What Is aThird Negative?
Constance Kuriyama
informed poster.
The Chaplin First Nationals LD includes a copy of Chaplin's contract
with First National (19197). This contract specifies that Chaplin will
supply First National with two negatives of each film and a sample
positive print.
The contract also specifies that in the event that one of these two
negatives is lost or damaged in transit to First National, Chaplin will
supply "the third" negative to replace it.
We know that Chaplin filmed with two cameras (though I've seen
pictures where three were set up) placed very close together. And
I believe these edited camera negatives in the early years were
the masters from which all prints were struck.
So what was this third negative that Chaplin was required to supply
if one of the two was lost or damaged in transit?
Connie K.
Feuillade
cb...@ttacs.ttu.edu writes:
I can only supply an educated guess -- but one which makes sense to me.
Assuming that Chaplin shot wit two cameras all the time -- one to provide a
negative for the States, another for Europe.
Is it possible that one of the two negatives he supplied to First National was
a dupe negative, and that Chaplin wanted to hold on to at least one negative of
the film for the period when First National had exclusive use of the film
(which would be the first five years of its release)?
This way, if First National screwed up the original materials during that time,
Chaplin would be covered.
Pure speculation, but it seems to make sense to me.
I'd be interested in hearing another hypothesis.
Tom Moran
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran.index.html
Updated! Silent Film Screenings in New York:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran17.index.html
100 Best Novels List:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran25.index.html
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) says:
>
>cb...@ttacs.ttu.edu writes:
>
>> Here's a question for Bob Birchard
>> or some other technically well-
>> informed poster.
<snip>
>> We know that Chaplin filmed with
>> two cameras (though I've seen
>> pictures where three were set up)
>> placed very close together. And
>> I believe these edited camera
>> negatives in the early years were
>> the masters from which all prints
>> were struck.
>
>> So what was this third negative that
>> Chaplin was required to supply
>> if one of the two was lost or damaged
>> in transit?
>
>I can only supply an educated guess -- but one which makes sense to me.
>
>Assuming that Chaplin shot wit two cameras all the time -- one to provide a
>negative for the States, another for Europe.
>
>Is it possible that one of the two negatives he supplied to First National was
>a dupe negative, and that Chaplin wanted to hold on to at least one negative of
>the film for the period when First National had exclusive use of the film
>(which would be the first five years of its release)?
>
>This way, if First National screwed up the original materials during that time,
>Chaplin would be covered.
>
>Pure speculation, but it seems to make sense to me.
It makes perfect sense. But I seem to recall someone saying
on the silents group that the technology to make dupe negatives
from fine-grained positives (lavender prints) didn't evolve until
later, which is one reason why so many early silents were lost.
There definitely was a third negative, so I'm dying to find out
where it came from. It's no doubt partly thanks to the existence of
these third negatives that Chaplin's First Nationals are so well
preserved.
Connie K.
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--CBK--<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Words can defeat the imagination." --Charlie Chaplin
DShepFilm
<<So what was this third negative that Chaplin was required to supply
if one of the two was lost or damaged in transit?>>
It was a new negative made from first camera second-best takes, which,
incidentally, is what we have today on all of the First Nationals deriving from
the 35mm elements held by Association Chaplin.
CC also had fourth negs on some pictures which, of course, was made from second
camera second-best takes.
David Shepard
Feuillade
dshe...@aol.com writes:
But first he quotes Connie:
Does this mean that all the First Nationals currently in circulation from the
Chaplin Estate are comprised of material that was *not* included in the
original release version, but are instead comprised of outtakes (or
"second-best takes") from the first camera?
If that's so, then none of the "official" Chaplin First Nationals are the
original films at all.
dsu...@concentric.net
(Feuillade) wrote:
> dshe...@aol.com writes:
>
> But first he quotes Connie:
>
> >> So what was this third negative
> >> that Chaplin was required to
> >> supply if one of the two was lost
> >> or damaged in transit?
>
> > It was a new negative made from
> > first camera second-best takes,
> > which, incidentally, is what we have
> > today on all of the First Nationals
> > deriving from the 35mm elements
> > held by Association Chaplin.
>
> > CC also had fourth negs on some
> > pictures which, of course, was made
> > from second camera second-best
> > takes.
>
> Does this mean that all the First Nationals currently in circulation from the
> Chaplin Estate are comprised of material that was *not* included in the
> original release version, but are instead comprised of outtakes (or
> "second-best takes") from the first camera?
>
> If that's so, then none of the "official" Chaplin First Nationals are the
> original films at all.
WHAT? WHAT?!! WHAT?!!!?!!?
I can't believe this! So the scene from "The Kid" we've been seeing all
these years ISN'T the one that audiences saw when the film was initially
released? In fact, EVERY shot in EVERY First National is from a "safety"
negative composed entirely of outtakes from the actual released film? --
looks like I have a lot more to look for than Mutual intertitles, huh?
RFCSAC627N
>From: dsu...@concentric.net
As I recall the US camera negative for THE KID was destroyed in a fire during
the late thirties. So indeed what we're seeing today is *not* what audiences
saw in the twenties.
Richard Carnahan
Robert Birchard
>
> Does this mean that all the First Nationals currently in circulation from the
> Chaplin Estate are comprised of material that was *not* included in the
> original release version, but are instead comprised of outtakes (or
> "second-best takes") from the first camera?
>
> If that's so, then none of the "official" Chaplin First Nationals are the
> original films at all.
You guys have not been paying attention! ;-}
This topic has been brought up directly and indirectly several
times in the past year or so.
NONE of the CC films from his First National period distributed by
the Chaplin estate are what audiences saw in the late teens and early
twenties.
The versions currently available were assembled from the best
surviving materials by Rollie Totheroh in the 1940's. They include
material from each of the four negatives and possibly some outtake
material as well.
As I have said before, it is ironic that CC--possibly still the
best known star/filmmaker from the silent era--is not represented by
original configuration prints on any of his major silent works.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Robert Birchard
>
> Here's a question for Bob Birchard or some other technically well-
> informed poster.
>
> with First National (19197). This contract specifies that Chaplin will
> supply First National with two negatives of each film and a sample
> positive print.
>
> The contract also specifies that in the event that one of these two
> negatives is lost or damaged in transit to First National, Chaplin will
> supply "the third" negative to replace it.
>
> pictures where three were set up) placed very close together. And
> I believe these edited camera negatives in the early years were
> the masters from which all prints were struck.
>
> if one of the two was lost or damaged in transit?
>
Dear Connie,
I posted my answer to this on a.m.s.
dsu...@concentric.net
<bbir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Feuillade wrote:
>
> >
> > Does this mean that all the First Nationals currently in circulation
from the
> > Chaplin Estate are comprised of material that was *not* included in the
> > original release version, but are instead comprised of outtakes (or
> > "second-best takes") from the first camera?
> >
> > If that's so, then none of the "official" Chaplin First Nationals are the
> > original films at all.
>
>
> You guys have not been paying attention! ;-}
>
> This topic has been brought up directly and indirectly several
> times in the past year or so.
>
> NONE of the CC films from his First National period distributed by
> the Chaplin estate are what audiences saw in the late teens and early
> twenties.
>
> The versions currently available were assembled from the best
> surviving materials by Rollie Totheroh in the 1940's. They include
> material from each of the four negatives and possibly some outtake
> material as well.
Okay... the million dollar question... WHY?
>
> As I have said before, it is ironic that CC--possibly still the
> best known star/filmmaker from the silent era--is not represented by
> original configuration prints on any of his major silent works.
... Even beyond the First Nationals?
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, bbir...@earthlink.net (Robert Birchard) says:
>Feuillade wrote:
>
>>
>> Does this mean that all the First Nationals currently in circulation from the
>> Chaplin Estate are comprised of material that was *not* included in the
>> original release version, but are instead comprised of outtakes (or
>> "second-best takes") from the first camera?
>>
>> If that's so, then none of the "official" Chaplin First Nationals are the
>> original films at all.
>
>
> You guys have not been paying attention! ;-}
>
> This topic has been brought up directly and indirectly several
>times in the past year or so.
Mostly indirectly, which is why I brought it up again. I had some
bits and pieces of information, but hadn't put them all together yet.
It's one consequence of communicating through short posts.
Now I think the situation has been fully clarified. Thanks to Bob,
David, Jon, and all who responded.
This explains why two quite different prints of _Shoulder Arms_ are
available on video. The older version is not so good in general
visual quality, but many of the takes used in it are decidedly
superior to those in _The Chaplin Revue_.
han...@aol.com
bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> This explains why two quite different prints of _Shoulder Arms_ are
> available on video. The older version is not so good in general
> visual quality, but many of the takes used in it are decidedly
> superior to those in _The Chaplin Revue_.
>
I've noticed a difference between the SA on the "Legacy of Laughter" LD and
the Revue SA. Is the SA on the LD the "older version" to which you refer? On
what video is this older SA available? Madacy?
Hannah
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
CC4Fun
dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
> In article <3614EF...@earthlink.net>, Robert Birchard
> <bbir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Feuillade wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Does this mean that all the First Nationals currently in circulation
> from the
> > > Chaplin Estate are comprised of material that was *not* included in the
> > > original release version, but are instead comprised of outtakes (or
> > > "second-best takes") from the first camera?
> > >
> > > If that's so, then none of the "official" Chaplin First Nationals are the
> > > original films at all.
> >
> >
> > You guys have not been paying attention! ;-}
> >
> > This topic has been brought up directly and indirectly several
> > times in the past year or so.
> >
> > NONE of the CC films from his First National period distributed by
> > the Chaplin estate are what audiences saw in the late teens and early
> > twenties.
> >
> > The versions currently available were assembled from the best
> > surviving materials by Rollie Totheroh in the 1940's. They include
> > material from each of the four negatives and possibly some outtake
> > material as well.
>
> Okay... the million dollar question... WHY?
Let me think. Wouldn't it be a little silly to use something less than the best
surviving materials? Not to mention the difficulties involved in incorporating
all of that pristine non-surviving footage. :) At the risk of overstating the
obvious, one could assume that, at that time, image quality was seen as a higher
priority than, to use Mr. Birchard's word from another discussion, 'slavish'
adherence to scene-by-scene authenticity.
dsu...@concentric.net
> Let me think. Wouldn't it be a little silly to use something less than
the best
> surviving materials?
I agree... but the best surviving materials would be the best prints that
exist of the film as originally released. Re-making a film out of outtakes
(even if they ARE a generation or two better) is NOT restoring a film --
it's creating different, inferior one.
Not to mention the difficulties involved in incorporating
> all of that pristine non-surviving footage.
I don't think anyone here can answer the question of how much of the
original First National footage survives. If you know something
definitive, please feel free to present your data.
CC4Fun
dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
> In article <3615860D...@swbell.com>, CC4Fun <CC4...@swbell.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me think. Wouldn't it be a little silly to use something less than
> the best
> > surviving materials?
>
> I agree... but the best surviving materials would be the best prints that
> exist of the film as originally released. Re-making a film out of outtakes
> (even if they ARE a generation or two better) is NOT restoring a film --
> it's creating different, inferior one.
You seem not to be able to let go of your own priorities. Restoring the film,
as that is now understood, was obviously, quite simply not the goal in the
1940s when the work was done. Each of the films was a fluid *process*
(especially given Chaplin's creative technique) for those who had had a hand in
their creation. The idea of an etched-in-stone 'final cut' to be preserved for
posterity would have been a foreign concept to them, as evidenced by the
reports of Chaplin's tinkering (perhaps not as extensively as Griffith) with
his films for early re-issue before he left America, as well as his work on the
sound versions later. That may not reflect your priorities, or my own, but they
are also not our films.
> Not to mention the difficulties involved in incorporating
> > all of that pristine non-surviving footage.
>
> I don't think anyone here can answer the question of how much of the
> original First National footage survives. If you know something
> definitive, please feel free to present your data.
This may be important information for a future restoration project, which I
still hope you will undertake as you suggested earlier you would, but would not
have been relevant to the task at hand by those who did the work following The
Great Dictator.
DShepFilm
<<
This explains why two quite different prints of _Shoulder Arms_ are
available on video. The older version is not so good in general
visual quality, but many of the takes used in it are decidedly
superior to those in _The Chaplin Revue_.
>>
Hi, folks, I'll try to share what I know in response to the questions that have
come up.
Bob B is right, in 1943-44, Rollie T assembled the versions of the First
Nationals which have come down to us through "official" sources.
Although Rollie intended to use the best of each remaining negative, the
elements on these films were very worn and it is my impression that a great
deal -- maybe most -- of each of these films comes from out-takes.
SHOULDER ARMS is an interesting example. The so-called "true silent" version of
this film which is floating around is probably from third negative, since CC
had to supply clean elements for a reissue to Pathe in 1925, and it is from
this version that the bootleg 16mm copies and the videos made from them derive
(they can easily be flagged by the modern re-made main title and the Pathe logo
at the end).
But as Connie says, even this is superior in content to the Chaplin Revue
version.
Personally [please don't shoot], having been familiar with the film only from
these two versions, I never understood its exalted reputation.
Two summers ago in Denmark, I saw a true original 1918 English-titled print of
this picture, easily identified by the First National main and end titles and
the First National logo on each interior title. A few parts were chopped up
(appropriately, the scene where Henry Bergman gets stuck in the culvert and a
woodsman chops him out) but it was generally in very good shape and the picture
quality was stunning.
Well, I fell on the floor! It was a completely different picture! Incredibly
funny, full of fresh (to me) little bits, and absolutely worthy of the
superlatives heaped on this movie during its early years. I knew at that
moment that I had never seen SHOULDER ARMS before.
I asked Association Chaplin whether they would let me restore this picture,
using what I could of the original print and filling in where necessary with
the material we used for the LD. [I know Doug Sulpy would hate it just for my
fingerprints but the rest of you probably would think it was great].
Unfortunately, Charlie's children, who must vote on all such matters, decided
that as their father left the film as it is seen in THE CHAPLIN REVUE, he would
not have wanted further changes and so permission was denied.
I have it on authority very, very close to the horse's mouth that Rollie
undertook this assembly of the films when Charlie wanted to provide SHOULDER
ARMS to the Army during WWII and discovered that the existing negatives were
tuckered out. Although he was of course aware what Rollie was doing, it somehow
didn't really "click" that the films were being heavily altered, and Rollie's
priority was obviously to achieve a clean, unblemished image.
When CC saw the new versions much later, after he was in Europe (the fine
grains weren't made until 1953), he was apparently devastated but by then it
was too late to retrieve acceptable quality on the first negative material. So
he let them go but the blame he lay against faithful Rollie was said to explain
the omission from MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY of his longest, closest collaborator.
The sharp-eyed among you may have chances to compare two different versions of
THE IDLE CLASS, PAY DAY, THE PILGRIM and THE KID, and THREE different versions
of A DOG'S LIFE. One does not have to go to Denmark to find them.
David Shepard
dsu...@concentric.net
> dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> > In article <3615860D...@swbell.com>, CC4Fun <CC4...@swbell.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Let me think. Wouldn't it be a little silly to use something less than
> > the best
> > > surviving materials?
> >
> > I agree... but the best surviving materials would be the best prints that
> > exist of the film as originally released. Re-making a film out of outtakes
> > (even if they ARE a generation or two better) is NOT restoring a film --
> > it's creating different, inferior one.
>
> You seem not to be able to let go of your own priorities.
That's because my priorities are in the right place. No reason to let go
of them.
Restoring the film,
> as that is now understood, was obviously, quite simply not the goal in the
> 1940s when the work was done.
-- and that goal WAS....?
Look -- maybe I can make myself clearer.
Let's say The Beatles released, oh, "Strawberry Fields Forever", editing
together takes 17 and 26. Let's say E.M.I. loses these tapes, and all
that's out there are 10 billion records and 100 billion people having
listened to them. Now, let's say it's 20 years later, and E.M.I. wants to
re-release the song, looks at the recording sheet and says: "Golly, this
says an edit of takes 17 and 26 would be best, but we can't find those, so
we'll use an edit of takes 5 and 24, because we have the tapes for those,
and if we wanted to use the original we'd have to lift it off of some
scratchy old record somewhere..." Then they put out the "new" "Strawberry
Fields" comprised of two different takes (judged inferior at the time of
the original release), and then don't even bother to tell anyone. "Well,
this is 'Strawberry Fields' NOW. Don't be so picky!".
Of course, I see the same thing happening with the Chaplin films.
Each of the films was a fluid *process*
> (especially given Chaplin's creative technique) for those who had had a
hand in
> their creation. The idea of an etched-in-stone 'final cut' to be preserved for
> posterity would have been a foreign concept to them, as evidenced by the
> reports of Chaplin's tinkering (perhaps not as extensively as Griffith) with
> his films for early re-issue before he left America, as well as his work
on the
> sound versions later. That may not reflect your priorities, or my own,
but they
> are also not our films.
Chaplin's editing of his own films was ill-advised (particularly "The Gold
Rush"). The aim, however, was clearly not to continue the creative
"process", as you describe, but to make the films more commercial to later
audiences (i.e., money!). Griffith probably tinkered with his own films
because he had nothing else to do.
> > Not to mention the difficulties involved in incorporating
> > > all of that pristine non-surviving footage.
> >
> > I don't think anyone here can answer the question of how much of the
> > original First National footage survives. If you know something
> > definitive, please feel free to present your data.
>
> This may be important information for a future restoration project, which I
> still hope you will undertake as you suggested earlier you would...
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. I'll be happy to restore all
of the Mutuals. Hell, I'll even do the First Nationals. Send me a couple
of hundred reels of film and I'll get right to it.
but would not
> have been relevant to the task at hand by those who did the work following The
> Great Dictator.
I'll grant this, even though I still have no idea WHY they did what they
did. Was it an effort to create a re-releaseable product, and the U.S. and
European negatives were damaged? If they re-assembled the films from
"second best" takes, it seems to have been more out of convienience than
anything else.
But what's Fox Video's excuse? The laserdiscs are splendid, filled with
outtakes, notes, etc. -- do you think they could have ONCE mentioned
somewhere that "the film you're seeing is made up of outtakes from the
original, because we don't have the original and we're too lazy to go look
for it..." Nah...
Constance Kuriyama
(han...@aol.com) writes:
> In article <6v3anr$9of$1...@news.ysu.edu>,
> bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> available on video. The older version is not so good in general
>> visual quality, but many of the takes used in it are decidedly
>> superior to those in _The Chaplin Revue_.
>>
>
> the Revue SA. Is the SA on the LD the "older version" to which you refer? On
> what video is this older SA available? Madacy?
I'll have to check this, but the LD version is basically the older version.
The other I got on a cheapo video--not Madacy.
One way to check on this is to look at the scene where Edna is posting as
"poor France." On the older version, a cannon shell comes bursting through
the wall of her house--quite dramatic. No such thing in _Chaplin Revue_.
Connie K.
John Aldrich
>
>Look -- maybe I can make myself clearer.
>Let's say The Beatles released, oh, "Strawberry Fields Forever", editing
>together takes 17 and 26. Let's say E.M.I. loses these tapes, and all
>that's out there are 10 billion records and 100 billion people having
>listened to them. Now, let's say it's 20 years later, and E.M.I. wants to
>re-release the song, looks at the recording sheet and says: "Golly, this
>says an edit of takes 17 and 26 would be best, but we can't find those, so
>we'll use an edit of takes 5 and 24, because we have the tapes for those,
>and if we wanted to use the original we'd have to lift it off of some
>scratchy old record somewhere..." Then they put out the "new" "Strawberry
>Fields" comprised of two different takes (judged inferior at the time of
>the original release), and then don't even bother to tell anyone. "Well,
>this is 'Strawberry Fields' NOW. Don't be so picky!".
>
>Of course, I see the same thing happening with the Chaplin films.
>
>Chaplin's editing of his own films was ill-advised (particularly "The Gold
>Rush"). The aim, however, was clearly not to continue the creative
>"process", as you describe, but to make the films more commercial to later
>audiences (i.e., money!). Griffith probably tinkered with his own films
>because he had nothing else to do.
No, I think Griffith's motives were much the same...to make the films
more palatable to later audiences. But, this is *exactly* why I get
impatient with those who want to argue that the 1942 version of THE
GOLD RUSH is Chaplin's definitive and final version of the film. It
is no more definitive (for 1942) than the original was in 1925.
>
>I'll grant this, even though I still have no idea WHY they did what they
>did. Was it an effort to create a re-releaseable product, and the U.S. and
>European negatives were damaged? If they re-assembled the films from
>"second best" takes, it seems to have been more out of convienience than
>anything else.
>
>But what's Fox Video's excuse? The laserdiscs are splendid, filled with
>outtakes, notes, etc. -- do you think they could have ONCE mentioned
>somewhere that "the film you're seeing is made up of outtakes from the
>original, because we don't have the original and we're too lazy to go look
>for it..." Nah...
Doug, I liked your analogy of STRAWBERRY FIELDS which I thought
illustrative and I share your enthusiasm for restoring films to what
audiences originally saw. D. Shepard's story about being bowled over
by the original version of SHOULDER ARMS certainly underlined the
point.
As I read your post, I find myself nodding in agreement...until this
last statement. Your depiction of "laziness" on the part of the
producers of the LaserDisc editions is unfair and well...lazy.
The commercial considerations of a LaserDisc edition of films 70 or
more years old is a sticky wicket. The constraints of time, budget,
rights and preprint availability all come into play.
Sure, if money were no object, no deadlines were imposed, nobody had
to sign off on the project and pristine original prints were
plentiful...we would all be dancing in the streets.
That's not real world...and I submit that, since there are many less
strenuous (and more lucrative) ways to make money than producing
LaserDiscs of silent films, the people involved in these enterprises
are just as dedicated to preserving the original films as you would
be. They are in the business out of a love for the medium.
But, compromises must be made. Shepard alluded to a request to
restore SHOULDER ARMS being rejected by the Chaplin Estate. This sort
of thing must be frustrating to all involved, but you have to admire
the dedication and persistance of these folks...as they pursue the
ultimate goal...the best possible historical record that time, money
and availability will allow.
Lazy? I think not.
--John Aldrich
dsu...@concentric.net
(John Aldrich) wrote:
> As I read your post, I find myself nodding in agreement...until this
> last statement. Your depiction of "laziness" on the part of the
> producers of the LaserDisc editions is unfair and well...lazy.
Absolutely. I was no doubt undertaken by the anger-of-the-moment that such
important information about the First National source prints was not even
mentioned on the laserdisc packaging.
Certainly the inclusion of all those wonderful outtakes and putting back
the lost footage into the various films showed that the people who put
that set together really did care about the end product. I'm sorry I said
that (particularly because I don't really believe it!) and I take it back.
Doug
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, CC4...@swbell.com (CC4Fun) says:
>dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
>
>> In article <3615860D...@swbell.com>, CC4Fun <CC4...@swbell.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Let me think. Wouldn't it be a little silly to use something less than
>> the best
>> > surviving materials?
>>
>> I agree... but the best surviving materials would be the best prints that
>> exist of the film as originally released. Re-making a film out of outtakes
>> (even if they ARE a generation or two better) is NOT restoring a film --
>> it's creating different, inferior one.
>
>You seem not to be able to let go of your own priorities. Restoring the film,
>as that is now understood, was obviously, quite simply not the goal in the
>1940s when the work was done. Each of the films was a fluid *process*
>(especially given Chaplin's creative technique) for those who had had a hand in
>their creation. The idea of an etched-in-stone 'final cut' to be preserved for
>posterity would have been a foreign concept to them, as evidenced by the
>reports of Chaplin's tinkering (perhaps not as extensively as Griffith) with
>his films for early re-issue before he left America, as well as his work on the
>sound versions later. That may not reflect your priorities, or my own, but they
>are also not our films.
It is true that Chaplin, when he recut and reconstituted his films, did not
have the goal of restoring the original--partly because that wasn't
possible, and partly because the strict historicist notion of perserving an
authoritative original cut would never have occured to him.
I think David Shepard's post on _Shoulder Arms_ makes clear that Chaplin *did*
have an interest in preserving the best possible version of his films, which
was the A or B negative if available. This was for aesthetic and not
historical reasons.
But I also believe that he did regard his revision of GR as an ongoing
creative process, as most clearly indicated by the excellent music he
composed for it.
Robert Birchard
>
> But I also believe that he did regard his revision of GR as an ongoing
> creative process, as most clearly indicated by the excellent music he
> composed for it.
I think you're speculating on Chaplin's motives.
The Gold Rush reissue must be put into the context of its time.
Beginning in the late 1930's a number of silents were reissued with
new sound tracks--the reissue was probably the last of this cycle which
began in 1937 and which may have been promtpted by the success of
"Modern Times" in 1936.
Also, Chaplin had still not come to terms with sound. Although he
would only make talking pictures in the future, this was probably not as
clear in 1942. At that time "The Great Dictator was an oddity and there
was every reason to believe that CC might return to making silents. TGR
reissue offered a way to experiment with a new approach to silent cinema
using narrration to replace subtitles-without going to the expense of
producing a new film in the war years when CC's important foreign
markets had dried up.
Constance Kuriyama
>
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >
> > But I also believe that he did regard his revision of GR as an ongoing
> > creative process, as most clearly indicated by the excellent music he
> > composed for it.
>
> I think you're speculating on Chaplin's motives.
Sure! So is everyone else who can't produce a direct statement
of motive from him--which in his case would be rather difficult to
get, and not always possible to believe--if it was a press release.
> The Gold Rush reissue must be put into the context of its time.
>
> Beginning in the late 1930's a number of silents were reissued with
> new sound tracks--the reissue was probably the last of this cycle which
> began in 1937 and which may have been promtpted by the success of
> "Modern Times" in 1936.
>
> Also, Chaplin had still not come to terms with sound. Although he
> would only make talking pictures in the future, this was probably not as
> clear in 1942. At that time "The Great Dictator was an oddity and there
> was every reason to believe that CC might return to making silents.
I think by '42 Chaplin had decided that sound was inevitable. He
went to great expense to equip his studio for it. The story is that
he attended a screening of _Modern Times_ and heard a child say to
his mother, "Why can't I hear them talk?" This convinced him that
in a few years silents would no longer be comprehensible to audiences.
TGR
> reissue offered a way to experiment with a new approach to silent cinema
> using narrration to replace subtitles-without going to the expense of
> producing a new film in the war years when CC's important foreign
> markets had dried up.
The reissue is definitely an experiment--and a commercial venture.
But I think he also strove to produce a score worthy of a film he
considered one of his very best.
Connie K.
dsu...@concentric.net
(DShepFilm) wrote:
> I asked Association Chaplin whether they would let me restore this picture,
> using what I could of the original print and filling in where necessary with
> the material we used for the LD. [I know Doug Sulpy would hate it just for my
> fingerprints but the rest of you probably would think it was great].
> Unfortunately, Charlie's children, who must vote on all such matters, decided
> that as their father left the film as it is seen in THE CHAPLIN REVUE,
he would
> not have wanted further changes and so permission was denied.
Now, David... despite my, shall we say, impassioned disagreement with
various choices you've made with your Mutual series, there's no reason to
get paranoid and think I'm out here hating everything you've ever done (or
will do), particularly when I've repeatedly acknowledged all the fine work
that you HAVE done in getting these films to us in the first place.
I'm not apologetic, however, for wanting to see ALL of Chaplin's work as
it was released. There's no such thing as "too picky" (or, I think someone
called it "whiny carping" :-)) when it comes to this stuff, because it's
the work of the world's greatest comedian that we're talking about
preserving here. If more people thought as I do (like Chaplin's kids, for
instance) we wouldn't be living in a world where 99% of the people who
think they've seen "Shoulder Arms" haven't.
But thanks for your very informative post (heart-breaking as it is).
Doug
uli...@my-dejanews.com
> this picture, easily identified by the First National main and end titles and
> the First National logo on each interior title. A few parts were chopped up
> (appropriately, the scene where Henry Bergman gets stuck in the culvert and a
> woodsman chops him out) but it was generally in very good shape and the
picture
> quality was stunning.
>
> Well, I fell on the floor! It was a completely different picture! Incredibly
> funny, full of fresh (to me) little bits, and absolutely worthy of the
> superlatives heaped on this movie during its early years. I knew at that
> moment that I had never seen SHOULDER ARMS before.
>
> using what I could of the original print and filling in where necessary with
> the material we used for the LD. [I know Doug Sulpy would hate it just for my
> fingerprints but the rest of you probably would think it was great].
> Unfortunately, Charlie's children, who must vote on all such matters, decided
> that as their father left the film as it is seen in THE CHAPLIN REVUE, he
would
> not have wanted further changes and so permission was denied.
It's great the Chaplin family does care for their dad's legacy, but this is a
little bit odd, since they didn't object the refurbished CITY LIGHTS
soundtrack and the restoration of the silent version of GOLDRUSH - more
dramatic changes to Chaplin's "last word" than a difference between A, B, and
C negatives, one might argue. I did not have a chance to see the
Brownlow/Gill GOLDRUSH restorations, unfortunately; I like my two LDs (two
since, I understand, one DOES incorporate material lifted from the
alternative neg used in '42??) of the Kiliam print as a alternate version --
the original, after all, -- although I DO prefer the '42 cut; but combining a
score based on the sound version with the silent cut rather seems to 'dilute'
the differences bewteen those two legitimate versions. I'd probably prefer to
see it with an alternate score--
which brings me to my next point: wouldn't a, let's say, video restoration
with a new soundtrack, in the 'Slapstick Encyclopedia' style, still make
sense (maybe plus 'The Bond', still unavailable on DVD/LD) -- and be possible
since SHOULDER ARMS is now PD? IMO it wouldn't take anything away from the
Chaplin Revue version, preferrably in David Shepard's brilliantly restored
LEGACY OF LAUGHTER version, even if it could not use its source material to
fix the 'rough spots' of the British/Danish print!
Uli
(P.S.: Mr. Shepard - thanks for your great work!)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Constance Kuriyama
It's possible they didn't fully grasp all the issues involved, though
I'm sure David Shepard outlined them. Maybe upon further consideration
they'll change their minds.
I'd very much like to see the version David describes.
I did not have a chance to see the
> Brownlow/Gill GOLDRUSH restorations, unfortunately; I like my two LDs (two
> since, I understand, one DOES incorporate material lifted from the
> alternative neg used in '42??) of the Kiliam print as a alternate version --
> the original, after all, -- although I DO prefer the '42 cut; but combining a
> score based on the sound version with the silent cut rather seems to 'dilute'
> the differences bewteen those two legitimate versions.
According to David Gill's article in _Griffithiana_, '42 consists
largely of '25 footage, so the visual differences between the two
versions may not be as great as one thinks. '42 incorporates a bit of
substitute footage, but the cuts account for most of the differences.
I'd probably prefer to
> see it with an alternate score--
I've heard the adapted score played with the Brownlow-Gill
restoration. I think you'd like it.
> which brings me to my next point: wouldn't a, let's say, video restoration
> with a new soundtrack, in the 'Slapstick Encyclopedia' style, still make
> sense (maybe plus 'The Bond', still unavailable on DVD/LD) -- and be possible
> since SHOULDER ARMS is now PD? IMO it wouldn't take anything away from the
> Chaplin Revue version, preferrably in David Shepard's brilliantly restored
> LEGACY OF LAUGHTER version, even if it could not use its source material to
> fix the 'rough spots' of the British/Danish print.
David S. will have to respond to that. But *is* the film actually
in PD, given all the tinkering with copyright that's been going on
lately? I haven't been following it carefully.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
Maybe they didn't fully grasp the issues involved, though I'm sure
David Sh. outlined them. Perhaps on further considereation they'll
change their minds. I'd like to see this version.
I did not have a chance to see the
> Brownlow/Gill GOLDRUSH restorations, unfortunately; I like my two LDs (two
> since, I understand, one DOES incorporate material lifted from the
> alternative neg used in '42??) of the Kiliam print as a alternate version --
> the original, after all, -- although I DO prefer the '42 cut;
According to David Gill's article in _Griffithiana_, '42 consists
mainly of '25 footage. There are some substitutions and additions,
but most of the changes consist of cuts.
but combining a
> score based on the sound version with the silent cut rather seems to 'dilute'
> the differences bewteen those two legitimate versions. I'd probably prefer to
> see it with an alternate score--
I've heard the adapted score played with the Brownlow-Gill restoration.
I think you'd like it.
> which brings me to my next point: wouldn't a, let's say, video restoration
> with a new soundtrack, in the 'Slapstick Encyclopedia' style, still make
> sense (maybe plus 'The Bond', still unavailable on DVD/LD) -- and be possible
> since SHOULDER ARMS is now PD? IMO it wouldn't take anything away from the
> Chaplin Revue version, preferrably in David Shepard's brilliantly restored
> LEGACY OF LAUGHTER version, even if it could not use its source material to
> fix the 'rough spots' of the British/Danish print!
David Sh. will have to answer this one. Because of the recent
tinkering with copyright duration, I'm not even sure that SA is
in the public domain any more.
Connie K.
CC4Fun
uli...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <362E7B...@ttacs.ttu.edu>,
> cb...@ttacs.ttu.edu wrote:
of a possible Shoulder Arms restoration project:
> > It's possible they didn't fully grasp all the issues involved, though
> > I'm sure David Shepard outlined them. Maybe upon further consideration
> > they'll change their minds.
> I hope so; you have a good point here.
>
> <snip>
>
> > But *is* the film actually
> > in PD, given all the tinkering with copyright that's been going on
> > lately? I haven't been following it carefully.
>
> Again, good point. But I'd guess so; after all, SUNNYSIDE showed up on PD
> videos also, didn't it? Wasn't GOLDRUSH an exception since, formally, the
> script - written by British citizen CC - had been copyrighted? Well... who
> knows....
>
David Pierce, probably. :) Since I doubt the 20 year extension applies
retroactively to films already PD at the time of the extension, I'd think
_Shoulder Arms_ would be PD. I'd guess the problem would arise proving the
source to be other than _The Chaplin Review_, which *is* copyrighted.
I believe the _Goldrush_ exception was due to the fact that the film had been
registered to a sole proprietor corporation and its "author," the film's
director was a British subject. (Am I close, David?)
uli...@my-dejanews.com
> It's possible they didn't fully grasp all the issues involved, though
> I'm sure David Shepard outlined them. Maybe upon further consideration
> they'll change their minds.
I hope so; you have a good point here.
Re. GOLDRUSH:
> According to David Gill's article in _Griffithiana_, '42 consists
> largely of '25 footage, so the visual differences between the two
> versions may not be as great as one thinks. '42 incorporates a bit of
> substitute footage, but the cuts account for most of the differences.
Gill says that "for most of the shots Chaplin had used the same takes as he
had in 1925, but covered by the second camera." Since that indicates there's
even a difference between the Republic ("old Kiliam print" if I'm not
mistaken) and Voyager (Kiliam with scenes from '42 pasted in) LDs, the
completist in me couldn't resist when I saw a VERY cheap Republic LD offered
(hey I even kept my early 80s 100 feet S8 sound excerpt from the
'illegitimate' 1962 German version w/ Konrad Elfers score!). But you're
certainly right that the key differences ARE at the beginning and end only.
> I'd probably prefer to
> > see it with an alternate score--
>
> I've heard the adapted score played with the Brownlow-Gill
> restoration. I think you'd like it.
Quite possibly! I'd certainly love to see it. But it seems to imply to me, to
some degree, that the '42 needs 'improvement' (re-insertion of a few scenes,
re-recording of the score), and I don't think so. I had the same problem with
the CL rerecording, I was looking forward to it very much, but then it just
didn't 'click'. I'm pleased the LD offers BOTH. Quite possibly it's just a
matter of what you've seen first. THE CIRCUS, live with G. Anderson
conducting, was great to see, but I still prefer the Chaplin score. I even
miss his song on the LD version!
> But *is* the film actually
> in PD, given all the tinkering with copyright that's been going on
> lately? I haven't been following it carefully.
Again, good point. But I'd guess so; after all, SUNNYSIDE showed up on PD
videos also, didn't it? Wasn't GOLDRUSH an exception since, formally, the
script - written by British citizen CC - had been copyrighted? Well... who
knows....
Uli