Chaplin and Editing

> What posessed him? Maybe the fact that they were his films and he had
> every right to produce new editions of his own work as he saw fit?
>
> How would you propose making a sound version of a silent film in the
> late 1950s without stretch printing? Do you have any understanding of
> the technical realities involved? What was edited out of Modern Times
> that was included after the final edit made immediately following
> preview/Premiere screenings? Do you honestly think the Mona Lisa WASN'T
> modified/edited several times along the way? Do you know of ANY artist
> who doesn't think they have the right, and even the artistic
> obligation, to refine their art to make it as true to their conception
> of their own artistic vision/statement as is humanly possible?

>>What posessed him? Maybe the fact that they were his films and he had every right to produce new editions of his own work as he saw fit?

Of course, he had every right to do what he wanted with them, but that
didn't make it the right decision. The Chaplin's "Stretch Printed"
First Nationals are compareable to Lucas' botched Star Wars Speicial
Editions. They both looked great in their original release format and
didn't need to be "fixed".

>>How would you propose making a sound version of a silent film in the late 1950s without stretch printing? Do you have any understanding of the technical realities involved?

To be honest, I do not know the technical realities that it involved or
why those films needed to be stretch printed in the 1950's. But, those
First National films featured in The Chaplin Revue, are hardly sound
versions. They have recorded soundtracks and minor sound effects, that
wouln't classify as a "sound version" in my book.

>>Do you honestly think the Mona Lisa WASN'T modified/edited several times along the way?

Well, it certainly wasn't released to the public, critically acclaimed
by the world, then 30 years later re-released as a totally different
version that totally lost the magic that the original had.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

David Totheroh wrote:

> What posessed him? Maybe the fact that they were his films and he had
> every right to produce new editions of his own work as he saw fit?

Easy David. Of course he had every right. That's not what's being
contested here.

> How would you propose making a sound version of a silent film in the
> late 1950s without stretch printing?

Perhaps the same way the sound version of THE GOLD RUSH was made,
WITHOUT stretch printing.

Do you have any understanding of
> the technical realities involved? What was edited out of Modern Times
> that was included after the final edit made immediately following
> preview/Premiere screenings?

I thought the cut to the final song was made a couple decades later, in
the '50s.

Do you honestly think the Mona Lisa WASN'T
> modified/edited several times along the way? Do you know of ANY artist
> who doesn't think they have the right, and even the artistic
> obligation, to refine their art to make it as true to their conception
> of their own artistic vision/statement as is humanly possible?

Again, of course they have the right. But "artistic obligation" is
open to wide interpretation, obviously.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

symphonyofhorror DeleteThis @juno.com wrote:
> > What posessed him? Maybe the fact that they were his films and he had
> > every right to produce new editions of his own work as he saw fit?
> >
> > How would you propose making a sound version of a silent film in the
> > late 1950s without stretch printing? Do you have any understanding of
> > the technical realities involved? What was edited out of Modern Times
> > that was included after the final edit made immediately following
> > preview/Premiere screenings? Do you honestly think the Mona Lisa WASN'T
> > modified/edited several times along the way? Do you know of ANY artist
> > who doesn't think they have the right, and even the artistic
> > obligation, to refine their art to make it as true to their conception
> > of their own artistic vision/statement as is humanly possible?
>
> >>What posessed him? Maybe the fact that they were his films and he had every right to produce new editions of his own work as he saw fit?
>
> Of course, he had every right to do what he wanted with them, but that
> didn't make it the right decision. The Chaplin's "Stretch Printed"
> First Nationals are compareable to Lucas' botched Star Wars Speicial
> Editions. They both looked great in their original release format and
> didn't need to be "fixed".
>
> >>How would you propose making a sound version of a silent film in the late 1950s without stretch printing? Do you have any understanding of the technical realities involved?
>
> To be honest, I do not know the technical realities that it involved or
> why those films needed to be stretch printed in the 1950's. But, those
> First National films featured in The Chaplin Revue, are hardly sound
> versions. They have recorded soundtracks and minor sound effects, that
> wouln't classify as a "sound version" in my book.

Then how would you propose exhibiting them in the world of the 50s
where only "sound version" film speeds were available?

If you don't understand the technical realities then you can't
understand the technical requirements necessary for making the
adaptations to a sound projection reality. There are physical and
mathmatical realities that, no matter how much you'd like to believe
otherwise, REQUIRED (at that time with discrete film frames and no
digital interpolation available) to adapt those earlier works to be
seen at sound speed. How else would you propose having films intended
to show 18-20 frames each second, look the same in systems that require
24 frames to be shown in that same 1 second duration?

>
> >>Do you honestly think the Mona Lisa WASN'T modified/edited several times along the way?
>
> Well, it certainly wasn't released to the public, critically acclaimed
> by the world, then 30 years later re-released as a totally different
> version that totally lost the magic that the original had.

Do you know that the Mona Lisa wasn't shown, preliminarily, to the
patron (Francesco del Giocondo) in the same way that Chaplin showed his
films to the public (Chaplin's 'patron') and subsequently
altered/edited, based on real or perceived feedback from these patrons?
In fact, (interesting that you would choose Mona Lisa as an example) it
is almost inconceivable that a small painting, that was in production
for nearly 4 years, would NOT have undergone those kinds of adjustments
(and in fact X-ray analysis reveals that, like most paintings, it did).
We can only guess what (subjective?) "magic" was lost as da Vinci
covered up those original tempera layers with oils, either because he
decided his intentions were better represented with the revisions or
because he perceived Sr. Giocondo would like it better that way. In
either case da Vinci made the choice to rework the painting over those
4 years, many of those reworkings likely having been done after
Francesco first saw the work.

What you're saying re. Chaplin, if applied to da Vinci, would mean that
the world would have been robbed of the painting we know, in favor of
the original version first shown to the patron.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

symphonyofhorror.DeleteThis@juno.com wrote:
> Why did Chaplin go back and massacre so many of his classics during his
> later years? Why did he think strech-printing would look good for "The
> Chaplin Revue"? Why did he choose to edit out sequences from "The Kid",
> "Modern Times" and "The Gold Rush"?
>
> Adding the newly composed scores was one thing, because they were done
> brilliantly, but what possesed him to do so much editing to his films?
> Once you paint the Mona Lisa, you LEAVE IT ALONE, not go back and say
> "well, I think her hair should be curley now and she should be wearing
> a hat now"!

I'm not sure that Chaplin ever stated the reasons for the cuts he made
to films such as THE KID. It may have had to do with a perception of
how audiences would receive the more emotional, non-comedy scenes
(which, after all, were the scenes that were cut). Harold Lloyd cut a
scene from THE FRESHMAN in which he breaks down in tears and cries with
his head in Jobyna Ralston's lap, supposedly because he found it
somewhat over-sentimental by later standards, and possibly because he
was somewhat embarrassed by the scene in later years. Regarding THE
KID, I personally enjoy the dramatic scenes with Edna Purviance and
Carl Miller. It gives it all a kind of completeness to the story for
me. But I can understand the decision to remove the footage also, as
that was Chaplin's right as an artist, and perhaps it was more in
keeping with the times that the film was re-released in.

I will say that in either version THE KID is a wonderful movie. I
watched it (the full version) the other night again (I've seen it at
least two dozen times in the last 15 years) with my girlfriend (who'd
never seen it before) and it moved her to tears. It still works
extremely well even 85 years later.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Derek Gee wrote:
> "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > NO one, more knowledgeable or not, ever explained, cogently or
> > otherwise, why (to take a hypothetical best case) Chaplin couldn't have
> > taken camera neg and directed the tech running the optical printer to
> > print the first 104 feet as is, print the next 46 feet with every 3rd
> > frame duplicated, print the next 26 feet frame for frame, print the
> > next 253 feet with every 4th frame duped, etc. You get the idea. The
> > result is a stretch print as "young" as is possible, just one
> > generation after camera neg. It is not physically possible to produce a
> > print less generationally removed from original elements than that. And
> > no one has explained why that process is physically impossible. There
> > is no physical reason why stretch printing would cause generational
> > degradation greater than any other duplication process.
>
> IIRC, Stretch Printing was done on an optical printer which give more
> generational loss than the usual contact printing method used for release
> prints back then. That's why the image suffers in addition to the jerky
> motion.

It is possible that I'm using obsolete terminology here. Rollie spoke
of ALL printers/duplicators as optical printers (they are all optical,
after all). Contact printers are merely a specific subset of optical
devices that copy films.

Regardless of HOW the transfers were made, my argument still holds.
There is no physical limitation that precludes 'slipping' registration
exactly one frame every 3 (or 4, or whatever frames) in a contact
printer. No generational loss is required as a result of the decision
to stretch a print from a negative.

Besides, haven't you just changed YOUR argument? You called this a
generational loss of quality, now you're arguing a quality loss that
has nothing to do with any additional generations.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

"David Totheroh" <dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message

> NO one, more knowledgeable or not, ever explained, cogently or
> otherwise, why (to take a hypothetical best case) Chaplin couldn't have
> taken camera neg and directed the tech running the optical printer to
> print the first 104 feet as is, print the next 46 feet with every 3rd
> frame duplicated, print the next 26 feet frame for frame, print the
> next 253 feet with every 4th frame duped, etc. You get the idea. The
> result is a stretch print as "young" as is possible, just one
> generation after camera neg. It is not physically possible to produce a
> print less generationally removed from original elements than that. And
> no one has explained why that process is physically impossible. There
> is no physical reason why stretch printing would cause generational
> degradation greater than any other duplication process.

IIRC, Stretch Printing was done on an optical printer which give more
generational loss than the usual contact printing method used for release
prints back then. That's why the image suffers in addition to the jerky
motion.

Derek
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Derek Gee wrote:
> "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1150346625.680379.167310@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Derek Gee wrote:
> >> "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > NO one, more knowledgeable or not, ever explained, cogently or
> >> > otherwise, why (to take a hypothetical best case) Chaplin couldn't have
> >> > taken camera neg and directed the tech running the optical printer to
> >> > print the first 104 feet as is, print the next 46 feet with every 3rd
> >> > frame duplicated, print the next 26 feet frame for frame, print the
> >> > next 253 feet with every 4th frame duped, etc. You get the idea. The
> >> > result is a stretch print as "young" as is possible, just one
> >> > generation after camera neg. It is not physically possible to produce a
> >> > print less generationally removed from original elements than that. And
> >> > no one has explained why that process is physically impossible. There
> >> > is no physical reason why stretch printing would cause generational
> >> > degradation greater than any other duplication process.
> >>
> >> IIRC, Stretch Printing was done on an optical printer which give more
> >> generational loss than the usual contact printing method used for release
> >> prints back then. That's why the image suffers in addition to the jerky
> >> motion.
> >
> > It is possible that I'm using obsolete terminology here. Rollie spoke
> > of ALL printers/duplicators as optical printers (they are all optical,
> > after all). Contact printers are merely a specific subset of optical
> > devices that copy films.
>
> Let me try to explain further. A contact printer is precisely what it
> implies - the negative is in direct contact with the duplicating stock
> (whether it's positive or negative). An optical printer uses lenses to be
> able to manipulate the image - cropping the image, for instance. The optics
> degrade the image more than direct contact with the original negative.
>

Wouldn't you be going from original negative...to fine grain...to
dupe negative...to release print, either way? The picture quality of
REVUE is pretty darn good, however it was achieved.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

"David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150346625.680379.167310@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Derek Gee wrote:
>> "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > NO one, more knowledgeable or not, ever explained, cogently or
>> > otherwise, why (to take a hypothetical best case) Chaplin couldn't have
>> > taken camera neg and directed the tech running the optical printer to
>> > print the first 104 feet as is, print the next 46 feet with every 3rd
>> > frame duplicated, print the next 26 feet frame for frame, print the
>> > next 253 feet with every 4th frame duped, etc. You get the idea. The
>> > result is a stretch print as "young" as is possible, just one
>> > generation after camera neg. It is not physically possible to produce a
>> > print less generationally removed from original elements than that. And
>> > no one has explained why that process is physically impossible. There
>> > is no physical reason why stretch printing would cause generational
>> > degradation greater than any other duplication process.
>>
>> IIRC, Stretch Printing was done on an optical printer which give more
>> generational loss than the usual contact printing method used for release
>> prints back then. That's why the image suffers in addition to the jerky
>> motion.
>
> It is possible that I'm using obsolete terminology here. Rollie spoke
> of ALL printers/duplicators as optical printers (they are all optical,
> after all). Contact printers are merely a specific subset of optical
> devices that copy films.

Let me try to explain further. A contact printer is precisely what it
implies - the negative is in direct contact with the duplicating stock
(whether it's positive or negative). An optical printer uses lenses to be
able to manipulate the image - cropping the image, for instance. The optics
degrade the image more than direct contact with the original negative.

> Regardless of HOW the transfers were made, my argument still holds.
> There is no physical limitation that precludes 'slipping' registration
> exactly one frame every 3 (or 4, or whatever frames) in a contact
> printer. No generational loss is required as a result of the decision
> to stretch a print from a negative.

The act of using an optical printer brings your final output down a
generation (as does the contact print), and will look worse than a contact
print.

> Besides, haven't you just changed YOUR argument? You called this a
> generational loss of quality, now you're arguing a quality loss that
> has nothing to do with any additional generations.

What on earth are you talking about? I've not changed any argument, I've
just joined the conversation.

Derek
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Derek Gee wrote:
> "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1150346625.680379.167310@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Derek Gee wrote:
> >> "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > NO one, more knowledgeable or not, ever explained, cogently or
> >> > otherwise, why (to take a hypothetical best case) Chaplin couldn't have
> >> > taken camera neg and directed the tech running the optical printer to
> >> > print the first 104 feet as is, print the next 46 feet with every 3rd
> >> > frame duplicated, print the next 26 feet frame for frame, print the
> >> > next 253 feet with every 4th frame duped, etc. You get the idea. The
> >> > result is a stretch print as "young" as is possible, just one
> >> > generation after camera neg. It is not physically possible to produce a
> >> > print less generationally removed from original elements than that. And
> >> > no one has explained why that process is physically impossible. There
> >> > is no physical reason why stretch printing would cause generational
> >> > degradation greater than any other duplication process.
> >>
> >> IIRC, Stretch Printing was done on an optical printer which give more
> >> generational loss than the usual contact printing method used for release
> >> prints back then. That's why the image suffers in addition to the jerky
> >> motion.
> >
> > It is possible that I'm using obsolete terminology here. Rollie spoke
> > of ALL printers/duplicators as optical printers (they are all optical,
> > after all). Contact printers are merely a specific subset of optical
> > devices that copy films.
>
> Let me try to explain further. A contact printer is precisely what it
> implies - the negative is in direct contact with the duplicating stock
> (whether it's positive or negative). An optical printer uses lenses to be
> able to manipulate the image - cropping the image, for instance. The optics
> degrade the image more than direct contact with the original negative.

Absolutely true. But there is no "generational difference" in using
optical over contact as was originally claimed.

>
> > Regardless of HOW the transfers were made, my argument still holds.
> > There is no physical limitation that precludes 'slipping' registration
> > exactly one frame every 3 (or 4, or whatever frames) in a contact
> > printer. No generational loss is required as a result of the decision
> > to stretch a print from a negative.
>
> The act of using an optical printer brings your final output down a
> generation (as does the contact print), and will look worse than a contact
> print.

I've seen some pretty mangled contact prints and some very good optical
transfers. But in general, this is true (and confirms, as I have been
arguing, that whatever differences may exist are not generational).

>
> > Besides, haven't you just changed YOUR argument? You called this a
> > generational loss of quality, now you're arguing a quality loss that
> > has nothing to do with any additional generations.
>
> What on earth are you talking about? I've not changed any argument, I've
> just joined the conversation.

Sorry, you're right. When I saw "Let me try to explain further" I
assumed (erroneously, and without checking) that it was more from
Waverboy.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

David B. Pearson wrote:
> I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
> later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made changes
> to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
> today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
> to prefer to release the originals as well.
>
> DBP

The premise may be viable but I'm not wholly convinced the motive is.
Do you think Chaplin actually thought A Woman of Paris was what
audiences would prefer from him in 1923? How about Verdoux? I have a
pretty strong hunch that there was something a bit more internal than
'audience preference' that motivated Chaplin. Additionally, there were
some self-imposed standards that Chaplin followed. My guess is that, if
Chaplin were alive today, the demand for original material would be
tempered to at least some degree by the relative quality of the
available material. At least that's the way Chaplin worked when he WAS
alive and I see no reason to expect drastic changes in that just
because he's dead. ;-)
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made changes
to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
to prefer to release the originals as well.

DBP
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

On 6/16/06 4:33 PM, in article
1150493610.138593.237120 DeleteThis @f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "David Totheroh"
<dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:

>
> David B. Pearson wrote:
>> I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
>> later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made changes
>> to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
>> today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
>> to prefer to release the originals as well.
>>
>> DBP
>
> The premise may be viable but I'm not wholly convinced the motive is.
> Do you think Chaplin actually thought A Woman of Paris was what
> audiences would prefer from him in 1923? How about Verdoux? I have a
> pretty strong hunch that there was something a bit more internal than
> 'audience preference' that motivated Chaplin. Additionally, there were
> some self-imposed standards that Chaplin followed. My guess is that, if
> Chaplin were alive today, the demand for original material would be
> tempered to at least some degree by the relative quality of the
> available material. At least that's the way Chaplin worked when he WAS
> alive and I see no reason to expect drastic changes in that just
> because he's dead. ;-)
>

I meant from historical perspective. Is the 1942 Gold Rush in any way
superior from what we can tell was the 1925 version? It is a hard sell
today. Frankly, it is very hard not to think of the '25 as the genuine
article, while the '42 is the alternate track. Ditto with "The Kid" and "The
Chaplin Revue." The later films are interesting, but just not the real
things. Some of the Harold Lloyd re-releases have exactly the same problem.
Like CC, Lloyd owned much of his own works, and he loved to tinker with
them. Ironically Keaton, who owned nothing, hated seeing his original work
altered in the slightest.

DBP
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

David B. Pearson wrote:
> On 6/16/06 4:33 PM, in article
> 1150493610.138593.237120.DeleteThis@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "David Totheroh"
> <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > David B. Pearson wrote:
> >> I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
> >> later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made changes
> >> to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
> >> today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
> >> to prefer to release the originals as well.
> >>
> >> DBP
> >
> > The premise may be viable but I'm not wholly convinced the motive is.
> > Do you think Chaplin actually thought A Woman of Paris was what
> > audiences would prefer from him in 1923? How about Verdoux? I have a
> > pretty strong hunch that there was something a bit more internal than
> > 'audience preference' that motivated Chaplin. Additionally, there were
> > some self-imposed standards that Chaplin followed. My guess is that, if
> > Chaplin were alive today, the demand for original material would be
> > tempered to at least some degree by the relative quality of the
> > available material. At least that's the way Chaplin worked when he WAS
> > alive and I see no reason to expect drastic changes in that just
> > because he's dead. ;-)
> >
>
> I meant from historical perspective. Is the 1942 Gold Rush in any way
> superior from what we can tell was the 1925 version? It is a hard sell
> today. Frankly, it is very hard not to think of the '25 as the genuine
> article, while the '42 is the alternate track. Ditto with "The Kid" and "The
> Chaplin Revue." The later films are interesting, but just not the real
> things. Some of the Harold Lloyd re-releases have exactly the same problem.
> Like CC, Lloyd owned much of his own works, and he loved to tinker with
> them. Ironically Keaton, who owned nothing, hated seeing his original work
> altered in the slightest.

I don't know enough about Lloyd to know if the term is appropriate in
his case, but I'd argue "tinker" doesn't fit the Chaplin history very
well. To me, it is far more accurate to say that Chaplin "re-edited"
some of his work he felt needed it, but I think in ways distinguishing
him from Lloyd, he was much less a "hands-on" kind of guy when it came
to technically working on his films.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing