What happened to Raymond Rohauers film archive after his death?
Mike Royden
What was in his collection?
How many films did he save?
How many did he discover that weren't lost.
Did he keep some original material back?
What were the Chaplin private x rated material he bought and how did
he obtain it?
Has anyone written a book or major article about him.
Has their been a radio or tv documentary on his life.
Mike Royden
ChaneyFan
David Pierce and others in the group probably knew Rohauer better than I did
and should feel free to jump in with additional comments.
>>>What happened to Raymond Rohauers film archive after his death?
All of the nitrate went to LOC and is preserved there. The collection was
originally managed by Alan Twyman until his death, a few years after Rohauer's.
The rights to the film holdings are currently managed by a company called
Douris (sp?) Corp. who are actually a very nice group of people. The owner,
Tim (who's last name I've forgotten), comes to Syracuse every year and is a
very nice guy. It's through the current arrangement that these films are
finally being released.
>>>What was in his collection?
Lots of Keaton, Langdon, Fairbanks, and Talmadge pictures, plus some talkies
like SHE (1925) and THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932).
>>>How many films did he save?
>>>How many did he discover that weren't lost.
I'm not aware that he "saved" or "discovered" any films, but he did tie up a
few dozen pictures through litigation, keeping them unseen for decades.
>>>Did he keep some original material back?
No. He died. I doubt any films were placed in his coffin.
>>>What were the Chaplin private x rated material he bought and how did he
obtain it?
I've always assumed this was an apocryphal story with no basis in fact, but I
can't say for sure.
>>>Has anyone written a book or major article about him.
The definitive article on Rohauer was "The Silent Empire of Raymond Rohauer" by
Carl Fischer, published in the London Sunday Times Magazine, Jan 19, 1975, page
32. It so infuriated Rohauer that he filed suit against the paper, the author,
and Paul Killiam who had provided much of the background info.
>>>Has their been a radio or tv documentary on his life.
Not that I'm aware of.
Judging from your comments you seem to have gotten the impression that Rohauer
was a great benefactor to silent film. He wasn't. The stuff that Rohauer had
would have been found and preserved by others (and done sooner and better) if
he hadn't latched onto them first. Some of the titles he held decomposed
because he didn't want to turn them over for preservation. For decades he
jealously guarded the material (a la Al Detlaf with FRANKENSTEIN), allowing
only limited showings when he could bring the film and sit in the projection
booth while it was running. It was only with his death that much of this
material began to be available. Many today forget how incredibly rare titles
like SHE and the color BLACK PIRATE were until the late 1980s.
Roahuer's primary tactic was buying up story rights from the widows of famous
authors. One story I heard had him aproaching the widow of H. Rider Haggard in
1964, and buying the story rights to SHE, and promising to keep the memory of
her dead husband alive forever. He then went to Hammer Pictures who were
making a remake with Ursula Andress and he told them he was going to tie them
up in court since he now owned the story rights. They had bought film rights
from RKO and gotten print materials to the '35 version, but didn't think they
needed story rights. Nevertheless, he negotiated for them to give him the '35
version...rights and printing materials...in exchange for him releasing a claim
on story rights. They considered this an easy out which is how he acquired the
rights to the film. This is typical of his tactics throughout his career.
Rohauer was said to have been very charming in person. Dick Bann said he was a
very pleasent guy, but if you had a meeting with him, he *always* brought a
third person along who would then take a photo of the two of you "as a
keepsake." In reality, the photo was proof that a meeting had taken place and
the third person was a witness as to what was said. Rohauer was certainly a
*very* paranoid guy, which explains his desire to hoard "his" films.
In 1985 I was approached by Alan Twyman about a deal to do piano scores for a
bunch of the Rohauer silents. I thought about doing some deal where I would do
scores in exchange for prints of some of the rarer titles in the collection (I
sure would have liked to have gotten HER SISTER FROM PARIS and HER NIGHT OF
ROMANCE!). I spoke with a few people who knew Rohauer and they all said, "not
a chance in a million years of getting film from him." I decided to write a
scathing turndown letter in response and showed the letter to a friend who knew
Rohauer. He laughed his head off and said, "This is a riot, but you can't send
this. This is a man who has made a career out of persecuting people." After
weighing all the options I politely declined the offer.
In my opinion (note careful wording at the recommendation of my lawyer wife to
avoid libel charges...although I believe there are no heirs to sue me) he was a
scum-sucking sack of fermented maggot pus who did considerable damage to silent
film enthusiasts and little of any value.
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Feuillade
> In my opinion (note careful wording
> at the recommendation of my lawyer
> wife to avoid libel charges...although
> I believe there are no heirs to sue
> me) he was a scum-sucking sack of > fermented maggot pus who did
> considerable damage to silent
> film enthusiasts and little of any value.
Jon, if your wife is a lawyer I'm surprised she didn't tell you that, by
definition, the dead cannot be libeled.
You can call Rohauer anything you want, and there's nothing anyone can do about
it.
Tom Moran
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran.index.html
My 100 Best Novels List:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran25.index.html
Silent Film Screenings in New York:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran17.index.html
FThomp1065
>You can call Rohauer anything you want, and there's nothing anyone can do
>about
>it.
>
I don't know -- if anyone could figure out how to sue from beyond the grave, it
would be Rohauer.
I met the man one time when I was about 20. I was visiting at friend at Kino
and Rohauer happened to be there. Since I only knew of him through his Keaton
connection, I said to him in that jolly tone I have that I always erroneously
assume to be endearing, "Oh, I just bought a print of 'Steamboat Bill, Jr.'"
Rohauer's face darkened and he said, "Where did you get it?"
Me (innocently): "From Blackhawk."
He said, very angrily, "They have NO RIGHT to sell prints of that film!"
End of conversation.
Years later when Rohauer died, I was speaking to Bill Everson who, as we all
know, was the very soul of generosity and good will. I asked if he went to
Rohauer's funeral and Bill replied, "There was no funeral. I guess they
couldn't round up enough people willing to go."
Frank Thompson
VladW
>know, was the very soul of generosity and good will. I asked if he went to
>Rohauer's funeral and Bill replied, "There was no funeral. I guess they
>couldn't round up enough people willing to go."
>
>Frank Thompson
I would have tought, to paraphrase Red Skelton at Harry Cohn's funeral (which
had thousands in attendance), that people would have turned out in droves if
you gave them what they wanted to see.
I have no experiences with Rohauer (thank God), and yet I have met dozens of
people who have and not a single one has ever said a kind word about him. I
suppose that is his only real lasting legacy. I'm just thankful that his films
are in the hands of people who care about them, and are not averse to releasing
them.
SilentsAreGolden
article or two in the 60s and 70s periodical "The Silent Picture".
Anthony Slide makes no bones about how he feels about Mr. Rohauer. When
I asked Kevin Brownlow about him, he wasn't as blunt as Slide, but you
could tell he had similar feelings. He had to work with him if he
wanted access to several prints, especially Fairbanks I believe.
Anyway, email me if you want to specifics about the magazine article.
Mike
Mike Royden wrote:
>
> What happened to Raymond Rohauers film archive after his death?
> What was in his collection?
> How many films did he save?
> How many did he discover that weren't lost.
> Did he keep some original material back?
> What were the Chaplin private x rated material he bought and how did
> he obtain it?
> Has anyone written a book or major article about him.
> Has their been a radio or tv documentary on his life.
>
> Mike Royden
jessica rosner
> nice, however the OWNER is Gary Dartnell who is also nice.
The Best Rohauer anecdote I heard was that on the day he died there was
a screening of a rare silent film at MOMA. Someone at MOMA got up an
announced that the great film
archivist Raymond Rohauer had died and wild sustained applause broke out
which apparently startled the staff.
Jessica
Michael Gebert
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
> dshe...@aol.com writes:
> > I think much of BK's late-life triumph
> > and much of his current reputation is
> > owed to RR.
>
> I would have to agree with this.
Yes, what he did for Keaton is his redeeming feature, or the thing that
will have bought his way out of hell into a mere few million years in
purgatory. We have to be grateful to him for that. Otherwise, we can
just be grateful we didn't have to deal with him! (I made some rather
mild remarks about him-- well below libelous, almost generous-- in my
review of the Keaton discs and tapes in Video Watchdog, long after his
death, and got a scathing letter to the editor from some Rohauer acolyte
in reply. Happily I didn't have to respond to him, because the same issue
then contained someone else's remembrances of Rohauer, which ran roughly
along the lines of, That guy, he'd steal the mayo off your hamburger!)
Speaking of Everson, he wrote a piece on Rohauer that ran in a magazine
called Grand Street a few years ago.
Lloyd Fonvielle
Feuillade wrote:
> dshe...@aol.com writes:
>
> > To give Raymond Rohauer his due,
> > I can tell you that many of the excellent
> > Keaton elements reproduced on the > laserdiscs and tapes you know were
> > taken from elements he had
> > manufactured off of BK's personal
> > nitrate prints -- long before he
> > managed to get any rights to these
> > pictures.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think much of BK's late-life triumph
> > and much of his current reputation is
> > owed to RR.
>
> I would have to agree with this.
In the late Sixties, Rohauer got the Keaton films out to repertory
theaters, in little mini-festivals that were an excellent way to get to
know these films, and in very good prints -- if Rohauer's name was on it,
you knew it would be worth seeing. There may have been nicer and more
scrupulous promoters of silent films around, but Rohauer got the job done,
and I owe him some thanks for many of the happiest times I ever spent in a
movie theater. That ain't nothing.
Fred Tepper
[snipped some Rohauer stuff]
>
> His dubious methods also saved the Chaplin Mutual outtakes -- more than half a
> million feet STILL survive -- and because he liked to take me to dinner and
> boast, I knew about them and was able to put Kevin Brownlow and David Gill on
> to them. How would those two artists have made the greatest film on cinema
> archaeology, UNKNOWN CHAPLIN; MY HAPPIEST YEARS, without him? He rescued this
> footage from being incinerated for the silver.
> David Shepard
David,
It's interesting that you brought this up. I went to the screening last
night of "The Immigrant" and "Our Hospitality" (see other thread) then
came home and watched "My Happiest Years" and was struck with this
thought: Are there any Mutuals that exist in their entirety as outtakes
where the outtakes are the nearly the same as final takes used? Would
it be possible (legally and otherwise) to assemble a complete version
with these slightly different takes in near pristine condition? Have
you or anyone you know of ever considered this? Also, along somewhat
similar lines, what are the chances of someone restoring "The Gold Rush"
to it's original version using better print materials than the lousy
public domain (or illegal) versions out there? I like the music of the
official 1942 reissue, but I like the title cards better than the
narration (as much as I like Chaplin's voice). I'd love to have a
beautiful AND complete version of this great film.
By the way, I just bought the DVDs of "Dr. Jekyll", "Robin Hood", "The
Black Pirate", "The Mark of Zorro", and "The Three Musketeers" and am
very happy with them. Keep 'em coming! (Are these transfers done
using the maximum bit rate? The blacks look a bit blocky sometimes, as
do title cards. I guess MPEG has trouble with films of that era because
of all the grain, wear, and image unsteadiness since there are never two
parts of a frame that are the same and therefore it must use up a lot of
data; is this correct?)
--
-=Fred=-
http://www.stationxstudios.com
-.-. --.- -.. -- --. -.--
Remove the x in the address to respond.
Robert Birchard
add only a footnote.
I never met Rohauer, never had any dealings with him--but if we had
that time machine we were talking about a few days ago I would love to go
back to June 22, 1948.
I came across an old mimeographed flyer which states:
RAYMOND ROHAUER in association with the Society of Cinema Arts presents
A special program to commemorate over a half century of Motion Pictures
"Salute To Yesterday"
Admission was $1.00 and the location was the auditorium at Radio
Recorders on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. Announced for screening were
"Judith of Bethulia," Jimmy Fidler's "Personality Parade," and J. Stuart
Blackton's "The March of the Movies"
Nothing particularly remarkable about the film program, but the guest
list is a different matter.
Anounced as guest speakers were Theodore Huff, William N. Selig, Albert
E. Smith, Seymour Stern, and Blanche Sweet
Announced as "also appearing--someof whom will speak" were Viola Barry,
Hobart Bosworth, Monte Blue, Evelyn Brent, Alexander Carr, Betty Compson,
May McAvoy, Mae Murray, Ramon Novarro, Anna Q. Nilsson, Pat O'Malley,
Herbert Rawlinson, Irene Rich and Bryant Washburn "plus these famous Screen
Directors" D. W. Griffith and Mal St. Clair.
The most amazing guest would have been Hobart Bosworth, since he had
been dead for five years at the time of the announcement it would have been
a return engagment in the truest sense of the term--but if Selig and
Griffith made it (and I think they did--as I have a scrap of paper they both
signed that I picked up at a store several years ago) it may have been their
last public appearances--both passed away the following month.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
DShepFilm
Keaton elements reproduced on the laserdiscs and tapes you know were taken from
elements he had manufactured off of BK's personal nitrate prints -- long before
he managed to get any rights to these pictures.
Had he not been there I think it likely that we would have been forced to rely
on far inferior material on such titles as THE PLAYHOUSE and MY WIFE'S
RELATIONS, or perhaps not had them at all.
On Keaton's films, at least, RR did a fairly responsible job, copying the same
titles more than once whenever a respectable 35mm source turned up.
Would someone less perservering (i.e. obsessed) have battered at MGM and the
Schenck Estate until elements and rights were surrendered? I think much of BK's
late-life triumph and much of his current reputation is owed to RR.
His dubious methods also saved the Chaplin Mutual outtakes -- more than half a
million feet STILL survive -- and because he liked to take me to dinner and
boast, I knew about them and was able to put Kevin Brownlow and David Gill on
to them. How would those two artists have made the greatest film on cinema
archaeology, UNKNOWN CHAPLIN; MY HAPPIEST YEARS, without him? He rescued this
footage from being incinerated for the silver.
A charming scoundrel, Raymond was, (some used to call him 'the poison
marshmallow'), a user and probably quite paranoid, but IMHO, in balance, one
of silent cinema's valuable unbalanced film citizens.
David Shepard
Feuillade
> To give Raymond Rohauer his due,
> I can tell you that many of the excellent
> Keaton elements reproduced on the > laserdiscs and tapes you know were
> taken from elements he had
> manufactured off of BK's personal
> nitrate prints -- long before he
> managed to get any rights to these
> pictures.
<snip>
> I think much of BK's late-life triumph
> and much of his current reputation is
> owed to RR.
I would have to agree with this.
George Shelps
dshe...@aol.com writes:
>I think much of BK's late-life triumph
>and much of his current reputation is
>owed to RR.
My one experience with Rohauer was
a positive, if indirect, one.
The Philadelphia Museum of Art once presented a Keaton film series as a
tribute to Buster. (He had recently died). I attended one of the
screenings of SHERLOCK, JR.
The print was execrable, dupey, no contrast, etc. Since I was rather
militant in those days concerning our neglected
film heritage, I flipped out and stormed from the theatre.
Having seen Rohauer on TV promoting the series, I wrote him a blistering
letter, accusing him of debasing Buster's reputation.
In reply, he agreed that this was a terrible
gaffe, but that he hadn't been able to get
a better print to the Museum in time for the screening. He apologized
profusely, saying he would never want to cause any harm to Buster, whom
he loved, and he promised to replace the print as soon as possible, and
make sure that the remainder of the titles were represented by quality
prints.
I don't know whether or not he ever followed up on this, but the letter
seemed
sincere.
ChaneyFan
definition, the dead cannot be libeled.
First of all Tom, *anyone* can sue for *anything*! I can sue you because I
don't like the part in your hair (if you have a part in your hair...if you
don't I can sue you for *not* having a part.) Whether you win is another
matter, but you can still sue and run up the other person's legal bills.
Like any good lawyer, she urged me to err on the side of caution...but I agree
that the dead can't be libeled.
ChaneyFan
a screening of a rare silent film at MOMA. Someone at MOMA got up an
announced that the great film
archivist Raymond Rohauer had died and wild sustained applause broke out
which apparently startled the staff.
For years it was not uncommon at festivals (Cinecon, Cinevent, etc.) to see
"Raymond Rohauer Presents" on a title and there would be a huge round of booing
and hissing.
Annlindgk
film started and the phrase "Raymond Rohauer Presents" was the first thing the
audience saw.
Nearly everyone in the theater booed, but Rohauer said proudly to the festival
director, "You see, everyone knows who I am."
Annl...@aol.com (Ann Linderman)...remove "getlost" to reply!
"You're basically looking at a vault of inane, useless information, and I've
got the combination." ----Greg Kinnear
SilentsAreGolden
enthusiasts. Slide, or possibly Brownlow, wrote of how showings of
films that he supposedly had the rights to would always have his name in
bigger letters than the talented people who actually made the film.
He also related a lengthy anecdote about a trial, or hearing, where they
were finally able to make Rohauer admit that he didn't have the rights
to a film or films. It was enlightening. I don't know of the things
that David S. wrote about him, but this piece painted a pretty bad
picture of him. Of course, I know Slide can be ruthless when he wants
to be. His review of James Card's book was absolutely scathing, and I
think, unwarranted.
Mike
ChaneyFan wrote:
>
> For years it was not uncommon at festivals (Cinecon, Cinevent, etc.) to see
> "Raymond Rohauer Presents" on a title and there would be a huge round of booing
> and hissing.
Mike Royden
I am impressed by your posting.
and thank you to all the others who have posted, you a great bunch.
Excuse my ignorance in matters Rohauer.
I didn't realise he was so much hated.
SNIPED only to keep the posting short.
On 23 May 1999 20:25:37 GMT, chan...@aol.com (ChaneyFan) wrote:
>OK, I'll give these a shot, although David Shepard, Bob Birchard, Ed Hulse,
>David Pierce and others in the group probably knew Rohauer better than I did
>and should feel free to jump in with additional comments.
>
SNIP
>>>>How many films did he save?
>>>>How many did he discover that weren't lost.
>
>I'm not aware that he "saved" or "discovered" any films, but he did tie up a
>few dozen pictures through litigation, keeping them unseen for decades.
Was he not responsible for saving Keaton's films, I read the last
Keaton Biography, Meade? and got the impression that if it wasn't for
him,quite a few of Keaton's films and his reputation wouldn't exist.
Or is that the impression Rohauer put out.
>
>>>>Did he keep some original material back?
>
>No. He died. I doubt any films were placed in his coffin.
>
Didn't he have a secret hoard that he watched in private.
SNIP
>>>>Has anyone written a book or major article about him.
>
>The definitive article on Rohauer was "The Silent Empire of Raymond Rohauer" by
>Carl Fischer, published in the London Sunday Times Magazine, Jan 19, 1975, page
>32. It so infuriated Rohauer that he filed suit against the paper, the author,
>and Paul Killiam who had provided much of the background info.
I have got a copy of this somewhere, forgot about it.
>
>>>>Has their been a radio or tv documentary on his life.
>
>Not that I'm aware of.
>
If he is the man everyone hates, I bet his life would make a good
radio documentary, not to praise him, but to rubbish him.
>Judging from your comments you seem to have gotten the impression that Rohauer
>was a great benefactor to silent film. He wasn't.
I didn't realise how bad he was, because he collected silent films and
seemed to be the domaint force in silent film collecting, his films
and how he managed to collect them, interested me.
But it looks by his actions that he killed whatever romance their was
in this subject
The stuff that Rohauer had
>would have been found and preserved by others (and done sooner and better) if
>he hadn't latched onto them first. Some of the titles he held decomposed
>because he didn't want to turn them over for preservation.
I take it he hoarded the stuff, but was paranoid about other people
knowing what he had and that's why some of the titles decomposed.
Did he really put a stop to anyone else collecting?
Did his empire stretch the entire world.
Did he collect everything silent, or only what interested him.
I get the impression that he wanted to own the rights to every silent
film ever made, whatever the consequences.
Why were the silent film companies archives/rights in such a mess that
it allowed Rohauer to come in and take them.
Did he damage the industry or was it already moribund.
What does it say about an industry that lets him do it?
SNIP>
>In my opinion (note careful wording at the recommendation of my lawyer wife to
>avoid libel charges...although I believe there are no heirs to sue me) he was a
>scum-sucking sack of fermented maggot pus who did considerable damage to silent
>film enthusiasts and little of any value.
Joe,
I take it you don't like him.
And I was going to ask you the question,
That If he were alive today what question would you like to ask him?
But on second thoughts I'd better not.
>===============================
>Jon Mirsalis
>e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
>Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
>Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Bob Monkhouse made a UK TV series in the 1960's on silent films called
"Mad Movies" which were sold to 38 counties. This is take on Rohauer.
"Being a fan and a keen collector of silent films I didn't much like
what was beeing done to them, but work is work. I didn't much like the
man who provided copies of some of the films either, a freak of nature
named Raymond Rohauer. Now I reckoned I needed him. Having made
contact by phone, I flew to a meeting with him in New York.
'Ray.here's my propostion. I've got a very large collection of silent
comedies, nearly all of them known to be in public domain, the few
remaining almost certainly out of copyright too. I want to make a show
called "Mad Movies" with me as host. I'll use my own library of film
with others I can hire from the film historian and curator, Phil
Jenkinson.I don't know who'll buy the series from me, I don't even
know whether or not I can sell it, but I do know there's only one man
in the world who'll try to stop me - and that's you.'
Rohauer didn't smile, he just acknowledged the truth of my statement
by slitting his eyes and licking his lips with what could have been a
forked tongue. He was a stocky, flabby man in his forties, with tight
wavy brown hair over a porcine face that made him look like a pig in a
wig. His reputation had made him feared by all private collectors.
They had come to dread his dogged pursuit of them through the courts,
his obdurate insistence upon his ownership of imprecise rights to the
motion pictues they had preserved, the sheer implacability and
unreasonable greed that had made him awesome even to some of the more
venal lawyers he engaged.
I knew of naive hobbyists who'd been so terrorised by him that they
had eventually surrendered their film collections into his hands for
nothing more than his promise not to prosecute.
Sometimes he obtained what he called 'quit claim deeds' from the
widows of silent film pioneers for a token sum, using the documents to
scare off other claimants to the films he appropiated.
With the threat of tireless litgation, indicments, interdictions,
injunctions, and other legal delays of every kind, Rohauer's nusiance
value made him a better ally than foe.
Simply having his name on the credits of my series would protect me
from lesser predators.
"I'll want an all-expenses paid trip to England, viewing factilities
to see all the footage, plus ten per cent of sales worldwide,' said
Rohauer,picking his porky nose.
Please don't get the idea that I hated the man, I didn't. He just
seemed to me to be unnecessarily unkind, natuarlly vicious, cold, mean
and repulsive, that's all. You can't waste all your time and energy
hating everyone who's like that. Well you can, but it does you no good
and them no harm. Hatred poisons the hater, not the hated. I won't
have anything to do with it."
Bob Monkhouse. Crying With Laughter.Century. 1993. pp.218-219
Mike Royden
roy...@mroyden.freeserve.co.uk
Fred Tepper
>
> >>>Jon, if your wife is a lawyer I'm surprised she didn't tell you that, by
> definition, the dead cannot be libeled.
>
> First of all Tom, *anyone* can sue for *anything*! I can sue you because I
> don't like the part in your hair (if you have a part in your hair...if you
> don't I can sue you for *not* having a part.) Whether you win is another
> matter, but you can still sue and run up the other person's legal bills.
>
> Like any good lawyer, she urged me to err on the side of caution...but I agree
> that the dead can't be libeled.
> Jon Mirsalis
> e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
> Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
> Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but John Wayne is dead and I'm pretty sure
that if you wrote a book about him saying he was gay you'd hear from his
estate. Is that true? If someone's estate can control the use of an
image, can't they sue for libel in some way?
Phil Posner
> To give Raymond Rohauer his due, I can tell you that many of the excellent
> Keaton elements reproduced on the laserdiscs and tapes you know were taken from
> elements he had manufactured off of BK's personal nitrate prints -- long before
> he managed to get any rights to these pictures.
> Had he not been there I think it likely that we would have been forced to rely
> on far inferior material on such titles as THE PLAYHOUSE and MY WIFE'S
> RELATIONS, or perhaps not had them at all.
> On Keaton's films, at least, RR did a fairly responsible job, copying the same
> titles more than once whenever a respectable 35mm source turned up.
> Would someone less perservering (i.e. obsessed) have battered at MGM and the
> Schenck Estate until elements and rights were surrendered? I think much of BK's
> late-life triumph and much of his current reputation is owed to RR.
> His dubious methods also saved the Chaplin Mutual outtakes -- more than half a
> million feet STILL survive -- and because he liked to take me to dinner and
> boast, I knew about them and was able to put Kevin Brownlow and David Gill on
> to them. How would those two artists have made the greatest film on cinema
> archaeology, UNKNOWN CHAPLIN; MY HAPPIEST YEARS, without him? He rescued this
> footage from being incinerated for the silver.
> A charming scoundrel, Raymond was, (some used to call him 'the poison
> marshmallow'), a user and probably quite paranoid, but IMHO, in balance, one
> of silent cinema's valuable unbalanced film citizens.
> David Shepard
Because of Rohauer, I got the opportunity to see the Chaplin Mutuals and
some Billy West films on a big screen (bigger than my 8mm projector set up
in my bedroom) back in 1969 at the Gallery of Modern Art in NYC.
He also presented an L&H series around that time, which gave me my first
opporunity to see them other than on tv or in Youngson films.
I still have the programs from those presentations, one of which shows a
picture of RR with an elderly Billy West.. I was always surprised hearing
about the questionable things he'd done in later years, as I'd always been
greatful for his efforts.
--
Phil
The Avocado Avenger
>>>>Did he keep some original material back?
>No. He died. I doubt any films were placed in his coffin.
I wouldn't be so sure.
But I do have to note that a professor here at KSU once said in class
that she thought RR had "discovered" SHE (1935), or perhaps just
discovered the sound for the movie and not the entire movie. I'm assuming
this is very wrong.
>>>>What were the Chaplin private x rated material he bought and how did he
>obtain it?
>I've always assumed this was an apocryphal story with no basis in fact, but I
>can't say for sure.
What sources are there for this story? I've only heard a passing
reference to this in an interview done on "Entertainment Tonight", back
when the movie CHAPLIN was out.
>Roahuer's primary tactic was buying up story rights from the widows of famous
>authors. One story I heard had him aproaching the widow of H. Rider Haggard in
>1964, and buying the story rights to SHE, and promising to keep the memory of
>her dead husband alive forever. He then went to Hammer Pictures who were
>making a remake with Ursula Andress and he told them he was going to tie them
>up in court since he now owned the story rights. They had bought film rights
>from RKO and gotten print materials to the '35 version, but didn't think they
>needed story rights. Nevertheless, he negotiated for them to give him the '35
>version...rights and printing materials...in exchange for him releasing a claim
>on story rights. They considered this an easy out which is how he acquired the
>rights to the film. This is typical of his tactics throughout his career.
I should have read further. The professor I mentioned earlier in the
post claimed that RR got the rights and discovered the film, causing
enough of a furor (over how wonderful it was to see this lost film )that a
remake was made. Hearing this, though, is a real hoot. Makes me wish I
were still in college to mention this to my learned professors.
Stacia * The Avocado Avenger * Life is a tale told by an idiot;
http://www.io.com/~stacia/ * Full of sound and fury,
Remove the guacamole to reply! * Signifying nothing.
Robert Birchard
> Would someone less perservering (i.e. obsessed) have battered at MGM and the
> Schenck Estate until elements and rights were surrendered? I think much of BK's
> late-life triumph and much of his current reputation is owed to RR
To give the bitter with the sweet, however, RR also replaced the subtitles on
many of the Keaton pictures with new cards that also sported new text. He also
recut and rearranged the films--so that many of the prints he had in circulation
bore only a passing resemblace to their original release versions.--
Michael Gebert
<AE98905CB08526DE.BB0DDD15...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
cha...@airmail.net wrote:
> This was one, among many, things that RR did which annoyed silent film
> enthusiasts. Slide, or possibly Brownlow, wrote of how showings of
> films that he supposedly had the rights to would always have his name in
> bigger letters than the talented people who actually made the film.
I love the fact that one of the films that suffered Rohauer's egotism in
this regard was The Playhouse, which then provides its own parody of that
kind of practice when Keaton's name appears in every slot on the printed
program!
Michael Gebert
Well, he definitely increased the amount of paranoia in the film
collecting world by his litigiousness. There were two ways that he abused
the court system that I think were detrimental to the world of film. One,
mentioned here, was his attempt to control certain public domain films by
buying the underlying story rights. This tended to work when prints were
rare (he could control She or The Old Dark House because nobody else
seemed to have it) and not when prints were common (as with The Birth of a
Nation-- the fact that his opponents included wealthier and more
established enemies like MOMA in such cases may also have contributed to
his failure here).
The other, not mentioned here, was his habit of recopyrighting films
whether he had any right to or not. A collector named Bob DeFlores told
me that Rohauer several times bought a copy of something someone like
DeFlores had discovered, then attempted to recopyright it (or assert
copyright in some fashion) and go after the person who had found it and
sold him the copy!
Michael Gebert
Avocado Avenger) wrote:
> But I do have to note that a professor here at KSU once said in class
> that she thought RR had "discovered" SHE (1935), or perhaps just
> discovered the sound for the movie and not the entire movie. I'm assuming
> this is very wrong.
She was considered lost at one time (it's written about that way in
Zinman's The 50 Greatest Movies or whatever that book was called).
Christopher Jacobs
designed as a parody of Rohauer's style (as well as Blackhawk Films). The
(what was it, two-seconds long?) film was roughly a two-minute reel with
extensive introductory titles, Raymond Rohauer's name feature prominently in
a number of spots, and as I recall it had two inserted intertitles:
"Aahh..." and "...choo!" or something to that effect. I seem to remember the
film was a free promotional bonus for ordering something from Thunderbird
Films during one month. (Of course Tom Dunnahoo is another topic
altogether!)
--Christopher Jacobs
http://www.fargoweb.com/hpr/film.html
ChaneyFan
that if you wrote a book about him saying he was gay you'd hear from his
estate. Is that true? If someone's estate can control the use of an
image, can't they sue for libel in some way?
I believe they can sue. I chose my words carefuly because an *opinion* is
protected, but an erroneous "statement of fact" is not.
So if I said, "John Wayne was gay" (NOTE: I am *not* making this claim) that
would be actionable. If I state, "In my opinion, John Wayne was gay" it's OK.
That's why my comment on RR began "In my opinion..." on the advice of my legal
counsel (who said she wouldn't defend me if the ghost of RR came back to sue
me!)
For the record, there is no way in hell that John Wayne was gay!
ChaneyFan
the
film started and the phrase "Raymond Rohauer Presents" was the first thing the
audience saw. Nearly everyone in the theater booed, but Rohauer said proudly
to the festival director, "You see, everyone knows who I am."
I heard a similar story from Bill Everson who attended a screening with
Rohauer. This was apparently a common incident, and Rohauer turned to Bill and
said, "See, they've heard of me!"
DShepFilm
where the outtakes are the nearly the same as final takes used? Would
it be possible (legally and otherwise) to assemble a complete version
with these slightly different takes in near pristine condition? Have
you or anyone you know of ever considered this?
The Mutual outtakes are owned by Madame Paumier, retired president of Roy
Export (a Chaplin holding company). An inheritance came her way and she spent
it to buy this film and (jointly with the British Film Institute) to pay for
safety fine grain masters of everything. Whenever I see her (most recently in
February) we discuss returning to them to make study editions and when she is
ready, maybe we will.
Also, along somewhat
similar lines, what are the chances of someone restoring "The Gold Rush"
to it's original version using better print materials than the lousy
public domain (or illegal) versions out there? I like the music of the
official 1942 reissue, but I like the title cards better than the
narration (as much as I like Chaplin's voice). I'd love to have a
beautiful AND complete version of this great film.
David Gill did this, and beautifully, for Roy Export, It is shown occasionally
at live concert performances with CC's score extended and synchronized to fit
the extra length and the correct speed. David wrote a very good article about
his work which was published in the Italian magazine "Griffithiana"
By the way, I just bought the DVDs of "Dr. Jekyll", "Robin Hood", "The
Black Pirate", "The Mark of Zorro", and "The Three Musketeers" and am
very happy with them.
Thanks!
Keep 'em coming! (Are these transfers done
using the maximum bit rate? The blacks look a bit blocky sometimes, as
do title cards. I guess MPEG has trouble with films of that era because
of all the grain, wear, and image unsteadiness since there are never two
parts of a frame that are the same and therefore it must use up a lot of
data; is this correct?)
No idea. Until now Image has been sending the films to various facilities for
compression and we just take what comes back (sometimes with embarassing
errors). They have just equipped to do the work in house and hopefully the
quality will improve. I believe the unorthodox and varying running speeds I use
in the transfers do cause some problems.
David Shepard
Feuillade
But first he quotes someone else:
>> I'm certainly not a lawyer, but
>> John Wayne is dead and I'm
>> pretty sure that if you wrote a
>> book about him saying he was gay
>> you'd hear from his estate. Is that
>> true? If someone's estate can
>> control the use of an image, can't
>> they sue for libel in some way?
> I believe they can sue. I chose
> my words carefuly because an
> *opinion* is protected, but an
> erroneous "statement of fact" is not.
> So if I said, "John Wayne was gay"
> (NOTE: I am *not* making this claim)
> that would be actionable. If I state, "In
> my opinion, John Wayne was gay" it's
> OK. That's why my comment on RR
> began "In my opinion..." on the advice
> of my legal counsel (who said she
> wouldn't defend me if the ghost of RR
> came back to sue me!)
> For the record, there is no way in
> hell that John Wayne was gay!
Jon, you can claim that John Wayne was gay, a cross-dresser, a child molester,
a kleptomaniac, a drunk, a dope fiend -- even a Republican.
You cannot, by definition, libel the dead. You can only libel the living. The
dead have no legal protection against either libel or slander, and you can't be
sued for anything you say about them.
Having taken a libel class (from the attorney for a major international
publication), I believe I'm correct to say that. If a libel lawyer thinks
differently, I'd be interested in hearing their views.
Fred Tepper
>
> >>>I'm certainly not a lawyer, but John Wayne is dead and I'm pretty sure
> that if you wrote a book about him saying he was gay you'd hear from his
> estate. Is that true? If someone's estate can control the use of an
> image, can't they sue for libel in some way?
>
> I believe they can sue. I chose my words carefuly because an *opinion* is
> protected, but an erroneous "statement of fact" is not.
>
> So if I said, "John Wayne was gay" (NOTE: I am *not* making this claim) that
> would be actionable. If I state, "In my opinion, John Wayne was gay" it's OK.
> That's why my comment on RR began "In my opinion..." on the advice of my legal
> counsel (who said she wouldn't defend me if the ghost of RR came back to sue
> me!)
>
> For the record, there is no way in hell that John Wayne was gay!
> Jon Mirsalis
> e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
> Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
> Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Yes, I should mention as well that the statement about John Wayne was
merely the first crazy thing I could think of and was not based on any
fact or rumor.
Stephen Cooke
On 25 May 1999, ChaneyFan wrote:
> For the record, there is no way in hell that John Wayne was gay!
Yeah, but you've gotta love those scenes of Rock Hudson giving him the eye
in The Undefeated!
;)
Stephen
Michael Gebert
chan...@aol.com (ChaneyFan) wrote:
> >>>I'm certainly not a lawyer, but John Wayne is dead and I'm pretty sure
> that if you wrote a book about him saying he was gay you'd hear from his
> estate. Is that true? If someone's estate can control the use of an
> image, can't they sue for libel in some way?
>
> I believe they can sue.
On a very similar subject: How exactly did Harold Lloyd's family suppress
Richard Schickel's book on Lloyd, which hinted (fairly modestly) at his
extramarital activities and Harold Jr.'s homosexuality?
Feuillade
> chan...@aol.com (ChaneyFan) wrote:
(Although the first quote is not Jon but someone else):
>>> I'm certainly not a lawyer, but John Wayne is
>>> dead and I'm pretty sure that if you wrote a
>>> book about him saying he was gay you'd hear
>>> from his estate. Is that true? If someone's
>>> estate can control the use of an image, can't
>>> they sue for libel in some way?
>> I believe they can sue.
> On a very similar subject: How exactly did Harold
> Lloyd's family suppress Richard Schickel's book on
> Lloyd, which hinted (fairly modestly) at his
> extramarital activities and Harold Jr.'s homosexuality?
This is something else entirely.
I don't think the Lloyd family "surpressed" Schickel's Lloyd biography, since
it was published.
What they *can* do (and certain estates that shall be nameless are *notorious*
for this) is put pressure on a given biographer by, in effect, blackmailing
him.
"If you write that our father/grandfather/brother-in-law was a drug
addict/homosexual/womanizer/alcoholic, we will be within our rights to forbid
you from quoting his lyrics/letters/novels or publishing any pictures of his
image over which we control the rights."
Estates can and do make threats like that all the time.
What they *can't* do is sue for libel.
They can, however, exert pressure in many other ways.
Michael Gebert
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
> mg...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> > On a very similar subject: How exactly did Harold
> > Lloyd's family suppress Richard Schickel's book on
> > Lloyd, which hinted (fairly modestly) at his
> > extramarital activities and Harold Jr.'s homosexuality?
>
> This is something else entirely.
>
> I don't think the Lloyd family "surpressed" Schickel's Lloyd biography, since
> it was published.
Yes, it was. And as I recall, it was withdrawn, and has never been
reprinted. Which is suppression, more or less.
But I suspect you are right about the method, that they probably exerted
control over copyright material such as stills.
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
> >>>The other great Rohauer story is about the time at a Keaton festival
when
> the film started and the phrase "Raymond Rohauer Presents" was the first
thing the audience saw.
The print of THE OLD DARK HOUSE I saw at The Castro last October still bore
the title "Raymond Rohauer Presents". There was no audience reaction this
time.
-J
Rodney Sauer
Feuillade wrote:
> chan...@aol.com writes:
>
> But first he quotes someone else:
>
> >> I'm certainly not a lawyer, but
> >> John Wayne is dead and I'm
> >> pretty sure that if you wrote a
> >> book about him saying he was gay
> >> you'd hear from his estate. Is that
> >> true? If someone's estate can
> >> control the use of an image, can't
> >> they sue for libel in some way?
>
> > I believe they can sue. I chose
> > my words carefuly because an
> > *opinion* is protected, but an
> > erroneous "statement of fact" is not.
>
> > So if I said, "John Wayne was gay"
> > (NOTE: I am *not* making this claim)
> > that would be actionable. If I state, "In
> > my opinion, John Wayne was gay" it's
> > OK. That's why my comment on RR
> > began "In my opinion..." on the advice
> > of my legal counsel (who said she
> > wouldn't defend me if the ghost of RR
> > came back to sue me!)
>
> > For the record, there is no way in
> > hell that John Wayne was gay!
>
> Jon, you can claim that John Wayne was gay, a cross-dresser, a child molester,
> a kleptomaniac, a drunk, a dope fiend -- even a Republican.
>
> You cannot, by definition, libel the dead. You can only libel the living. The
> dead have no legal protection against either libel or slander, and you can't be
> sued for anything you say about them.
However, if you wrote a biography where you discuss John Wayne's homosexuality,
the Wayne estate could refuse to let you use any copyrighted material in that
book. I believe that this kind of control is exerted by the estate of a major
Broadway composer/lyricist... it would be hard to write a biography of a composer
without quoting his songs, so the estate can control the composer's image.
--
Rodney Sauer
rod...@rddconsultants.com
Pianist and Director of the Mont Alto Ragtime and Tango Orchestra
and the Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra
http://www.ragtime.org/ragtime/MontAlto
"It is not probable that the Vitaphone will ever entirely replace the orchestra,
but it does make it possible for certain films requiring the finest musical
accompaniment to be shown in places where there is no orchestra available." --Hugo
Riesenfeld, 1926
Eric Grayson
for a
>bunch of the Rohauer silents. I thought about doing some deal where I
would do
>scores in exchange for prints of some of the rarer titles in the
collection (I
>sure would have liked to have gotten HER SISTER FROM PARIS and HER NIGHT
OF
>ROMANCE!). I spoke with a few people who knew Rohauer and they all said,
"not
>a chance in a million years of getting film from him."
This is a good example of why Rohauer was essentially a cad. I keep coming
back to the conclusion after all this discussion that he was still a jerk.
Her Sister from Paris is a WONDERFUL film. It's one of the funniest
silents I've ever seen. In 1985, if Rohauer had played ball with Jon,
there would be ONE good print of it in existence. It was rapidly
undergoing nitrate decomp and by the time LOC preserved it after RR's death
it was in fairly bad shape with a lot of visible mottling all through the
film.
I think we also have RR to thank for the crappy sections of The Old Dark
House that have been preserved. There are a couple of really dupey reels
in there. Do you think that if someone had had access to this film it
might have been preserved better? I hope so. It's probably James Whale's
best film (I know there's argument bait...) but the surviving material on
it isn't that good in some sections. Would it have been better in 1963
before RR got his hands on it? Probably.
I also remember a Douglas Fairbanks film that was run in Syracuse several
years ago (someone help me out on the title here). It was the ONLY print
in existence on this film, and Rohauer made it. It was a horrible dupe,
made from a nitrate. The timing was off (too bright), and there were 2
different color hairs in the gate of the printer THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH.
One was white (which meant it was in the dupe negative that he didn't keep)
and one was black (which meant it was in the printer when he printed the
dupe negative). The nitrate did not survive, incidentally.
I asked someone why this was so bad, and I got this response: "Rohauer knew
it was rare and he knew if he did bad lab work on it it would be hard to
dupe. That was a trick he played a lot. It kept him having the ONLY
prints of some titles even if they were bad."
I suppose you can hand me the argument that if he didn't preserve these
then they would not have been preserved at all.
Well, maybe.
Personally, I think that most of the credit for his biggest preservation
effort (Buster Keaton) should probably go to James Mason (yes, that James
Mason). It was Mason who discovered the prints in his house (Keaton's
former house), and tried to find someone to take them and eventually found
Rohauer (I think that some others actually duped some prints before Rohauer
got them).
Mason didn't have to do that. Keaton didn't care about those films at that
point. Mason could have simply dozed those prints into the dirt, but he
didn't. Instead he helped get Rohauer a start in the rights biz and the
rest was downhill.
Many of us know of people like Shepard and Brownlow here, but I personally
feel that there are quite a few celebrity patron saints of film
preservation who go unheralded all too often:
James Mason: got the ball rolling to save the Keaton collection.
Edie Adams: single-handedly saved as much Ernie Kovacs material as she
could.
Roddy McDowall: an ardent collector and preservationist all his life.
Mickey Rooney: same.
Mel Torme: same.
I think we should sing these people's praises and ignore Rohauer as much as
possible. If Bill Everson was the King of preservation then Rohauer was
the Dark Prince.
Let's leave it at that.
Eric
ChaneyFan
can't be sued for anything you say about them. Having taken a libel class
(from the attorney for a major international publication), I believe I'm
correct to say that. If a libel lawyer thinks differently, I'd be interested
in hearing their views.
Well I'm glad you took a libel class Tom. My wife is a graduate of Stanford
Law School (the school of 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices) so you'll excuse
me if I take her word for it over yours. Libel may in fact not be the
technically corect term for it, but an estate can certainly sue for damage to
family name, reputation, etc. Again, the issue is not necessarily whether thy
will win, but whether they will have enough to bring a reasonable case (without
Section 11 sanctions for a frivolous suit) that will require you to spend $100K
defending yourself.
ChaneyFan
designed as a parody of Rohauer's style (as well as Blackhawk Films). The (what
was it, two-seconds long?) film was roughly a two-minute reel with extensive
introductory titles, Raymond Rohauer's name feature prominently in a number of
spots, and as I recall it had two inserted intertitles: "Aahh..." and
"...choo!" or something to that effect. I seem to remember the film was a free
promotional bonus for ordering something from Thunderbird Films during one
month.
The creator of this wonderful film is a regular in this group, but I won't
reveal his secret identity so he can speak for himself if he wishes!
Nevertheless, this gem of a picture was done (I believe) as a Xmas present for
a number of people and is an absolute scream. I think about 40 copies or so
were made, of which I am one of the lucky owners.
Feuillade
>Feuillade wrote:
>> Jon, you can claim that John
>> Wayne was gay, a cross-dresser,
>> a child molester, a kleptomaniac,
>> a drunk, a dope fiend -- even a
>> Republican.
>> You cannot, by definition, libel
>> the dead. You can only libel the
>> living. The dead have no legal
>> protection against either libel or
>> slander, and you can't be sued for
>> anything you say about them.
> However, if you wrote a biography
> where you discuss John Wayne's
> homosexuality, the Wayne estate
> could refuse to let you use any
> copyrighted material in that
> book.
Absolutely true.
Estates have been known to exercise that kind of pressure fairly often.
> I believe that this kind of control is
> exerted by the estate of a major
> Broadway composer/lyricist... [...]
I'm not sure we're talking about the same guy, but there's at least one
legendary lyricist (who was also gay and a drunk) whose sex life will not be
mentioned in any biography that wants to quote his lyrics.
> [...] it would be hard to write a
> biography of a composer without
> quoting his songs, so the estate can
> control the composer's image.
They can attempt to exercise control
How successful they are in doing so depends on the author involved. Some
choose to back down under the pressure, and do it the estate's way.
Others do not, and find a way to work around the restrictions -- the way Ian
Hamilton worked around not being able to quote from Salinger's letters in his
biography.
sg...@my-dejanews.com
prints of the Talmadge films disintegrate?
In article <19990523233308...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
dshe...@aol.com (DShepFilm) wrote:
> To give Raymond Rohauer his due, I can tell you that many of the
excellent
> Keaton elements reproduced on the laserdiscs and tapes you know were
taken from
> elements he had manufactured off of BK's personal nitrate prints --
long before
> he managed to get any rights to these pictures.
>
> Had he not been there I think it likely that we would have been
forced to rely
> on far inferior material on such titles as THE PLAYHOUSE and MY WIFE'S
> RELATIONS, or perhaps not had them at all.
>
> On Keaton's films, at least, RR did a fairly responsible job,
copying the same
> titles more than once whenever a respectable 35mm source turned up.
>
> Would someone less perservering (i.e. obsessed) have battered at MGM
and the
> Schenck Estate until elements and rights were surrendered? I think
much of BK's
> late-life triumph and much of his current reputation is owed to RR.
>
> His dubious methods also saved the Chaplin Mutual outtakes -- more
than half a
> million feet STILL survive -- and because he liked to take me to
dinner and
> boast, I knew about them and was able to put Kevin Brownlow and David
Gill on
> to them. How would those two artists have made the greatest film on
cinema
> archaeology, UNKNOWN CHAPLIN; MY HAPPIEST YEARS, without him? He
rescued this
> footage from being incinerated for the silver.
>
> A charming scoundrel, Raymond was, (some used to call him 'the poison
> marshmallow'), a user and probably quite paranoid, but IMHO, in
balance, one
> of silent cinema's valuable unbalanced film citizens.
>
> David Shepard
>
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
David P. Hayes
> To give the bitter with the sweet, however, RR also replaced the
subtitles on
>many of the Keaton pictures with new cards that also sported new text. He
also
>recut and rearranged the films--so that many of the prints he had in
circulation
>bore only a passing resemblace to their original release versions.
The new text was not only detrimental to the film, but could be
embarrassing. On "Steamboat Bill Jr." (if I'm remembering correctly which
of the Keaton films I've seen in a Rohauer edition this story applies to),
there is a title that uses the word "where" in place of "there," despite the
very apparent inappropriate grammatical context.
----
David Hayes
To respond privately, excise the first underscore from address.
DShepFilm
prints of the Talmadge films disintegrate?
>>
As far as I know, he had few prints, mostly original negatives which were
already incomplete when he acquired them. I know he made a few prints but
probably did no preservation. On the other hand, he sometimes gave original
material to official archives if he trusted them (usually the Cinematheque
Francaise), so some of these films were preserved by others.
It is not easy for an invidual entrepreneur to regularly spend thousands
copying films which will earn little or nothing. To give a small scale
example, last month YCM labs made me a safety fine grain on a one reel
(10-minute) short which I've never used for video; this modest project cost
almost $1500 (the royalties from about 400-500 videocassette sales) and all I
did was turn it over to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for
safe keeping.
Constance Kuriyama
Fred Tepper (fwt...@mediaone.net) writes:
> I'm certainly not a lawyer, but John Wayne is dead and I'm pretty sure
> that if you wrote a book about him saying he was gay you'd hear from his
> estate. Is that true? If someone's estate can control the use of an
> image, can't they sue for libel in some way?
If that were possible, there'd be lots of suits over trash biographies.
But even when celebrities are alive, they usually ignore defamation.
To have a case worth pursuing, you have to show that you were somehow
materially damaged by the libel--that it hurt your business, caused you to
be fired, etc.
Connie K.
--
CC on Hollywood, ca. 1948: "All people think of is opening new restaurants."
eric stott
>
> The Avocado Avenger (sta...@io.com.guacamole) writes:
> > chan...@aol.com (ChaneyFan) writes:
> >
> >
> >>>>>What were the Chaplin private x rated material he bought and how did he
> >>obtain it?
> >
> >>I've always assumed this was an apocryphal story with no basis in fact, but I
> >>can't say for sure.
> >
> > when the movie CHAPLIN was out.
>
>
> Chaplin did have a private film library which included a version of _The
> Vagabond_ with a different ending from the release version. This was
> not x-rated, but its existence is well documented.
>
> In the 1940s there was apparently a story circulating that a number of
> Hollywood studio executives had large libraries of pornographic films.
> Chaplin's name was among those mentioned. This tidbit shows up in his
> FBI file--along with a large amount of other unsubstantiated gossip.
>
> Connie K.
>
>I've heard a rumor that Chaplin had pornographic pictures, presumbaly including himself. It doesn't strike me as entirely impossible. There was a definite strain of self-absorption in him, and he MIGHT have wanted to admire his ---performances.
Eric Stott
(By the way- since screen names seem popular, should I adopt the name
'Pseudo Art'? I'm responsible for the dammned term anyhow.)
Constance Kuriyama
The Avocado Avenger (sta...@io.com.guacamole) writes:
> chan...@aol.com (ChaneyFan) writes:
>
>
>>>>>What were the Chaplin private x rated material he bought and how did he
>>obtain it?
>
>>I've always assumed this was an apocryphal story with no basis in fact, but I
>>can't say for sure.
>
> What sources are there for this story? I've only heard a pa> reference to this in an interview done on "Entertainment Tonight", back
> when the movie CHAPLIN was out.
As far as I know, there is no reliable source for this story.
Chaplin did have a private film library which included a version of _The
Vagabond_ with a different ending from the release version. This was
not x-rated, but its existence is well documented.
In the 1940s there was apparently a story circulating that a number of
Hollywood studio executives had large libraries of pornographic films.
Chaplin's name was among those mentioned. This tidbit shows up in his
FBI file--along with a large amount of other unsubstantiated gossip.
Connie K.
>>Roahuer's primary tactic was buying up story rights from the widows of famous
>>authors. One story I heard had him aproaching the widow of H. Rider Haggard in
>>1964, and buying the story rights to SHE, and promising to keep the memory of
>>her dead husband alive forever. He then went to Hammer Pictures who were
>>making a remake with Ursula Andress and he told them he was going to tie them
>>up in court since he now owned the story rights. They had bought film rights
>>from RKO and gotten print materials to the '35 version, but didn't think they
>>needed story rights. Nevertheless, he negotiated for them to give him the '35
>>version...rights and printing materials...in exchange for him releasing a claim
>>on story rights. They considered this an easy out which is how he acquired the
>>rights to the film. This is typical of his tactics throughout his career.
Constance Kuriyama
ChaneyFan (chan...@aol.com) writes:
>>>>I'm certainly not a lawyer, but John Wayne is dead and I'm pretty sure
> that if you wrote a book about him saying he was gay you'd hear from his
> estate. Is that true? If someone's estate can control the use of an
> image, can't they sue for libel in some way?
>
> protected, but an erroneous "statement of fact" is not.
>
> So if I said, "John Wayne was gay" (NOTE: I am *not* making this claim) that
> would be actionable. If I state, "In my opinion, John Wayne was gay" it's OK.
If this is so, then the Chaplin estate should sue the hell out of Joyce
Milton, since, among many other untenable claims, she says that Chaplin was
gay, and that cartoonist Ralph Barton was his lover.
Barton's heirs could join in the suit. ;->
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
Interesting! Lloyd's heirs suppress a book containing information which
was presumably true, but embarrassing to them. Milton's book on Chaplin,
which is full of errors and distortions of fact, is ignored.
Libel must be by definition untrue, so the Schickel book wouldn't be
libelous in any case.
Bruce Jensen
do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>
> To have a case worth pursuing, you have to show that you were somehow
> materially damaged by the libel--that it hurt your business, caused
you to be fired, etc.
Apparent emotional pain and suffering doesn't count? If I were on a
civil jury, I'd give 'em the thumb - but not all jurors feel that way,
and if the plaintiff is as good an actor as the "libeled" he/she just
may win an "award" from the "academy."
--
Best regards,
Bruce Jensen
greta de groat
sg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Could you tell me whether what I heard was true about Rohauer letting
> prints of the Talmadge films disintegrate?
>
Do you mean Norma or Constance? (i presume you don't mean Richard ;-))
I've read that Rohauer let them disintigrate and that Schenck let them
disintigrate. Don't know the truth of when most of the damage was done,
but Rohauer's copies did finally end up at the Library of Congress. Some are
partly or very deteriorated, but many are 35mm prints or negatives in
excellent shape, so the reports of wholesale destruction are greatly
exaggerated. Curiously, Camille didn't make it to the Library of Congress
with the rest, but resides with Douris Corp. in Ohio. I haven't seen it, so
can't report as to its condition (Has any lucky soul out there seen it and
be able to tell us how it looks?)
Of Norma's 51 features, i count 33 more or less complete, 9 incomplete, and
9 lost. 31 of these are at the Library of Congress, so if it weren't for the
Rohauer prints, she would have very little left at all (though if they'd
been tended to earlier, they would be in better shape). I'm planning to put
up a list of archival holdings of her films on my website (as soon as i have
a website, that is!). If you're curious about a particular title, let me
know and i'll tell you whatever i've been able to find out.
By the way, does anybody know if The Dove (1927) was in the Austin lot sold
at Butterfields last week? The print at the Library of Congress is
incomplete.
I haven't investigated Constance's films, but i see the following 14 titles
from Rohauer listed at the Library of Congress:
LEARNING TO LOVE. ( 1925) Reels 2-6
TWO WEEKS ( 1920) Reels 3-6
HER NIGHT OF ROMANCE (1924) Reels 1-8
IN SEARCH OF A SINNER (1920) Reels 1-5
BREAKFAST AT SUNRISE (1927) Reels 1-7
THE FALL OF BABYLON (1916) Reels 1-6 (Don't know how this got with the
Rohauer stuff)
LESSONS IN LOVE (1921) Reels 1-6
DANGEROUS MAID (1923) Reels 1-8
GOLDFISH (1924) Reel 7
MAMA'S AFFAIR (1921) Reels 1-6
THE TEMPERMENTAL WIFE (1919) Reels 1-7
LOVE EXPERT (1920) Reels 1-5
HER SISTER FROM PARIS (1925) Reels 1-7
THE DUCHESS OF BUFFALO (1926) Reels1-7
If it's Natalie you're after, aside from Buster's films she has a
significant role in Norma's Yes or No (1920), which has been preserved in
full in an excellent 35mm print. She apparently has a small role in
Passion Flower, which does exist, and in Isle of Conquest, which doesn't.
greta
Constance Kuriyama
eric stott (est...@albany.net) writes:
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>
>> The Avocado Avenger (sta...@io.com.guacamole) writes:
>> > chan...@aol.com (ChaneyFan) writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>>What were the Chaplin private x rated material he bought and how did he
>> >>obtain it?
>> >
>> >>I've always assumed this was an apocryphal story with no basis in fact, but I
>> >>can't say for sure.
>> >
>> > What sources are there for this story? I've only heard a pa> reference to this in an interview done on "Entertainment Tonight", back
>> > when the movie CHAPLIN was out.
>>
>> As far as I know, there is no reliable source for this story.
>>
>> Chaplin did have a private film library which included a version of _The
>> Vagabond_ with a different ending from the release version. This was
>> not x-rated, but its existence is well documented.
>>
>> In the 1940s there was apparently a story circulating that a number of
>> Hollywood studio executives had large libraries of pornographic films.
>> Chaplin's name was among those mentioned. This tidbit shows up in his
>> FBI file--along with a large amount of other unsubstantiated gossip.
>>
>> Connie K.
> I've heard a rumor that Chaplin had pornographic pictures, presumbaly
> including himself. It doesn't strike me as entirely impossible. There
> was a definite strain of self-absorption in him, and he MIGHT have
> wanted to admire his ---performances.
There are many rumors about Chaplin, and lots of them are untrue--
or vastly inflated.
But it's not only possible but plausible that Chaplin had a stash of films
which could never have been circulated publically. It suited his nature
to dabble in the forbidden. If these included some films of himself, I
know quite a few people who would go to great lengths to see them. ;-)
> Eric Stott
> (By the way- since screen names seem popular, should I adopt the name
> 'Pseudo Art'? I'm responsible for the dammned term anyhow.)
I promise not to make you. You've suffered enough. :)
FThomp1065
me of something I read somewhere years ago. The story goes that there were
pornographers in Hollywood who would gain access to major studio stages at
night and film sex scenes with people who could pass for the stars of that
film. In other words, sneak onto the set of "Red Dust" with a Harlow lookalike
and a Gable lookalike, and then when the actual feature was completed, these
guys would "fill out" the love scenes to move into more explicit territory. And
if you were in the loop, you could see "Red Dust" in a way that the folks at
home never dreamed.
I have no idea where I read this but it was back when I was an impressionable
youngster and it stuck with me. Doesn't seem completely improbable, but then
I've never seen any evidence to really nail it as a fact.
Has anybody else ever heard of such a thing, or am I just looking for ways to
get Jean Harlow into my x-rated dreams?
I ask purely as, um, a silent film scholar. Yeah, that's right....it's a
research project...yeah...
Frank Thompson
eric stott
I'm not too certain of the above, but in the 1930's a LOT of
pornographic comic books were issued detailing the (rather graphic)
sexual life of various movie stars, gangsters, and newspaper comic strip
characters.
The books were palm sized and were called 'eight pagers' or 'Tijuana
bibles' in refference to their supposed place of origin. I can recall
one line from a book about John Dillinger;
A girl trying to change a flat tire sees a car approaching "Oh a Man-
I hope he'll help me out of dis dress"
Eric (pseudo-art) Stott
Constance Kuriyama
Bruce Jensen (bruce...@hotmail.com) writes:
> In article <7ihvem$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>>
>> To have a case worth pursuing, you have to show that you were somehow
>> materially damaged by the libel--that it hurt your business, caused
> you to be fired, etc.
>
> Apparent emotional pain and suffering doesn't count?
Apparent, yes! Personal injury is the basis for all defamation law, as I
understand it (Which is why dead people aren't covered--they're considered
beyond a feeling of personal injury). But emotional pain is hard to prove.
Material injury can be easier to document. And juries can make separate
damage awards for these items.
Heirs don't count unless they can prove that the person accused of
defamation intended to hurt them, and that injury was actually sustained.
I doubt that Jon has much to worry about, even if he proclaims it a *fact*
that Rohauer was a scumbag.
> If I were on a
> civil jury, I'd give 'em the thumb - but not all jurors feel that way,
> and if the plaintiff is as good an actor as the "libeled" he/she just
> may win an "award" from the "academy."
In every case, or just in this one?
If you read Louis Nizer's _A Life in Court_, you'll find a fascinating
account of Quentin Reynold's libel suit against Westbrook Pegler.
Pegler lost, and rarely has justice been so well served.
Michael Gebert
fthom...@aol.com (FThomp1065) wrote:
>In other words, sneak onto the set of "Red Dust" with a Harlow lookalike
> and a Gable lookalike, and then when the actual feature was completed, these
> guys would "fill out" the love scenes to move into more explicit
territory. And
> if you were in the loop, you could see "Red Dust" in a way that the folks at
> home never dreamed.
Maybe that happened at MGM... ONCE! It sure as hell never happened again....
I regard this as being about as likely as that MGM was too lazy to reshoot
a scene with a corpse hanging in it in their most expensive children's
film of 1939.
Neil Midkiff
:In article <19990527145752...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
Whaddaya think these guys were using, camcorders? From everything
I've read, the number of technicians needed to crank everything up
(lights, camera, sound) would make this not so much a "sneak" as an
invasion. It's not as simple as Gene Kelly makes it look in setting
up the "You Were Meant For Me" number in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN -- and he
was only turning on lights and one wind machine.
And who's going to write the extra minutes of scoring, record it, and
splice it in? Or is the insert going to be silent in the middle of
your print of "Red Dust"?
It's somewhat more plausible in the earlier days when silent cameras
were hand-cranked, stages were clustered together in one big building
and lit by filtered sunlight, and so forth -- I guess this would have
to be done over a weekend or holiday if we're talking natural light.
Once the various craft unions got control of their individual sets of
gear, I think anyone contemplating this sort of "sneak" would be at
least as afraid of the unions as of the front office -- and the union
techs would be more likely to notice that something had happened
overnight.
But I can see why the fantasy is appealing to enough people that the
rumors of such a "special sequence" persist.
-Neil Midkiff
PS: If such sequences do exist, I wouldn't be surprised if they were
filmed somewhere else than on the real set. At a guess, it seems
easier to mock up a plausible bit of set at some porn producer's
studio. After all, who's going to be looking too closely at the
backgrounds in such a scene?
Fred Tepper
>
> In article <19990527145752...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
> fthom...@aol.com (FThomp1065) wrote:
>
> >In other words, sneak onto the set of "Red Dust" with a Harlow lookalike
> > and a Gable lookalike, and then when the actual feature was completed, these
> > guys would "fill out" the love scenes to move into more explicit
> territory. And
> > if you were in the loop, you could see "Red Dust" in a way that the folks at
> > home never dreamed.
>
> Maybe that happened at MGM... ONCE! It sure as hell never happened again....
>
> I regard this as being about as likely as that MGM was too lazy to reshoot
> a scene with a corpse hanging in it in their most expensive children's
> film of 1939.
I am praying that you are just kidding and that you don't actually
believe that...
--
-=Fred=-
http://www.stationxstudios.com
-.-. --.- -.. -- --. -.--
Remove the x in the address to respond.
scou...@provide.net
wrote:
>FThomp1065 wrote:
>>
>> This whole thread about whether Chaplin had a library of x-rated films reminded
>> me of something I read somewhere years ago. The story goes that there were
>> pornographers in Hollywood who would gain access to major studio stages at
>> night and film sex scenes with people who could pass for the stars of that
>> film. In other words, sneak onto the set of "Red Dust" with a Harlow lookalike
>> and a Gable lookalike, and then when the actual feature was completed, these
>> guys would "fill out" the love scenes to move into more explicit territory. And
>> if you were in the loop, you could see "Red Dust" in a way that the folks at
>> home never dreamed.
>>
>> I have no idea where I read this but it was back when I was an impressionable
>> youngster and it stuck with me. Doesn't seem completely improbable, but then
>> I've never seen any evidence to really nail it as a fact.
>>
>> Has anybody else ever heard of such a thing, or am I just looking for ways to
>> get Jean Harlow into my x-rated dreams?
>>
>> I ask purely as, um, a silent film scholar. Yeah, that's right....it's a
>> research project...yeah...
>>
>> Frank Thompson
>
>
>I'm not too certain of the above, but in the 1930's a LOT of
>pornographic comic books were issued detailing the (rather graphic)
>sexual life of various movie stars, gangsters, and newspaper comic strip
>characters.
>
>The books were palm sized and were called 'eight pagers' or 'Tijuana
>bibles' in refference to their supposed place of origin. I can recall
>one line from a book about John Dillinger;
> A girl trying to change a flat tire sees a car approaching "Oh a Man-
>I hope he'll help me out of dis dress"
>
>Eric (pseudo-art) Stott
Som4e of these works of art have been collected into a hard cover book
titled..."Tijuana Bibles,.."
Look for it in you local upscale hip book store,......
regards,
Scoundrel
Jackie Schill
know what web sites I can use to search for her name and the movies she
was in.
Jackie Schill, CA
/..\ Splendour English Cockers /..\
` ecl...@prodigy.net `
Tim Dunleavy
>> I believe that this kind of control is
>> exerted by the estate of a major
>> Broadway composer/lyricist... [...]
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>I'm not sure we're talking about the same guy, but there's at least one
>legendary lyricist (who was also gay and a drunk) whose sex life will not be
>mentioned in any biography that wants to quote his lyrics.
If you're talking about Lorenz Hart, I have a feeling that his estate
may be easing up on this. This past January, PBS ran a "Great
Performances" special on Rodgers and Hart that contained about a dozen
of their songs, plus interviews with family and friends who spoke
openly of Hart's drinking and sexuality. Maybe the estate finally
realized they were being silly, and that once a person is out of the
closet, you can't put him back in.
-Tim
SRoweCanoe
writes:
>My husband's grandmother was a silent film actress and I would like to
>know what web sites I can use to search for her name and the movies she
>was in.
well for some folks, mentioning the name of the actress here on AMS may be the
best vet, otherwise try the (flawed)
http://www.imdb.com
Steven Rowe, posted and e-mailed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.
join the FelixTheCat list at www.onelist.com
.
Michael Gebert
<fwt...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Michael Gebert wrote:
> > I regard this as being about as likely as that MGM was too lazy to reshoot
> > a scene with a corpse hanging in it in their most expensive children's
> > film of 1939.
>
> I am praying that you are just kidding and that you don't actually
> believe that...
I am praying that you will reread what I wrote and figure out what I was saying.
Incidentally, Terry Southern's book The Magic Christian has a funny bit on
supposed insert shots being added to movies.
pre...@my-deja.com
chan...@aol.com (ChaneyFan) wrote:
> >>>The Best Rohauer anecdote I heard was that on the day he died there
was
> a screening of a rare silent film at MOMA. Someone at MOMA got up an
> announced that the great film
> archivist Raymond Rohauer had died and wild sustained applause broke
out
> which apparently startled the staff.
>
> For years it was not uncommon at festivals (Cinecon, Cinevent, etc.)
to see
> "Raymond Rohauer Presents" on a title and there would be a huge round
of booing
> and hissing.
>
Leonard Maltin once told me that back in 1970, he and some like-minded
friends were invited by Fox executives to an early screening of the
latest Youngson compilation, FOUR CLOWNS, to get their reaction. The
movie starts, Rohauer's name comes on, Leonard & Co. start booing, and
the Fox execs almost had coronaries!
Mike S.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
pre...@my-deja.com
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.99...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
Stephen Cooke <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> On 25 May 1999, ChaneyFan wrote:
>
> > For the record, there is no way in hell that John Wayne was gay!
>
> Yeah, but you've gotta love those scenes of Rock Hudson giving him the
eye
> in The Undefeated!
>
And he did walk funny and like nice horses!
Fred Tepper
>
> In article <374E50DE...@mediaone.net>, Fred Tepper
> <fwt...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Michael Gebert wrote:
> > > I regard this as being about as likely as that MGM was too lazy to reshoot
> > > a scene with a corpse hanging in it in their most expensive children's
> > > film of 1939.
> >
> > I am praying that you are just kidding and that you don't actually
> > believe that...
>
> I am praying that you will reread what I wrote and figure out what I was saying.
>
Your prayers have been answered! I had read your post after being awake
for 26 hours and obviously missed the joke/point. Sorry.