Raymond Rohauer
Joyce Turiskylie
on Raymond Rohauer. In general, I'd like to find out what this group thinks
about him both personally and professionally. I suppose I could start with
a specific question by asking what happened to cause a falling out between
him and Keaton? Thanks.
Karamzin
Never heard that one before. I knew Rohauer (worked for him for four
years, 1977-81, during which time I spent the better part of one day a
week just listening to him tell stories; he loved to talk about what
he did and who he knew) and I knew Eleanor Keaton very well for about
the last 15 years of her life. If what you mean is that Buster was not
terribly fond of Rohauer, that is probably correct, but Rohauer
probably wasn't the kind of person who could become a "pal" to anyone.
Reading about Richard Nixon's personality kept reminding me of
Rohauer: aloof, relentless, pursuing personal goals in a similarly
ruthless style. He was always even-tempered towards me, but I didn't
pose any "threat" to his empire. I witnessed occasions when he would
tear into someone whom he perceived as the enemy, and one time when he
verbally dressed down Mabel Langdon in a public restaurant. Rohauer's
half-brother and his niece reside in Buffalo, New York. Can't recall
the last name, but it's probably given in the Marion Meade book. You
might want to track them down.
Ed Watz
Michael Gebert
glancing references to Rohauer's paranoia about piracy and own activities
in that vein (far from the worst things I ever heard about him, I might
add). A letter strongly defending him and attacking me appeared in a
subsequent issue, but fortunately I didn't even need to defend myself
because someone else who had known him wrote in and described him as a man
who would "steal the mayonnaise off your sandwich."
___________________________________________________
Michael Gebert, Writer | www.michaelgebert.com
"Yesterday, as the nation waited for [President Bush's stem cell]
announcement, not one but four different flaks, officials, and cronies
took time out to tell the public how very hard the president was
thinking about this issue.
"How many smart people does one have to put on one's staff to
communicate that you are indeed a great thinker? One? Two?
Eleven? Why is it that you never hear about Einstein, or John
Kenneth Galbraith, or Martin Buber sending forth minions into the
night to inform the world that the big man is thinking? Might we
not have hoped that the man who runs the country is, likewise,
thinking all the time? How is it possible that we elected a president
to whom the state of being in thought is so utterly foreign that vast
battalions of foot soldiers must be dispatched to the blue room
just to advise us when it's happening?" --Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Joyce Turiskylie
but couldn't because of his reputation? And exactly how did he get his
hands on Sennett comedies? What proportion of them did he claim rights to?
"Michael Gebert" <mi...@michaelgebert.com> wrote in message
news:mike-27080...@user-33qt83c.dialup.mindspring.com...
Robert N. Farr
told about a year ago by many who had dealings with him. In a recent
Chaplin Courier, the publication of the UK Chaplin Society, Kevin Brownlow
writes about RR's acqusition of the Chaplin outtakes. It was borderline
theft.
Rob Farr
Joyce Turiskylie <hamper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ECAi7.8618$Ib.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jan Willis
And I've just started!
A nice Eric Grayson line about "Wade Williams, the
spiritual successor to Raymond Rohauer" in a thread on PLAN
9, for example.
But on to RR himself, now!!!
Jan Willis
Eric Grayson
wrote:
> This IS interesting, Rob!
> And I've just started!
> A nice Eric Grayson line about "Wade Williams, the
>spiritual successor to Raymond Rohauer" in a thread on PLAN
>9, for example.
> But on to RR himself, now!!!
Boy, I don't remember saying that but I know I did. It sounds like
something I would say.
If anyone would like to put vinegar dressing on his salad, I've got a print
of Thunderball I bought from Wade that should really do the trick...
Eric
Eric Grayson
<mailto:hamper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Is there any instance where Rohauer wanted to get his hands on some film,
>but couldn't because of his reputation?
Yes. There were a lot of people who just would not deal with him.
>And exactly how did he get his
>hands on Sennett comedies? What proportion of them did he claim rights
to?
He got his hands on the Sennett comedies by buying the rights from Sennett.
It was actually legal, if you can imagine such a thing. There are records
of it on file at the copyright office. He couldn't have gotten the rights
to too many of them, and many had already expired when he bought rights.
As far as I know, these would all have been the 1932-4 ones that Sennett
released through Paramount.
What's also interesting is that he tried to claim rights to some of the
public domain ones by using some of the most horrid arguments ever. My
favorite is the one where he claims that he owns the copyright to WC
Fields' song The Ballad of Chester, written by Fields, as used in The Fatal
Glass of Beer, which had had an expired copyright. He tried to buy
screenplay rights and such as well.
Eric
mack twamley
> because someone else who had known him wrote in and described him as a man
> who would "steal the mayonnaise off your sandwich."
I'm typing with tears of laughter in my eyes!
This reminds me of a quip used many years ago about Jack Warner.
"That Warner is so cheap, he had oilcloth pockets sewn in his suits so that
he could steal soup!"
Bobster123
across this interesting document:
http://www.ipmall.fplc.edu/ipcourses/jepson/copyright/ROHAUER.htm
Apparantly, he tried to sue Killiam Shows and a TV station in 1977 for showing
THE SON OF THE SHIEK- after he bought the rights from the author's daughter for
$1250.
Also interesting- it makes note of a lawsuit he apparantly filed against
Blackhawk Films in 1974.
Glamour Studios
considers Rohauer to be a weasel. The pertinent material on the Rohauer vs.
Eastin-Phelan Corp. (Blackhawk films) indicates that the case was dismissed because
Rohauer refused to submit to discovery by the defense, indicating he had plenty of
past behavior to hide.
-Archie Waugh
"For these reasons we hold that the licensing by Killiam of exhibition of the film
already copyrighted and its exhibition by Broadcasting did not violate the renewal
copyright. n12
n12 Plaintiffs-appellees contend that even assuming the general correctness of
our conclusion, there would be an infringement here since the print licensed
by Killiam was used by Broadcasting to create a new videotape for television
transmission; plaintiffs contend that this amounts to a "new version" of the
original film. Since it was stipulated that such a videotape was necessary for
television transmission, we see no reason to consider this tape to be a new
version of the film. As appellees admit, only a few new subtitles were used in
the videotape; the newly incorporated music alone, which was certainly not
within plaintiffs' copyright, is not sufficient to make it a new work.
[*495] In view of this holding we have no occasion to pass on the various
affirmative defenses raised by appellants and rejected by the District Court.
[**35] There
are two principal ones. Plaintiff Rohauer is alleged to come into court with
unclean hands since he frequently exhibited the movie prior to 1965 without
obtaining a
license either from Miss Hull or from the proprietors of the motion picture
copyright. The other is a defense of res judicata based upon a judgment of the
District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa in an action by Rohauer against another
licensee of Killiam which the latter defended, where the court dismissed the
complaint because of Rohauer's refusal to submit to discovery, Rohauer v.
Eastin-Phelan Corporation, Civ. 72-25-D (S.D. Iowa, Feb. 7, 1974), aff'd, 499 F.2d
120 (8
Cir. 1974). If we were obliged to rule on these defenses, we would regard them as
warranting somewhat more consideration than did the district judge.
The judgment is reversed with instructions to dismiss the complaint."
Joyce Turiskylie
get his credentials (I use this word because I can't think of another)? The
first time I've stumbled across his name has always been in connection to
Keaton's old films found in James Mason's house (formerly Keaton's). From
what I understand, Mason called Rohauer before Keaton---is that correct?
And, if so, why Rohauer? How did he get his start?
Joyce
"Glamour Studios" <glam...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3B8C651E...@gte.net...
Robert N. Farr
read James Card's "Seductive Cinema", he and his friends used to give away
Kodascope two-reelers as souveniers. There just wasn't a market for them.
If you had film to sell in LA, Rouhauer was the man to go to (in the East it
was Card or Everson). I think that Rohauer just let it be known that if you
had film or rights to a film he was in the market. He had very little
competition.
Rob Farr
Joyce Turiskylie <hamper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rbgj7.5287$Fv3.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
RobtMcKay
>If you had film to sell in LA, Rouhauer was the man to go to
I may be wrong, but I believe at that time (the mid 1950s) Rohauer was
operating a small revival theatre in Hollywood, running old films on a regular
basis. So perhaps that is the reason James Mason contacted him regarding the
Keaton films.
Rob McKay
Lincoln Spector
Francisco, one of the best regular silent film venues I've ever known. Bob
Vaughn played the Wurlitzer, and it was very much an
everyone-knew-everyone-else kind of crowd. The name "Raymond Rohauer" was
often repeated with anger and disgust.
Anyway, one night, as an extra little surprise, they showed a short film
called "Raymond Rohauer Presents The Sneeze." It was, of course, the early
Fred Ott <sp> sneeze film from the Edison Labs, but packaged as if produced
by Rohauer. I saw this over 20 years ago, but I think it went something like
this:
It was mostly title cards. First was a long one warning everybody that
Rohauer owned all rights to The Sneeze, and anyone presenting the movies
without written permission of Raymond Rohauer would be sued.
Then it told, in a long series of wordy cards, the historical significance
of the film, including a quote from Mrs. Ott about her husband's one great
chance at immortality.
Then came a card informing us that the story line of The Sneeze was
copyrighted by Raymond Rohauer, and that anyone who sneezed without written
permission would be sued.
When it finally got to the movie, two dialog title cards had been added:
"Ahhh" and "Choo!"
A final title card said it was property of Raymond Rohauer.
Lincoln
Robert N. Farr
Shepard who said he would still offer then to interested collectors at cost.
Rob Farr
Lincoln Spector <lin...@dnai.com> wrote in message
news:a3Bj7.3209$Dv6.1...@nnrp5-w.sbc.net...
FLEXARET2
I will now say something kind about Raymond Rohauer and you may drum me off
this group - but all is true.
I first met him in the early 1960s when he responded to an ad I had in
Films in Review, selling old 16MM silent comedies. I met him in New York and
sold him a large group of these films. At the time I had never heard of him at
all.
I was in contact with him intermittently over the years. He invited me to
interview Ken Maynard in the mid 60s, when he was working at NBC on a
"westerns" show on the Today Show. I did an article about this in
Screen Thrills Illustrated magazine.
When he was the curator of the Gallery of Modern Art in New York,
which ran fine film shows with guests - he put me on his mailing list and comp
guest list without asking.
I have no reason to doubt that all of the legendary stories about him are true.
However, I never had anything but courtesy from him.
He invited me to have lunch with him in New York with a mutual friend
some years back and he was sure to document the lunch with photos,
which he sent me copies of.
At the time I didn't know he had only a few months more to live.
I am sure that he made many contributions to the archiving/showing
of old films - many which are generally unknown.
To me the glass is never half empty - but half full.
- Sam Sherman
Joyce Turiskylie
research at UCLA Archives and someone there told me that occasionally they
screen something from the Rohauer collection, and when his name comes on the
screen, members of the audience boo. Amazing.
"Robert N. Farr" <lipp...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9mpfju$8kn$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Darren
"Robert N. Farr" wrote:
> If you do a Google search on RR, you will see some juicy stories that were
> told about a year ago by many who had dealings with him. In a recent
> Chaplin Courier, the publication of the UK Chaplin Society, Kevin Brownlow
> writes about RR's acqusition of the Chaplin outtakes. It was borderline
> theft.
>
> Rob Farr
Hello,
I did a search and no article. Can this back issue be found on-line?
If not please summarise. :)
Darren Nemeth
dnem...@sprynet.com
Owner of "Giant Squid Audio Lab" - Specialists in durable, high
fidelity Binaural / Stereo and Mono miniature microphones
for discriminating DAT and Mini Disc recording enthusiasts.
http://www.giant-squid-audio-lab.com/
Precode
Turiskylie says...
>
>I remember that thread. I also remember last summer I was doing some
>research at UCLA Archives and someone there told me that occasionally they
>screen something from the Rohauer collection, and when his name comes on the
>screen, members of the audience boo. Amazing.
Not everyone boos. Some merely hiss and throw vegetables.
Mike S.