Jeffrey Vance on the First Nationals (as posted on alt.movies.silent)
Constance Kuriyama
Subject: The Chaplin First National Films
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.movies.silent
Date: 2003-08-02 15:36:19 PST
Please allow me to contribute one post to the discussion of the
Chaplin First National films. I hope it will be of use to many of you.
I had the privilege of cataloging/archiving all the film materials
held by the Chaplin family's Roy Export Company Establishment during
the summer of 2000. As a result, I understand many of these textual
issues.
Rollie Totheroh prepared new negatives of the First National Films in
1943 (according to the notes I took while researching in the Chaplin
Archives. Note that David Robinson indicates in his "Chaplin: His Life
and Art" that this work continued into 1944. I will defer to his
research). This work was not just the result of a request for prints
of "Shoulder Arms" by the Armed Forces Institute Film Services. "The
Gold Rush" had been successfully reissued by United Artists in 1942 (a
film that also required the preparation of a new negative). Chaplin
was cognizant of the fact that it would be wise to put the otherwise
idle Totheroh to work on the problematic First National films in order
to create negatives for future reissue purposes.
Intending to take the best material from the surviving First National
negatives in order to make one good one, Totheroh found the First
National A and B negative material to be very worn. He therefore
assembled new negatives from mainly outtakes and that which was
salvageable from the alternative take negs (C and D). This would make
the First National films clean and intact once again.
The First National outtakes were all available to Totheroh in the
1940s. He also had various old, worn prints (returned from First
National and Pathé Exchanges) as reference. As a side note, my
research in the Chaplin Archives indicates that Pathé Exchange only
reissued "A Dog's Life," "Shoulder Arms," and "Sunnyside" (all
commencing in 1925, for a five year term). They licensed "A Day's
Pleasure" and had options on the remaining four titles, but I believe
only the first three films in the series were ever distributed by
Pathé.
The simple lettering of the intertitles one sees in such films as "A
Day's Pleasure" and "Pay Day" was done in the 1940s under the
direction of Totheroh. (Has anyone commented upon the grammatical
error involving a contraction in one of the "Pay Day" intertitles? I
wonder whether this was a mistake made in the 1940s or a perpetuation
of an error from 1922. I never researched that!)
Once Totheroh had prepared these new negatives, they became the
definitive versions of the First National films. Old prints of the
original versions were retained, but were later discarded in 1953
(when all the Chaplin outtakes were ordered to be destroyed).
Chaplin was pleased with these new versions. Perhaps he might have
been disappointed had he performed an A/B comparison between the
original versions as seen in 1918-1923 versus the versions Totheroh
prepared. Who knows? However, he knew full well he was sacrificing the
take he originally chose for an alternate take to create a new
negative that was clean and complete.
The Chaplin Studios Projection Book Log (in the Chaplin Archives)
surely records Chaplin having screened some of these new versions.
I personally think that Rollie Totheroh did a splendid job
reconstructing the First National films. Just to illustrate this
further, UCLA Film and Television Archive (one of the premiere
institutions of film preservation in the world) has employed a similar
methodology when restoring several Harold Lloyd films. They have
sometimes chosen a foreign negative take (or other type of alternative
take) to restore a shot or even whole scenes so that it is once again
clean and intact even when it is sometimes quite different than the
original domestic (A neg) version. The UCLA restoration of "Get Out
and Get Under" is but one example.
Naturally, I can understand anyone wanting to see the films as the
audiences of 1918-1923 saw them. I have seen several original prints
of the Chaplin First National films. Many times the takes are quite
different than the takes Chaplin chose in 1918-1923. However, the
Chaplin family is not holding anything back. They simply do not have
the original versions of these films.
Indeed, even the negatives Totheroh created in the 1940s do not
survive. Only fine grain master positives made from the negatives
survive. These fine grains were all made in 1953. An excellent record
of each fine grain can be seen in the CBS/Fox-Image DVD "First
National Collection" that was prepared by David Shepard originally for
Laser Disc. The CBS/Fox-Image DVD of "The Kid"/"A Dog's Life" also
uses the 1953 fine grains. A brief bit of "A Dog's Life" is missing
from the transfer David prepared. (It had been cut out at the time of
"The Chaplin Revue" and placed in an unmarked can). No surprise, as
"A Dog's Life" has always been a "cursed" film according to Pamela
Paumier (former manager of Roy Export).
Apparently, "A Dog's Life" has historically suffered difficulties and
problems. The specific situation referenced in other posts is merely
this: at the time of the reissue of "The Chaplin Revue" someone was
pirating "A Dog's Life" and made claim that their version was
different from Chaplin's version (owing to different takes) and
therefore Chaplin could not sue him for having a different film than
Chaplin. Chaplin was angered at this claim, and annoyed at Totheroh
because Totheroh was apparently too content with his own life in
retirement to be bothered to respond to the queries of Chaplin's
representatives regarding this dispute.
Looking at photocopies of United Artists documents (I was, at one
time, employed as archivist at MGM/UA and had access to all their
files) to compose this post, I thought I would share the following
tidbit: UA's Charles Smadja was pushing Chaplin for the reissue of
"The Chaplin Revue" in early 1958. Smadja wanted to have it premiered
by April 1959 (Chaplin's seventieth birthday). Chaplin, however, did
not have it ready on time, and it was first shown in September 1959.
The compilation had the working title "The Big Parade of Charles
Chaplin."
Another point: Chaplin, not Jerry Epstein, was responsible for the
stretch-printing contained in "The Chaplin Revue" and later "The Idle
Class". Chaplin actually tried stretch-printing with other First
National films and hated the results so much they were scrapped.
Very little of this type of minutia is discussed in my forthcoming
book (which is geared for a broad audience rather than the Chaplin
zealot). If you have any further questions re these films and the
various versions of them, do not hesitate to e-mail me.
Finally, I must convey my own personal feeling that Kate Guyonvarch
and Josephine Chaplin of Roy Export are doing a wonderful job managing
the Chaplin legacy and have done much to accommodate the Chaplin fan.
If they had the original versions of the First National films, I am
sure they would have arranged for them to be used as supplements on
the DVDs (like the reconstruction of the 1925 version of "The Gold
Rush").
Hope the above is of some help.
Jeffrey Vance
Post a follow-up to this message
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google Home - Advertise with Us - Business Solutions - Services &
Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help
©2003 Google
Derek Gee
news:2bac2741.03080...@posting.google.com...
OK, Mr. Vance, then why did Mr. Shepard say Chaplin was displeased? Any
thoughts on the discrepancy?
> The Chaplin Studios Projection Book Log (in the Chaplin Archives)
> surely records Chaplin having screened some of these new versions.
There was never any doubt amongst us the Chaplin had screened them and had
made suggestions to Rollie along the way.
> I personally think that Rollie Totheroh did a splendid job
> reconstructing the First National films.
I would have to agree. Given the limits of film technology at the time, I
would probably have chosen to do the same. I would NOT have disposed of the
original negatives, however. That was extremely short-sighted.
> Just to illustrate this
> further, UCLA Film and Television Archive (one of the premiere
> institutions of film preservation in the world) has employed a similar
> methodology when restoring several Harold Lloyd films. They have
> sometimes chosen a foreign negative take (or other type of alternative
> take) to restore a shot or even whole scenes so that it is once again
> clean and intact even when it is sometimes quite different than the
> original domestic (A neg) version. The UCLA restoration of "Get Out
> and Get Under" is but one example.
Oh wonderful. Now I have to start chasing down old Lloyd prints too? ;)
> Naturally, I can understand anyone wanting to see the films as the
> audiences of 1918-1923 saw them. I have seen several original prints
> of the Chaplin First National films. Many times the takes are quite
> different than the takes Chaplin chose in 1918-1923. However, the
> Chaplin family is not holding anything back. They simply do not have
> the original versions of these films.
Nobody suggested the Chaplin estate was holding anything back. We didn't
think they did have any of the original FN material, although until you
jumped in we were not positive. The issue is that the Chaplin estate would
not let David Shepard use pieces of the FN material they control to restore
the FN's that were originally issued. I don't know if Mr. Shepard had asked
the estate to pay for it - it was never clear. I would think funding could
be secured from other sources though if the estate refused to fund it but
would allow use of their materials.
> Indeed, even the negatives Totheroh created in the 1940s do not
> survive. Only fine grain master positives made from the negatives
> survive. These fine grains were all made in 1953.
Another short-sighted move. You'd think either Chaplin or Rollie would have
had enough sense to make a duplicate negative from the originals before
trashing them. By 1953, dupe stocks had improved greatly.
> An excellent record
> of each fine grain can be seen in the CBS/Fox-Image DVD "First
> National Collection" that was prepared by David Shepard originally for
> Laser Disc. The CBS/Fox-Image DVD of "The Kid"/"A Dog's Life" also
> uses the 1953 fine grains. A brief bit of "A Dog's Life" is missing
> from the transfer David prepared. (It had been cut out at the time of
> "The Chaplin Revue" and placed in an unmarked can). No surprise, as
> "A Dog's Life" has always been a "cursed" film according to Pamela
> Paumier (former manager of Roy Export).
>
> Apparently, "A Dog's Life" has historically suffered difficulties and
> problems. The specific situation referenced in other posts is merely
> this: at the time of the reissue of "The Chaplin Revue" someone was
> pirating "A Dog's Life" and made claim that their version was
> different from Chaplin's version (owing to different takes) and
> therefore Chaplin could not sue him for having a different film than
> Chaplin. Chaplin was angered at this claim, and annoyed at Totheroh
> because Totheroh was apparently too content with his own life in
> retirement to be bothered to respond to the queries of Chaplin's
> representatives regarding this dispute.
Ahhh ha! The "legal problems" the caused the rift with Rollie! So Rollie
couldn't even be bothered to respond. No wonder Chaplin was angry.
> Looking at photocopies of United Artists documents (I was, at one
> time, employed as archivist at MGM/UA and had access to all their
> files) to compose this post, I thought I would share the following
> tidbit: UA's Charles Smadja was pushing Chaplin for the reissue of
> "The Chaplin Revue" in early 1958. Smadja wanted to have it premiered
> by April 1959 (Chaplin's seventieth birthday). Chaplin, however, did
> not have it ready on time, and it was first shown in September 1959.
> The compilation had the working title "The Big Parade of Charles
> Chaplin."
>
> Another point: Chaplin, not Jerry Epstein, was responsible for the
> stretch-printing contained in "The Chaplin Revue" and later "The Idle
> Class". Chaplin actually tried stretch-printing with other First
> National films and hated the results so much they were scrapped.
So why did he let the other films out that way?
> Very little of this type of minutia is discussed in my forthcoming
> book (which is geared for a broad audience rather than the Chaplin
> zealot). If you have any further questions re these films and the
> various versions of them, do not hesitate to e-mail me.
>
> Finally, I must convey my own personal feeling that Kate Guyonvarch
> and Josephine Chaplin of Roy Export are doing a wonderful job managing
> the Chaplin legacy and have done much to accommodate the Chaplin fan.
Hmm. Not so sure I share your view. The only accomodation I've seen is in
releasing the original version of The Gold Rush and the color film from the
Great Dictator. They would have been better served simply remastering the
stuff David Shepard did and adding whatever bonus bits they wanted. As it
is, there are some definate problems in the transfers that will probably not
be corrected for years, if ever. Maybe you could put a good word in over at
Warner Home Video about paying for the NTSC transfers of the MK2 stuff?
> If they had the original versions of the First National films, I am
> sure they would have arranged for them to be used as supplements on
> the DVDs (like the reconstruction of the 1925 version of "The Gold
> Rush").
They probably could have had them, they just didn't allow Mr. Shepard to do
them. Maybe there was sound business reasons for that though? I haven't a
clue how much it would have cost for Mr. Shepard's planned restorations.
Perhaps the home video release wouldn't have made back the cost of the
restorations?
> Hope the above is of some help.
Indeed! Thanks for your clarifications.
Derek