally inclined to believe that the earliest
version of a film, or even a restoration of it by someone other than
the filmmaker, is authoritative or "definitive." There is no objective
basis for this belief in a case where the filmmaker himself created a
later version. You may believe that Chaplin was a better judge of his
work at 32 than at 70+. Can you prove it? To your taste the earlier
version may be better. You are certainly entitled to your preference,
but what makes you think your taste is superior to the filmmaker's
judgment at 70+? You say that his late work was inferior. Still merely
your opinion, but if so, there might be many reasons for this besides
age. This argument is inherently ageist.
In the case of _The Kid_, I'd like to know why we should prefer a
version that includes scenes the filmmaker at 70+ judged to be dated,
superfluous, and digressive, which arguably *are* dated, superfluous,
and digressive. From a strictly historical point of view, of course we
want to have this version available for study, and those who prefer it
should certainly be able to acquire and enjoy it, but why should we
think it is the one that everyone should see, the one that should be
considered "definitive"? The argument that Chaplin was in his dotage
can hardly apply here, because the film's
score is one of Chaplin's stronger efforts, indicating that he had a
clear
idea what he wanted while revisiting this film.
Connie K.
Bob Birchard
> You may believe that Chaplin was a better judge of his
> work at 32 than at 70+. Can you prove it?
Yes. M. Verdoux, Limelight, A King in New York, A Countess From Hong Kong each progressively worse
than the last and showing evidence of an artist completely out of touch with what made his earlier work
great.
> In the case of _The Kid_, I'd like to know why we should prefer a
> version that includes scenes the filmmaker at 70+ judged to be dated,
> superfluous, and digressive, which arguably *are* dated, superfluous,
> and digressive. From a strictly historical point of view, of course we
> want to have this version available for study, and those who prefer it
> should certainly be able to acquire and enjoy it, but why should we
> think it is the one that everyone should see, the one that should be
> considered "definitive"? The argument that Chaplin was in his dotage
> can hardly apply here, because the film's
> score is one of Chaplin's stronger efforts, indicating that he had a
> clear
> idea what he wanted while revisiting this film.
First, I completely disagree on the score. It is flat, repetitive and shows little of the nuance
evident in Chaplin's earlier efforts. Eric James is no Alfred Newman or David Raksin, and clearly CC
couldn't divine this.
Second, I would cite Harold Lloyd's efforts to bring "The Freshman" up to date by cutting the "radio
liar" and "crying" sequences from the film. The first was cut because he felt audiences would not
understand it, the second was cut because he felt it made his character look weak. The film is stronger
with these scene. Lloyd was wrong to want to cut them.
The fact is these films (The Kid, The Freshman, et. al.) are products of their times as well as
products of the artists in question. The attempts to make them "timeless" actually make them less than
what they are rather than more. The sentimental stuff that CC cut from The Kid is very much a part of the
Victorian sensibilities that were inherent in Chaplin's art. I would not go so far as to say that an
artist should not have the right to amend his work at a later date--there are all sorts of commercial,
practical and otherwise obscure reasons why this might be done from time to time. What I would argue,
however, is that the audience should have the right (in so far as it is possible) to see the original
work that gained the critical reputation, and let the audience judge whether the filmmaker's revisions
enhance or detract from the work.
Max Nineteennineteen
> William Hooper said:
>
> <<big snip>>
>
> << Digital projection installations
> are increasing fast. It had been thought that the incredibly high
> cost of digital projection systems in comparison to film projection
> installations would keep it from being a significantly installed
> projection format. But what is driving digital projection installs is
> consolidation in the exhibition industry & digital projection's
> agility to provide screen ads. The largest installed base of digital
> projectors in the US is Regal Cinemas, which are using them to provide
> the 20 minute advertising segment before each feature they call "The
> 2wenty".
The problem with this analysis is that you're mixing two kinds of
digital projectors.
The fancy Boeing/Texas Instruments projection systems are not what any
theater I've seen is showing their ads via. What's driving that is
the fact that you can buy these Epson digital projectors, created for
business presentations, for $1000 or less. The quality is nowhere
near that of the movie projection systems, and if they tried to show
the movie on them people would riot, but they're fine (in their minds)
for ads, no worse than a slide projector. So that's why the world is
full of theaters still only showing movies via 35mm film-- but showing
ads on basically a Powerpoint projector.
James Neibaur
bbir...@earthlink.net wrote on 12/27/03 7:35 PM:
> George seems to think that the movies have lost the
> technique of visual storytelling established in the silent era--though I'd
> offer
> up films like "The New Klondike" or "Volcano" or "The Big Killing" and beg to
> suggest that there were a lot of "visionless" buptkies made in the "golden
> age,"
> too.
I think Lost in Translation is a pretty good recent example of visual
storytelling as you suggest.
JN
George Shelps
>George seems to think that the movies
>have lost the technique of visual
>storytelling established in the silent
>era--though I'd offer up films like "The
>New Klondike" or "Volcano" or "The Big
>Killing" and beg to suggest that there
>were a lot of "visionless" buptkies made
>in the "golden age," too.
No, I don't think movies have lost the
technique of visual story-telling, I think
they have lost the vision of film as a
unique narrative language, which relies
on the placement of shots in juxtaposition
and of tension and patterning within the
frame---both to express advance the
plot and express ideas.
This did derive from the silent era, true,
but it survived in modified form throughout
most of the "Golden Age" of Hollywood.
until well into the 60s.
Presently, movies aim at (a) providing
a platform for the antics of highly-paid
performers who are relied on to bring
in the big weekend crowds and establish a "buzz" for the film and (b) a
high-priced, hypervisual, technically-sophisticated simulation of the
immediacy of television.
At some point, the television esthetic
took over, I'd say in the late 60s, after
the networks switched to all-color.
George Shelps
>"Definitive" is a vague honorific word
>used to express an arbitrary (or
>self-interested) preference for one object
>over another, as in the publisher's
>favorite description of the newest item
>on their list as the "definitive biography."
>It's hard to misuse a word like that.
I think you ought to go back and read
Lloyd Fonvielle's post where he discusses specific non-honorific
definitions
of "definitive."
>Early film buffs are generally inclined to
>believe that the earliest version of a film,
>or even a restoration of it by someone
>other than the filmmaker, is authoritative
>or "definitive." There is no objective
>basis for this belief in a case where the
>filmmaker himself created a later
>version.
Well, you could go by internal evidence
and conclude that the changes were not
for the better.
>You may believe that Chaplin was a
>better judge of his work at 32 than at
>70+. Can you prove it?
What in the arts can be "proved" in this
sense? Instead, you can look at Chaplin's creative effort in his 70s
versus his 30s
and make a reasonable inference that
his creative powers were diminished
later on.
> To your taste the earlier version may be
>better. You are certainly entitled to your
>preference, but what makes you think
>your taste is superior to the filmmaker's
>judgment at 70+?
Why are you trotting out subjectivism?
Everything in the arts is to some degree subjective.
You're using the term as a discussion-stopper here.
> You say that his late work was inferior.
>Still merely your opinion, but if so, there
>might be many reasons for this besides
>age. This argument is inherently ageist.
I don't believe you wrote that! It's
been a loooong time since I've seen
that relic of political correctness wheeled
out! LOL!
I don't think you can go through the history of film and show that the
movies made by film-makers in their
70s rank with the ones they made
in their 20s-30s-40s Movies, particularly, are a physically exhausting
art-form
in which age and stamina do figure
significantly.
>In the case of _The Kid_, I'd like to know
>why we should prefer a version that
>includes scenes the filmmaker at 70+
>judged to be dated, superfluous, and
>digressive, which arguably *are* dated,
>superfluous, and digressive.
"Arguably?" Didn't you just tell us
it's all subjective preference and
mere taste...so what "argument"
is makeable by that standard?
> From a strictly historical point of view,
>of course we want to have this version
>available for study, and those who prefer
>it should certainly be able to acquire and
>enjoy it, but why should we think it is the
>one that everyone should see, the one
>that should be considered "definitive"?
What "should?" No one is arguing
to suppress any version,
>The argument that Chaplin was in his
>dotage can hardly apply here, because
>the film's score is one of Chaplin's
>stronger efforts, indicating that he had a
>clear idea what he wanted while
>revisiting this film.
Different art form.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>> You may believe that Chaplin was a better judge of his
>>work at 32 than at 70+. Can you prove it?
>
> Yes. M. Verdoux, Limelight, A King in New York, A Countess From Hong Kong each progressively worse
> than the last and showing evidence of an artist completely out of touch with what made his earlier work
> great.
Case closed.
Brainbro3
them my 16mm copy of the Our Gang short "Wiggle your ears". They loved it! I
have a big room to show it in and the image was about 7feet wide on my screen,
the kids were entranced!
John Brain
Robert Lipton
I'm not sure there is any "why". I understand that the opinions of the
masses is not held in very high esteem by "artists" these days, and
frankly, considering the state of the old non-lively arts, this doesn't
worry me: we live in a state of mutual contempt. Nevertheless, as a
Macluhanist, I feel that any form of communications -- and that includes
art -- that fails to consider the viewer/auditor is faulty.
Certainly, speaking of art that is intended for commercial mass
appreciation, the appreciation of the masses mut apply. Nor are we
dealing here with people who are totally ignorant. And we have clear
evidence that Chaplin's revisiting of his earlier works was not fully
successful. Is there anyone here who prefers the 1942 version of THE
GOLD RUSH, even with the sound turned off?
We are not dealing here with some sensitive artist whose vision was
censored by a brutal studio. We are dealing with Chaplin who, in at
least one case -- the von Sternberg film -- was a brutal studio.
Although Chaplin's work was largely improvisational, judgments made
fifty years after the fact not only permit time for mature reflection.
They also present opportunities for artistic gaps. "What was I thinking
of?" If you don't know that, how can Chaplin say it was wrong, any more
than I?
Even if we concede all these issues, we can be certain of one thing: a
man in his 70s is unlikely to have the energy of a man in his early
1930s. Was Chaplin in his 70s the same man who at age 32 had shot
hundreds of takes to get it right, then kidnapped his film accross state
borders to maintain artistic control? Did he still have the same
hunger? No, it seems unlikely to me.
Don't monkey with a classic. Even if you were the person who created
it. Time rolls on, we can't step into the same stream twice. Leave
well enough alone.
Time has rolled on and those of us who love silent movies, not because
it was the work of our forebears (1) created them, not because we have
any financial interest in so doing -- even though there are among us
those who fall under those umbrellas, such issues are, I don't hesitate
to assert, minor -- but because we do love them for their own sake aare
gathered here. Some of us simply watch old films and lurk. Some work in
the film industry, write books on film, preserve old film or know the
name, it seems, of every silent film that has not survived and mourn its
death. Here on AMS, Constance, is where you find the real gahering of
of silent film scholars. If this group largely believes the earlier
version of THE KID is btter, then it probably is.
Not that the people on the Chaplin group are slouches when it comes to
Chaplin, of course....
Bob
Feuillade
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>> You may believe that Chaplin was
>> a better judge of his work at 32 than
>> at 70+. Can you prove it?
> Yes. M. Verdoux, Limelight, A King in
> New York, A Countess From Hong Kong
> each progressively worse than the last
> and showing evidence of an artist
> completely out of touch with what made
> his earlier work great.
I'd say the decline started even earlier -- when Chaplin started having to
write his scripts down he stopped being the same filmmaker.
There's a clunkiness to the construction of his later films, an A-B-C-ness,
that's absent from his earlier films.
And Chaplin would be far from being the only artist whose later work pales
beside his earlier work. John Dos Passos, John O'Hara and Ernest Hemingway are
just three examples that come to mind. Some people used to say that if Dickens
(although that opinion has changed in recent decades).
>> In the case of _The Kid_, I'd like to
>> know why we should prefer a
>> version that includes scenes the
>> filmmaker at 70+ judged to be dated,
>> superfluous, and digressive, which
>> arguably *are* dated, superfluous,
>> and digressive. From a strictly
>> historical point of view, of course we
>> want to have this version available for
>> study, and those who prefer it
>> should certainly be able to acquire
>> and enjoy it, but why should we
>> think it is the one that everyone
>> should see, the one that should be
>> considered "definitive"?
I would argue that it should be considered preferable, although arguably not
definitive.
The evidence suggests that artists who muck around with their own work decades
after the fact do their work more harm than good. Examples range from D.W.
Griffith to Steven Spielberg.
It is almost always better to see the film the filmmaker made originally, than
the second or third thoughts that they may have had twenty to forty years later
-- even though they are certainly entitled to those thoughts, which I like to
call the "New York Edition Syndrome."
>> The argument that Chaplin was in
>> his dotage can hardly apply here,
>> because the film's score is one of
>> Chaplin's stronger efforts, indicating
>> that he had a clear idea what he
>> wanted while revisiting this film.
The one doesn't follow from the other. The fact that Chaplin was capable of
composing a decent score does not necessarily validate his editorial choices.
> First, I completely disagree on the
> score. It is flat, repetitive and shows
> little of the nuance evident in Chaplin's
> earlier efforts.
Here I have to disagree with Bob. Chaplin's score for "The Kid" may not be his
best effort, to it's an effective piece of work and is probably better than
anything the Club Foot or Alloy Orchestras could do. It works with the film,
regardless of what it sounds like on its own.
> Eric James is no Alfred Newman or
> David Raksin, and clearly CC couldn't
> divine this.
Chaplin was probably hampered by who he could get to come to Switzerland to
work on the score for a protracted period. But I would still contend that the
score works as an accompaniment to the film.
> Second, I would cite Harold Lloyd's
> efforts to bring "The Freshman" up to
> date by cutting the "radio liar" and
> "crying" sequences from the film.
> The first was cut because he felt
> audiences would not understand it,
> the second was cut because he felt
> it made his character look weak.
> The film is stronger with these scene.
> Lloyd was wrong to want to cut them.
I agree.
> The fact is these films (The Kid, The
> Freshman, et. al.) are products of
> their times as well as products of the
> artists in question. The attempts to
> make them "timeless" actually make
> them less than what they are rather
> than more. The sentimental stuff that
> CC cut from The Kid is very much a
> part of the Victorian sensibilities that
> were inherent in Chaplin's art.
As well as his fascination with sexual heterodoxy, which dates back to his
mother.
> I would not go so far as to say that
> an artist should not have the right to
> amend his work at a later date--there
> are all sorts of commercial, practical
> and otherwise obscure reasons why
> this might be done from time to time.
Would you argue that the Jewish peddler be restored to Disney's "Three Little
Pigs"? I don't think the film has been seen in its original version since its
original release.
> What I would argue, however, is that
> the audience should have the right (in
> so far as it is possible) to see the
> original work that gained the critical
> reputation, and let the audience judge
> whether the filmmaker's revisions
> enhance or detract from the work.
I agree with Bob -- but then I usually do. :)
Dave Rice
thread.
I'm 25 and have been watching silents since I was 17 or so. No one
introduced me to them, I just happened to see "Horse Feathers" on tv
on day and things went quickly from there.
I think one's opinion on whether new faces are becoming silent film
fans depends on location. Last summer Ernest Lubitsch's films in NYC
at Film Forum were consistently selling out and mostly to a younger
crowd.
Also the Alloy Orchestra usually attracts younger audiences and even
have some children-focused shows. At the film preservation and
archiving schools at NYU, UCLA and the George Eastman House's Selznick
School are quite young, averaging under thirty.
I'm not sure if this is as true on the West Coast or the middle of the
country, but in New England and New York the crowds seem quite young.
Dave Rice
"Eric Miller" <Eric.B....@ou.edu> wrote in message news:<3BbGb.4343$6l1.2720@okepread03>...
> I'm 20 (I'll be 21 next month), and I've been posting here every now and
> then for more than a year. My biggest area of cinematic interest is the
> 1930s -- comedy, exploitation, and (mostly Poverty Row) horror. But I'm also
> very much into the silent era -- again, comedy and horror. I'm a huge fan of
> silent comedy from the 1910s, especially the mid-1910s, Keystone being the
> primary example. I've been collecting silent comedies on video for many
> years now.
Feuillade
>> feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>>> Lloyd Fonvielle navi...@earthlink.net writes:
>>>> I found a copy of the definitive
>>>> version of "The Kid", David
>>>> Shephard's [sic] out-of-print edition
>>>> for Image, which I gave my niece
>>>> & nephew, 6 & 10, for Christmas.
>>> I think you're misusing the term
>>> "definitive" here.
>>> You may believe that the Image DVD
>>> version of "The Kid" is preferable to
>>> the one recently put out by
>>> Time-Warner, but it is not "definitive"
>>> by any accepted definition of the term.
>> "Definitive" is a vague honorific word
>> used to express an arbitrary
>> (or self-interested) preference for
>> one object over another, [...]
Um, not really, no.
>> [...] as in the publisher's favorite
>> description of the newest item
>> on their list as the "definitive
>> biography." It's hard to misuse
>> a word like that.
Because a word is capable of being misused does not mean that the word has no
meaning.
When publishers use the word "definitive" in terms of a biography, they are
using the word in an entirely different sense than the one in play here. In
that context it generally means "the best biography until the next one comes
along."
In the context of discussing literary and/or cinematic texts, it means
something else.
I'll give a literary example.
James Joyce published Finnegans Wake in May of 1939.
The first edition pullulated with misprints and typos -- hundreds if not
thousands of them.
Joyce spent the last two years of his life correcting these typos.
The second edition (published in the 1940s) contained these corrections in an
errata list in the back of the book.
The third edition (published in 1958) had the corrections inserted into the
text.
Therefore the third edition is the definitive one, as it represents the
author's final text.
(Nonetheless, the current Penguin edition reprints the defective first edition,
for reasons which I cannot begin to fathom.)
>> Early film buffs are generally inclined
>> to believe that the earliest version of
>> a film, or even a restoration of it by
>> someone other than the filmmaker,
>> is authoritative or "definitive."
This is the exact opposite of what I've been saying.
I agree with Chaplin's children that the 1970s recut of "The Kid" is the
definitive edition, insofar as it represents Chaplin's final thoughts on the
film.
But I also agree that the film is better in its original release version, and I
would prefer to see that over Chaplin's recut -- even if that later version
should be considered definitive.
Definitive is not the same as preferable, as I've pointed out with Henry James'
early novels. The New York Edition is the definitive text, yet editors like
Penguin and Oxford routinely go back to the first editions for their texts --
and I agree with them for doing so.
James Neibaur
der...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/28/03 9:00 AM:
> No one
> introduced me to them, I just happened to see "Horse Feathers" on tv
> on day and things went quickly from there.
One of the problems I see is that there are fewer and fewer opportunities to
catch something like Horse Feathers on TV and get drawn into older films as
Dave describes.
JN