Cinecon 42 Review
ChaneyFan
I had to leave Cinecon a day early, so this will probably be the first
official review that gets posted. I thought this was a great Cinecon.
Only two guests resulted in only two 50s films, which is two too many,
but also a big improvement over past years. Lots of rare stuff, nearly
all in 35mm, made the whole weekend a real treat. Specific comments
follow. All films in 35mm unless indicated otherwise. Ratings are *
(worst) to **** (best).
THE SLEEPING CITY (1950, Universal) Richard Conte is a police
investigator disguised as a doctor at a large hospital trying to find
out who murdered an intern. Coleen Gray is the nurse who is helping
him...or is she? Slick film noir was fun, and Gray was present to tell
some great stories afterwards. ***
UP THE ROAD WITH SALLIE (1918, Selznick) Constance Talmadge stars in a
thoroughly charming road picture...sort of a genteel THELMA AND LOUISE,
with Connie and her aunt traveling through the country, running into
apparent crooks (Norman Kerry and ). One of the few surviving William
Desmond Taylor pictures. A cute, funny little comedy. (Jon Mirsalis
on piano) ***
THE CHEAT (1931, Paramount) Almost a scene-for-scene remake of the
1915 DeMille silent with Tallulah Bankhead in the Fanny Ward role and
the deliciously slimy Irving Pichel in the Sessue Hayakawa part. I
prefer the silent, but this was still a lot of fun. ***
GRAFT (1931, Universal) Regis Toomey is a reporter with a brain
working at quarter-speed, who ineptly tries to solve a murder that
implicates Sue Carol. Best part is Boris Karloff as the vicious
henchman of an underworld boss. I would have liked this better if
Toomey hadn't been such a loser. **½
CHICAGO (1927, DeMille) I've seen this twice before, but I really
loved this original adaptation of the play that begat ROXIE HART and
the recent Broadway musical and film. Phyllis Haver is simply luscious
and the film takes many great twists and turns. One of my favorites of
the weekend, especially in a newly restored 35mm print. (Jon Mirsalis
on piano) ***½
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH (1929, Paramount) Original version of the Bob
Hope film and, more recently LIAR LIAR, has stockbroker Richard Dix
betting he can tell the truth for 24 hours, with predictably
embarrassing results. Best part is Helen Kane doing one of her
"Boop-Oop-a-Doop" nightclub numbers. Had lots of fun moments, but
was very creaky. **½
THIS THING CALLED LOVE (1941, Columbia) was one of the surprises of the
weekend. A stunning print that looked like nitrate helped this story
of Rosalind Russell marrying Melvyn Douglas, but she wants to try her
new theory for successful marriage...no sex for 3 months! About 20 min
too long, but exceedingly funny. ***1/2
SELFISH YATES (1918, Artcraft) was a major disappointment for me. Wm
S. Hart is a saloon owner who is transformed by good woman Jane Novak.
Seeing a gorgeous restored tinted 35mm of a rare Hart should have been
Nirvana, but this was very slow and stilted except for the last 10 min
which was classic iconic Hart, with Bill holding a crowd at bay with
his six-guns, while he lets the sort-of villain escape. (Phil Carli on
piano) **½
ROMANCE OF THE UNDERWORLD (1928, Fox) A snappy melodrama about dance
hall girl Mary Astor who decides to better herself, eventually marrying
wealthy John Boles, but her criminal past starts to catch up with her.
Starts out pretty predictably, but then veers off in an unexpected
direction with a truly unusual ending. (Jon Mirsalis on piano; 16mm)
***
ASK A POLICEMAN (1938, Gainsborough) Will Hay is an acquired taste, so
you either love 'em or hate 'em. This lowbrow comedy had Will and
his buddies Graham Moffatt and MooreMarriott as three inept policemen
who run into a gang of smugglers. Cheap laughs, but I have to admit
that it was pretty funny. ***
RED LIGHTS (1922, Goldwyn) This was a repeat showing of a truly weird
comedy with Raymond Griffith as a "Crime Deflector" who prevents
crime before it happens. Starts out slow and incomprehensible, but the
second half, on a runaway train, is wonderful. (Phil Carli on piano)
***
MOONRISE (1948, Republic) A rarely seen Frank Borzage drama about Dane
Clark accidentally killing a very young Lloyd Bridges, then trying to
cover up the crime, while getting involved with Gail Russell. A
terrific supporting cast with Allyn Joslyn as the easy going sheriff,
Ethel Barrymore as Clark's grandmother, Rex Ingram as his 'coon-dog
raising buddy, and Harry Morgan as a deaf mute. Brooding, atmospheric,
and very nicely done. ***
PHIL FOR SHORT (1917, World-Peerless) Damophilia, Phil for short, is
the daughter of a Greek professor, who gets involved with a young
professor who has sworn off women. Evelyn Greely is quite charming in
the title role, and the film starts off great, but it goes on several
reels too long and simply runs out of steam long before the end. (Phil
Carli on piano) **½
ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT (1929, Universal) Reginald Denny's first talkie
has him inheriting $3 million, but his relatives try to get him
committed by sending him to a sanitarium dressed as Napoleon, while
telling him he's attending a masquerade ball. Sounds like it could
be a good premise, but this was utterly, totally, unbearably unfunny
and stiff. The only real stinker of the weekend. *½
HEAD OVER HEELS (1922, Goldwyn) An odd looking Russian acrobat is
brought to America by Adolph Menjou (who has a surprisingly small
part), where she gets an Extreme Makeover and is turned into...Mabel
Normand. A cute little film, but unfortunately, the ending is lost and
was explained in a closing wrap-up title. Still, a nice little film.
(Jon Mirsalis on piano) **½
A number of shorts were run as well: HOLLYWOOD CITY OF CELLULOID
(c1935) was a terrific travelogue showing Hollywood in the 30s. The
shocking thing is how barren it looked. No tall buildings, just lots
of bungalows, with a few studios thrown in. Very interesting! ***
THE STAR BOARDERS (1915) was a Ham and Bud. Need I say more? I've
seen this before, perhaps at Niles, and once was more than enough.
(Phil Carli on piano; 16mm) ** FAIR PLAY was a funny Scrappy cartoon
***, and we saw a fragment of a Tom Mix Selig, THE RAIDERS (1916) (Phil
Carli on piano; **½).. PECULIAR PATIENTS' PRANKS (1915) was a very
early Harold Lloyd Lonesome Luke. Not very good, but historically
interesting, and when will you ever see another of these in 35mm! (Jon
Mirsalis on piano) ** ERNIE KOVACS COLOR SPECIAL (1957; video
projection) was a very unusual color Kinescope of an Ernie Kovacs
special that was nearly dialogue free. Very strange, and quite funny.
*** WET AND WARMER was a truly strange short directed by Henry Lehrman
that consisted primarily of people running around a hotel in a state of
delerium. Very odd, interesting to watch, but not terribly funny.
Lehrman clearly needed to change his medication regimen. (Jon Mirsalis
on piano) **½ MABEL'S DRAMATIC CAREER (1913) was an early Keystone
noteworthy more for a guest appearance of Roscoe Arbuckle, but how
often do you get to see a Keystone in a sharp 35mm print! (Phil Carli
on piano) **½
All-in-all, a great weekend. I'm sorry I had to miss Monday morning,
because there was more great stuff that I hope others will review. As
always, thanks to Bob Birchard, Michael Schlesinger, Stan Taffel, and
all the regular volunteer workings and projectionists who worked so
hard to pull this off.
hnico...@earthlink.net
> comedy with Raymond Griffith as a "Crime Deflector" who prevents
> crime before it happens. Starts out slow and incomprehensible, but the
> second half, on a runaway train, is wonderful. (Phil Carli on piano)
Where was the copy of this from?
Henry Nicolella
ChaneyFan
UP THE ROAD WITH SALLIE (1918, Selznick) Constance Talmadge stars in a
thoroughly charming road picture...sort of a genteel THELMA AND LOUISE,
with Connie and her aunt traveling through the country, running into
apparent crooks (Norman Kerry and Thomas Persee)....
ChaneyFan
Warner Brothers Classics (from the Turner collection) has this. This
is one of the Goldwyns that went to MGM, then Turner bought the library.
haub...@yahoo.com
>
> A number of shorts were run as well: HOLLYWOOD CITY OF CELLULOID
> (c1935) was a terrific travelogue showing Hollywood in the 30s. The
> shocking thing is how barren it looked. No tall buildings, just lots
> of bungalows, with a few studios thrown in. Very interesting! ***
This short was great, though obviously unauthorized (the glimpses of
celebrities included the back of Harold Lloyd's head, Maurice Chevalier
ducking from the camera, and Greta Garbo's house).
My guess is that it was made in the summer of 1932. At least that's
probably when the stuff shot at the Mack Sennett studio was filmed,
since the scene with Charles Gemora as the gorilla next to the car
looked like it was from SING, BING, SING with Bing Crosby, filmed in
June 1932 (but released in 1933).
Brent Walker
Christopher Snowden
on Friday morning. So I woke up at three, hit the road at four with
enough sourdough and Green Day to sustain me, and barreled into
Hollywood 400 miles later in time for the show.
I didn't have to wait long to experience this year's Hollywood
Moment: passing Batman on the sidewalk, on my way to the Egyptian. The
Caped Crusader was strolling past the Burger King in a casual manner
which assured me that Hollywood was about as safe as Hollywood gets.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CHICAGO (1927) I expected this to be one of the best films of the
weekend, and it was. This roadshow version was about a reel longer than
it needed to be (in fact, just about every feature I saw at Cinecon was
overlong by a reel or two), but it kept moving and was a lot of fun. It
would've been a lot more effective dramatically if so much of it hadn't
been played for laughs (especially in the trial sequence), but when a
film is this entertaining, who cares? Phyllis Haver jump-started her
career playing money-hungry vixens around this time (THE WAY OF ALL
FLESH was another example), then married a real-life millionaire and
retired. There's a lesson to be learned there, but I'm not sure what it
is. ***1/2
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH (1929) Cinecon is becoming the premier
festival to see 1929 talkies that suck. This was another of them. But
Ned Sparks and Helen Kane were fun, so this was arguably worth seeing
once. **
KIKI (1926) I actually skipped this screening because I'd seen it
at the Stanford recently. After watching three or four Norma Talmadge
films, all from her peak period, I still don't understand her appeal to
audiences of the silent era. She's pretty annoying in this film, and
way too old for a role that would've been a better fit for someone like
Clara Bow. And like a lot of 1920s star vehicles, KIKI is padded out to
eight or nine reels when six would've been plenty. Still, the next time
a Norma Talmadge film comes down the pike, I'll be there to see it, in
hopes of discovering what folks saw in her way back when. **
THIS THING CALLED LOVE (1940) The writers and producers of this
film must have been geniuses to find a way to sneak this sex comedy
past the Breen Office. Melvyn Douglas and Rosalind Russell were fine
performers, but I wasn't feeling the heat somehow. Some good scenes now
and then, but the film wandered around in search of its own conclusion,
and by the time it found one, I'd already checked out. Would love to
see the Edmund Lowe pre-Coder that inspired this. **1/2
SELFISH YATES (1918) Was there a lot of footage missing from this?
It played out like a big two-reeler, rather than a feature. Not a lot
of story, and what there was involved a girl who *doesn't* get attacked
by a scumbag but hovers near death for a long time anyway. I kind of
liked what there was to this film, but we expect better things from
Hart. **1/2
ROMANCE OF THE UNDERWORLD (1928) After watching a string of
disappointing films, it was exhilerating to see a great unknown like
this. The print wasn't much, but the film kicked butt all over town.
There isn't a wasted frame in the whole thing, with a snappy script,
sharp performances and a lot of witty, stylish direction (from Irving
Cummings, of all people). In many ways this was THE CANADIAN of this
year's Cinecon. Robert Elliott was letter-perfect as the street-wise
detective, giving the best performance of the weekend. ****
RED LIGHTS (1923) Boy, I wanted to love this, and I did enjoy
Raymond Griffith, but the film is just too much of a scattered mess. It
wraps up with a great runaway-traincar sequence, though. The people who
requested this film to be shown again must've remembered that action
climax, and forgot about the five reels of confusing tedium that
preceded it. I can't recommend this film, but when it's good, it's
really good. **1/2
PHIL FOR SHORT (1919) It may have raised eyebrows back in 1919 to
have a leading lady wear overalls and call herself Phil. Or maybe not.
(Find me a silent drama where the leading man wears dresses and calls
himself Evelyn. *That* would impress me.) It's all very nice that the
film is about a gal who does as she pleases and doesn't give in to
other people's conventions, but a plot would've been even better. Maybe
I should give it bonus points for its progressive heroine, but when a
film comes this close to putting me in a coma, I just can't. **
ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT (1929) The curse of the 1929 talkie struck
again. At least this one had remarkable image and sound quality, plus
Slim Summerville as a mincing Robin Hood. Reginald Denny was just as
pleasant a leading man as he was in his silents, but this would've been
pretty dull as just a one-reeler; at 75 long minutes, it was tough to
sit through. *
VITAPHONE: THE SOUND OF THE 1920s (2006) This collection of
vintage Vitaphone musical and novelty shorts was really delightful.
There must've been ten or so, all with flawless sound and picture, and
they were all fun. Some of them were really special. I like Vitaphones
best in small doses, though, and as entertaining as these shorts were,
I was ready for a change of pace after an hour or so. But when they're
as good as these were, I'll take 'em anyway I can get 'em. ***1/2
HEAD OVER HEELS (1922) I didn't get my hopes up for this Mabel
Normand picture, but to my surprise it was a lot of fun. Most of the
laughs were provided by the title-writer, but Mabel did get one
delightful vamp fantasy sequence, the highlight of the film, and it was
as funny as the one in GIRL SHY. Even better, Mabel was just about as
beautiful in this film as in her Keystones. (She looked good in bangs,
but to me *all* women do.) Better still, Jon Mirsalis turned in his
best score of the weekend. A real treat. ***
BETTY TAKES A HAND (1918) I'm not a big fan of Triangle
productions, and I've never worshipped at the shrine of Olive Thomas,
but this film was really pretty good. She was more charming than
beautiful, at least to me, but she really had some star power. This
film would've been flat as a fritter if most anyone else had played her
role, because there wasn't much of a story to carry it along. In fact,
give Clara Bow another assignment, put Olive Thomas in KIKI and you'd
really have something. **1/2
LORD JIM (1925) It's a shame this film sagged in the middle, or it
might've really been a winner. As it was, I thought it was very good,
with Percy Marmont as a gentleman who tries to maintain a high standard
of conduct in a sweltering world of cruelty and sudden death. I think I
understand why Frederica didn't like it, but the film worked for me.
Just once I'd like to see a silent film where a girl is rescued by a
guy and *doesn't* immediately fall desperately in love with him,
though. Probably my favorite Phil Carli score of the weekend. ***
THE BARKER (1928) Just about the only part-talkie I've seen where
the silent parts and the talkie parts are equally effective... and
certainly the only one where the transitions felt so natural. Great
performances all around, and Milton Sills really stood out for me. He
would've been *so* perfect at Warner Bros. if he'd only lived long
enough. This guy really deserves a retrospective sometime. If THE
BARKER ever turns up on TCM, don't miss it. ***1/2
THE GIRL IN THE PULLMAN (1927) This was another one I really
wanted to like, but it was just too much of a mess. The whole cast was
wonderful; even Heinie Conklin was a plus. Come to think of it, he
looked better in blackface than he ever did without it. Anyway, this
one fell apart in the screenwriter's hands. Too bad. It had a lot of
potential, but I guess it was worth seeing once. **
START CHEERING (1938) This Columbia programmer was inevitably
going to be a lightweight movie, but there were enough fun throwaway
bits to make it a pretty good show. Jimmy Durante, Walter Connolly, the
Three Stooges, Professor I.Q., Chaz Chase, Louis Prima, and a few other
ingredients made this a pleasant diversion. Leading man Charles
Starrett was almost as rigid a piece of wood as PHIL FOR SHORT's Hugh
Thompson, but in this case no harm was done. **1/2
Other programs:
EDNA PURVIANCE: THE ANGEL FROM NEVADA (2006) Many thanks to the
Cinecon crew for booking three excellent special programs at the hotel.
This documentary-in-progress was well worth seeing. I was disappointed
that we learned more about Edna's relationship with her local library
than about her role in the Courtland Dines scandal, or about her
romance with Chaplin, but there was still a lot of good stuff here, and
many photos available nowhere else. ***
THE WOMAN WITH THE HUNGRY EYES (2006) I didn't hear any buzz about
this Theda Bara documentary all weekend, either before or after the
screening, but it was very well done. Who would've expected that so
little extant footage could support a 100-minute documentary about a
film star? Hugh Munro Neely pulled it off, though. The film takes pains
to explain that Theda wasn't actually a bad actress: she was just
employing a particular archaic approach to acting. Sorry, though, she
really and truly was a bad actress. But she's also an icon, and this
documentary brings her to life better than anything else ever has, or
will. Loads of beautiful Debussy melodies, too. ***
Marc Wanamaker's INTOLERANCE Slideshow I didn't hear any buzz for
this either, and the room was only about three-quarters full. Shame on
all you guys who missed this presentation. It was terrific. Dozens of
ultra-rare photos, tracing the development of Griffith's Fine Arts
studio and the production of INTOLERANCE, especially the creation and
slow decay of that legendary Babylon set. Marc was a font of
interesting information, too; it wasn't simply a series of photos on a
screen. ***1/2
I had to bail before it was over, unfortunately; David Totheroh
was picking me up for a wonderful field trip to the remains of the St.
Francis Dam, the collapse of which killed 350 people in 1928. Ken
Maynard's $50,000 REWARD (1924) was shot there during the dam's
construction. (Hey... maybe if the leading lady had been less
distractingly attractive than Esther Ralston, that dam would still be
standing today.)
Shorts:
THE STAR BOARDERS (1916) Everybody busts on Ham and Bud, but I was
hearing a lot of laughs and gasps during this, and I thought it was
great. ***
FARE PLAY (1932) More alcohol-drenched delirium from Charles
Mintz, but it's hard not to be disappointed with a Scrappy cartoon that
doesn't have Scrappy in it. Did Harry Cohn have him on suspension?
**1/2
THE RAIDERS (1916) Let me see if I'm psychic: I'm predicting Bob
Birchard scheduled this! A truncated but gorgeously sharp Tom Mix
short, it was hard to tell what was going on, other than people
galloping around shooting at each other. But I liked it. **1/2
PECULIAR PATIENTS' PRANKS (1915) Another fabulously sharp, clear
print, this time an incredibly early Harold Lloyd comedy. Not very
good, but interesting from an historical standpoint. The film is set in
a low-rent clinic, and ends with Lonesome Luke chloroforming teen-aged
Bebe Daniels into unconsciousness, dumping her onto his bed,
chloroforming everyone else and then turning back to Bebe just as the
surviving material runs out. Hmm. **
WET AND WARMER (1920) Billie Ritchie seems to have started his
film career as a psuedo-Chaplin, and ended it as a psuedo-Billy Bevan.
This Henry Lehrman-directed short is more frantic than funny, but it's
so hysterically, outrageously excessive as to be unforgettable. Run it
again. ***
MABEL'S DRAMATIC CAREER (1913) I've never seen a Keystone short
look this good. That print couldn't have looked any better if it'd been
struck from the camera negative. Mack Sennett carries the comedy in
this one, but there are some laughs in it just the same, thanks mainly
to Ford Sterling. Interesting glimpses of one-sheets for Keystone
releases AT TWELVE O'CLOCK and BARNEY OLDFIELD'S RACE FOR A LIFE were
on display down at the nickelodeon. **1/2
PHOTOPLAY SCREEN MAGAZINE FRAGMENT (1920) Heavily decomped, but
fabulous behind-the-scenes footage on view. I loved the impromptu scene
of Edna Purviance, Virginia Rappe, and Olive Thomas sitting side by
side; Edna's more relaxed, cheery and beautiful in this tiny throwaway
clip than in any of her Chaplin appearances. You don't even notice
Olive Thomas, and that's saying something. Great footage of that
Babylon set, too, or of its ruins, anyway. ****
PUNCH OF THE IRISH (1921) Another silly and breathless Lehrman
comedy, but with some solid laughs in it, and a rare performance by
Virginia Rappe to boot. Frederica will kill me for this, but I thought
Virginia's fashions were pretty awful. Giant spots just don't belong on
stockings, and the less said about that wide-hipped outfit, the better.
Nice to see her, though... and slapstick stalwarts like George Rowe and
Billy Engle.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This year's themes:
1. From stage to screen: loads of films adapted from plays
2. Silents where people say "hell" or "damn" (SELFISH YATES, LORD JIM,
ROMANCE OF THE UNDERWORLD, etc.)
3. Vampery in action (CHICAGO, GIRL IN THE PULLMAN, HEAD OVER HEELS)
4. Trouble on trains (RED LIGHTS, GIRL IN THE PULLMAN, START CHEERING
sorta)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hats off to Bob, Robert, Stan, Mike and the rest of the Cinecon
team for another enjoyable weekend, and for some unforgettable film
treats.
ChaneyFan
Christopher Snowden wrote:
>>>(re: HEAD OVER HEELS) Better still, Jon Mirsalis turned in his best score of the weekend.
I guess that's what makes horse races. I would have rated this as my
WORST score of the weekend! I can actually tell whether a score is
going over well. I will sometimes be playing thinking, "Damn this
score sucks. What IS wrong with me tonight?" And other times I am
thinking, "Hey, this is coming out pretty well!" I would have ranked
my scores for features as:
1. CHICAGO
2. ROMANCE OF THE UNDERWORLD
3. UP THE ROAD WITH SALLIE
4. HEAD OVER HEELS
Nevertheless, glad you enjoyed HEAD OVER HEELS Chris!
Harlett O'Dowd
Christopher Snowden wrote:
> VITAPHONE: THE SOUND OF THE 1920s (2006) This collection of
> vintage Vitaphone musical and novelty shorts was really delightful.
> There must've been ten or so, all with flawless sound and picture, and
> they were all fun. Some of them were really special. I like Vitaphones
> best in small doses, though, and as entertaining as these shorts were,
> I was ready for a change of pace after an hour or so. But when they're
> as good as these were, I'll take 'em anyway I can get 'em. ***1/2
Chris, I agree with you that Vitaphones work better in small doses. I
wish there was a way Evil Bob could show these programs in two to four
parts over the weekend. But even in a two-hour chunk they're
indispensible.
I know you typed a whole lot already, but could someone give a full
description of titles and content for us po folk who couldn't get out
this year?
Many thanks.
John Aldrich
<chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, I didn't make the Vitaphone shorts but I'm pretty sure
this is what they screened:
THE SOUND OF THE '20S: VITAPHONE SHORTS (1927-29)
The Vitaphone Corporation, an enterprise created by Warner Brothers to
develop sound motion pictures, filmed musicians, vaudeville acts and
radio stars in its studios in New York and Los Angeles. Beside a
number of popular dance bands of the day, tonight's program offers the
virtuosic showmanship of Bernardo de Pace, "the Wizard of the
Mandolin," and violinist Sol Violinsky, dubbed "the Eccentric
Entertainer." Comedy duos Sinclair and La Marr, Mayer and Evans, and
Shaw and Lee provide a taste of vaudeville, as does the short "The
Night Court," starring a young William Demarest. And you won't want to
miss the Police Quartette, "composed of four singing cops from
Hollywood," according to the Vitaphone catalog.
POLICE QUARTETTE
(1927) Production #2320. 35mm, 8 min.
THE NIGHT COURT
(1927) Production #2138. 35mm, 9 min.
SHAW AND LEE, "THE BEAU BRUMMELS"
(1928) Production #2686. 35mm, 8 min.
DICK RICH AND HIS MELODIOUS MONARCHS
(1928) Production #2595. 35mm, 9 min
SOL VIOLINSKY, "THE ECCENTRIC ENTERTAINER"
(1929) Production #709. 35mm, 7 min
THE ROOF GARDEN REVUE
(1928) Production #2627. 35mm, 9 min
PAUL TREMAINE AND HIS ARISTOCRATS
(1929) Production #742. 35mm, 9 min
ETHEL SINCLAIR AND MARGE LA MARR, "AT THE SEASHORE"
(1929) Production #753. 35mm, 8 min
EARL BURTNETT AND HIS BILTMORE HOTEL ORCHESTRA
(1928) Production #2294. 35mm, 9 min
RAY MAYER AND EDITH EVANS, "WHEN EAST MEETS WEST"
(1928) Production #2236. 35mm, 8 min
ABE LYMAN AND HIS ORCHESTRA
(1927) Production #2338. 35mm, 10 min.
This was the Vitaphone program screened as part of the UCLA Festival
of Preservation in 2004. UCLA had another batch of terrific
Vitaphones in the Festival this year and perhaps they will make it
into the program of a future Cinecon.
--John
Bob Lipton
The also showed it at the FIlm Forum, and this summer, at the Donnelly
Library in Manhattan. At the Film Forum, the big hit was Mayer and Evans.
Bob
Harlett O'Dowd
John Aldrich wrote:
> SOL VIOLINSKY, "THE ECCENTRIC ENTERTAINER"
> (1929) Production #709. 35mm, 7 min
Oooh. What did Sol do?
haub...@yahoo.com
Christopher Snowden wrote:
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> This year's themes:
> 1. From stage to screen: loads of films adapted from plays
> 2. Silents where people say "hell" or "damn" (SELFISH YATES, LORD JIM,
> ROMANCE OF THE UNDERWORLD, etc.)
> 3. Vampery in action (CHICAGO, GIRL IN THE PULLMAN, HEAD OVER HEELS)
> 4. Trouble on trains (RED LIGHTS, GIRL IN THE PULLMAN, START CHEERING
> sorta)
Item #3 also ties in with another theme this year...ex-Sennett Girls
strutting their stuff in features. In leading roles we had Phyllis
Haver, Marie Prevost (twice), Mabel Normand and Gloria Swanson (not at
her best in Gloria's case). And in key supporting roles: Julia Faye,
Kathryn McGuire and Alice Lake.
Brent Walker
John Aldrich
<chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote:
Oh, he just plays violin and piano...AT THE SAME TIME!
Frederica
Christopher Snowden wrote:
> PUNCH OF THE IRISH (1921) Another silly and breathless Lehrman
> comedy, but with some solid laughs in it, and a rare performance by
> Virginia Rappe to boot. Frederica will kill me for this, but I thought
> Virginia's fashions were pretty awful. Giant spots just don't belong on
> stockings, and the less said about that wide-hipped outfit, the better.
> Nice to see her, though... and slapstick stalwarts like George Rowe and
> Billy Engle.
<grumble.> To be honest, I don't know if the bathing ensemble and the
gauzy skirt were Virginia's design. I have no photos of those outfits
outside of those from PUNCH. The suit she wore later in the film was
definitely hers. The clothing she wore did for herself was usually
fairly conservative but with a simple and modern cut. But I have
photos of outfits that are eye-popping...the hat with the tiny
propellor, for instance. <boggle>.
The stockings were LACE, Chris. Although I still can't figure out why
anyone would wear lace to swim in, outside of a Lehrman film. At that,
it wasn't as eye-popping as Swanson's bathing ensemble in...that
DeMille film.
As my German is non-existant, I didn't catch any of the subtle nuance
I'm sure was there. Chris Jacobs informed me that some of the titles
were funny. I take his word for it.
Frederica
lzcutter
We were finishing up on our unexpected move over the Cinecon weekend.
Is there any chance that Mark Wanamaker will be giving his Intolerance
slide show later this fall, perhaps at the DeMille Barn or part of a
Hollywood Heritage event?
Lynn (still) in Sherman Oaks
precode
>
>
> Chris, I agree with you that Vitaphones work better in small doses. I
> wish there was a way Evil Bob could show these programs in two to four
> parts over the weekend. But even in a two-hour chunk they're
> indispensible.
>
Much as I like to see Evil Bob on the receiving end of grief, I'll take
responsibility for the scheduling. However, the program was designed by
UCLA to be run as a single entity, with opening and closing credits, so
we respected their wishes.
Mike S.
BTW, ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT was listed at 75 minutes, but came in at
around 60, leaving us with quite a time gap. Nothing seemed to be
missing, though...
Frederica
precode wrote:
>
> BTW, ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT was listed at 75 minutes, but came in at
> around 60, leaving us with quite a time gap. Nothing seemed to be
> missing, though...
Really? I guess it only felt like four hours.
Frederica
repro...@earthlink.net
Well, we know better than to trust Mirsalis's opinion on anything
comic, he's been known to sit in a roomful of people laughing and still
say the film's not funny, and Frederica admits to be comic-phobic, but
now I worry a bit about you Chris, although it may be more of an
allergy to early talkies than comedies. I thought both NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH and ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT were enjoyable enough, not classics of
western civilization, but certainly watchable for what they were, and
ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT was a lot smoother technically (it even had a
musical score!), and although it may not have been the biggest
laughfest ever conceived, it had a great supporting cast, including
Slim Summerville as a gay Robin Hood, Walter Brennan as Paul Revere,
Fritz Feld as Paganini, and Joyzelle Joyner's Salome dance was worth
the price of admission. I found it painless enough and it provoked a
few chuckles, and I was happy to get the chance to see it at all( and
Mike, the running-time I have is 54 minutes, so I don't know where your
running time of 75 minutes came from).
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH worked fine considering how early it was released
(April of 29). it would have been worth it for Helen Kane alone, but
Ned Sparks is always good and Dix managed a restrained and decent comic
performance. perhaps I make instant concessions to pacing considering
an early talkie( although shouldn't fans of so-called "visually
correct" projection speeds love early talkies since they like their
silents to drag that way too?), but I took those two films on their
terms and enjoyed them.
I thought SELFISH YATES was also enjoyable mid-level Hart, cetainly
worth seeing in a 35mm tinted print, and the leading -lady issue is
typical in Hart films (remember the leading lady in WHITE OAK who hurls
herself off a cliff when her fiance' suggests they have some fun before
the wedding? We call this "Lillian Gish Syndrome"). it was also great
to see Burt Sprotte (the owner of the chicken in PASS THE GRAVY with
Max Davidson) playing Yate's partner, "Rocking Chair" Riley. He brought
a germanic acting style to the part, looking a bit like Paul Wegener,
Again, I enjoyed seeing it and was happy for the opportunity. Maybe
Chris and Jon shouldn't watch films run later in the evening, makes
them cranky.
Now Mirsalis is off his nut on WET AND WARMER, it's hilarious. Even run
at 20 fps (my fault I'm afraid, I forgot to tell Paul the projectionist
to run it at 24), it's bizarre and original and weird as all get about,
and the audience found it funny. It was the hit of Slapsticon 2005 and
it did fine here as well. Ditto Ham and Bud's THE STAR BOARDERS, which
was well received by the Cinecon audience (and Ham and Bud got applause
just at the mention of their name in my intro), as was it's suprise
lead-in, the even less-tasteful early french Pathe' comedy, THE WRONG
DOOR. High-Class humor always works.
PHIL FOR SHORT wasn't short enough, and frankly this concept of
thirty-something actresses pretending to be teenagers, Pickford
included, kinda loses me. Hugh Thompson must have been the George Brent
of the teens, but what other Festival is going to show not one, but two
of his films in one weekend?
THE BARKER was wonderful, and should have been shown in a prime slot,
not Monday morning. Just because it had been run at UCLA's Festival of
Preservation a few weeks before? How provincial! Most Cinecon attendees
are from out of town anyway. Milton Sills just gets better and better.
Now how about his version of THE SEA WOLF for next year?
Chris, I gotta disagree with you on THE GIRL IN THE PULLMAN and RED
LIGHTS too, they're both delightful light comedies. PULLMAN is the best
of the Marie Prevost farces and the original Harrison Ford is terrific
in this. Also nice work from Harry Myers, Franklin Pangborn, and
William Irving in the Arthur Houseman part, and Dr Carli's score kept
it moving even more briskly. RED LIGHTS is a good spoof on serials and
murder mysteries, and though it's plot keeps you in the dark for a bit,
the laughs and atmosphere sustain it, and all is revealed in the end.
Raymond Griffith always livens up the proceedings when he's in a
supporting role, and I think the Academy should show clips from this of
Jean Hersholt next time they give out a Humanitarian Award. Great fun
and nice to see again.
This was easily the best Cinecon in several years, due to the paucity
of fifties films (but I have no problem with concessions to fifties
fare when they're things like the Ernie Kovacs Silent Show from 1957,
which was brilliantly funny and great to see in a color Kinescope on
the big screen). Kudos again to Bob, Mike and et all for a job well
done. I suggest Jon, Chris, and Frederica double up on the happy pills
next year and get more sleep(but then we wouldn't stay up late at The
Pantry swapping stories, which is also part of the fun).
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Harlett O'Dowd
repro...@earthlink.net wrote:
> ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT was a lot smoother technically (it even had a
> musical score!), and although it may not have been the biggest
> laughfest ever conceived, it had a great supporting cast, including
> Slim Summerville as a gay Robin Hood, Walter Brennan as Paul Revere,
> Fritz Feld as Paganini, and Joyzelle Joyner's Salome dance was worth
> the price of admission.
Wha Wha WHAT???? Joyzelle AND Helen Kane in a Cinecon I cannot attend?
Damn you, Evil Bob! (and the scheduling fairy)
Harlett O'Dowd
precode wrote:
> Harlett O'Dowd wrote:
> >
> >
> > Chris, I agree with you that Vitaphones work better in small doses. I
> > wish there was a way Evil Bob could show these programs in two to four
> > parts over the weekend. But even in a two-hour chunk they're
> > indispensible.
> >
>
> Much as I like to see Evil Bob on the receiving end of grief, I'll take
> responsibility for the scheduling. However, the program was designed by
> UCLA to be run as a single entity, with opening and closing credits, so
> we respected their wishes.
Mike, this wasn't a shot at you or Bob. We went through this last time.
I undertstand UCLA packages these as complete programs and don't blame
Evil Bob or the scheduling fairy for this at all. I just wish there was
some way (perhaps getting ahold of recently restored Vitaphones that
have not yet been packaged as a group) Cinecon could get around UCLA's
packaging plan and still make them happy enough to play with us in the
future.
For me, the best of all possible worlds would be a collection of six to
eight Vitaphones arranged as if it were an actual (canned) vaudeville
bill. Such a package would run about an hour, which, for me, in a
festival setting, would be just about long enough.
Christopher Snowden
Harlett O'Dowd wrote:
> Damn you, Evil Bob! (and the scheduling fairy)
At this point it sounds as if Mike has officially acquired a new
nickname. Now he must *really* be dreading the next Cinecon "Happy
Birthday" singalong.
Robert Birchard
Vitaphone shorts as well.
"Harlett O'Dowd" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
news:1157632977....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Frederica
repro...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Now Mirsalis is off his nut on WET AND WARMER, it's hilarious. Even run
> at 20 fps (my fault I'm afraid, I forgot to tell Paul the projectionist
> to run it at 24), it's bizarre and original and weird as all get about,
> and the audience found it funny.
Even to my untutored eye WET AND WARMER was much more technically
sophisticated than MABEL'S DRAMATIC CAREER, even though people still
seemed to be slapping each other a lot. I know it was later in the
slapstick continuum; however, since I lack that gene thing I can't
compare it to a similar film made at the same time. Nevertheless PUNCH
OF THE IRISH seemed a bit of a backward step--although more
sophisticated that the Sennett short, it wasn't as smooth as WET AND
WARMER. Would that have been a budget issue?
> THE BARKER was wonderful, and should have been shown in a prime slot,
> not Monday morning. Just because it had been run at UCLA's Festival of
> Preservation a few weeks before? How provincial! Most Cinecon attendees
> are from out of town anyway. Milton Sills just gets better and better.
> Now how about his version of THE SEA WOLF for next year?
Yes, please, more Milton Sills. This was my first Sills film.
> This was easily the best Cinecon in several years, due to the paucity
> of fifties films (but I have no problem with concessions to fifties
> fare when they're things like the Ernie Kovacs Silent Show from 1957,
> which was brilliantly funny and great to see in a color Kinescope on
> the big screen). Kudos again to Bob, Mike and et all for a job well
> done. I suggest Jon, Chris, and Frederica double up on the happy pills
> next year and get more sleep(but then we wouldn't stay up late at The
> Pantry swapping stories, which is also part of the fun).
The Kovacs film was one of the highlights of this year's Cinecon for
me. I see no problem with showing bits and pieces of early television,
especially since many silent stars appear in early television.
Frederica
mikeg...@gmail.com
Frederica wrote:
> Yes, please, more Milton Sills. This was my first Sills film.
Watch TCM for The Sea Hawk, then. It's rip-roaring (and almost no
resemblance to the Errol Flynn, incidentally).
Harlett O'Dowd
Robert Birchard wrote:
> There was actually a double dose of Joyzelle. She was in one of the
> Vitaphone shorts as well.
Salt, meet wound.
repro...@earthlink.net
Frederica wrote:
>
> Even to my untutored eye WET AND WARMER was much more technically
> sophisticated than MABEL'S DRAMATIC CAREER, even though people still
> seemed to be slapping each other a lot. I know it was later in the
> slapstick continuum; however, since I lack that gene thing I can't
> compare it to a similar film made at the same time. Nevertheless PUNCH
> OF THE IRISH seemed a bit of a backward step--although more
> sophisticated that the Sennett short, it wasn't as smooth as WET AND
> WARMER. Would that have been a budget issue?
Well, PUNCH OF THE IRISH wasn't personally directed by Henry Lehrman,
and Lehrman's big problem with his First National shorts was funding,
so it's certainly possible that the budgets for each short were wildly
different.
I forgot about MABELS DRAMATIC CAREER, thanks for reminding me. I know
that a lot of you are unschooled in Keystone language and like to
dismiss them, but MABELS DRAMATIC CAREER is actually a pretty
sophisticated little comedy for 1913 that deals with the concept that
life in the movie business isn't like the movies. It even has Keystone
spoofing it's own comedy style in the film within a film. Great little
picture and nice to see it restored (in a print that was also going to
premiere at Slapsticon but didn't get back from the lab in time)
>
> > This was easily the best Cinecon in several years, due to the paucity
> > of fifties films (but I have no problem with concessions to fifties
> > fare when they're things like the Ernie Kovacs Silent Show from 1957,
> > which was brilliantly funny and great to see in a color Kinescope on
> > the big screen). Kudos again to Bob, Mike and et all for a job well
> > done. I suggest Jon, Chris, and Frederica double up on the happy pills
> > next year and get more sleep(but then we wouldn't stay up late at The
> > Pantry swapping stories, which is also part of the fun).
>
> The Kovacs film was one of the highlights of this year's Cinecon for
> me. I see no problem with showing bits and pieces of early television,
> especially since many silent stars appear in early television.
Absolutely! Hey Bob, how about running that Schlitz Playhouse next year
that has all the silent film stars in it?
RICHARD M ROBERTS
> Frederica
precode
I suppose there are worse things I could be called...
Mike S.
(but could we at least make it "Mr. Scheduling Fairy, Sir!")
Eric Stott
"precode" <michael_s...@spe.sony.com> wrote in message
news:1157661490.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
OK?
Stott
Eric Stott
<mikeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157651862.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sills plays a rip-roaring Alaskan who gets tricked into being a front man
for a land sale fraud. He's great, & his wife has a good part as well.
Stott
Frederica
Eric Stott wrote:
> See if you can find a tape of Burning Daylight- Grapevine used to sell it.
> Sills plays a rip-roaring Alaskan who gets tricked into being a front man
> for a land sale fraud. He's great, & his wife has a good part as well.
>
> Stott
Well, DUH! I just saw MISS LULU BETT, so I have seen a Sills film. I
just didn't pay any attention to him in that.
Fred
Eric Stott
"Frederica" <missme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157668566.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Stan16mm
Gitt, Jim Cozart, Patty Tobias and Marilyn Slater for their insights
before the screenings to some of our features. They gave wonderful
information to the film history that followed. Also to the fantastic
staff that volunteered this year. Many of them miss most of the films
we present but without them we would have more chaos than we could
imagine. We had a meeting after Cinecon ended and we've already begun
to put a list of films together. If any of you have a request or two,
please email them in to us at the website at Cinecon.org Don't wait
until July!
Thanks again,
Stan Taffel
precode
Sounds like a special offer from a German bank...
Mike S.
Frederica
> > just didn't pay any attention to him in that.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> well Geez Louise, I was just making a suggestion.......
I wasn't Duh-ing you, cookie. I was duh-ing myself.
Fred
rudyfan
That's cause it's actually based on the Sabatini novel, unlike the
Flynn which only took the title and pitched the rest.
Eric Stott
For the last couple of years Thomas Meighan has slowly been regaining the
limelight- now Sills. Can it be The Return Of The Strong Silent Type?
Stott
Christopher Snowden
> I worry a bit about you Chris, although it may be more of an
> allergy to early talkies than comedies. I thought both NOTHING BUT THE
> TRUTH and ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT were enjoyable enough, not classics of
> western civilization, but certainly watchable for what they were, and
> ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT was a lot smoother technically (it even had a
> musical score!), and although it may not have been the biggest
> laughfest ever conceived, it had a great supporting cast, including
> Slim Summerville as a gay Robin Hood, Walter Brennan as Paul Revere,
> Fritz Feld as Paganini, and Joyzelle Joyner's Salome dance was worth
> the price of admission. I found it painless enough and it provoked a
> few chuckles, and I was happy to get the chance to see it at all.
Well, I'm definitely glad for the chance to have seen these. But if
the best we can say for them is that they were "watchable" and
"painless," maybe we'd have been better off with something else. It
just seems like Cinecon's batting average for 1929-30 talkies is kind
of low. Remember CHINATOWN NIGHTS? THE SONG OF LOVE? THE SECOND FLOOR
MYSTERY? THE RETURN OF DR. FU MANCHU?
> I thought SELFISH YATES was also enjoyable mid-level Hart, cetainly
> worth seeing in a 35mm tinted print, and the leading -lady issue is
> typical in Hart films (remember the leading lady in WHITE OAK who hurls
> herself off a cliff when her fiance' suggests they have some fun before
> the wedding? We call this "Lillian Gish Syndrome"). it was also great
> to see Burt Sprotte (the owner of the chicken in PASS THE GRAVY with
> Max Davidson) playing Yate's partner, "Rocking Chair" Riley. He brought
> a germanic acting style to the part, looking a bit like Paul Wegener,
> Again, I enjoyed seeing it and was happy for the opportunity. Maybe
> Chris and Jon shouldn't watch films run later in the evening, makes
> them cranky.
The best films of the weekend were nearly all run in the mornings:
CHICAGO, ROMANCE OF THE UNDERWORLD, the Vitaphone program, HEAD OVER
HEELS and THE BARKER. In the evenings we got stuff like ONE HYSTERICAL
NIGHT, PHIL FOR SHORT and OVERLAND STAGE RAIDERS. Just the luck of the
draw, I guess.
Anyway, I kind of liked SELFISH YATES, as I wrote in my review.
Hart's not at the top of his game, and you know even before the main
title is over that "Selfish" Yates will end up becoming "Unselfish"
Yates by the last reel. But it wasn't bad and I'm glad I got to see it.
This was a good festival. The features were hit-and-miss, but it's
always like that. The events held at the hotel were great, and this
year's batch of short subjects was far and away the best I've ever seen
at Cinecon.
By the way, Mike's strategy of running the shorts one at a time, as
lead-ins for features, really worked well. Our scheduling fairy's a
scheduling wizard!
Frederica
Eric Stott wrote:
> >
> Tiens! Quel Faux-Pas on my part.
>
> For the last couple of years Thomas Meighan has slowly been regaining the
> limelight- now Sills. Can it be The Return Of The Strong Silent Type?
>
> Stott
I didn't notice Sills being particularly silent in this--he was kinda
noisy. But I catch your drift, he looks like the strong silent type.
He was so silent in Miss Lulu Bett I didn't notice him.
Fred
ChaneyFan
I think we can sum up Richard's review as: "If it was a comedy, it
must be good."
mikeg...@gmail.com
Well, they do share a galley-rowing scene. That's about it, though.
I actually read (and posted about) the Sabatini novel a year or so
back:
"I started a long post about Sabatini and then erased it accidentally.
The gist of it was, my wife and I read The Sea Hawk on vacation
recently, and happened to take a Wodehouse novel too, and considering
that both started out with skullduggery at vast English manors, and
were not entirely dissimilar stylistically (except that one was mocking
what the other embodied) it was sometimes hard to take Sabatini
seriously. But boy, once his ripping yarn gets ripping, he pulls you
through it despite glaringly obvious flaws of archaic language, a
resolute refusal to draw characters in any other than one dimension,
and generally lacking other niceties of grownup literature. Like Edgar
Rice Burroughs, he's great despite the fact that the sum of his parts
is a negative number."
precode
>
> The best films of the weekend were nearly all run in the mornings:
> CHICAGO, ROMANCE OF THE UNDERWORLD, the Vitaphone program, HEAD OVER
> HEELS and THE BARKER. In the evenings we got stuff like ONE HYSTERICAL
> NIGHT, PHIL FOR SHORT and OVERLAND STAGE RAIDERS. Just the luck of the
> draw, I guess.
>
Well, don't forget a lot of this stuff is sight-unseen. We try to put
what we think is the best stuff in prime slots, but Sometimes The Bear
Eats You. (Plus don't forget that we are to a certain extent held
hostage by running times.)
Also, OVERLAND started at 10:45, hardly an "A" slot. (And you must be
the only one who DIDN'T like it!)
>
> By the way, Mike's strategy of running the shorts one at a time, as
> lead-ins for features, really worked well. Our scheduling fairy's a
> scheduling wizard!
Thanks large. But the real strategy is to start each daypart with a
short so latecomers don't miss the beginning of the feature.
Mike S.
"One thousand dollars. That ain't no decent reward for a
self-respecting bandit."--OSR
repro...@earthlink.net
Beats your version: "If it's a comedy, it must be bad"......
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Robert Birchard
I've seen is pretty low, but of the titles you mention in your quoted
posting below I'd say that I like Chinatown Nights quite a bit, I think Song
of Love creaks---but it is about the only opportunity to see one of the
GREAT stars of vaudeville, Belle Baker, and she is great when she's singing,
The Second Floor Mystery was fairly fun, and ALL the Fu Manch movies are bad
(including the Karloff)--but I do love Sax Rohmer's books on the evil
Oriental genius.
Frankly, I'm surprised at some of you Cinephiles. Where else would you
see this stuff? One could argue that some of it may not be worth
screening--and Frankly I felt that way about "The Cheat" (1931) after we'd
pre-screened it. I think it's a real stiff and and I wanted to pull it
from the schedule, but I'm glad we didn't because a number of attendees
seemed to enjoy it.
But for a good many of the films we simply have neither the time nor the
resources to screen them in advance. Of the films on the schedule this year
I don't believe anyone on the committee had seen GRAFT (1931), NOTHING BUT
THE TRUTH (1929), KIKI (1926), The Raiders (1916), SELFISH YATES (1918),
ROMANCE OF THE UNDERWORLD (1928), Peculiar Patients' Pranks (1915), PHIL FOR
SHORT (1917), ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT (1929), HEAD OVER HEELS (1922), BETTY
TAKES A HAND (1918), THEY CAME TO BLOW UP AMERICA (1943), THAT KIND OF WOMAN
(1959), or LORD JIM (1925), GIRL IN THE PULLMAN (1927) before we scheduled
them and we were only able to screen the Tab Hunter picture before the
show--so something like 36% of the schedule was booked sight unseen.
We go by recomendations, availability, gut instinct, the desire to
balance the program (on paper at least) and our own desire to see stuff we
haven't seen.
My only regret in booking "One Hysterical Night" is that "Zeitplanfee"
(who has a tendency to book buptkies in the prime evening slots, which
drives me crazy) booked this one at 9:30 on Saturday night--after "Phil For
Short" (which did not, IMHO, live up to the hype of those that recommended
it to us). I'd bet that if we'd switched "Start Cheering" (which was run
Monday afternoon) with "One Hysterical Night" that there would have been
less negative reaction to it.
But Birchard is here with the truth (to paraphrase a line from "Live a
Little, Love a Little"), and the truth is that the Cinecon programming
comittee (meaning me, Michael S., Robert Nudelman, and Stan T.) get paid a
whopping $0.00 to put this thing on. If it were up to Nudelman we'd run
only well-known audience tested titles--and never screen things like "The
Shadow Returns" or "One Hysterical Night." If it were up to Schlesinger
we'd be running not only that dreary "Buck Rogers" short every ten years but
"Sh, The Octopus!" every other year alternating with a Rocky Horror Picture
Show sing along presentation of "Golden Dawn." (Michael will protest to the
contrary, but you KNOW it's true). Stan wants to run Charley Chase films
and play Solomon to Michael and me as we bludgeon each other over our film
selections. And, if it were up to me the bulk of the program would be pre
1920 silents.
I feel a responsibility to put on the best rounded program we can--which
has always been the Cinecon tradition. So, there will always be a Western,
there will always be a musical, there will always be a crime melodrama,
there will always be a roughly 50/50 ratio of silents to talkies. There
will always be a short before the first film coming after a meal break so
you don't have to gulp your meal, there will always be a range of films
through the years (this year it ranged from 1904 to 1959, last year from
1913 to 1966). If there are supplemental programs (such as the three silent
rlated programs we did in the hotel this year) they will be booked opposite
a contrasting program in the theater, i.e. we will not book a silent
supplemental program against a silent feature in the the theater). As
Michael says, much of the program decisions are dependent on running time,
mode and genre--so we book in 2 to 4 film blocs between meal breaks,
alternating silent and sound films and trying not to run two films of the
same genre back to back, i.e. a Western should not follow another Western.
Our sole reward (aside from the boquets and brickbats from the
attendees) is being able to book stuff that none of us have seen that WE
have always wanted to see. So, you may have hated "One Hysterical Night,"
but I LOVED the opportunity to see it and would not trade that opportunity
for a safer choice that would have been more pleasing to the wider audience.
One thing we do try to do when we're running so many unknown quantities is
to make sure that there are some pictures we've seen with audiences so that
we know we'll have some built-in crowd pleasers. This year "This Thing
Called Love," "Moonrise," "The Barker," and "Chicago" were in that
category--not necessarily GREAT pictures, but pictures we knew would play
well with most audiences.
My surprise of the weekend actually came today when I was shipping
"Selfish Yates" back. The can noted that the print was from a blow-up dupe
negative made from a 16mm print. The 16mm must have been a direct reduction
from the original camera negative, because the blow up looked absolutely
sensational and gave no indication that it was bumped up to 35mm from the
lesser gauge.
"Christopher Snowden" <unk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157685480.5...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Harlett O'Dowd
Robert Birchard wrote:
> Well in the first place, the batting average for ALL 1929 talkies that
> I've seen is pretty low, but of the titles you mention in your quoted
> posting below I'd say that I like Chinatown Nights quite a bit, I think Song
> of Love creaks---but it is about the only opportunity to see one of the
> GREAT stars of vaudeville, Belle Baker, and she is great when she's singing,
I agree with you on SONG OF LOVE - which may be my all-time favorite
1929 Cinecon title. That may be damning with faint praise, but what
works in SoL - especially Baker's audition sequence - REALLY works.
CHINATOWN NIGHTS, on the other hand, may be the most difficult thing
I've ever had to sit through. It made me feel dirty and afraid to enter
the theatre the next morning - even after going to church.
mikeg...@gmail.com
Recrimacon.
Can anyone name a 1928-9 talkie that they actually enjoy, that they'd
watch for fun like a regular movie?
The best I can think of is Bulldog Drummond, which is still creaky but
fast-paced (if that's not a contradiction) and has a fun,
five-years-ahead-of-its-time performance by Colman. Disraeli is maybe
second, coming as it does from a smooth, stage-tested vehicle.
Otherwise... even The Cocoanuts seems like a bit of movie archeology.
So I don't blame fests for showing them when they have some point of
historical interest; and I don't expect entertainment from them.
Harlett O'Dowd
mikeg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ah yes, it wouldn't be Cinecon without the annual followup event,
> Recrimacon.
>
> Can anyone name a 1928-9 talkie that they actually enjoy, that they'd
> watch for fun like a regular movie?
While many people malign it, or are aplogetic, I like THE BROADWAY
MELODY on its own terms - especially the first half of it before it
becomes a simple love triangle.
And, I suspect, I would like GOLDDIGGERS OF BROADWAY as a "regular"
movie were it to survive intact.
greta de groat
Frederica wrote:
> Eric Stott wrote:
> ..
> >
> > For the last couple of years Thomas Meighan has slowly been regaining the
> > limelight- now Sills. Can it be The Return Of The Strong Silent Type?
> >
> > Stott
>
> I didn't notice Sills being particularly silent in this--he was kinda
> noisy. But I catch your drift, he looks like the strong silent type.
> He was so silent in Miss Lulu Bett I didn't notice him.
>
> Fred
I had long been familiar with Milton Sills as the dull but nice nice minister
in Miss Lulu Bett and as a hypocrital suitor in Eyes of Youth (there are
interesting people in this film *besides* Rudy!), and always thought of him as
a strange looking guy with a funny name who played mostly stuffed shirts. Then
i saw The Sea Hawk and was blown away. Where had this Milton Sills been
hiding? (I was intriged by a review of The Claw (1918), though, that oddly
focused the earring he wore in that film--it sounds like that was a potentially
interesting role, but the film is lost). I followed up with Burning Daylight,
and believe me The Barker was the film i most regretted not seeing this year.
Please, Please, play The Sea Wolf. I asked this question once before and never
got any response--has anybody actually seen it? Can you tell us anything?
greta
rudyfan
just thrilled, a terrific film and Sills was great in it.
I do wish TCM would play it more often in their rotation than they do.
Donna
greta de groat wrote:
> Frederica wrote:
>
> > Eric Stott wrote:
> > ..
> > >
> > > For the last couple of years Thomas Meighan has slowly been regaining the
> > > limelight- now Sills. Can it be The Return Of The Strong Silent Type?
> > >
> > > Stott
> >
> > I didn't notice Sills being particularly silent in this--he was kinda
> > noisy. But I catch your drift, he looks like the strong silent type.
> > He was so silent in Miss Lulu Bett I didn't notice him.
> >
> > Fred
>
> I had long been familiar with Milton Sills as the dull but nice nice minister
> in Miss Lulu Bett and as a hypocrital suitor in Eyes of Youth (there are
> interesting people in this film *besides* Rudy!), and always thought of him as
> a strange looking guy with a funny name who played mostly stuffed shirts. Then
> i saw The Sea Hawk and was blown away. Where had this Milton Sills been
> hiding?
> greta
Ed Hulse
rudyfan wrote:
> I'm totally with Greta on this one. When I saw The Sea Hawk, I was
> just thrilled, a terrific film and Sills was great in it.
I just referenced this film in the thread on Robert Israel. It is
indeed a terrific film, and the Israel score is sensational. I've
suggested several times that Cinecon run it and get Robert to perform
the score live, as he did when the restored version "premiered" at UCLA
some years ago. Of course, knowing the Schedule Fairy, he'd run this
12-reeler at 11 p.m. so as not to remove one of those six-reel
Universal musicals from its prime-time slot. At least, I *think* he'd
do that -- but what do I know, I'm delusional.
Frederica
rudyfan wrote:
> I'm totally with Greta on this one. When I saw The Sea Hawk, I was
> just thrilled, a terrific film and Sills was great in it.
>
> I do wish TCM would play it more often in their rotation than they do.
>
>
> Donna
Now you've done it. I *must* see The Sea Hawk.
Fred
Andy
about Dynamite, Sally, Love Parade, Applause, Blackmail, Rio Rita,
Sunny Side Up, Great Gabbo, Dance of Life, Hallelujah, Cock Eyed World,
Cocanuts, Broadway Melody, In Old Arizona all have simple pleasures.
Unlike 'Passion of Joan of Arc, which is in the wrist slitting category
of fun.
shecky465
> rudyfan wrote:
> Now you've done it. I *must* see The Sea Hawk.
>
> Fred
"The Sea Hawk" ran as a last minute replacement for "L'Argent" at the
Syracuse Cinefest last March.
It went over very well with the audience and should be screened more
often.
repro...@earthlink.net
> repro...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
> Well, I'm definitely glad for the chance to have seen these. But if
> the best we can say for them is that they were "watchable" and
> "painless," maybe we'd have been better off with something else. It
> just seems like Cinecon's batting average for 1929-30 talkies is kind
> of low. Remember CHINATOWN NIGHTS? THE SONG OF LOVE? THE SECOND FLOOR
> MYSTERY? THE RETURN OF DR. FU MANCHU?
Birchard has most eloquently said much of what I was going to say in
answer to you Chris(and good for him too, because all cinewhiners must
remember that for the most part,the folk that put on these festivals
are doing it gratis,and at least Bob is much more polite in dealing
with it, try coming to me with a silly-ass Slapsticon complaint
sometime and you'll appreciate his tone better) but I find the above
statement interesting for two reasons, first, it solidifies my opinion
that you must not really be a fan of early sound films (and Bob's
right, how many 1929-30 films are really genuine total classics?), and
it also makes me realize just how lucky you are to be one of the
definite minority of people walking the planet who is even able to make
that statement! Thanks to Cinecon, you have been given the extremely
rare opportunity to see all those extremely rare films in 35mm and on a
big screen and can now even hazard an opinion on them (though frankly,
I had no problem with either CHINATOWN NIGHTS or THE SECOND FLOOR
MYSTERY, the first was a very smooth talkie hybrid considering it's
early release date, and the second was a charming little comic mystery
and rather smoothly executed for it's early talkie status).
The other thing we all seem to forget is that none of these films were
meant to be shown this way, in a multi-day marathon that becomes more
stamina-challenging on all of us as we slide down the slippery-slope of
middle age and beyond(how many of us copped to falling asleep at some
point during various films this last weekend?). I'd wager most of these
films would improve after a good meal, being the lone title on a day or
evening's entertainment, but the realities of life, economics, film
preservation and distribution all say that if we want to see a lot of
this stuff at all, we have to cram as much as possible into a weekend
where the most possible people who want to see them get a chance to see
them. There are definite challenges in keeping attentions spans
operating, never program three early talkies back to back, five Larry
Semons together, etc, but in the end, even the best and most varied
schedule in the world will not overcome some amount of audience
fatigue.
This is why I'm happy to have some amount of program I don't want to
see or have seen, because unlike some of you social miscreants who
plant yourselves in your seats at sunrise and do not emerge until all
cats are gray, I actually like to socialize with my friends, see some
of the town I'm visiting, and give my back a break. Doing that also
makes the films that I want to see just that more palatable. Perhaps
that is why I found RED LIGHTS more enjoyable because I had spent the
late morning and lunch-break in the middle of Echo Park Lake in a
paddle-boat with Phil Carli (and Linda in the back seat holding on for
dear-life praying the boat didn't sink and we didn't ram the other
boats as we threatened to), rather than watch ASK A POLICEMAN, which I
have in my collection and we'd already seen.
It's also why I can watch a movie like ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT, glad to
have the opportunity to check another Reginald Denny off my list and
not take it as a personal affront that it wasn't the biggest cinematic
orgasm of all time,because it wasn;t the sixth full-length feature I'd
seen that day after two and a half days of non-stop movie watching, and
if it had been, I'd make allowances for that.Those thinking it the
worst early talkie ever made, I have a print of HOWDY BROADWAY I want
to show you.
The whole point of Cinecon is to give anyone who shows up the chance to
see things they ain't gonna get to see in their hometown or living
room, and they do that pretty darn well. That they ain't all going to
be earth-shakers is indeed the luck of the draw, but if you want
nothing but warhorses, go to the San Francisco Silent Film Festival
where that is their specialty. While Cinecon does on occasion throw in
the classic in attempt to draw in the crowds, that really isn't what
its all about, and lets face it, there just aren;t that many
undiscovered bonafied four-star epics out there left. I say keep up the
good work guys, and though we may carp from time to time, we'll keep
coming.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
greta de groat
rudyfan wrote:
Ah, i thought i didn't remember Flynn converting to Islam!
greta
Frederica
precode wrote:
> > By the way, Mike's strategy of running the shorts one at a time, as
> > lead-ins for features, really worked well. Our scheduling fairy's a
> > scheduling wizard!
>
> Thanks large. But the real strategy is to start each daypart with a
> short so latecomers don't miss the beginning of the feature.
>
> Mike S.
And we love you for it, Mr. Scheduling Fairy.
Frederica
Frederica
Robert Birchard wrote:
> Frankly, I'm surprised at some of you Cinephiles. Where else would you
> see this stuff? One could argue that some of it may not be worth
> screening--and Frankly I felt that way about "The Cheat" (1931) after we'd
> pre-screened it. I think it's a real stiff and and I wanted to pull it
> from the schedule, but I'm glad we didn't because a number of attendees
> seemed to enjoy it.
This, I think, is the crux of the matter, Mr. Evil. Before I continue,
I will reiterate that I am NOT COMPLAINING. I have a very good idea
what a hairpuller it is to organize Cinecon. Why, just look at you!
Some of us here are not cinephiles. I don't necessarily want to sit
through anything just because it's in 35mm and I haven't seen it
before. I prefer to avoid developing (as a certain Stolen Moments
interviewee just hilariously described it) "the pallor of a
professional bowler." I am not a better person because I sat through
GRANTON TRAWLER.
I understand that these films are booked into Cinecon for a variety of
reasons, and they can't all be pre-viewed by Cinecon organizers. I
also believe in Sturgeon's Law. Some of these films haven't been seen
for 70 years for a good reason--they can't all be CHICAGO or THE
BARKER. And we all react differently to films and like or dislike them
individually. I liked PHIL FOR SHORT, liked it rather a lot as a
matter of fact. I don't have to justify that, but I hope it's taken
into account when films are chosen for Cinecon. I don't expect them
all to be great, I know there will be a lot of frog-kissing.
Come to think of it, why couldn't you follow one Western with another
Western? That would allow the Western fans to have a good long
satisfying chunk of horse-opera, while the rest of us sat in a bar
schmoozing, or did other good stuff. Answer me that, Scheduling
Fairy! Part of the fun of Cinecon for me is seeing people I haven't
seen for a year, so having big chunks of time where I'm not interested
in a film being run is bonus.
And it's always fun nagging you about the GOLDEN DAWN sing-a-long.
Gosh, I just never get tired of that.
Fred
Harlett O'Dowd
repro...@earthlink.net wrote:
> It's also why I can watch a movie like ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT, glad to
> have the opportunity to check another Reginald Denny off my list and
> not take it as a personal affront that it wasn't the biggest cinematic
> orgasm of all time,because it wasn;t the sixth full-length feature I'd
> seen that day after two and a half days of non-stop movie watching, and
> if it had been, I'd make allowances for that.Those thinking it the
> worst early talkie ever made, I have a print of HOWDY BROADWAY I want
> to show you.
Eeek! Are you suggesting there's a WORSE early talkie than SAY IT WITH
SONGS?
tcd...@yahoo.com
> Frankly, I'm surprised at some of you Cinephiles. Where else would you
> see this stuff?
Although I could only attend Friday's screenings, I couldn't agree with
Bob's sentiments more. Programming is a crap shoot and the program
pretty clearly lets us know which films the committee has seen or not.
I loved CHICAGO, was pretty amused by KIKI and GRAFT and found NOTHING
BUT THE TRUTH a chore, Helen Kane included. But I am over the moon with
gratitude for the chance to see them in 35mm with an audience in a
beautiful theater. Where else indeed!
Derek B Boothroyd
First, thanks to all of you who put on this years festival. I thought
the program was excellent, though I didn't see the 3 late night films
and two of the other talkies. And one question: who was the pianist for
Beyond the Rocks? I didn't catch the name.
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Robert Birchard wrote:
> Well in the first place, the batting average for ALL 1929 talkies that
> I've seen is pretty low, but of the titles you mention in your quoted
> posting below I'd say that I like Chinatown Nights quite a bit, I think Song
> of Love creaks---but it is about the only opportunity to see one of the
> GREAT stars of vaudeville, Belle Baker, and she is great when she's singing,
> The Second Floor Mystery was fairly fun, and ALL the Fu Manch movies are bad
> (including the Karloff)--but I do love Sax Rohmer's books on the evil
> Oriental genius.
As for the 1929 talkies, I enjoyed ONE HYSTERICAL NIGHT, without making
any allowances, enough so that I would be happy to watch it again. And
I certainly laughed often enough at NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH though I didn't
like it quite as much. And I did like THE SECOND FLOOR MYSTERY ('30) last
year.
- Derek B.
precode
I'm fairly positive we did run SEA HAWK back in the Roosevelt days, but
my memory ain't what it used to be. Can anyone confirm?
Zeitplanfee
And for the record: the Universal B-musicals are almost always the hit
of the show, and STRICTLY IN THE GROOVE got a literal ovationfrom the
audience.
precode
>
> My only regret in booking "One Hysterical Night" is that "Zeitplanfee"
> (who has a tendency to book buptkies in the prime evening slots, which
> drives me crazy) booked this one at 9:30 on Saturday night--after "Phil For
> Short" (which did not, IMHO, live up to the hype of those that recommended
> it to us). I'd bet that if we'd switched "Start Cheering" (which was run
> Monday afternoon) with "One Hysterical Night" that there would have been
> less negative reaction to it.
No argument. But we'd heard good things about OHN, and Denny's track
record is pretty good. I didn't think it was so terrible, either, but
that's obivously a minority opinion. Can't win 'em all.
>
> But Birchard is here with the truth (to paraphrase a line from "Live a
> Little, Love a Little"), and the truth is that the Cinecon programming
> comittee (meaning me, Michael S., Robert Nudelman, and Stan T.) get paid a
> whopping $0.00 to put this thing on. If it were up to Nudelman we'd run
> only well-known audience tested titles--and never screen things like "The
> Shadow Returns" or "One Hysterical Night." If it were up to Schlesinger
> we'd be running not only that dreary "Buck Rogers" short every ten years but
> "Sh, The Octopus!" every other year alternating with a Rocky Horror Picture
> Show sing along presentation of "Golden Dawn." (Michael will protest to the
> contrary, but you KNOW it's true).
Oh, no, I think the once-a-decade rule would also apply to OCTOPUS and
DAWN as well! (Unlike BUCK, they do turn up on TCM once in a while.)
Mike S.
(wasn't that a battle?)
precode
>
> Come to think of it, why couldn't you follow one Western with another
> Western? That would allow the Western fans to have a good long
> satisfying chunk of horse-opera, while the rest of us sat in a bar
> schmoozing, or did other good stuff. Answer me that, Scheduling
> Fairy! Part of the fun of Cinecon for me is seeing people I haven't
> seen for a year, so having big chunks of time where I'm not interested
> in a film being run is bonus.
Well, if you only have two westerns--as we did this year--you want to
spread them out over the weekend. And two similar films back-to-back
without a specific reason for playing them that way can work to their
mutual detriment. Audience flow is something we take very
seriously--there are lots of people who will sit through everything, or
nearly so, and we don't want to overly tax them.
T.S.F.
Harlett O'Dowd
precode wrote:
> Oh, no, I think the once-a-decade rule would also apply to OCTOPUS and
> DAWN as well! (Unlike BUCK, they do turn up on TCM once in a while.)
Have we *ever* run GOLDEN DAWN?
Harlett O'Dowd
precode wrote:
> I'm fairly positive we did run SEA HAWK back in the Roosevelt days, but
> my memory ain't what it used to be. Can anyone confirm?
Funny, I was just thinking it would be interesting there were a
database of what Cinecon has run over the years (it might also keep
from the occasional repeat that miffs old-timers like Jon.)
I'd be willing to put such a thing together if someone could xerox/pdf
old schedules and get them to me.
Robert Birchard
may have been earlier at th4e Roosevelt.
"shecky465" <shec...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157739695.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Robert Birchard
"Derek B Boothroyd" <der...@stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.060908...@bramble06.Stanford.EDU...
>
And one question: who was the pianist for
> Beyond the Rocks? I didn't catch the name.
That was long-time Cinephile Tex Wyndham
Robert Birchard
ARE a member of the Society for Cinephiles/Cinecon, so, whether you ad mit
it an only use your first name or not you are a CINEPHILE
"Frederica" <missme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157744052.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Robert Birchard
"Harlett O'Dowd" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
news:1157754190....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Have we *ever* run GOLDEN DAWN?
>
The words "over my dead body!" come to mind.
Frederica
<must not....stop me...control, control...>
Fred
John Aldrich
Bob, I think Fred used cinephile with a small "c" intentionally.
--John
EarlyFilm
> My surprise of the weekend actually came today when I was
> shipping "Selfish Yates" back. The can noted that the print
> was from a blow-up dupe negative made from a 16mm print.
> The 16mm must have been a direct reduction from the original
> camera negative, because the blow up looked absolutely
> sensational and gave no indication that it was bumped up
> to 35mm from the lesser gauge.
I suspected that this print was from a home release version since the
content looked like it had been kinda cleaned up and shortened, like
some other Wm. S. Hart features, but had assumed the home release was
from a larger gauge format, such as 28mm, rather than 16mm!
> My only regret in booking "One Hysterical Night" is that
> "Zeitplanfee" (who has a tendency to book buptkies in the
> prime evening slots, which drives me crazy) booked this one
> at 9:30 on Saturday night--after "Phil For Short" (which
> did not, IMHO, live up to the hype of those that recommended
> it to us). I'd bet that if we'd switched "Start Cheering"
> (which was run Monday afternoon) with "One Hysterical Night"
> that there would have been less negative reaction to it.
Now, I feel that some features just play better early in the day. I
just saw Phil Carli play "Phil for Short" on the pipe organ at the
Capitol in Rome, NY, at 4:05PM EDT, and then he played it again on the
piano at Cinecon, at 8:05PM PDT after a long day of screenings and the
same print and same accompanist draw completely different reactions from
the audience! I feel that the audience -- I know I was -- was simply to
tired to see the subtleties of this story due to fatigue from too many
films.
It is also possible that the Capitol projected the film a bit slower,
but I'm not sure. (No, I have not changed. I still think that silents
should be played fast, but this one title may be an exception.)
Oh, by the way, this was the best Cinecon that I have ever attended, and
why is everyone mispelling the Booking Fairly's name?
Earl.
ChaneyFan
Bob, I think you are misreading many of our comments. I thought ONE
HYSTERICAL NIGHT was a stiff. And I'm THRILLED that I got to see it!
Wouldn't have missed it for anything. Half the fun is complaining about
it afterwards, but many of us who are whining are extremely
appreciative of the work you all did to bring us these. OK, so it
wasn't very good and I never want to see it again. But THIS THING
CALLED LOVE and ASK A POLICEMAN (both comedies I liked, contrary to R.
Roberts' comment) more than made up for it.
I'm astonished to hear that SELFISH YATES was a blowup from 16mm. The
print was extraordinary. Then again, a few years ago you ran HAIRPINS
in 16mm and it was one of the best prints of the weekend.
Christopher Snowden
> Bob, I think you are misreading many of our comments. I thought ONE
> HYSTERICAL NIGHT was a stiff. And I'm THRILLED that I got to see it!
> Wouldn't have missed it for anything. Half the fun is complaining about
> it afterwards, but many of us who are whining are extremely
> appreciative of the work you all did to bring us these.
Amen to that. I love Bob and I love Cinecon, and I wouldn't post a
review at all if I thought that giving a film the thumbs-down would
hurt his feelings. I know he's got a thicker skin than that.
Besides, one unexpected cinematic gem makes up for quite a few
indifferent pictures, and Cinecon comes up with one or two unknown
marvels every year, besides any number of other enjoyable films.
I swear to you, Monday on the drive home I sighed and thought, "Now
I gotta wait 360 days until Cinecon."
James Roots
> I'm totally with Greta on this one. When I saw The Sea Hawk, I was
> just thrilled, a terrific film and Sills was great in it.
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>> Frederica wrote:
>>
>> > Eric Stott wrote:
>> > ..
>> > >
>> > > For the last couple of years Thomas Meighan has slowly been regaining the
>> > > limelight- now Sills. Can it be The Return Of The Strong Silent Type?
>> > >
>> > > Stott
>> >
>> > I didn't notice Sills being particularly silent in this--he was kinda
>> > noisy. But I catch your drift, he looks like the strong silent type.
>> > He was so silent in Miss Lulu Bett I didn't notice him.
>> >
>> > Fred
>>
>> I had long been familiar with Milton Sills as the dull but nice nice minister
>> in Miss Lulu Bett and as a hypocrital suitor in Eyes of Youth (there are
>> interesting people in this film *besides* Rudy!), and always thought of him as
>> a strange looking guy with a funny name who played mostly stuffed shirts. Then
>> i saw The Sea Hawk and was blown away. Where had this Milton Sills been
>> hiding?
>> greta
>
Another silly-named silent star, Rod LaRoque, was just like
Sills: easily dismissed until you see his version of CAPTAIN
BLOOD. Whoo-hoo! What a load of fun he is in it!
Jim
Eric Stott
"James Roots" <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:edvi56$opb$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
> Another silly-named silent star, Rod LaRoque, was just like
> Sills: easily dismissed until you see his version of CAPTAIN
> BLOOD. Whoo-hoo! What a load of fun he is in it!
I didn't think much of him until I saw CRUISE OF THE JASPER B- a neat little
picture which plays like a Fairbanks parody. The opening is nice: a tipsy
young millionaire awakes to realize his millions are gone and his house and
belongings are being auctioned off around him. As he steps behind a screen
to remove his pajamas they're snatched away from his vallet & sold. The
screen follows, & he barely escapes in his underwear- and did I mention that
the house is filled with women examining everything? Finally he's left with
two material posessions: a leaking rotten hulk of a sailing ship, and the
clothes of a distant ancestor- who happens to have been a pirate. (Believe
it or not, this is the BELIEVEABLE part of the plot!) With Snitz Edwards.
BTW- if you've ever read the Don Marquis novel on which this is supposedly
based, well, it ain't.
Eric Stott
romec...@aol.com
EarlyFilm wrote:
>
> Now, I feel that some features just play better early in the day. I
> just saw Phil Carli play "Phil for Short" on the pipe organ at the
> Capitol in Rome, NY, at 4:05PM EDT, and then he played it again on the
> piano at Cinecon, at 8:05PM PDT after a long day of screenings and the
> same print and same accompanist draw completely different reactions from
> the audience! I feel that the audience -- I know I was -- was simply to
> tired to see the subtleties of this story due to fatigue from too many
> films.
>
> It is also possible that the Capitol projected the film a bit slower,
> but I'm not sure. (No, I have not changed. I still think that silents
> should be played fast, but this one title may be an exception.)
>
I think we ran it at 21 fps. I didn't see it at Cinecon (one of these
days I'm going to get there!), but I agree that some films play better
at certain times of day. While the quietly charming PHIL-FOR-SHORT was
a hit on Saturday afternoon here, I wouldn't expect it to go over quite
as well as the big Saturday night feature, for example.
Art Pierce
Capitol Theatre
Rome, NY
JMozart...@aol.com
comedy which maintains an uproariously manic pace from start to finish
and never misses a beat. And La Rocque gives a skilled comedic
performance. I actually like La Rocque although I like him better in
silents than in any of the talkies I've seen( He was a disaster in Beau
Bandit) Also, check out The Coming Of Amos. His role as a callow sheep
rancher is quite a departure from his usually more suave types of
roles, but he's very good in an overall very good picture.
James
precode
>
> While the quietly charming PHIL-FOR-SHORT was
> a hit on Saturday afternoon here, I wouldn't expect it to go over quite
> as well as the big Saturday night feature, for example.
>
NOW he tells us!
Zeitplanfee