Chaplin and Editing

In article <1150524114.783815.254180.RemoveThis@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Richard Carnahan <rfcsac627n.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy wrote:
> Too bad the films didn't
> > belong to Paramount or Warner Brothers, who might have at least
> > preserved them, unmolested.
>
> Do you honestly think that Chaplin would have been able--working for
> a major studio--to make CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES as silents? Do
> you think he'd have been able to make THE GREAT DICTATOR or MONSIEUR
> VERDOUX at all?

As for "City Lights" and "Modern Times" - yes. They made gobs of money.
Studios are (and were) in the business of making gobs of money. As for
"The Great Dictator" and "Verdoux," perhaps not. That, however, would
have been a benefit.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Doug Sulpy 6/18/06 10:07 AM

> In article <1150524114.783815.254180.DeleteThis@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Carnahan <rfcsac627n.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Doug Sulpy wrote:
>> Too bad the films didn't
>>> belong to Paramount or Warner Brothers, who might have at least
>>> preserved them, unmolested.
>>
>> Do you honestly think that Chaplin would have been able--working for
>> a major studio--to make CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES as silents? Do
>> you think he'd have been able to make THE GREAT DICTATOR or MONSIEUR
>> VERDOUX at all?
>
> As for "City Lights" and "Modern Times" - yes. They made gobs of money.
> Studios are (and were) in the business of making gobs of money. As for
> "The Great Dictator" and "Verdoux," perhaps not. That, however, would
> have been a benefit.

Even though his talkies are very flawed (that closing speech in Dictator is
murder), there are enough amusing moments to make them worthwhile. And, as
being a part of Chaplin's filmography, they are nevertheless essential. We
do not have to ponder what Chaplin might have done in talking pictures.

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Doug Sulpy wrote:

> Too bad the films didn't
> belong to Paramount or Warner Brothers, who might have at least
> preserved them, unmolested.


"Might" is being optimistic. Neither studio had a preservation
policy in place until relatively recently, and the silents of theirs
that survived did so by luck, not design.

They didn't go out of their way to destroy their silents, but they
did nothing to protect them, either. I know Paramount's policy for many
years was to junk an entire film as soon as decomp was discovered in
any of its reels, and Warners probably had a similar plan.

There are hundreds of Paramount films gone forever. I can't think of
one Paramount silent star whose work is essentially complete: most of
the Wallace Reids, Pola Negris and Roscoe Arbuckles are gone, half of
the Betty Bronsons and Louise Brookses, and even some key Clara Bows
and Emil Jannings films are gone.

Warners' record isn't much better. Probably half of their silents
are lost, as well as the huge majority of the Vitagraph library that it
acquired. Even WB talkies like THE TERROR and John Barrymore's THE MAN
FROM BLANKLEY'S are gone, as is the legendary Pre-Coder CONVENTION
CITY. Even stalwarts like THE PUBLIC ENEMY and LITTLE CAESAR no longer
have their original main title sequences.

Chaplin did go back and re-edit his films, but he generally took
care of them and returned them all to circulation. Indifference and
neglect were the rule at the other studios.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Shush wrote:
> Doug Sulpy wrote:
>
> > Too bad the films didn't
> > belong to Paramount or Warner Brothers, who might have at least
> > preserved them, unmolested.
>
>
> "Might" is being optimistic. Neither studio had a preservation
> policy in place until relatively recently, and the silents of theirs
> that survived did so by luck, not design.
>
> They didn't go out of their way to destroy their silents, but they
> did nothing to protect them, either. I know Paramount's policy for many
> years was to junk an entire film as soon as decomp was discovered in
> any of its reels, and Warners probably had a similar plan.
>
> There are hundreds of Paramount films gone forever. I can't think of
> one Paramount silent star whose work is essentially complete: most of
> the Wallace Reids, Pola Negris and Roscoe Arbuckles are gone, half of
> the Betty Bronsons and Louise Brookses, and even some key Clara Bows
> and Emil Jannings films are gone.
>
> Warners' record isn't much better. Probably half of their silents
> are lost, as well as the huge majority of the Vitagraph library that it
> acquired. Even WB talkies like THE TERROR and John Barrymore's THE MAN
> FROM BLANKLEY'S are gone, as is the legendary Pre-Coder CONVENTION
> CITY. Even stalwarts like THE PUBLIC ENEMY and LITTLE CAESAR no longer
> have their original main title sequences.
>
> Chaplin did go back and re-edit his films, but he generally took
> care of them and returned them all to circulation. Indifference and
> neglect were the rule at the other studios.
>
>
>
> --Shush--

Does anyone know if "original" prints of THE CIRCUS exist? By original,
I mean including the original main credits rather than the remade 1968
titles. I know there has been talk of "original" prints of the First
Nationals turning up, and as far as I can tell, the reissue of A WOMAN
OF PARIS has its original titles. I know THE GOLD RUSH of course no
longer exists in its "original" version. But I've often wondered if
anyone has seen a print of THE CIRCUS floating around with original,
vintage 1928 opening credits.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Doug Sulpy wrote:
> In article <1150524114.783815.254180.RemoveThis@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Carnahan <rfcsac627n.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Doug Sulpy wrote:
> > Too bad the films didn't
> > > belong to Paramount or Warner Brothers, who might have at least
> > > preserved them, unmolested.
> >
> > Do you honestly think that Chaplin would have been able--working for
> > a major studio--to make CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES as silents? Do
> > you think he'd have been able to make THE GREAT DICTATOR or MONSIEUR
> > VERDOUX at all?
>
> As for "City Lights" and "Modern Times" - yes.

What major studio allowed a major star to produce an essentially
silent movie during the 1930s? Answer: none. If Chaplin had been
under contract to Warners or Paramount, CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES
would have been talking pictures.

>They made gobs of money.

No one could know that before the films were released. Silent
pictures were dead. No studio head would have greenlighted a
big-budget silent after 1929.

> Studios are (and were) in the business of making gobs of money. As for
> "The Great Dictator" and "Verdoux," perhaps not. That, however, would
> have been a benefit.

THE GREAT DICTATOR make a fortune, and is an important and honored
film despite its shortcomings. And although Chaplin took a financial
bath on VERDOUX, it too is an extraordinary and challenging movie. I'd
much rather have VERDOUX than a couple of pale full-length imitations
of his Mutuals (which some here would have preferred), or anything
Keaton or Lloyd starred in during the sound era.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Doug Sulpy wrote:
> In article <1150987343.143311.89210.RemoveThis@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Carnahan <rfcsac627n.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Doug Sulpy wrote:
>
> > > As for "City Lights" and "Modern Times" - yes.
> >
> > What major studio allowed a major star to produce an essentially
> > silent movie during the 1930s? Answer: none.
>
> What major star other than Chaplin would have WANTED to make a silent
> movie during the 1930's?

Keaton, Lloyd, Fairbanks. Probably a number of directors.

>
> > If Chaplin had been
> > under contract to Warners or Paramount, CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES
> > would have been talking pictures.
>
> That's your opinion, not fact.

A pretty well-proven one, since no silents were made by a major
studio during the 1930s
..
>
> > >They made gobs of money.
> >
> > No one could know that before the films were released. Silent
> > pictures were dead. No studio head would have greenlighted a
> > big-budget silent after 1929.
> That's your opinion, not fact.

It's common sense. Silent pictures were considered yesterday's
newspapers. By '29 the most stilted talkie far outgrossed the most
eloquent silent. No studio head would risk his manse and mistress to
make a mute picture.

>
> > > Studios are (and were) in the business of making gobs of money. As for
> > > "The Great Dictator" and "Verdoux," perhaps not. That, however, would
> > > have been a benefit.
> >
> > THE GREAT DICTATOR make a fortune, and is an important and honored
> > film despite its shortcomings. And although Chaplin took a financial
> > bath on VERDOUX, it too is an extraordinary and challenging movie. I'd
> > much rather have VERDOUX than a couple of pale full-length imitations
> > of his Mutuals (which some here would have preferred)..
>
> Not my problem if you have poor taste.

I'd rather see a Robert Altman failure than a Jerry Brookheimer
success. If that's poor taste, so be it.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

In article <1150987343.143311.89210 RemoveThis @b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Richard Carnahan <rfcsac627n RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy wrote:

> > As for "City Lights" and "Modern Times" - yes.
>
> What major studio allowed a major star to produce an essentially
> silent movie during the 1930s? Answer: none.

What major star other than Chaplin would have WANTED to make a silent
movie during the 1930's?

> If Chaplin had been
> under contract to Warners or Paramount, CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES
> would have been talking pictures.

That's your opinion, not fact.

> >They made gobs of money.
>
> No one could know that before the films were released. Silent
> pictures were dead. No studio head would have greenlighted a
> big-budget silent after 1929.

That's your opinion, not fact.

> > Studios are (and were) in the business of making gobs of money. As for
> > "The Great Dictator" and "Verdoux," perhaps not. That, however, would
> > have been a benefit.
>
> THE GREAT DICTATOR make a fortune, and is an important and honored
> film despite its shortcomings. And although Chaplin took a financial
> bath on VERDOUX, it too is an extraordinary and challenging movie. I'd
> much rather have VERDOUX than a couple of pale full-length imitations
> of his Mutuals (which some here would have preferred)..

Not my problem if you have poor taste.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Doug Sulpy wrote:

>Richard Carnahan wrote

>>    No one could know that before the
>>films were released. Silent pictures
>>were dead. No studio head would have
>>greenlighted a big-budget silent after
>>1929.

>That's your opinion, not fact.

In actuality, Harold Lloyd had a deal
with Paramount that gave him total
control over his films. Paramount simply
released them. (You will note that the
Paramount logo on them says "A Paramount Release" not "A Paramount
Picture") Lloyd himself made the decision
to convert WELCOME DANGER into
a talkie, not Paramount.

Chaplin could have done the same thing,
except he already co-owned a distributor,
United Artists. Keaton, by contrast, was
an MGM contract star,

Chaplin had the clout to avoid the Keaton
trap at MGM. Any studio would have
released his films, silent or not. They
might have grumbled, but Chaplin was
a world-class superstar then and would
have prevailed.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

George Shelps wrote:
> Doug Sulpy wrote:
>
> >Richard Carnahan wrote
>
> >> No one could know that before the
> >>films were released. Silent pictures
> >>were dead. No studio head would have
> >>greenlighted a big-budget silent after
> >>1929.
>
> >That's your opinion, not fact.
>
> In actuality, Harold Lloyd had a deal
> with Paramount that gave him total
> control over his films. Paramount simply
> released them. (You will note that the
> Paramount logo on them says "A Paramount Release" not "A Paramount
> Picture") Lloyd himself made the decision
> to convert WELCOME DANGER into
> a talkie, not Paramount.

Lloyd made the decision of a businessman, not an artist. And I doubt
if even Paramount would have released a Lloyd silent after '29. They
would have found some excuse to scuttle it.
>
> Chaplin could have done the same thing,
> except he already co-owned a distributor,
> United Artists. Keaton, by contrast, was
> an MGM contract star,

Thanks for the Cinema 101 history lesson.

>
> Chaplin had the clout to avoid the Keaton
> trap at MGM. Any studio would have
> released his films, silent or not. They
> might have grumbled, but Chaplin was
> a world-class superstar then and would
> have prevailed.

I don't believe it.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

George Shelps wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
>
> >Lloyd made the decision of a
> >businessman, not an artist. And I doubt if
> >even Paramount would have released a
> >Lloyd silent after '29. They would have
> >found some excuse to scuttle it.
>
> The point is, Lloyd not Paramount
> made the decision. And 'scuttling"
> it would no doubt have violated his
> distribution agreement.

The argument was whether Chaplin, as an employee (not a business
partner) of a major studio, could have made CITY LIGHTS and MODERN
TIMES as silent films during the 1930s. The point is he could not.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>Lloyd made the decision of a
>businessman, not an artist. And I doubt if
>even Paramount would have released a
>Lloyd silent after '29. They would have
>found some excuse to scuttle it.

The point is, Lloyd not Paramount
made the decision. And 'scuttling"
it would no doubt have violated his
distribution agreement.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

George Shelps wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
>
> >>>Lloyd made the decision of a
> >>>businessman, not an artist. And I doubt
> >>>if even Paramount would have released
> >>>a Lloyd silent after '29. They would
> >>>have found some excuse to scuttle it.
>
> >>The point is, Lloyd not Paramount
> >>made the decision. And 'scuttling"
> >>it would no doubt have violated his
> >>distribution agreement.
>
> > The argument was whether Chaplin,
> >as an employee (not a business partner)
> >of a major studio, could have made CITY
> >LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES as silent
> >films during the 1930s. The point is he
> >could not.
>
> Chaplin would never have been an
> employee of a studio at that stage
> of his career, but if he were releasing
> via Paramount or Warners, they would
> have allowed him to make the movie
> his own way. He had sufficient clout.

But THAT wasn't the argument. THIS is the argument:

Doug Sulpy wrote:
Too bad the films didn't
> belong to Paramount or Warner Brothers, who might have at least
> preserved them, unmolested.
I wrote:
Do you honestly think that Chaplin would have been able--working for
a major studio--to make CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES as silents? Do
you think he'd have been able to make THE GREAT DICTATOR or MONSIEUR
VERDOUX at all?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Doug Sulpy wrote:

> As for Harold Lloyd going to sound for "business" not "artistic"
> reasons - well, I don't know where you're getting that from. In the
> appended interview in "An American Comedy" he clearly says they wanted
> to make sound films because the audiences enjoyed them, and also says
> that remaking "Welcome Danger" as a sound film was HIS idea (not the
> studios).

That sure sounds like a business decision to me.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing