CC on AFI Top 100

On Jun 23, 2:30 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> Richard Carnhaan wrote:
> >Heck, I could have called you a lying
> >fascist.
>
> I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually.
>
> > And I wonder how much higher than
> >number eleven CITY LIGHTS would
> >have placed on the AFI list of great
> >American films if there it hadn't been for
> >that pesky "discontinuity"?
>
> As I've said, the glitch doesn't invalidate
> the scene or diminish the film, but it
> does illustrate a characteristic technical
> carelessness.

A couple of recent quotes: "For me, it detracts from the scene, though
the
impact nevertheless remains powerful" and, "I reget that the flaw
keeps the scene from near-perfection."

So, the "flaw [that] keeps the scene from near-perfection" and
"detracts from the scene" *doesn't* "diminish the film" ? What exactly
IS the definition of 'is'?
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

On Jun 23, 9:35 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >So, the "flaw [that] keeps the scene from
> >near-perfection" and "detracts from the
> >scene" *doesn't* "diminish the film" ?
> >What exactly IS the definition of 'is'?
>
> I see the Contradiction Police are
> still at work.
>
> To say that a specific scene falls short
> of "near perfection" is not the same
> as saying that the film as a whole
> is diminished.

Oh, now I get it. A "flaw" that "detracts" from a scene in a film (in
this case the climactic, most powerful scene) doesn't "diminish the
film" of which it is a part. How did I miss something so obvious and
rational?
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

On Jun 23, 2:30 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> Richard Carnhahan wrote:
> > And I wonder how much higher than
> >number eleven CITY LIGHTS would
> >have placed on the AFI list of great
> >American films if there it hadn't been for
> >that pesky "discontinuity"?
>
> As I've said, the glitch doesn't invalidate
> the scene or diminish the film, but it
> does illustrate a characteristic technical
> carelessness.

I've never before heard anyone call CITY LIGHTS technically careless.
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

On Jun 23, 9:32 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> rfcsac6... DeleteThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> >>As I've said, the glitch doesn't invalidate
> >>the scene or diminish the film, but it
> >>does illustrate a characteristic technical
> >>carelessness.
> >I've never before heard anyone call CITY
> >LIGHTS technically careless.
>
> Intimidated by its reputation perhaps?
>
> There's another glitch in the boxing
> match in which the wires that lift
> the Tramp are easily discernible.

Sorry George, your ignorance is showing. Show me a release print in
which the wire is obvious.

There was a pretty comprehensive discussion here about this issue when
the Image Entertainment DVDs were released. The jist of that
discussion, according to the techies who took part (and all agreed),
was that the duplication process and the film stock available at the
time would have "hidden" the wire, and those involved in the
production in 1931 would certainly knew that. The DVD source, a fine
grain 'lavender' as I recall, was so crisp and sharp, that elements
never visible in any release prints could be seen in the DVD. Where's
the "glitch" in Chaplin's production technique, George?
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

rfcsac627n.RemoveThis@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
wrote:


>>As I've said, the glitch doesn't invalidate
>>the scene or diminish the film, but it
>>does illustrate a characteristic technical
>>carelessness.

>I've never before heard anyone call CITY
>LIGHTS technically careless.

Intimidated by its reputation perhaps?

There's another glitch in the boxing
match in which the wires that lift
the Tramp are easily discernible.
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

David Totheroh wrote:

>So, the "flaw [that] keeps the scene from
>near-perfection" and "detracts from the
>scene" *doesn't* "diminish the film" ?
>What exactly IS the definition of 'is'?

I see the Contradiction Police are
still at work.

To say that a specific scene falls short
of "near perfection" is not the same
as saying that the film as a whole
is diminished.
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

On Jun 23, 9:32 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> rfcsac6....DeleteThis@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> >>As I've said, the glitch doesn't invalidate
> >>the scene or diminish the film, but it
> >>does illustrate a characteristic technical
> >>carelessness.
> >I've never before heard anyone call CITY
> >LIGHTS technically careless.
>
> Intimidated by its reputation perhaps?
>

No, but what does that have to do with my comment anyway? Please name
>someone< who has called CITY LIGHTS technically careless.

> There's another glitch in the boxing
> match in which the wires that lift
> the Tramp are easily discernible.on

We've discussed this before. It is discernible on the DVD, but not in
35mm release prints.
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

On Jun 24, 9:22 am, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com (David Totheroh)
> wrote:
>
> >>There's another glitch in the boxing
> >>match in which the wires that lift
> >>the Tramp are easily discernible.
> >Sorry George, your ignorance is
> >showing. Show me a release print in
> >which the wire is obvious.
>
> All if them, Clearly a harness effect is discenuble.
>
>
>
>
>
> >There was a pretty comprehensive
> >discussion here about this issue when
> >the Image Entertainment DVDs were
> >released. The jist of that discussion,
> >according to the techies who took part
> >(and all agreed), was that the duplication
> >process and the film stock available at >he time would have "hidden"
> the wire,
> >and those involved in the production in
> >1931 would certainly knew that. The
> >DVD source, a fine grain 'lavender' as I
> >recall, was so crisp and sharp, that
> >elements never visible in any release
> >prints could be seen in the DVD.
> >Where's the "glitch" in Chaplin's
> >production technique, George?
>
> I am familiar with this argument and
> not persuaded by it, There is clearly
> evidence of harness underbeath
> Chaplin's trunks even in the 35mm
> prints.

Do you ever stick to your original position, or does your bicycle
always go in reverse? You said the "wires [sic, there was only one]
that lift the Tramp are easily discernible." That is simply not true.
Do you have access to a 1931 release print? Or even a 1950 reissue
print? If not, what possible basis do you have for making your claim?

I have a 1950 print. The wire is invisible in it (and without your eye
being caught by the flash of the wire, as it is in the DVD, the
harness is not noticed unless you are specifically looking for it).

And why did you drop the "wires" claim and now talk about the harness
instead anyway? Matt Barry (and virtually everyone else in the world)
is right, the issues you choose to focus on are "really quite minimal
to begin with." Why can't you simply admit that the reason you
constantly find yourself needing to alter your claims is, if they
aren't flat out factually wrong, they are overdrawn and petty? Kinda
makes one wonder, with your obsession for 'Chaplin's' technical flaws,
if there isn't some other motivation at work here.
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>It is discernible on the DVD, but not in
>35mm release prints.

You're lying. :)

It's discrenuble there, too,.
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

Re: CC on AFI Top 100

Group: alt.movies.chaplin Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2007, 11:24pm (EDT-3) From:
dtotheroh.TakeThisOut@aol.com (David Totheroh)
On Jun 23, 9:35 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
David Totheroh wrote:
So, the "flaw [that] keeps the scene from near-perfection" and "detracts
from the
scene" *doesn't* "diminish the film" ?
What exactly IS the definition of 'is'?
I see the Contradiction Police are
still at work.

>>To say that a specific scene falls short of
>>"near perfection" is not the same
>>as saying that the film as a whole
>>is diminished.

>Oh, now I get it. A "flaw" that "detracts"
>from a scene in a film (in this case the
>climactic, most powerful scene) doesn't
>"diminish the film" of which it is a part.
>How did I miss something so obvious
>and rational?

Becayse it has a different "weight"
when considered against the whole
film.
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

dtotheroh.TakeThisOut@aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:

>>There's another glitch in the boxing
>>match in which the wires that lift
>>the Tramp are easily discernible.

>Sorry George, your ignorance is
>showing. Show me a release print in
>which the wire is obvious.

All if them, Clearly a harness effect is discenuble.

>There was a pretty comprehensive
>discussion here about this issue when
>the Image Entertainment DVDs were
>released. The jist of that discussion,
>according to the techies who took part
>(and all agreed), was that the duplication
>process and the film stock available at >he time would have "hidden"
the wire,
>and those involved in the production in
>1931 would certainly knew that. The
>DVD source, a fine grain 'lavender' as I
>recall, was so crisp and sharp, that
>elements never visible in any release
>prints could be seen in the DVD.
>Where's the "glitch" in Chaplin's
>production technique, George?

I am familiar with this argument and
not persuaded by it, There is clearly
evidence of harness underbeath
Chaplin's trunks even in the 35mm
prints.
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

David Totheroh wrote:

>>I am familiar with this argument and
>>not persuaded by it, There is clearly
>>evidence of harness underbeath
>>Chaplin's trunks even in the 35mm
>>prints.

>Do you ever stick to your original
>position, or does your bicycle always go
>in reverse? You said the "wires [sic,
>there was only one] that lift the Tramp
>are easily discernible." That is simply not
>true.

I include the harness mechanism
as part of the wires. The presence
of a wire is clearly discenible thereby.


>Do you have access to a 1931 release
>print? Or even a 1950 reissue print? If
>not, what possible basis do you have for
>making your claim?

I saw the movie theatrically several times.


>I have a 1950 print. The wire is invisible
>in it (and without your eye being caught
>by the flash of the wire, as it is in the
>DVD, the harness is not noticed unless
>you are specifically looking for it).

I wasn't looking for it and I noticed
it.


>And why did you drop the "wires" claim
>and now talk about the harness instead
>anyway?

They are one and the same...a wire
and harness set-up.


> Matt Barry (and virtually everyone else
>in the world) is right, the issues you
>choose to focus on are "really quite
>minimal to begin with."

His opinion.

> Why can't you simply admit that the
>reason you constantly find yourself
>needing to alter your claims is,

I didn't alter my claim, I clarified
it.


> if they aren't flat out factually wrong,
>they are overdrawn and petty?

"Petty" is subjective. Factually, I am
correct.

> Kinda
>>makes one wonder, with your
>obsession for 'Chaplin's' technical flaws,
>ff there isn't some other motivation at
>work here.

Same old song and dance...yeah, yeah,
Chaplin's technical flaws prove he
was a Commie...yeah, right, ya got me!

(Mentioning Chaplin's technical flaws does tend to undermine the
totalitarian attitudes that prevent balanced discussion here)
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100 

"David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182649243.098740.233960@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 2:30 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>> Richard Carnhaan wrote:
>> >Heck, I could have called you a lying
>> >fascist.
>>
>> I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually.
>>
>> > And I wonder how much higher than
>> >number eleven CITY LIGHTS would
>> >have placed on the AFI list of great
>> >American films if there it hadn't been for
>> >that pesky "discontinuity"?
>>
>> As I've said, the glitch doesn't invalidate
>> the scene or diminish the film, but it
>> does illustrate a characteristic technical
>> carelessness.
>
> A couple of recent quotes: "For me, it detracts from the scene, though
> the
> impact nevertheless remains powerful" and, "I reget that the flaw
> keeps the scene from near-perfection."
>
> So, the "flaw [that] keeps the scene from near-perfection" and
> "detracts from the scene" *doesn't* "diminish the film" ? What exactly
> IS the definition of 'is'?
>

When I watched the special Wednesday night, I watched specifically for the
"flower continuity" issue, and I realized that the change in position is
really quite minimal to begin with.
--
Matt Barry
www.myspace.com/mattbarry84
View my films at:
www.grouper.com
Read my essays and articles at:
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: CC on AFI Top 100