The Elusive "Original Release Version"

"Constance Kuriyama" <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:cv66l2$cnu$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
>
> Along with a PAL DVD of the Chaplin Musual Films, Vol. 1, I
> recently ordered a two-disk set of _Sunrise_. Among the extras
> on the second disk are some "restoration notes" which
> cast an interesting light on the problem of determining
> which version of a film made in the 1920s is original.
>
> _Sunrise_ (1927) was released both as a silent film and as a
> Movietone sound film, the sound version being shown at the
> more upscale theaters that had made the conversion to sound.
> According to the notes, these two versions were made from
> different negatives, and differed in visual composition because
> (obviously) the sound version had a soundtrack. The notes further
> explain that since negatives couldn't be duplicated, A, B, etc.
> negatives were assembled with footage from different cameras
> and different takes. Therefore the negatives might differ
> from one another in the staging of scenes, scene length, and
> even in the order of shots within a scene.
>
> So it isn't surprising that Doug is seeing differences in
> different prints of Chaplin films. Nor is it surprising that
> Chaplin used substitute footage on re-release of some of his
> films. He was just creating yet another negative. It is quite
> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
> than the other, though one is certainly longer.

I doubt this explanation. I believe the "short" 1 AM is likely short due to
being cut by one of the later owners of the negatives, or due to negative
damage that occured over the years. I expect with alternate negatives that
I might see alternate versions of the same scenes, but the scenes themselves
should all be there.

Derek
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

"Derek Gee" (dgeeSPAMSUCKS@SPAMOFF.twmi.rr.com) writes:
> "Constance Kuriyama" <do481 DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:cv66l2$cnu$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>>
>> Along with a PAL DVD of the Chaplin Musual Films, Vol. 1, I
>> recently ordered a two-disk set of _Sunrise_. Among the extras
>> on the second disk are some "restoration notes" which
>> cast an interesting light on the problem of determining
>> which version of a film made in the 1920s is original.
>>
>> _Sunrise_ (1927) was released both as a silent film and as a
>> Movietone sound film, the sound version being shown at the
>> more upscale theaters that had made the conversion to sound.
>> According to the notes, these two versions were made from
>> different negatives, and differed in visual composition because
>> (obviously) the sound version had a soundtrack. The notes further
>> explain that since negatives couldn't be duplicated, A, B, etc.
>> negatives were assembled with footage from different cameras
>> and different takes. Therefore the negatives might differ
>> from one another in the staging of scenes, scene length, and
>> even in the order of shots within a scene.
>>
>> So it isn't surprising that Doug is seeing differences in
>> different prints of Chaplin films. Nor is it surprising that
>> Chaplin used substitute footage on re-release of some of his
>> films. He was just creating yet another negative. It is quite
>> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
>> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
>> than the other, though one is certainly longer.
>
> I doubt this explanation. I believe the "short" 1 AM is likely short due to
> being cut by one of the later owners of the negatives, or due to negative
> damage that occured over the years. I expect with alternate negatives that
> I might see alternate versions of the same scenes, but the scenes themselves
> should all be there.
>
> Derek

Those are both possible explanations, but if it was due to negative damage,
why did it all occur in the same sesquence? Of those two possibilities, it
seems to me more likely that somebody decided that a shorter version was
desirable, for one reason or another. It could have been a later owner of the
negatives, or it could have been Chaplin. One of the possible reasons for
releasing a shorter version was achieving a desirable length for bookings,
which was a consideration in the reissue of _The Gold Rush_.

After all, we know that Chaplin always subtracted from rather than added to
his films when he reconsidered them. I learned recently that he did consider
adding the sequence in which Charlie encounters the twin boxers to _The
Circus_ for its re-release, and even started to edit it, but changed his mind.

Now here's a question. If Chaplin *had* added that sequence to _The Circus_,
would that, like his later cuts, be considerd tampering, or would completists
welcome the addition, even though it was made in Chaplin's supposed dotage?

My answer would be that I'd have to see the results, but I'm sure others
might have a differenet take on it.

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

"Constance Kuriyama" <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:cvhhof$67n$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> "Derek Gee" (dgeeSPAMSUCKS@SPAMOFF.twmi.rr.com) writes:
>> "Constance Kuriyama" <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> news:cv66l2$cnu$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>> Along with a PAL DVD of the Chaplin Musual Films, Vol. 1, I
>>> recently ordered a two-disk set of _Sunrise_. Among the extras
>>> on the second disk are some "restoration notes" which
>>> cast an interesting light on the problem of determining
>>> which version of a film made in the 1920s is original.
>>>
>>> _Sunrise_ (1927) was released both as a silent film and as a
>>> Movietone sound film, the sound version being shown at the
>>> more upscale theaters that had made the conversion to sound.
>>> According to the notes, these two versions were made from
>>> different negatives, and differed in visual composition because
>>> (obviously) the sound version had a soundtrack. The notes further
>>> explain that since negatives couldn't be duplicated, A, B, etc.
>>> negatives were assembled with footage from different cameras
>>> and different takes. Therefore the negatives might differ
>>> from one another in the staging of scenes, scene length, and
>>> even in the order of shots within a scene.
>>>
>>> So it isn't surprising that Doug is seeing differences in
>>> different prints of Chaplin films. Nor is it surprising that
>>> Chaplin used substitute footage on re-release of some of his
>>> films. He was just creating yet another negative. It is quite
>>> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
>>> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
>>> than the other, though one is certainly longer.
>>
>> I doubt this explanation. I believe the "short" 1 AM is likely short due
>> to
>> being cut by one of the later owners of the negatives, or due to negative
>> damage that occured over the years. I expect with alternate negatives
>> that
>> I might see alternate versions of the same scenes, but the scenes
>> themselves
>> should all be there.
>>
>> Derek
>
> Those are both possible explanations, but if it was due to negative
> damage,
> why did it all occur in the same sesquence? Of those two possibilities, it
> seems to me more likely that somebody decided that a shorter version was
> desirable, for one reason or another. It could have been a later owner of
> the
> negatives, or it could have been Chaplin. One of the possible reasons for
> releasing a shorter version was achieving a desirable length for bookings,
> which was a consideration in the reissue of _The Gold Rush_.
>
> After all, we know that Chaplin always subtracted from rather than added
> to
> his films when he reconsidered them. I learned recently that he did
> consider
> adding the sequence in which Charlie encounters the twin boxers to _The
> Circus_ for its re-release, and even started to edit it, but changed his
> mind.
>
> Now here's a question. If Chaplin *had* added that sequence to _The
> Circus_,
> would that, like his later cuts, be considerd tampering, or would
> completists
> welcome the addition, even though it was made in Chaplin's supposed
> dotage?

In general, it's a good idea to leave films alone from their original cuts.
Now if the original theatrical release is some bastardization of what the
director wanted released, then that's a different situation. But adding,
subtracting, or altering stuff just for the sake of doing so is usually not
helpful, and can alienate your audience. I'm still angry at George Lucas
for mucking about with the Star Wars films, and then refusing to release the
original edit any more. I'm sure he's still getting hate mail over the
changes he made, which run several pages of things, both small and large.
At least Spielberg had good sense to continue to make the original edit of
E.T. available after he made edits and digital changes to the film. I can
live with those kind of changes.

Derek
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

"Derek Gee" (dgeeSPAMSUCKS@SPAMOFF.twmi.rr.com) writes:
> "Constance Kuriyama" <do481 RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:cvhhof$67n$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>> "Derek Gee" (dgeeSPAMSUCKS@SPAMOFF.twmi.rr.com) writes:
>>> "Constance Kuriyama" <do481 RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>> news:cv66l2$cnu$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Along with a PAL DVD of the Chaplin Musual Films, Vol. 1, I
>>>> recently ordered a two-disk set of _Sunrise_. Among the extras
>>>> on the second disk are some "restoration notes" which
>>>> cast an interesting light on the problem of determining
>>>> which version of a film made in the 1920s is original.
>>>>
>>>> _Sunrise_ (1927) was released both as a silent film and as a
>>>> Movietone sound film, the sound version being shown at the
>>>> more upscale theaters that had made the conversion to sound.
>>>> According to the notes, these two versions were made from
>>>> different negatives, and differed in visual composition because
>>>> (obviously) the sound version had a soundtrack. The notes further
>>>> explain that since negatives couldn't be duplicated, A, B, etc.
>>>> negatives were assembled with footage from different cameras
>>>> and different takes. Therefore the negatives might differ
>>>> from one another in the staging of scenes, scene length, and
>>>> even in the order of shots within a scene.
>>>>
>>>> So it isn't surprising that Doug is seeing differences in
>>>> different prints of Chaplin films. Nor is it surprising that
>>>> Chaplin used substitute footage on re-release of some of his
>>>> films. He was just creating yet another negative. It is quite
>>>> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
>>>> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
>>>> than the other, though one is certainly longer.
>>>
>>> I doubt this explanation. I believe the "short" 1 AM is likely short due
>>> to
>>> being cut by one of the later owners of the negatives, or due to negative
>>> damage that occured over the years. I expect with alternate negatives
>>> that
>>> I might see alternate versions of the same scenes, but the scenes
>>> themselves
>>> should all be there.
>>>
>>> Derek
>>
>> Those are both possible explanations, but if it was due to negative
>> damage,
>> why did it all occur in the same sesquence? Of those two possibilities, it
>> seems to me more likely that somebody decided that a shorter version was
>> desirable, for one reason or another. It could have been a later owner of
>> the
>> negatives, or it could have been Chaplin. One of the possible reasons for
>> releasing a shorter version was achieving a desirable length for bookings,
>> which was a consideration in the reissue of _The Gold Rush_.
>>
>> After all, we know that Chaplin always subtracted from rather than added
>> to
>> his films when he reconsidered them. I learned recently that he did
>> consider
>> adding the sequence in which Charlie encounters the twin boxers to _The
>> Circus_ for its re-release, and even started to edit it, but changed his
>> mind.
>>
>> Now here's a question. If Chaplin *had* added that sequence to _The
>> Circus_,
>> would that, like his later cuts, be considerd tampering, or would
>> completists
>> welcome the addition, even though it was made in Chaplin's supposed
>> dotage?
>
> In general, it's a good idea to leave films alone from their original cuts.
> Now if the original theatrical release is some bastardization of what the
> director wanted released, then that's a different situation. But adding,
> subtracting, or altering stuff just for the sake of doing so is usually not
> helpful, and can alienate your audience. I'm still angry at George Lucas
> for mucking about with the Star Wars films, and then refusing to release the
> original edit any more. I'm sure he's still getting hate mail over the
> changes he made, which run several pages of things, both small and large.
> At least Spielberg had good sense to continue to make the original edit of
> E.T. available after he made edits and digital changes to the film. I can
> live with those kind of changes.
>
> Derek

From a strictly historical point of view, the best course it to leave a
film alone, or at least to be sure to preserve its original form. Lucas
argues that he is now able to do what he wanted to do originally, but
couldn't do as well as he wanted because of technical limitations. He was
never satisfied with the original, and that's why he doesn't want people
to have access to it.

I guess this could be called an aesthetic point of view. To the maker,
the official version is the one he thinks best represents his intention
or goal as an artist. This is a much more subjective matter. What Lucas
thinks is best clashes with what a portion of his audience thinks is
best--or maybe they're just coming to it from different angles.

I want to see original versions preserved or restored to the degree
possible, but I have some sympathy for the aesthetic argument. If a film
arguably works better (or as well) in a revised form, then I can't see
anything wrong with tinkering done by the artist himself.

Nobody objects to the scores Chaplin added to his films for re-release,
because while they aren't original they are mostly seen as enhancements,
even though I assume the added tracks must have required some loss of image.
If we got too strictly historical, then we'd demand the films without the
scores, but nobody's been that consistent yet. :-) Nor does anybody
object to good scores (i.e. Davis's) added much later by somebody else.

One advantage of video is that we can have full aperture *and* a score,
as in the Image '42 and MK2 '25 _Gold Rush_ DVDs.

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

"Constance Kuriyama" <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:cvlkco$au8$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
(stuff snipped)

>> In general, it's a good idea to leave films alone from their original
>> cuts.
>> Now if the original theatrical release is some bastardization of what the
>> director wanted released, then that's a different situation. But adding,
>> subtracting, or altering stuff just for the sake of doing so is usually
>> not
>> helpful, and can alienate your audience. I'm still angry at George Lucas
>> for mucking about with the Star Wars films, and then refusing to release
>> the
>> original edit any more. I'm sure he's still getting hate mail over the
>> changes he made, which run several pages of things, both small and large.
>> At least Spielberg had good sense to continue to make the original edit
>> of
>> E.T. available after he made edits and digital changes to the film. I
>> can
>> live with those kind of changes.
>>
>> Derek
>
> From a strictly historical point of view, the best course it to leave a
> film alone, or at least to be sure to preserve its original form.

Here's where I have a major beef - the original negative of Star Wars was
used to construct the Special Edition version, so the film can NEVER be
reprinted from the original negative. An internegative of the original
version still exists, and I doubt most people would even notice the slight
loss of quality, but it's there.

> Lucas
> argues that he is now able to do what he wanted to do originally, but
> couldn't do as well as he wanted because of technical limitations. He was
> never satisfied with the original, and that's why he doesn't want people
> to have access to it.

I can see that point as well, but when you start altering things like Han
shooting first in the Cantina, you can't make that arguement that it was a
technical limitation - he's messing around with the film. However, Lucas
has been doing that since the film was first released in 1977!

> I guess this could be called an aesthetic point of view. To the maker,
> the official version is the one he thinks best represents his intention
> or goal as an artist. This is a much more subjective matter. What Lucas
> thinks is best clashes with what a portion of his audience thinks is
> best--or maybe they're just coming to it from different angles.
>
> I want to see original versions preserved or restored to the degree
> possible, but I have some sympathy for the aesthetic argument. If a film
> arguably works better (or as well) in a revised form, then I can't see
> anything wrong with tinkering done by the artist himself.
>
> Nobody objects to the scores Chaplin added to his films for re-release,
> because while they aren't original they are mostly seen as enhancements,
> even though I assume the added tracks must have required some loss of
> image.
> If we got too strictly historical, then we'd demand the films without the
> scores, but nobody's been that consistent yet. :-) Nor does anybody
> object to good scores (i.e. Davis's) added much later by somebody else.
>
> One advantage of video is that we can have full aperture *and* a score,
> as in the Image '42 and MK2 '25 _Gold Rush_ DVDs.

Plus, if you do the video restoration right, you can still output a new film
print...

Derek
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

"Constance Kuriyama" <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:cvhhof$67n$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> "Derek Gee" (dgeeSPAMSUCKS@SPAMOFF.twmi.rr.com) writes:
> > "Constance Kuriyama" <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:cv66l2$cnu$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> >>
> >>
> >> Along with a PAL DVD of the Chaplin Musual Films, Vol. 1, I
> >> recently ordered a two-disk set of _Sunrise_. Among the extras
> >> on the second disk are some "restoration notes" which
> >> cast an interesting light on the problem of determining
> >> which version of a film made in the 1920s is original.
> >>
> >> _Sunrise_ (1927) was released both as a silent film and as a
> >> Movietone sound film, the sound version being shown at the
> >> more upscale theaters that had made the conversion to sound.
> >> According to the notes, these two versions were made from
> >> different negatives, and differed in visual composition because
> >> (obviously) the sound version had a soundtrack. The notes further
> >> explain that since negatives couldn't be duplicated, A, B, etc.
> >> negatives were assembled with footage from different cameras
> >> and different takes. Therefore the negatives might differ
> >> from one another in the staging of scenes, scene length, and
> >> even in the order of shots within a scene.
> >>
> >> So it isn't surprising that Doug is seeing differences in
> >> different prints of Chaplin films. Nor is it surprising that
> >> Chaplin used substitute footage on re-release of some of his
> >> films. He was just creating yet another negative. It is quite
> >> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
> >> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
> >> than the other, though one is certainly longer.
> >
> > I doubt this explanation. I believe the "short" 1 AM is likely short
due to
> > being cut by one of the later owners of the negatives, or due to
negative
> > damage that occured over the years. I expect with alternate negatives
that
> > I might see alternate versions of the same scenes, but the scenes
themselves
> > should all be there.
> >
> > Derek
>
> Those are both possible explanations, but if it was due to negative
damage,
> why did it all occur in the same sesquence?

It didn't all occur in the same sequence. I've seen a reconstructed version
of ONE A.M., and there are missing bits and pieces besides the Alpine
climbing bit.

Of those two possibilities, it
> seems to me more likely that somebody decided that a shorter version was
> desirable, for one reason or another. It could have been a later owner of
the
> negatives, or it could have been Chaplin.


I seriously doubt it was the latter. The edits in the cut version look like
they were made with a chainsaw. I would like to think that Chaplin would
have made a smoother job of it.
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

"WaverBoy" (waverboyNOSPAM@comcast.net) writes:
> "Constance Kuriyama" <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:cvhhof$67n$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>> "Derek Gee" (dgeeSPAMSUCKS@SPAMOFF.twmi.rr.com) writes:
>> > "Constance Kuriyama" <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> > news:cv66l2$cnu$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Along with a PAL DVD of the Chaplin Musual Films, Vol. 1, I
>> >> recently ordered a two-disk set of _Sunrise_. Among the extras
>> >> on the second disk are some "restoration notes" which
>> >> cast an interesting light on the problem of determining
>> >> which version of a film made in the 1920s is original.
>> >>
>> >> _Sunrise_ (1927) was released both as a silent film and as a
>> >> Movietone sound film, the sound version being shown at the
>> >> more upscale theaters that had made the conversion to sound.
>> >> According to the notes, these two versions were made from
>> >> different negatives, and differed in visual composition because
>> >> (obviously) the sound version had a soundtrack. The notes further
>> >> explain that since negatives couldn't be duplicated, A, B, etc.
>> >> negatives were assembled with footage from different cameras
>> >> and different takes. Therefore the negatives might differ
>> >> from one another in the staging of scenes, scene length, and
>> >> even in the order of shots within a scene.
>> >>
>> >> So it isn't surprising that Doug is seeing differences in
>> >> different prints of Chaplin films. Nor is it surprising that
>> >> Chaplin used substitute footage on re-release of some of his
>> >> films. He was just creating yet another negative. It is quite
>> >> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
>> >> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
>> >> than the other, though one is certainly longer.
>> >
>> > I doubt this explanation. I believe the "short" 1 AM is likely short
> due to
>> > being cut by one of the later owners of the negatives, or due to
> negative
>> > damage that occured over the years. I expect with alternate negatives
> that
>> > I might see alternate versions of the same scenes, but the scenes
> themselves
>> > should all be there.
>> >
>> > Derek
>>
>> Those are both possible explanations, but if it was due to negative
> damage,
>> why did it all occur in the same sesquence?
>
> It didn't all occur in the same sequence. I've seen a reconstructed version
> of ONE A.M., and there are missing bits and pieces besides the Alpine
> climbing bit.

Oh, sure. Little bits and pieces get lost all over old films, for one reason
or another. My point was that it would be odd that so much damage occurred
in one sequence that the entire sequence was junked. It looks more to me like
a deliberate exclusion by somebody who wanted to shorten the film.


> Of those two possibilities, it
>> seems to me more likely that somebody decided that a shorter version was
>> desirable, for one reason or another. It could have been a later owner of
> the
>> negatives, or it could have been Chaplin.
>
>
> I seriously doubt it was the latter. The edits in the cut version look like
> they were made with a chainsaw. I would like to think that Chaplin would
> have made a smoother job of it.

The edits don't look any worse to me than many of those in the shipboard
sequences in _The Immigrant_, which were probably due to later damage and
cuts. I'm not arguing that the shorter version as it usually exists now
represents Chaplin's original cut, but that he could conceivably have
released a version without the mountain climbing sequence.

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

"Constance Kuriyama" <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:cvqd2k$s8$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> "WaverBoy" (waverboyNOSPAM@comcast.net) writes:
> > "Constance Kuriyama" <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:cvhhof$67n$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> >>
> >> "Derek Gee" (dgeeSPAMSUCKS@SPAMOFF.twmi.rr.com) writes:
> >> > "Constance Kuriyama" <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> > news:cv66l2$cnu$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Along with a PAL DVD of the Chaplin Musual Films, Vol. 1, I
> >> >> recently ordered a two-disk set of _Sunrise_. Among the extras
> >> >> on the second disk are some "restoration notes" which
> >> >> cast an interesting light on the problem of determining
> >> >> which version of a film made in the 1920s is original.
> >> >>
> >> >> _Sunrise_ (1927) was released both as a silent film and as a
> >> >> Movietone sound film, the sound version being shown at the
> >> >> more upscale theaters that had made the conversion to sound.
> >> >> According to the notes, these two versions were made from
> >> >> different negatives, and differed in visual composition because
> >> >> (obviously) the sound version had a soundtrack. The notes further
> >> >> explain that since negatives couldn't be duplicated, A, B, etc.
> >> >> negatives were assembled with footage from different cameras
> >> >> and different takes. Therefore the negatives might differ
> >> >> from one another in the staging of scenes, scene length, and
> >> >> even in the order of shots within a scene.
> >> >>
> >> >> So it isn't surprising that Doug is seeing differences in
> >> >> different prints of Chaplin films. Nor is it surprising that
> >> >> Chaplin used substitute footage on re-release of some of his
> >> >> films. He was just creating yet another negative. It is quite
> >> >> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
> >> >> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
> >> >> than the other, though one is certainly longer.
> >> >
> >> > I doubt this explanation. I believe the "short" 1 AM is likely short
> > due to
> >> > being cut by one of the later owners of the negatives, or due to
> > negative
> >> > damage that occured over the years. I expect with alternate
negatives
> > that
> >> > I might see alternate versions of the same scenes, but the scenes
> > themselves
> >> > should all be there.
> >> >
> >> > Derek
> >>
> >> Those are both possible explanations, but if it was due to negative
> > damage,
> >> why did it all occur in the same sesquence?
> >
> > It didn't all occur in the same sequence. I've seen a reconstructed
version
> > of ONE A.M., and there are missing bits and pieces besides the Alpine
> > climbing bit.
>
> Oh, sure. Little bits and pieces get lost all over old films, for one
reason
> or another. My point was that it would be odd that so much damage occurred
> in one sequence that the entire sequence was junked. It looks more to me
like
> a deliberate exclusion by somebody who wanted to shorten the film.


I agree, somebody wanted to shorten the film, but I'm willing to bet the
farm that it wasn't Chaplin.



> > Of those two possibilities, it
> >> seems to me more likely that somebody decided that a shorter version
was
> >> desirable, for one reason or another. It could have been a later owner
of
> > the
> >> negatives, or it could have been Chaplin.
> >
> >
> > I seriously doubt it was the latter. The edits in the cut version look
like
> > they were made with a chainsaw. I would like to think that Chaplin
would
> > have made a smoother job of it.
>
> The edits don't look any worse to me than many of those in the shipboard
> sequences in _The Immigrant_, which were probably due to later damage and
> cuts. I'm not arguing that the shorter version as it usually exists now
> represents Chaplin's original cut, but that he could conceivably have
> released a version without the mountain climbing sequence.
>
> Connie K.

Of course they don't look any worse than the IMMIGRANT chainsaw edits,
which, as you say, are most likely due to later damage and cuts. I'm just
saying that Chaplin had nothing to do with these later cuts.

As Doug has noted, Chaplin wouldn't have been re-editing Mutuals, having no
rights to them after the fact..
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

In article <cvqeep$1o2$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
<do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:

> > ...This depends what era you're talking about. He wouldn't have been
> > re-editing Mutuals - he had nothing to do with their re-distribution
> > and didn't have the rights to them.
>
> I wasn't thinking of the Mutuals, but of _Gold Rush_ and later
> instances.

I see. Well, I can't speak to that. My primary interest is in the early
shorts.

> >> It is quite
> >> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
> >> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
> >> than the other, though one is certainly longer.
> >
> > No. It is, in fact, quite improbable. In the case of "One A.M.", an
> > incomplete version of the original version exists with many of the
> > original Mutual intertitles (this is the "old" Blackhawk version) - and
> > this contains material NOT in the Van Beuren negative (though not the
> > Alpine scene). The copyright description also describes all of the
> > footage missing from the "common version" (about 6 minutes worth),
> > including the Alpine scene. What line of reasoning, then, can lead you
> > to doubt that the film was NOT cut down at a later date (and is,
> > therefore, less "correct"...?)
>
> The only conclusion that certainly follows from the existence of the
> print you describe is that the longer version was circulating and that
> a print of it survived in incomplete form. Its existence does not prove
> that a shorter version could not have been circulating at an early date.

I'm sure it was, if by "early date" you mean the early 1920's. I think
they were cut down when "Chaplin Classics" got hold of them, since the
editing appears to have been done before the Kodascopes were issued in
the mid to late '20's.

> This may remind some of us of the debate we once had over _Police_. The
> copyright description includes the second dosshouse sequence, but the
> film was not released in that form, and as far as I can discover Chaplin
> never objected to the shorter version being released. He only objected
> to the expanded version of _The Burlesque on Carmen_, which included a
> lot of inferior material added by someone else.

I'm not sure what any of that means. We DO know they fiddled with
"Police" after he left the company, and we DO have a synopsis of the
original cut of the film. If Charlie didn't object perhaps he felt he
didn't have a legal leg to stand on... who knows? As it turned out, he
didn't manage to stop "Carmen" either, and their fiddling with that was
FAR worse than with "Police".

D.
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:
> In article <cvqeep$1o2$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
> <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>> Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:
>
>> > ...This depends what era you're talking about. He wouldn't have been
>> > re-editing Mutuals - he had nothing to do with their re-distribution
>> > and didn't have the rights to them.
>>
>> I wasn't thinking of the Mutuals, but of _Gold Rush_ and later
>> instances.
>
> I see. Well, I can't speak to that. My primary interest is in the early
> shorts.
>
>> >> It is quite
>> >> probable that both the longer and the shorter _1 A.M._ were
>> >> circulating at the same time, and that neither is more "correct"
>> >> than the other, though one is certainly longer.
>> >
>> > No. It is, in fact, quite improbable. In the case of "One A.M.", an
>> > incomplete version of the original version exists with many of the
>> > original Mutual intertitles (this is the "old" Blackhawk version) - and
>> > this contains material NOT in the Van Beuren negative (though not the
>> > Alpine scene). The copyright description also describes all of the
>> > footage missing from the "common version" (about 6 minutes worth),
>> > including the Alpine scene. What line of reasoning, then, can lead you
>> > to doubt that the film was NOT cut down at a later date (and is,
>> > therefore, less "correct"...?)
>>
>> The only conclusion that certainly follows from the existence of the
>> print you describe is that the longer version was circulating and that
>> a print of it survived in incomplete form. Its existence does not prove
>> that a shorter version could not have been circulating at an early date.
>
> I'm sure it was, if by "early date" you mean the early 1920's. I think
> they were cut down when "Chaplin Classics" got hold of them, since the
> editing appears to have been done before the Kodascopes were issued in
> the mid to late '20's.

Actually I was thinking of some time between August, 1916, when the film
was released, and the fall of 1917, when _The Adventurer_ was released and
Chaplin was building his own studio.

>> This may remind some of us of the debate we once had over _Police_. The
>> copyright description includes the second dosshouse sequence, but the
>> film was not released in that form, and as far as I can discover Chaplin
>> never objected to the shorter version being released. He only objected
>> to the expanded version of _The Burlesque on Carmen_, which included a
>> lot of inferior material added by someone else.
>
> I'm not sure what any of that means. We DO know they fiddled with
> "Police" after he left the company, and we DO have a synopsis of the
> original cut of the film.

We have the copyright description, and we know tht Essnay used the second
dosshouse seequence in _Triple Trouble_.

We don't know who decided on the final release version of the film, which
didn't include the second dosshouse sequence, or when this decision was
made, but obviously it was made after the copyright description was filed.
Can that description be dated?

> If Charlie didn't object perhaps he felt he
> didn't have a legal leg to stand on... who knows? As it turned out, he
> didn't manage to stop "Carmen" either, and their fiddling with that was
> FAR worse than with "Police".
>
> D.

Well, we have Robinson's chronology, which indicates that in March and
April of 1917 Chaplin was in transit from Essanay to Mutual. _Police_ was
released on 27 May 1917, after Chaaplin had already started releasing
the Mutuals. _Floorwalker_ was released on 15 May, in the middle of the
litigation over _Carmen_, which Essanay had released on 22 April. Chaplin
initiated legal action on 12 May, and appealed an adverse decision on 25 May.

But I don't see anything wrong with eliminating the 2nd dosshouse sequence
from _Police_, since in certain details it doesn't fit into the _Police_
narrataive. It has definite interest as a fragment of _Life_, but it doesn't
do anything for _Police_, IMO. The extra stuff in _Carmen_, on the other hand,
all but ruins it. I find it hard to believe that the same people who created
a monstrosity like that (not to mention _Triple Trouble_) could have made a
relatively intelligent decision about _Police_, but I suppose accidents happen.

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

In article <cvum8d$8tc$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
<do481 DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:

> > I'm sure it was, if by "early date" you mean the early 1920's. I think
> > they were cut down when "Chaplin Classics" got hold of them, since the
> > editing appears to have been done before the Kodascopes were issued in
> > the mid to late '20's.

(Connie said)

> Actually I was thinking of some time between August, 1916, when the film
> was released, and the fall of 1917, when _The Adventurer_ was released and
> Chaplin was building his own studio.

Once Charlie turned the negatives over to Mutual, he wouldn't be able
to change them - and what possible reason would he have had for
changing them ANYWAY? It's not like they were failures or anything,
that needed re-cutting.

(I said)

> > I'm not sure what any of that means. We DO know they fiddled with
> > "Police" after he left the company, and we DO have a synopsis of the
> > original cut of the film.

(Connie said)

> We have the copyright description, and we know tht Essnay used the second
> dosshouse seequence in _Triple Trouble_.
>
> We don't know who decided on the final release version of the film, which
> didn't include the second dosshouse sequence, or when this decision was
> made, but obviously it was made after the copyright description was filed.
> Can that description be dated?

Yes. It was date-stamped May 12th, 1916, with the release date of the
film given as May 27th. I have a feeling that Essanay either screwed up
and gave them the synopsis of the film before re-cutting, or recut the
film sometime between the 12th and 27th, when they realized they could
hold out some Chaplin footage and scam people down the road with
"Triple Trouble."

"Carmen," by the way, is dated April 6th, 1916, with a release date of
April 9th. The description does not include anything unique to the 4
reel version, but "in 4 acts" is written after the title. Of course, as
you say below, all of this is after Charlie left the company.

(I said)

> > If Charlie didn't object perhaps he felt he
> > didn't have a legal leg to stand on... who knows? As it turned out, he
> > didn't manage to stop "Carmen" either, and their fiddling with that was
> > FAR worse than with "Police".
> >
> > D.

(Connie said)

> Well, we have Robinson's chronology, which indicates that in March and
> April of 1917 Chaplin was in transit from Essanay to Mutual. _Police_ was
> released on 27 May 1917, after Chaaplin had already started releasing
> the Mutuals. _Floorwalker_ was released on 15 May, in the middle of the
> litigation over _Carmen_, which Essanay had released on 22 April. Chaplin
> initiated legal action on 12 May, and appealed an adverse decision on 25 May.

Do you have the documents on this? They'd be fun to read, particularly
since David Shepard indicated they gave a blow-by-blow account of the
original cut of the film (which where they got the intertitles from for
the Image DVD).

> But I don't see anything wrong with eliminating the 2nd dosshouse sequence
> from _Police_, since in certain details it doesn't fit into the _Police_
> narrataive. It has definite interest as a fragment of _Life_, but it doesn't
> do anything for _Police_, IMO.

One thing at a time... I don't think EITHER of the dosshouse sequences
had anything to do with "Life." Obviously they were filmed at the same
time, on the same set... I suspect that what Essanay did is that they
had a fully edited sequence that Charlie had rejected from "Police",
and the unedited footage still around for the material he DID want in
the film and they ended up putting the rejects in "Police" (in the
wrong place, no less), and using as much of the raw footage as they
could get away with to pad "Triple Trouble."

> The extra stuff in _Carmen_, on the other hand,
> all but ruins it. I find it hard to believe that the same people who created
> a monstrosity like that (not to mention _Triple Trouble_) could have made a
> relatively intelligent decision about _Police_, but I suppose accidents happen.

I agree with you about "Carmen" - watching the 4 reel version is
painful, even at sound speed! -- but I don't think there's anything
intelligent about Essanay's re-editing of "Police" - I think the
original would have been a better film (in fact, since I re-edited it
according to the original synopsis, I'm sure of it!).

:-)

Doug
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:
> > In article <cvum8d$8tc$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
> > <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> >
> >> Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:
> >
> > Once Charlie turned the negatives over to Mutual, he wouldn't be
able
> > to change them - and what possible reason would he have had for
> > changing them ANYWAY? It's not like they were failures or anything,
> > that needed re-cutting.
>
> When negatives wore out or needed replacing for some other reason,
who
> fixed them? Mutual? What was this Mutual footage Rollie talked about
> in Chaplin's possession that Chaplin told Syd they didn't own?

(Actually, I think it was Rollie who told Syd they didn't own it.)

Obviously, as per the contract, Mutual was given the CUT negative for
the release versions. But as is clear from Rollie's interview, the
Chaplin studio archived, maintained and and preserved both negative
outtakes and prints of the Mutuals. I have no doubt there would also
have been alternate take negs as well. (From a legal perspective, I'd
assume all of THAT material also technically belonged to Mutual as a
work for hire.)

>From all the bits and pieces of info available through Robinson,
Brownlow/Gill and other sources, I also have no doubt that virtually
all that material was (illegally) acquired by Raymond Rohauer when CC
ordered Rollie to destroy all the materials they did not own or have
rights to, when CC was refused reentry back into the US and as the film
archive was being transfered to England. It is my understanding that
much of that 'Rohauer' material has been reacquired by other parties
and is being preserved. But I've never seen an inventory and I don't
even know if one exists.
 >> Stay informed about: The Elusive "Original Release Version" 

Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:
> In article <cvum8d$8tc$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
> <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>> Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:
>
>> > I'm sure it was, if by "early date" you mean the early 1920's. I think
>> > they were cut down when "Chaplin Classics" got hold of them, since the
>> > editing appears to have been done before the Kodascopes were issued in
>> > the mid to late '20's.
>
> (Connie said)
>
>> Actually I was thinking of some time between August, 1916, when the film
>> was released, and the fall of 1917, when _The Adventurer_ was released and
>> Chaplin was building his own studio.
>
> Once Charlie turned the negatives over to Mutual, he wouldn't be able
> to change them - and what possible reason would he have had for
> changing them ANYWAY? It's not like they were failures or anything,
> that needed re-cutting.

When negatives wore out or needed replacing for some other reason, who
fixed them? Mutual? What was this Mutual footage Rollie talked about
in Chaplin's possession that Chaplin told Syd they didn't own?

> (I said)
>
>> > I'm not sure what any of that means. We DO know they fiddled with
>> > "Police" after he left the company, and we DO have a synopsis of the
>> > original cut of the film.
>
> (Connie said)
>
>> We have the copyright description, and we know tht Essnay used the second
>> dosshouse seequence in _Triple Trouble_.
>>
>> We don't know who decided on the final release version of the film, which
>> didn't include the second dosshouse sequence, or when this decision was
>> made, but obviously it was made after the copyright description was filed.
>> Can that description be dated?
>
> Yes. It was date-stamped May 12th, 1916, with the release date of the
> film given as May 27th. I have a feeling that Essanay either screwed up
> and gave them the synopsis of the film before re-cutting, or recut the
> film sometime between the 12th and 27th, when they realized they could
> hold out some Chaplin footage and scam people down the road with
> "Triple Trouble."

Well, how do we know that the synopsis wasn't prepared earlier, and just
sent along without being changed? And who prepared the synopsis? And how
do we know that the extra material wasn't put in the synopsis with the
intention of cutting it *IN*. After all, they'd just doubled the length
of _Carmen_. But for some reason they decided not to add it, and then
used it later in _Triple Trouble_. That's what I mean when I say that
there's a lot we don't know about how Chaplin's films were made.


> "Carmen," by the way, is dated April 6th, 1916, with a release date of
> April 9th. The description does not include anything unique to the 4
> reel version, but "in 4 acts" is written after the title. Of course, as
> you say below, all of this is after Charlie left the company.
>
> (I said)
>
>> > If Charlie didn't object perhaps he felt he
>> > didn't have a legal leg to stand on... who knows? As it turned out, he
>> > didn't manage to stop "Carmen" either, and their fiddling with that was
>> > FAR worse than with "Police".
>> >
>> > D.
>
> (Connie said)
>
>> Well, we have Robinson's chronology, which indicates that in March and
>> April of 1917 Chaplin was in transit from Essanay to Mutual. _Police_ was
>> released on 27 May 1917, after Chaaplin had already started releasing
>> the Mutuals. _Floorwalker_ was released on 15 May, in the middle of the
>> litigation over _Carmen_, which Essanay had released on 22 April. Chaplin
>> initiated legal action on 12 May, and appealed an adverse decision on 25 May.
>
> Do you have the documents on this?

No, but you could get copies if you knew where the action was filed.

> They'd be fun to read, particularly
> since David Shepard indicated they gave a blow-by-blow account of the
> original cut of the film (which where they got the intertitles from for
> the Image DVD).
>
>> But I don't see anything wrong with eliminating the 2nd dosshouse sequence
>> from _Police_, since in certain details it doesn't fit into the _Police_
>> narrataive. It has definite interest as a fragment of _Life_, but it doesn't
>> do anything for _Police_, IMO.
>
> One thing at a time... I don't think EITHER of the dosshouse sequences
> had anything to do with "Life." Obviously they were filmed at the same
> time, on the same set... I suspect that what Essanay did is that they
> had a fully edited sequence that Charlie had rejected from "Police",
> and the unedited footage still around for the material he DID want in
> the film and they ended up putting the rejects in "Police" (in the
> wrong place, no less), and using as much of the raw footage as they
> could get away with to pad "Triple Trouble."

Yes, they are filmed on the same set. I don't think they were filmed at
the same time. For one thing another, fatter actor is wearing the burgler's
distinctive striped suit. For another thing, Charlie has money he had
no known way of getting.

Charlie has no money at first because his pocket is immediately picked.
He lifts a paper bill of some kind out of the burgler's pocket, and then
gets a large coin (a silver dollar, at least) from Edna as a reward. In
the second dosshouse sequence, he has an entirely different kind of money.
There are more anomalies which I'd have to look at it again to pinpoint,
but Charlie has a rather different, predatory personalitiy in the second
dosshousse sequence, whereas in most of _Police_ he's quite naive. And
for that matter, why should he go back to the dosshouse? All the other
ep