?William K. Everson's Film Collection?
Curtin/Dobbs
collection of films?
Years ago at the PFA, I was fortunate enough to see some of his rare film
gems presented by the man himself.
Included was one of the few extant 16mm copies of _Bulldog Drummond Strikes
Back_('34). IIRC, according to Everson, the 35mm negative is missing a reel.
And it's embroiled in rights issues, and can't be broadcast it the US. Is
this info correct.?
It would be great if the missing 35mm reel could be replaced by footage from
Everson's 16mm copy, the rights issues worked out, and then release a deluxe
DVD set of _...Strikes Back_ and the earlier _Bulldog Drummond_('29). BTW,
Everson also had home movie footage from _...Strikes Back_.
Everson also showed a Charlie Chase short whose moving images were complete,
but for some reason, the title cards consisted of one or two frames each. I
forgot why that was so, hopefully one of the Silent experts can tell me.
This short could have been easily
restored by printing more frames of the title cards, but, IIRC,
Everson said whoever owned the rights, didn't feel it was worthwhile to
spend the money on it.
Along with Everson, I and other audience members were frustrated that these
problems couldn't be fixed due to financial and/or rights concerns. I think
with the explosion of DVD collecting out there nowadays, the financial
concerns aren't as pressing and the rights issues might be able to be worked
out to everyone's financial advantage more easily than before.
Please share you information on Everson and his film holdings and what
happened to them and what's being done with them.
Thanks...Curtin/Dobbs
jessica
is currently
housed at Eastman house under contract with NYU. A few of the more
commonly used prints stay on campus
Bruce Calvert
in a beautiful 35mm print. Here's what I wrote as a review:
BULLDOG DRUMMAND STRIKES BACK (1934, 20th Century) This exciting
toung-in-cheek film starred Ronald Colman as Bulldong Drummand, who is
constantly waking up Inspector Nielsen (C. Aubrey Smith) to try to get him
to investegate a foreign dignitary (Warner Oland). Loretta Young is radiant
as the heroine. Drummond's sidekick Algy (Charles Butterworth) has just
gotten married, but Drummond won't leave him alone with his wife. (****)
ONE OF THE BEST OF THE WEEKEND
--
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com
rca...@hotmail.com
> Was wondering what's being done with the late, great William K. Everson's
> collection of films?
>
>
> Please share you information on Everson and his film holdings and what
> happened to them and what's being done with them.
>
> Thanks...Curtin/Dobbs
NYU, Tisch School of the Arts, Skirball Center for New Media:
"...houses the William K. Everson Film Collection, containing over
4,000 feature-length films and a like number of short subjects
spanning every filmmaking genre, along with an extensive manuscript
collection of original scripts, autobiographical materials,
correspondence and ephemera; the holdings are particularly strong in
materials documenting the silent film era." http://about.tisch.nyu.edu/object/skirball.html
Curtin/Dobbs
"Bruce Calvert" <silentf...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8kyRh.2144$Ip3...@news.cpqcorp.net...
What are the chances of a DVD release?
Thanks...Curtin/Dobbs
>
>
bpnjensen
wrote:
Stanford Theatre showed a great complete print last summer too - my
son and I cracked up - just a fabulous film.
Bruce Jensen
Daniela C
Curtin/Dobbs schrieb:
Every now and then you may find bootleg DVDs on ebay,of course they always claim
that it's in public domain but I doubt it.It has been definitely shown on Arte,a
mainly French-German tv channel,and also probably on British tv.
I've planted hollyhocks today!!
Daniela C
Daniela C schrieb:
P.S.: I seem to be the only person but actually I like Bulldog Drummond better than
Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back because of the wonderful photography-quite
expressionistic with all those shades and queer staircases.Sometimes only the
shadows of the actors can be seen,spoiler warning!,especially when Drummond kills
the Doctor with his bare hands.It's a shame that this was the last movie of F.
Richard Jones ,who died soon afterwards.
Ed Hulse
> P.S.: I seem to be the only person but actually I like Bulldog Drummond better than
> Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back because of the wonderful photography-quite
> expressionistic with all those shades and queer staircases.Sometimes only the
> shadows of the actors can be seen,spoiler warning!,especially when Drummond kills
> the Doctor with his bare hands.It's a shame that this was the last movie of F.
> Richard Jones ,who died soon afterwards.
In terms of the visual effects you describe, art director William
Cameron Menzies deserves the credit. Some of his production sketches
for this film still survive and have been reproduced. I think he's the
one who should be celebrated for BULLDOG's "look." Jones and Gregg
Toland were simply implementing his concepts. Notwithstanding my
admiration for Menzies, I believe STRIKES BACK to be the superior
film.
Bill Everson, who loved both Colman Drummond movies, was fond of
saying that BULLDOG DRUMMOND was a far more impressive film for 1929
than STRIKES BACK was for 1934. I share the same view but still
prefer the sequel to the original.
lerick
> Everson also showed a Charlie Chase short whose moving images were complete,
> but for some reason, the title cards consisted of one or two frames each. I
> forgot why that was so, hopefully one of the Silent experts can tell me.
> This short could have been easily
> restored by printing more frames of the title cards, but, IIRC,
> Everson said whoever owned the rights, didn't feel it was worthwhile to
> spend the money on it.
Intertitles were often chopped to a few frames to save space when
storing silents, the principle being (as you say) that it would be
simple to restore the sections by duping the saved frame(s), although
they were hardly ever considered worth this expense. After their
initial runs, few films were regarded as being of significant value,
studios regarding them as dead stock, and never foreseeing their use
in a future that was always demanding new material. They may only have
held on to them at all for copyright reasons and as a possible source
of stock footage or cheap overseas sales.
A second consideration - although not one of which they would
necessarily have been aware at the time - was that the washing of the
high-contrast intertitle frames was seldom done as thoroughly as for
the main film during processing, leaving those sections in a far less
stable state and far more prone to deterioration in a relatively short
time. I believe that prints where the intertitles have been removed
are often in better overall condition, as the deterioration tends to
spread radially through the reel, eating into the more stable stock.
But there are restoration experts on this list who know far more about
this kind of problem.
Best,
Lance, UK
David P. Hayes
titles is that all but a few frames of titles were removed from the
materials sent overseas for preparation of prints made in Europe for
European distribution. The few remaining frames were adequate for
positioning a translated equivalent title in the appropriate location. A
frame or two of the English-language version would then remain in the master
so that once the prints in one language had been struck, the titles in that
language could be removed and the translated titles for yet another language
put into place, with the English-language original providing assurance that
the foreign-language material was being placed at the desired position
within the narrative.
An added benefit: the costs of shipping the master copy overseas was
reduced.
Even the prints made for Great Britain would intersperse titles that were
done over. Prints shown in England contained substitutions of spelling
(e.g., "colour" for "color"), wording ("lift" for "elevator"), and might
include the logo of the British company which had that country's
distribution rights.
The argument that the seemingly-duplicate frames were removed when the films
went into storage, in the belief that new frames could be copied from the
remaining ones if needed, does not pass muster. New frames produced this
way always look "frozen." Furthermore, in the silent era, duplicating stock
wasn't as good as it later became. I doubt that such cutting and copying
was standard practice by American companies for materials intended for
American use.
--
David Hayes
Remove director name from address when responding privately.
"Curtin/Dobbs" <curtin...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c4WdnZfJY6aeN4vb...@comcast.com...
lerick
Thanks for this information: what you say makes a lot of sense. I have
heard and read several different explanations for the existence of
these chopped prints, but the reduction in weight and the few frames
as a guide and marker for foreign titles seems both practical and
plausible. However, as well as overseas discoveries, I'm sure I've
read about domestic stocks of such prints turning up in storage; do
you think these were just versions intended for export but never sent
for some reason, or would prints have been prepared for most titles,
just in case?
Best,
Lance, UK
On Apr 7, 11:11 pm, "David P. Hayes"
Charles Hohenstein
reason) deteriorated much more rapidly, and that it was thought that
removing all but a few frames might help preserve the film. I wish that
I could remember where I read it.
--
Charles Hohenstein
To reply, remove Gene Robinson
"The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers, treehuggers, social
climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies, and chronic petition signers that
makes up the current Episcopal Church . . ."--Thomas Lipscomb
Ed Watz
>
> Everson also showed a Charlie Chase short whose moving images were complete,
> but for some reason, the title cards consisted of one or two frames each. I
> forgot why that was so, hopefully one of the Silent experts can tell me.
> This short could have been easily
> restored by printing more frames of the title cards, but, IIRC,
> Everson said whoever owned the rights, didn't feel it was worthwhile to
> spend the money on it.
Film historian and Chase author Brian Anthony subsequently borrowed
Bill Everson's Charley Chase and miscellaneous Hal Roach shorts which
had single frame titles (THE STING OF STINGS [under its British
title], LIMOUSINE LOVE, PASS THE GRAVY, THE CALL OF THE CUCKOO) and
stretched the titles to normal length. Everson's versions, acquired
from Robert Youngson in the 1950s, have the original Roach-MGM titles
and in some cases a few more shots than latter-day generated prints,
plus there were no signs of hypo when the 35mm source was used to make
16mm reductions for Everson.
Ed Watz
David P. Hayes
European release. Instead, once an adequate number of prints had been made
for American distribution, the negative would be shipped to Europe, used for
prints there, then shipped back to the U.S., where the production company
would maintain the negative for any future print requirements and as source
material for stock footage or for reference when preparing remakes, etc.
--
David Hayes
Remove director name from address when responding privately.
"lerick" <ler...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1175989985.1...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Eric Grayson
so many camera negs at MGM were stored that way. I can't imagine
they'd do it to a camera neg, but yet they did it all the time.
West of Zanzibar, several Max Davidson shorts, The Monster, etc, etc...
all were done this way.
I know for certain that The Monster has original A camera neg that is
stored with flash titles.
Why would THAT be done for foreign prints? The B negs would be shipped
overseas. You're right... it doesn't save THAT much space, and I can't
imagine they'd split reels this way.
When you get an original print from the era, it's clear that they're
not printed from flash titles (which I wouldn't know because projecting
nitrate would be bad), so clearly someone made a decision to do this at
some point. It might be for reasons of deterioration, but I can't
imagine that. MGM had its own lab in-house and did all the processing
itself. It's not like a Charley Bowers film that was shot on a
shoestring with different stocks.
Eric
In article <rGURh.668$3P3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, David
David Pierce
Practice varied by studio and by the commercial labs they used
for their release prints.
In some cases, the camera negatives were prepared with flash
titles, and the titles were assembled separately. Remember
that in the silent era, the negatives were kept in 400 foot rolls,
so every print required assembly into 1000 foot reels. The flash
titles helped the assembly editor to know which title to splice in.
I remember visiting the Library of Congress to view a print
of F. Richard Jones' film for Paramount, THE BIG KILLING (1928),
with Wallace Beery and Raymond Hatton.
The 16mm print appeared to be a direct reduction from the 35mm
negative. It consisted of 5 or 6 reels of picture with flash titles
and two separate reels of just the titles (in order).
Since the Library didn't want to cut the picture together, when
I projected it at the Cinecon in Orlando (circa 1988), I ran the
picture
on one projector, and at the end of each reel, changed projectors to
show the corresponding titles for that reel!
David Pierce
On Apr 8, 1:24 pm, Eric Grayson <filmspamawaye...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Well, if the argument doesn't pass muster, then we have to explain why
> so many camera negs at MGM were stored that way. I can't imagine
> they'd do it to a camera neg, but yet they did it all the time.
>
> West of Zanzibar, several Max Davidson shorts, The Monster, etc, etc...
> all were done this way.
>
> I know for certain that The Monster has original A camera neg that is
> stored with flash titles.
>
> Why would THAT be done for foreign prints? The B negs would be shipped
> overseas. You're right... it doesn't save THAT much space, and I can't
> imagine they'd split reels this way.
>
> When you get an original print from the era, it's clear that they're
> not printed from flash titles (which I wouldn't know because projecting
> nitrate would be bad), so clearly someone made a decision to do this at
> some point. It might be for reasons of deterioration, but I can't
> imagine that. MGM had its own lab in-house and did all the processing
> itself. It's not like a Charley Bowers film that was shot on a
> shoestring with different stocks.
>
> Eric
>
> In article <rGURh.668$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, David
> > "Curtin/Dobbs" <curtin-do...@comcast.net> wrote in message
David P. Hayes
> so many camera negs at MGM were stored that way. I can't imagine
> they'd do it to a camera neg, but yet they did it all the time.
>
> West of Zanzibar, several Max Davidson shorts, The Monster, etc, etc...
> all were done this way.
>
> I know for certain that The Monster has original A camera neg that is
> stored with flash titles.
>
> Why would THAT be done for foreign prints? The B negs would be shipped
> overseas. You're right... it doesn't save THAT much space, and I can't
> imagine they'd split reels this way.
>
> imagine that. MGM had its own lab in-house and did all the processing
> itself.
"David Pierce" <pri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176256104.2...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Practice varied by studio and by the commercial labs they used
> for their release prints.
>
> In some cases, the camera negatives were prepared with flash
> titles, and the titles were assembled separately. Remember
> that in the silent era, the negatives were kept in 400 foot rolls,
> so every print required assembly into 1000 foot reels. The flash
> titles helped the assembly editor to know which title to splice in.
I had not known that it was practice at MGM, and am surprised that this was
done on their domestic negatives. For the remainder of this message, I will
throw out some relevant facts, but not present an explanation.
It did occur to me after sending my previous message that for releases that
were shown as tinted prints, it wouldn't matter that there were flash titles
in the negative, because each print had to be assembled from the separate
sections tinted a particular color. As titles generally weren't tinted (and
when they were, not in the same color as the adjacent scene), a full-length
segment of any given title would have to be spliced into each print.
Far from every MGM film was tinted, so if it was standard practice at MGM to
store films with just flash titles, it was not because of tinting.
Might the explanation be that deterioration would set in on titles? Here, I
posit that MGM might not have processed the negatives for these. I have
just one observation on the subject, and it is scarcely conclusive. The
Roach comedies released by MGM have the same style of title lettering and
background as concurrent MGM productions. Roach farmed out the filming of
titles to Pacific Title. (Fact source: Randy Skretvedt.) Might MGM have
done likewise? If so, MGM negatives would come into contact with whatever
processing residue or deficiencies introduced by Pacific Title. Then again,
this explanation assumes that Pacific Title actually processed the film they
shot, rather than merely delivering unprocessed negative.
"The Second Hundred Years" (one of the first Laurel & Hardy comedies
produced by Roach to be released by MGM rather than Pathé) had suffered from
deterioration on the titles but not the action footage by the time that
Blackhawk created its master. If you look at a Blackhawk print, you'll see
deterioration on the scenes with actors just before a title comes on and
immediately after a title finishes. At no other time during the short is
there deterioration on a scene. The titles themselves have even more
deterioration. On several titles, Blackhawk replaced the original title
with a plain white-on-black substitute.
As for MGM storing films with flash titles: I attended a 1990s 35mm showing
of "The Red Mill" which the presenter stated was the "MGM vault print"
allowed out for that showing. It had flash titles. I'm sure it was on
safety stock, so apparently this print was a simple record of what was on
the negative, without such possible modifications as repeating frames to
lengthen the titles, the print having been intended as backup material
rather than a projection print.
Eric Stott
"David P. Hayes" <silfn03njj...@davidhayes.net> wrote in message
news:cUBTh.2403$3P3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> As for MGM storing films with flash titles: I attended a 1990s 35mm
> showing of "The Red Mill" which the presenter stated was the "MGM vault
> print" allowed out for that showing. It had flash titles. I'm sure it
> was on safety stock, so apparently this print was a simple record of what
> was on the negative, without such possible modifications as repeating
> frames to lengthen the titles, the print having been intended as backup
> material rather than a projection print.
This might explain why the titles in the TCM showing looked a bit odd- they
had odd black sections- looked as if damaged titles has been corrected in
photoshop with a slight mismatch in tonal values. The effect wasn't fatal,
but was a bit distracting.
While I'm speaking of Red Mill, the score started out reasonably, but got
worse and worse. The music was overdramatic- even too much during the
overdramatic parts. The film was a lot of fun until Davies was shut up
in the haunted mill, then it just lost something and became contrived. Why
was the Haunted Mill full of bowling balls (stored upstairs for some reason)
dummies, fishnets and a skeleton- was it some sort of community halloween
warehouse?
Stott
Tinted Nitrate
...
> While I'm speaking of Red Mill, the score started out reasonably, but got
> worse and worse. The music was overdramatic- even too much during the
> overdramatic parts. The film was a lot of fun until Davies was shut up
> in the haunted mill, then it just lost something and became contrived. Why
> was the Haunted Mill full of bowling balls (stored upstairs for some reason)
> dummies, fishnets and a skeleton- was it some sort of community halloween
> warehouse?
>
> Stott
Does TCM have a re-run/repeat of RED MILL scheduled?
edb...@aol.com
<silfn03njjlubitsc...@davidhayes.net> wrote:
> Might the explanation be that deterioration would set in on titles? Here, I
> posit that MGM might not have processed the negatives for these. I have
> just one observation on the subject, and it is scarcely conclusive. The
> Roach comedies released by MGM have the same style of title lettering and
> background as concurrent MGM productions. Roach farmed out the filming of
> titles to Pacific Title. (Fact source: Randy Skretvedt.) Might MGM have
> done likewise? If so, MGM negatives would come into contact with whatever
> processing residue or deficiencies introduced by Pacific Title. Then again,
> this explanation assumes that Pacific Title actually processed the film they
> shot, rather than merely delivering unprocessed negative.
>
> "The Second Hundred Years" (one of the first Laurel & Hardy comedies
> produced by Roach to be released by MGM rather than Pathé) had suffered from
> deterioration on the titles but not the action footage by the time that
> Blackhawk created its master. If you look at a Blackhawk print, you'll see
> deterioration on the scenes with actors just before a title comes on and
> immediately after a title finishes. At no other time during the short is
> there deterioration on a scene. The titles themselves have even more
> deterioration. On several titles, Blackhawk replaced the original title
> with a plain white-on-black substitute.
> David Hayes
That's true. I have a pre-Blackhawk 16mm reduction on "The Second
Hundred Years" taken from the camera negative in the 1950s. Besides
looking stunning and not containing surface scratches, at that point
the original titles were still intact. There are at least three
additional titles in the print that presumably "hypoed" by the time
Blackhawk set about copying it.
Ed Watz
Dave in Toronto
> P.S.: I seem to be the only person but actually I like Bulldog Drummond better than
> Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back because of the wonderful photography-quite
> expressionistic with all those shades and queer staircases.Sometimes only the
> shadows of the actors can be seen,spoiler warning!,especially when Drummond kills
> the Doctor with his bare hands.It's a shame that this was the last movie of F.
I remember "Bulldog Drummond" it was Ronald Colman's first talkie.
The movie was based on a stage play and it's stage origins are very
obvious.
The "Bulldog Drummond" books by "Sapper" make for rather painful
reading to-day with their racism and sadism. The Bulldog goes around
whipping Jewish money lenders ( "I do not like your trade you filthy
swine!") and throwing his opponents into vats of acid. The movie
gentlified the character and of course Ronald Colman brings his usual
charm to the character, although the scene where he gleefully
strangles someone with his bare hands while making wisecracks is a
throwback to the literary Bulldog.
Some interesting comments on the movie here :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019735/usercomments
Dave in Toronto