Long versions of Chaplin films to be withdrawn
DShepFilm
controlled by the filmmaker's family have been as close as possible to the
original editions (although "The Gold Rush" has been available only in
Chaplin's 1941 [released 1942] narrated version).
According to an article in the British fanzine "Chaplin Courier," after the
rights move over to MK2 films for twelve years beginning January 1, 2002, the
films will be available only in the final versions with the cuts and
alterations made by Chaplin between the 1930s and 1970s. Kate Guyonvarch of
Association Chaplin said "Whatever Chaplin fans or cinephiles might have to say
about the changes/cuts Chaplin made late in life, HE made them, so he wanted
them. We must and do respect that."
The present USA DVD editions are scheduled to be withdrawn in approximately two
months, although possibly some retailers may be remaindering copies until the
end of the year.
These are the films which will be affected by the new policy:
A DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS, THE PILGRIM. Running speeds will change ("The
Chaplin Revue" contains considerable stretch printing) and scenes will be
eliminated.
SUNNYSIDE, A DAY'S PLEASURE, THE IDLE CLASS, PAY DAY Running speeds will
change. Some will be faster, some slower.
THE KID Scenes will be eliminated, running speed will change.
A WOMAN OF PARIS Scenes will be eliminated, running speed will change.
THE GOLD RUSH Aperture (cropping) will change.
THE CIRCUS (New credit sequence with song will be moved back to head of
picture).
CITY LIGHTS will be accompanied only by 1931 sound track.
MODERN TIMES Scene [final verse of nonsense song] will be eliminated.
LIMELIGHT Scene [Calvero borrowing money from armless man] will be eliminated.
A KING IN NEW YORK Approximately 30 small bits will be eliminated.
I do not know what will happen with the extras on these editions or what extras
will be added to the new editions of Chaplin's final cut versions.
Those who wish to own these films in the longer versions presently available
and those who wish to own them in Chaplin's final cut versions will want to be
guided accordingly.
David Shepard
Bobster123
I'll have to stockpile them so I can sell them for ten times the original price
on E-Bay next year. :) (Just kidding.)
Robert N. Farr
step-printed versions? Chaplin is spinning in his grave. And aren't the
First Nationals in the public domain now? That means that Fox can keep them
in their catalogue.
Rob Farr
DShepFilm <dshe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010724004503...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
Mile Films
First Nationals in the public domain now? That means that Fox can keep them
in their catalogue.
Rob Farr >>
That would usually not be possible since contracts between distributors and
producers almost always prohibit this kind of action. There were some cases in
the sixties and seventies where an American distributor would fail to renew the
copyright on purpose and then continue to release the film based on public
domain principles -- Woman in the Dunes and Sandakan 8 come to mind -- but you
would have to be a sleazy, money-hungry slimeball distributor to do that. And
Fox, home of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire, is certainly not that...
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
email: Mile...@aol.com
website: www.milestonefilms.com
Eugene Kim
> And Fox, home of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire, is certainly not that...
Disney, you mean.
Mile Films
Disney, you mean. >>
Sorry, wrong sleaze company. Not the one with Pearl Harbor, King of the B's and
friend to the working man.
I actually meant, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, that worthy, altruistic
show helping out the poor and needy...
Robert N. Farr
> "Whatever Chaplin fans or cinephiles might have to say
> about the changes/cuts Chaplin made late in life, HE made them, so he
wanted
> them. We must and do respect that."
...And another thing! Just who the hell does Ms Guyonvarch think the
audience is for these videos? Subtract Chaplin fans and cinephiles from the
marketplace and you ain't gonna be selling many Chaplin tapes.
Restored versions with lots of extras created a whole new audience for
Chaplin films. Shortened versions with stretch-printing will put Chaplin
right back in the mausoleum. Maybe that's where the family wants to keep
him. Grumble, grumble.
Rob Farr (who's getting a little sick and tired of hearing that the
cinephile audience is totally negligible).
Matt Barry
Hopefully, there will still be a way for people to see the original
cuts of these films even if they don't buy the discs. It seems like
they should keep both versions of the films out and let people decide
which one they want to see. Personally, it was nice to be able to
finally see the complete version of THE KID, as well as the speed
corrections made to the films. And the Carl Davis re-recording of the
CITY LIGHTS score was well worth the effort.
Matt
Richard Lanham
I had held off from buying Chaplin on DVD, wanting to get unfamiliar silents first, but
last night I ordered a bunch of them. It turns out that the cheapest place for me, if
they come through, is 2/3 of the way across the country (digitaleyes.net) rather than
with companies that operate nearer.
Rick, who sold off laser versions of Chaplin films because his old player had problems
with them (they would have played fine on my current player though).
Tom Moran
> According to an article in the British fanzine "Chaplin Courier," after the
> rights move over to MK2 films for twelve years beginning January 1, 2002, the
> films will be available only in the final versions with the cuts and
> alterations made by Chaplin between the 1930s and 1970s. Kate Guyonvarch of
> Association Chaplin said "Whatever Chaplin fans or cinephiles might have to say
> about the changes/cuts Chaplin made late in life, HE made them, so he wanted
> them. We must and do respect that."
The way they respected Chaplin's wishes when they sent out "City
Lights" and "Modern Times" on tour with live orchestra?
Tom Moran
Lincoln Spector
> step-printed versions? Chaplin is spinning in his grave. And aren't the
> First Nationals in the public domain now?
copyright. But I think Chaplin held them personally. That means the
copyright lasts the author's natural life plus 50 (now 70) years.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Lincoln
Constance Kuriyama
> DShepFilm <dshe...@aol.com quotes Kate Guyonvarch of Association Chaplin:
>
>> "Whatever Chaplin fans or cinephiles might have to say
>> about the changes/cuts Chaplin made late in life, HE made them, so he
> wanted
>> them. We must and do respect that."
>
> ...And another thing! Just who the hell does Ms Guyonvarch think the
> audience is for these videos? Subtract Chaplin fans and cinephiles from the
> marketplace and you ain't gonna be selling many Chaplin tapes.
Out of fairness to Ms Guyonvarch, she's just a referee and spokesperson.
She doesn't make estate policy. :-)
The Chaplin children are probably tired of having every decision they make
criticized by one faction or another, and are hoping this blanket policy
will shup people up.
Fat chance.
Connie K.
--
"Everybody knows the boat is leaking/Everybody knows the Captain lied." L.Cohen
Michael Gebert
(Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
> "Robert N. Farr" (lipp...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> > DShepFilm <dshe...@aol.com quotes Kate Guyonvarch of Association Chaplin:
> >
> >> "Whatever Chaplin fans or cinephiles might have to say
> >> about the changes/cuts Chaplin made late in life, HE made them, so he
> > wanted
> >> them. We must and do respect that."
So if somebody turns up another print of The Sea Gull, they have to burn
that one too?
___________________________________________________
Michael Gebert, Writer | www.michaelgebert.com
"Look where you will, in every high place there sits an Ass, settled
beyond the reach of all the greatest intellects in this world to pull him
down. Over our whole social system, complacent Imbecility rules
supreme -- snuffs out the searching light of Intelligence with total
impunity -- and hoots, owl-like, in answer to every form of protest,
See how well we all do in the dark! One of these days that audacious
assertion will be practically contradicted, and the whole rotten system
of modern society will come down with a crash."
--Wilkie Collins, on the Bush energy policy, in No Name (pub. 1862)
Constance Kuriyama
> In article <9jt6d0$g5k$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>> "Robert N. Farr" (lipp...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>> > DShepFilm <dshe...@aol.com quotes Kate Guyonvarch of Association Chaplin:
>> >
>> >> "Whatever Chaplin fans or cinephiles might have to say
>> >> about the changes/cuts Chaplin made late in life, HE made them, so he
>> > wanted
>> >> them. We must and do respect that."
>
> So if somebody turns up another print of The Sea Gull, they have to burn
> that one too?
I think the story that emerged on the Chaplin newsgroup was that Chaplin
destroyed the *negative* of the film to avoid additional expenses on
a film that was commercially worthless, but kept a positive print. Many years
later, Oona decided that wasn't worth keeping. Maybe she was wrong, but she
did see it (as did Chaplin), which is more than any of us can say.
George Shelps
>>So if somebody turns up another print
>>of The Sea Gull, they have to burn that
>>one too?
>I think the story that emerged on the
>Chaplin newsgroup was that Chaplin
>destroyed the *negative* of the film to
>avoid additional expenses on a film that
>was commercially worthless,
Not quite. Chaplin was involved in a tax
dispute with the IRS and he needed to write off "Sea Gulls/A Woman of
the Sea"
as a loss. At that time, apparently, the IRS required that, as proof of
the commercial worthlessness of the film, the negative be physically
destroyed.
> but kept a positive print. Many years
>later, Oona decided that wasn't worth
>keeping.
I believe I read somewhere that she
thought that Chaplin's integrity would
be impugned by the fact that he did not
completely destroy the film.
> Maybe she was wrong,
She was. It was a Josef von Sternberg
film, ranked by Andrew Sarris as belonging in the same "Pantheon"
of great directors as Chaplin.
> but she did see it (as did Chaplin),
>which is more than any of us can say.
Something I think "any of us" here regret.
Shawn Stone
Indeed. Why should it matter whether or not she thought it was any good,
which
is the implicit meaning of the assertion, "she did see it".
Shawn Stone
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Constance Kuriyama
Why should it matter what some of you think of a film you've
never seen?
Worrying about a film that is absolutely lost is a waste of time.
I might as well spend hours every day fretting about the many lost
plays of Aeschylus.
I don't.
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>>So if somebody turns up another print
>>>of The Sea Gull, they have to burn that
>>>one too?
>
>>I think the story that emerged on the
>>Chaplin newsgroup was that Chaplin
>>destroyed the *negative* of the film to
>>avoid additional expenses on a film that
>>was commercially worthless,
>
> Not quite. Chaplin was involved in a tax
> dispute with the IRS and he needed to write off "Sea Gulls/A Woman of
> the Sea" as a loss. At that time, apparently, the IRS required that, as proof of
> the commercial worthlessness of the film, the negative be physically
> destroyed.
That's pretty much what I said. The exact circumstances under which it
was an economic liability don't loom as large for me as they evidenctly
do for you.
>> but kept a positive print. Many years
>>later, Oona decided that wasn't worth
>>keeping.
>
> I believe I read somewhere that she
> thought that Chaplin's integrity would
> be impugned by the fact that he did not
> completely destroy the film.
Maybe. She also thought the film was a piece of crap.
>> Maybe she was wrong,
>
> She was. It was a Josef von Sternberg
> film, ranked by Andrew Sarris as belonging in the same "Pantheon"
> of great directors as Chaplin
Good directors make stinkers. There's every reason to believe
this was one of them.
>> but she did see it (as did Chaplin),
>>which is more than any of us can say.
>
> Something I think "any of us" here regret.
Not quite any of us. I'm still trying to catch up with
what we do have, and will probably never finish.
George Shelps
>>>Mike Gebert wrote:
>>>>So if somebody turns up another
>>>>print of The Sea Gull, they have to
>>>>burn that one too?
>>>I think the story that emerged on the
>>>Chaplin newsgroup was that Chaplin
>>>destroyed the *negative* of the film to
>>>avoid additional expenses on a film that
>>>was commercially worthless,
>> Not quite. Chaplin was involved in a
>>tax dispute with the IRS and he
>>needed to write off "Sea Gulls/A
>>Woman of the Sea" as a loss. At that
>>time, apparently, the IRS required that,
>>as proof of the commercial
>>worthlessness of the film, the negative
>>be physically destroyed.
>That's pretty much what I said.
No, it's not, You said he wanted to avoid "additional expenses."
Storing the film in
a vault would incur only the most minimal
"additional expense." What other "additional expense" would have been
created by saving it?
> The exact
>circumstances under which it was an
>economic liability don't loom as large for
>me as they evidenctly do for you.
The exact circumstances are puzzling.
No film today needs to be destroyed before it can be written off as a
tax loss.
Was the law different then? Or was Chaplin engaging in overkill
in the area of financial self-interest?
>> It was a Josef von Sternberg
>>film, ranked by Andrew Sarris as
>>belonging in the same "Pantheon" of
>>great directors as Chaplin
>Good directors make stinkers. There's
>every reason to believe this was one of
>them.
Oh, really? And which one of Chaplin's "stinkers" is worthy of
incineration?
Tom Moran
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
<snip>
>> Good directors make stinkers. There's
>> every reason to believe this was one of
>> them.
> Oh, really? And which one of Chaplin's
> "stinkers" is worthy of incineration?
I can think of at least two off the top of my head...
Tom Moran
Richard Ward
stretch-printed "Chaplin Review" versions be that "The Chaplin Review"
is still protected by copyright while "A Dog's Life" and "Shoulder
Arms" probably aren't (unless an earlier poster's idea about personal
v. corporate copyrights is correct)?
Michael Gebert
rw...@jaguar1.usouthal.edu (Richard Ward) wrote:
Well, that wouldn't stop you from still making a DVD of your copy of
Shoulder Arms; while the lack of copyright on the film itself wouldn't
protect you if you copied theirs flat out (especially the score, but also
if you infringe on their restoration work).
Richard Ward
newly copyrighted on the basis of music and editorial changes between
the late 1950s and early 1970s would extend by decades the Chaplin
estate's legal hold on the newly minted copies of these films.
Michael Gebert
Yes, but... they'd have a legal hold on inferior versions, that's how most
of us would see it. If someone found great material on, say Shoulder
Arms, they could release it anyway and have the superior version.
Ah well, I have my complete set, what do I care...
Richard Lanham
According to their web site, the August issue of DVD-LaserDisc Newsletter will be
reviewing many of the Chaplin films that are on DVD.
Rick
Constance Kuriyama
That was explained on the Chaplin group by David Totheroh, and I wasn't
interested enough in the details to remember them now. Since you're
an expert at exhuming old posts, I suggest you look it up on Google.
I'm told that even those ancient posts that disappeared are back
again. Something about the negative being taxed as an asset, for a
considerable amount, as I recall.
>> The exact
>>circumstances under which it was an
>>economic liability don't loom as large for
>>me as they evidenctly do for you.
>
> The exact circumstances are puzzling.
> No film today needs to be destroyed before it can be written off as a
> tax loss.
> Was the law different then? Or was Chaplin engaging in overkill
> in the area of financial self-interest?
I doubt that he was throwing it away carelessly. Chaplin tended to
weigh financial decisions very carefully. I doubt he would have
destroyed the neg. if he felt it had any value or potential value,
either artistic or financial.
>>> It was a Josef von Sternberg
>>>film, ranked by Andrew Sarris as
>>>belonging in the same "Pantheon" of
>>>great directors as Chaplin
>
>>Good directors make stinkers. There's
>>every reason to believe this was one of
>>them.
>
> Oh, really?
Yes, really. ;-)
> And which one of Chaplin's "stinkers" is worthy of
> incineration?
I'm sure there are a few we could live without. Chaplin burned
an enormous amount of footage of his own work. Why not a film
he'd paid for and considered of negligible value?
George Shelps
>>George Shelps wrote
>Shawn Stone wrote:
>>>> but she did see it (as did Chaplin),
>>>>which is more than any of us can say.
>>>Something I think "any of us" here regret.
>>Indeed. Why should it matter whether
>>or not she thought it was any good,
>>which is the implicit meaning of the
>>assertion, "she did see it".
>Why should it matter what some of you
>think of a film you've never seen?
Because it was a notorious case of the
destruction of a talented director's work in order to book a tax
write-off.
>Worrying about a film that is absolutely
>lost is a waste of time.
A number of our regular contributors here
"worry" about lost films.
> I might as well
>spend hours every day fretting about the
>many lost plays of Aeschylus.
I doubt that anyone is spending "hours
every day fretting about" "Sea Gulls."
but in the annals of film preservation,
this seems like a unique case, since the destruction was carried out not
by philistine studio bosses, but by a major film-maker. And then when
it was revealed that a print had been preserved,
Oona Chaplin repeated the original
esthetic crime.
>I don't.
Mazel tov!
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>>George Shelps wrote
>
>>Shawn Stone wrote:
>
>>>>> but she did see it (as did Chaplin),
>>>>>which is more than any of us can say.
>
>>>>Something I think "any of us" here regret.
>
>>>Indeed. Why should it matter whether
>>>or not she thought it was any good,
>>>which is the implicit meaning of the
>>>assertion, "she did see it".
>
>>Why should it matter what some of you
>>think of a film you've never seen?
>
> Because it was a notorious case of the
> destruction of a talented director's work in order to book a tax
> write-off.
Since it wasn't your money and you didn't see the film, I
can't see what basis you have for your indignation.
But now that I think of it, those two circumstances are
probably the primary reasons for your indignation. Indignation
is cheap. Making a difficult decision about a film in which
you've invested a considerable amount of money isn't.
>>Worrying about a film that is absolutely
>>lost is a waste of time.
>
> A number of our regular contributors here
> "worry" about lost films.
Well, in my opinion they could be spending their
time more productively. The emphasis should surely
be on saving films that are worth saving and can
still be saved, and increasing appreciation of older
films (two things I think this group does well).
Maybe we should erect a wailing wall here especially
for people who enjoy pining for what they can't have
and passing judgment on the dead.
>> I might as well
>>spend hours every day fretting about the
>>many lost plays of Aeschylus.
>
> I doubt that anyone is spending "hours
> every day fretting about" "Sea Gulls."
> but in the annals of film preservation,
> this seems like a unique case, since the destruction was carried out not
> by philistine studio bosses, but by a major film-maker.
If a stereotypical studio boss destroys a film, there's some
basis for assuming that he didn't know or care how good it
was. If a "major film-maker" destroys a negative in which he's
already invested a small fortune, I think any reasonable
person would assume that in his expert judgment, the results
were highly unsatisfactory.
> And then when
> it was revealed that a print had been preserved,
> Oona Chaplin repeated the original
> esthetic crime.
It could only have been a crime if the film was worth
saving. You're assuming what you need to prove.
This is an endless circular argument. Pursuing it
further would be a waste of time.
Wouldn't it be better to take another look at _The Blue
Angel_, _The Last Command_, _Morocco_, etc.? There's so
much there to discover, and nothing to learn from this
discussion.
Shawn Stone
====
<snip snip snip>
>If a stereotypical studio boss destroys a film, there's some
>basis for assuming that he didn't know or care how good it
>was. If a "major film-maker" destroys a negative in which he's
>already invested a small fortune, I think any reasonable
>person would assume that in his expert judgment, the results
>were highly unsatisfactory.
>
Occasionally, studio bosses were smart enough to realize that their
judgement
about what was good or bad didn't matter. Like the folks at M-G-M in the 60s
who decided to preserve everything; they were willing to admit that
attitudes
about particular films change with time. The were willing to admit that they
might be wrong. Too bad Chaplin wasn't similarly enlightened.
<more snips>
>> And then when
>> it was revealed that a print had been preserved,
>> Oona Chaplin repeated the original
>> esthetic crime.
>
>It could only have been a crime if the film was worth
>saving. You're assuming what you need to prove.
And it can't be proved, because Charlie and Oona burned the film. Like you
said, a circular argument. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume that
Chaplin knew best.
Ulrich Rüdel
DShepFilm wrote:
> Those who wish to own these films in the longer versions presently available
> and those who wish to own them in Chaplin's final cut versions will want to be
> guided accordingly.
>
> David Shepard
Well I guess then it's LD-to-DVD upgrade time!
The "daddy" versions (I assume) actually are available on DVD in France, and
selected ones in Germany, but without doubt the R1 series is the way to go as long
as that is still possible. The German discs, being early Kinowelt releases, are
probably from mediocre TV transfers (quite unlike Kinowelt's current releases!) and
lacking English tracks, but do include a couple UNKNOWN CHAPLIN episodes (German,
too). As an excessive Chaplin completist (including potential A/B negative
variations), I'm tempted to take a look at one of the French discs though - as
interestingly, the French CHAPLIN REVIEW (La Grande revue de Charlot) seems to
include PAY DAY rather than A DOG'S LIFE. Odd... an alternate version?
Uli
Fred Tepper
> And it can't be proved, because Charlie and Oona burned the film. Like you
> said, a circular argument. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume
that
> Chaplin knew best.
Yeah, because he obviously didn't know best about a lot of things, or he
never would have step-printed some of his films, and wouldn't have ruined
"The Gold Rush."
--
-=Fred=-
(Remove the x in the e-mail address if replying privately)
RFCSAC627N
>>If a stereotypical studio boss destroys a film, there's some
>>basis for assuming that he didn't know or care how good it
>>was. If a "major film-maker" destroys a negative in which he's
>>already invested a small fortune, I think any reasonable
>>person would assume that in his expert judgment, the results
>>were highly unsatisfactory.
>>
>
>Occasionally, studio bosses were smart enough to realize that their
>judgement
>about what was good or bad didn't matter. Like the folks at M-G-M in the 60s
>who decided to preserve everything; they were willing to admit that
>attitudes
>about particular films change with time. The were willing to admit that they
>might be wrong. Too bad Chaplin wasn't similarly enlightened.
>
On the other hand, MGM leveled their back lot, auctioned off their prop
department for a pittance, junked much of their music department, and threw
away priceless screen tests and outtakes.
Much of the history of MGM is in a landfill under a golf course next to the
405 freeway.
Richard Carnahan
Christopher Snowden
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >Why should it matter what some of you
> >think of a film you've never seen?
>
> Because it was a notorious case of the
> destruction of a talented director's work in order to book a tax
> write-off.
>
Chaplin had had a long-running battle with the IRS in the late 1920s,
and "Sea Gulls" was one of the issues they were fighting about. I haven't
read the David Robinson book in a long time, but I believe he did have to
back up his claim to the tax man that "Sea Gulls" was a write-off with no
commercial value. The IRS gave him a direct and specific order to prove that
by destroying the negative. He had no choice but to comply.
If he'd truly been callous about the film, he'd have destroyed whatever
positive prints he had as well, but he didn't. He saved a print, which sat
in his vault until after his death.
Chris Snowden
Unknown Video
http://www.unknownvideo.com
This week: The Curious Case of Courtland Dines
http://www.unknownvideo.com/it.shtml
Glamour Studios
*sigh*
Archie Waugh
Mr. Moose
> On the other hand, MGM leveled their back lot, auctioned off their prop
>department for a pittance, junked much of their music department, and threw
>away priceless screen tests and outtakes.
> Much of the history of MGM is in a landfill under a golf course next to the
>405 freeway.
So, what would people here pay to tunnel in to this landfill and
retrieve whatever's there?
I think one of my eyeteeth would be worth it.
Mark
Beaver Lad
========================================
In article <20463-3B...@storefull-246.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
George Shelps <G-H...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >>George Shelps wrote
>
> I doubt that anyone is spending "hours
> every day fretting about" "Sea Gulls."
[snip]
Constance Kuriyama
>>===== Original Message From do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> ====
>
> <snip snip snip>
>
>>If a stereotypical studio boss destroys a film, there's some
>>basis for assuming that he didn't know or care how good it
>>was. If a "major film-maker" destroys a negative in which he's
>>already invested a small fortune, I think any reasonable
>>person would assume that in his expert judgment, the results
>>were highly unsatisfactory.
>>
>
> Occasionally, studio bosses were smart enough to realize that their
> judgement
> about what was good or bad didn't matter. Like the folks at M-G-M in the 60s
> who decided to preserve everything; they were willing to admit that
> attitudes
> about particular films change with time. The were willing to admit that they
> might be wrong. Too bad Chaplin wasn't similarly enlightened.
Are you sure these decisions were made on an enlightened basis? If you
have the resources, it's safer to keep everything, on the chance that it
might make money in the future. If you're running a small studio, maybe
you look at matters differently.
> <more snips>
>
>>> And then when
>>> it was revealed that a print had been preserved,
>>> Oona Chaplin repeated the original
>>> esthetic crime.
>>
>>It could only have been a crime if the film was worth
>>saving. You're assuming what you need to prove.
>
> And it can't be proved, because Charlie and Oona burned the film. Like you
> said, a circular argument. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume that
> Chaplin knew best.
I think it's very reasonable to assume that people who saw the film, and
who weren't aesthetic morons, were better judges of its worth than
people who didn't see it.
Chaplin's reasons for not releasing a film into which he had poured
considerable resources must have been powerful. I still think it
likely that he had personal reasons for not releasing it, and that
these had something to do with his willingness to scrap the negative
later.
I don't quarrel with people's personal reasons for disposing of their
own property. I don't assume that because a director who has done
good work makes a film, it belongs to me, and that I can demand that
it be preserved at someone else's expense to satisfy my curiosity.
Constance Kuriyama
> Shawn wrote:
>> And it can't be proved, because Charlie and Oona burned the film. Like you
>> said, a circular argument. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume
> that
>> Chaplin knew best.
>
> Yeah, because he obviously didn't know best about a lot of things, or he
> never would have step-printed some of his films, and wouldn't have ruined
> "The Gold Rush."
There's quite a difference between decisions Chaplin made before the
50s and after the 50s. Not really comparable, IMO. And I don't think he
ruined _Gold Rush_, either. It's pretty much the same film in
both versions--to the point where no onr in the '40s who had seen the
film earlier seemed to notice the difference.
Constance Kuriyama
I'm not sure either way that lack of discrimination is a sign of being
enlightened.
And Chaplin was not merely a studio boss. He was at the top of his game
when he decided not to release that film.
Constance Kuriyama
> I would trade ALL of Spielberg for ONE FRAME of "SEA GULLS".
I won't defend Spielberg, but I've seen one frame of _Sea Gulls_
and some stills, and I think you'd be disappointed with your
bargain.
Connie K.
> ========================================
> In article <20463-3B...@storefull-246.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> George Shelps <G-H...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>
>> >>George Shelps wrote
>>
>
>> I doubt that anyone is spending "hours
>> every day fretting about" "Sea Gulls."
>
> [snip]
--
Beaver Lad
<do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
> I think it's very reasonable to assume that people who saw the film [SEA GULLS], and
> who weren't aesthetic morons, were better judges of its worth than
> people who didn't see it.
---------
This is to say nothing at all, as no one who hasn't seen it has
"judged" SEA GULLS -- except to surmise that it would surely have been
of tremendous interest, due to the calibre of the participants
(Sternberg, Edna Purviance, cinematographer Paul Ivano). And some who
did see it admired it greatly (Robert Florey).
Your own opinion is all that counts, and you should not be so quick to
take solace from the fact that some people, whose opinion you respect,
didn't like it. Maybe you'd have loved it.
Alfred Hitchcock was not an "aesthetic moron". Two of his personal
favourites among his own films were SHADOW OF A DOUBT and THE TROUBLE
WITH HARRY. To me, one is superb, the other a total miss, one of the
worst films I have ever seen. Now, how do I take a Hitchcock opinion?
---------
>
> Chaplin's reasons for not releasing a film into which he had poured
> considerable resources must have been powerful. I still think it
> likely that he had personal reasons for not releasing it, and that
> these had something to do with his willingness to scrap the negative
> later.
----------
Agreed.
----------
>
> I don't quarrel with people's personal reasons for disposing of their
> own property. I don't assume that because a director who has done
> good work makes a film, it belongs to me, and that I can demand that
> it be preserved at someone else's expense to satisfy my curiosity.
>
> Connie K.
---------
No one disputes Chaplin's right to destroy what he had paid for. But
every film archivist should mourn the destruction -- twice! -- of
anything by an artist of Sternberg's quality.
And who wouldn't be fascinated to see the haunting Edna Purviance in
her penultimate starring role?
Beaver Lad
George Shelps
>>>Why should it matter what some of you
>>>think of a film you've never seen?
>>Because it was a notorious case of the
>> destruction of a talented director's
>>work in order to book a tax write-off.
>Since it wasn't your money and you
>didn't see the film, I can't see what basis
>you have for your indignation.
Then you don't read very well. I've stated many times that I'm an
admirer of Sternberg.
>But now that I think of it, those two
>circumstances are probably the primary
>reasons for your indignation. Indignation
>is cheap. Making a difficult decision
>about a film in which you've invested a
>considerable amount of money isn't.
Amazing how far you'll go in your blinkered defense of Chaplin....even
reducing cultural issues to dollars and cents!
>>>Worrying about a film that is absolutely
>>>lost is a waste of time.
>>A number of our regular contributors here
>>"worry" about lost films.
>Well, in my opinion they could be
>spending their
>time more productively. The emphasis
>should surely
>be on saving films that are worth saving
>and can still be saved, and increasing
>appreciation of older films (two things I
>think this group does well).
Unless my memory fails me, one of the regulars here, Frank Thompson,
wrote a book on "Lost Films."
Frank, you should've spent your time
more productively! Now get outta here,
you knucklehead! :)
>Maybe we should erect a wailing wall
>here especially for people who enjoy
>pining for what they can't have and
>passing judgment on the dead.
Maybe we should erect a shrine for
true believers who think that Chaplin
can do no wrong.
>If a stereotypical studio boss destroys a
>film, there's some basis for assuming
>that he didn't know or care how good it
>was. If a "major film-maker" destroys a
>negative in which he's already invested a
>small fortune, I think any reasonable
>person would assume that in his expert
>judgment, the results were highly
>unsatisfactory.
I don't think Chaplin was capable of
objectively assessing the work of a film-maker whose style was so
radically
different from his own. And it is likely
that he decided that the film would not
act as a boost to Edna's solo career.
To some degree, "Sea Gulls" was conceived as a vanity production to aid
in establishing Edna after Chaplin had
dropped her. Because of that personal
issue, I don't think CC was capable
of objectivity about the film.
>>And then when
>>it was revealed that a print had been
>>preserved, Oona Chaplin repeated the
>>original esthetic crime.
>It could only have been a crime if the
>film was worth
>saving. You're assuming what you need
>to prove.
My "proof" is based on the established talent (even genius) of the
director whose work was destroyed: Sternberg.
Steven Rowe
say, how come "Countess From Hong Kong" isn't on DVD?
steven rowe
FThomp1065
>wrote a book on "Lost Films."
>
>Frank, you should've spent your time
>more productively! Now get outta here,
>you knucklehead! :)
>
Hey, how did *I* get dragged into this? Although, I guess I should be grateful
that I wasn't referred to as Fred.
F. Thompson who, even if he *had* more time, couldn't spend it productively
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Chaplin's reasons for not releasing a film into which he had poured
> considerable resources must have been powerful. I still think it
> likely that he had personal reasons for not releasing it, and that
> these had something to do with his willingness to scrap the negative
> later.
>
> I don't quarrel with people's personal reasons for disposing of their
> own property. I don't assume that because a director who has done
> good work makes a film, it belongs to me, and that I can demand that
> it be preserved at someone else's expense to satisfy my curiosity.
I don't think anyone has the moral right to destroy a work by other artists, even
if he paid for it. Yes, it's legally permissible, and yes, a film is a commodity
which can be owned -- but it can also be something more, especially if it
represents the efforts of recognized film artists. Perhaps I could accept Chaplin
destroying "The Seagull" to feed his family, or to save his own films, but it
would still be morally problematic. I also think the IRS is equally to blame --
surely some formula could have been found to penalize Chaplin if he ever did
exploit the film commercially, short of requiring it be destroyed. This sounds
like a purely vindictive act by the U. S. government.
Chaplin's decision to save a print of "The Seagull", in violation of the law,
I think pretty clearly indicates his own moral qualms about the subject, and his
wife's subsequent subversion of Chaplin's "will" is even less defensible morally.
I also don't think Chaplin would have had a moral right to order a deathbed
instruction to destroy his own work -- as Virgil ordered in the case of "The
Aeniad", and as Pickford contemplated in the case of her films. Works of art are
just not comparable to other "property", and works of art by geniuses are another
case again. The law can't define a special case here, because the law can't
define art and genius with precision -- but that's a failing of law, which cannot
encompass all moral issues.
George Shelps
>surely some formula could have been
>found to penalize Chaplin if he ever did
>exploit the film commercially, short of
>requiring it be destroyed. This sounds
>like a purely vindictive act by the U. S.
>government.
Films are routinely written off today without requiring the destruction
of the
negative, so this may have been a since-repealed IRS statute in force.
The information about the tax problems
that led to the burning of the negative
comes from David Robinson's biography,
but it doesn't go into much detail.
Vindictive acts by the IRS against show
business figures (particularly in the area
of tax deductions) were common. When
they sensed "deep pockets," they were likely to enforce the tax code
mercilessly.
But, like you, I find it hard to believe that
destroying the negative was Chaplin's only option.
Mr. Moose
and getting the current Chaplin DVDs, there is a less expensive way to
get Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and Great Dictator. They are
available as a box set, ID9790CUDVD. The bar code number is
0-14381-9790-2-2. The set cost me $79.95, whereas the four discs alone
would be $24.99 each.
Just so you know.
BTW, David, beautiful remastering work!
Mark
Richard Lanham
wrote:
> For those of you taking David Shepards warning, and who are going out
> and getting the current Chaplin DVDs, there is a less expensive way to
> get Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and Great Dictator. They are
> available as a box set, ID9790CUDVD. The bar code number is
> 0-14381-9790-2-2. The set cost me $79.95, whereas the four discs alone
> would be $24.99 each.
>
> Just so you know.
And don't forget, there is only one shrink wrap to deal with, not four!
Rick
David Totheroh
> I would trade ALL of Spielberg for ONE FRAME of "SEA GULLS".
>
Where and when can we meet. I've got a dozen or so frames of "Sea
Gulls." Do I get a dozen or so prints of all of Spielberg's output?
I'm deadly serious. Were you?
Beaver Lad
(How about posting some scans of those frames -- PLEASE? While you're
doing that, I'll go round up every known print of every known Spielberg
film.)
=======================
In article <31dd3eaa.01080...@posting.google.com>, David
David Totheroh
> Oh, ALWAYS!
>
> (How about posting some scans of those frames -- PLEASE? While you're
> doing that, I'll go round up every known print of every known Spielberg
> film.)
Now why would I want to give 'em away for free by posting a scan, when
you've promised so much for them? But you don't need to "round up
every known print of every known Spielberg film." One print of all of
'em per frame was the deal, and I wouldn't think of backing out on, or
changing, an existing deal, would you?
PS. The strip of film was in with my grandfather's things and a scan
was published in Limelight (Vol.II No.3) (which I'm pretty sure is
where Connie saw it) in case you still have doubts. Let me know when
you've got the prints and where we can meet.
Beaver Lad
Okay, got the prints, am leaving at once. However, I'm travelling on
foot, from a position near the Arctic Circle, so it could take a while.
Should be in L.A. next week, around two o'clock. Meet me at (what used
to be) Ciro's. Maybe you could carry an old B&H camera or something so
I know you.
Sincerely,
The Beav
(P.S. -- Hope you don't mind 9.5mm prints of the Spielberg flicks --
the fellow in the bar said that was the only size he had left.)
==========================