Reviews and the new DVDs

In article , Constance
Kuriyama wrote:

> > Chaplin was hardly senile in the
> 1940s, when he recut _Gold Rush_, and he obviously gave the reworking
> of the film careful
> thought.

When he re-worked "The Gold Rush," he was attempting to "update" it for
an audience that was now thoroughly used to talking films. Certainly,
he made more money with the revised version than he would have with a
straight re-issue of the 1925 silent.

It didn't matter that his shrill, annoying narration ruins the film.
That's what the audience of the time wanted, and that's what the
audience got.

I'm contending, though, the audience that exists for "The Gold Rush"
TODAY is made of people both interested in and acquainted with silent
films, who will be hunting the thing out on home video. In an unusual
nod to fans, the Estate has given us both versions of the film on the
new DVD.

As for the "First Nationals"... As I've said elsewhere, I believe
there's no doubt that Charlie (and Rollie) re-created some of the films
from the outtakes in order to preserve a decent image quality for the
1940's reissues. Indeed, I can easily see why Chaplin felt he had no
alternative.

But it's not the 1940's anymore. We've had 50 more years to hunt up
decent quality prints of the original First Nationals - and I know that
decent quality prints exist of them - or to digitally restore what
prints we have. In spite of this, however, the "imitation" First
Nationals are still being issued as the originals, and the originals
are not being issued at all - and there will be little to no market for
public domain issues of these prints, because most people won't know
better, and assume the "sanctioned" releases ARE the "real thing"
(which they claim to be).

D.
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs 

"David Totheroh" wrote in message

> "Derek Gee" wrote in message
...
> > "David Totheroh" wrote in message
> > > In making the cumulative decision, I still trust Chaplin's assessments
> > > for Chaplin films over those of others.
> >
> > That's exactly why I'd like to see the original First National films in
> > whatever condition they're in, not the 2nd best outtake versions
compiled by
> > Rollie.
> >
> > Derek
>
> I suppose you think Rollie didn't have a hand in those, too? Truth is,
> nothing happened in the Chaplin studios without Chaplin's approval,
> either in the late 19teens or in the 40s

Here's what I think. I think Chaplin asked Rollie to put them together and
he did so. Chaplin reviewed Rollie's work, made his own changes, and let
them go out to the public. I still want to see the original "best" takes,
though. Doug Sulpy's comments elsewhere in the thread sums up the issue
perfectly. Thanks Doug!

Derek Gee
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs 

"David Totheroh" wrote in message

> So, whoever wrote:
>
> "The First National shorts were indeed reconstructed in the '40s (by
> Rollie
> > > > Totheroh, Chaplin's cameraman), but not even from the "second
> > > > best" takes. The original negatives of the films had either worn out
by
> > > > then or been destroyed in a 1938 lab fire. There were 4 negatives of
> > > > each film; A & B (two cameras running, best take captured at
slightly
> > > > different angles) and C & D (two cameras, second-best take captured
at
> > > > slightly different angles). The takes used in the '40s
reconstructions
> > > > are from negatives of OUTTAKES!"
>
> was either just plain wrong or was unnecessarily clouding the issue,
> or both.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, there were never 4 negatives. There was
> the 'domestic neg.,' the 'foreign neg.,' and then there was all the
> rest of the unedited takes from the 2 cameras which was used to put
> together the best possible versions to replace the worn out or
> otherwise destroyed original version materials.

You are wrong. Since the release prints were made directly from the
negatives in the good old days, and since the print requirement for Chaplin
films was extremely high, there WERE 4 negatives for each First National
film. A & B, from the first choice takes, and C & D, from the second choice
takes. The reconstructions were made from takes that were in NONE of these
negatives, as they had either worn out or been destroyed in the fire. There
are no fewer than FIVE different versions of each of the First Nationals.
By the way, I'm "Speedy" from the Harold Lloyd board, who wrote the original
post which Doug was kind enough to repost here. :)
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs 

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:41:48 -0700, "WaverBoy"
wrote:

>You are wrong. Since the release prints were made directly from the
>negatives in the good old days, and since the print requirement for Chaplin
>films was extremely high, there WERE 4 negatives for each First National
>film. A & B, from the first choice takes, and C & D, from the second choice
>takes. The reconstructions were made from takes that were in NONE of these
>negatives, as they had either worn out or been destroyed in the fire. There
>are no fewer than FIVE different versions of each of the First Nationals.
>By the way, I'm "Speedy" from the Harold Lloyd board, who wrote the original
>post which Doug was kind enough to repost here. :)
>
Okay, while this claim is great, and explains a lot of the differences
between prints, could you take the time to point to any evidence of
this claim? It would be nice to see!

Mark
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs 

<Phil P.> wrote in message

> Here's what David S. actually poste on the subjext 5 years ago:
>
>
> Re: What Is aThird Negative? more options
> Author: DShepFilm
> Email: dshepfilm.TakeThisOut@aol.com
> Date: 1998/10/03
> Forums: alt.movies.chaplin
> more headers author profile
> view thread
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> <<
> This explains why two quite different prints of _Shoulder Arms_ are
> available on video. The older version is not so good in general
> visual quality, but many of the takes used in it are decidedly
> superior to those in _The Chaplin Revue_.
> >>
>
>
> Hi, folks, I'll try to share what I know in response to the questions
> that have
> come up.
>
> Bob B is right, in 1943-44, Rollie T assembled the versions of the
> First
> Nationals which have come down to us through "official" sources.
>
> Although Rollie intended to use the best of each remaining negative,
> the
> elements on these films were very worn and it is my impression that a
> great
> deal -- maybe most -- of each of these films comes from out-takes.
>
> SHOULDER ARMS is an interesting example. The so-called "true silent"
> version of
> this film which is floating around is probably from third negative,
> since CC
> had to supply clean elements for a reissue to Pathe in 1925, and it is
> from
> this version that the bootleg 16mm copies and the videos made from
> them derive
> (they can easily be flagged by the modern re-made main title and the
> Pathe logo
> at the end).
>
> But as Connie says, even this is superior in content to the Chaplin
> Revue
> version.
>
> Personally [please don't shoot], having been familiar with the film
> only from
> these two versions, I never understood its exalted reputation.
>
> Two summers ago in Denmark, I saw a true original 1918 English-titled
> print of
> this picture, easily identified by the First National main and end
> titles and
> the First National logo on each interior title. A few parts were
> chopped up
> (appropriately, the scene where Henry Bergman gets stuck in the
> culvert and a
> woodsman chops him out) but it was generally in very good shape and
> the picture
> quality was stunning.
>
> Well, I fell on the floor! It was a completely different picture!
> Incredibly
> funny, full of fresh (to me) little bits, and absolutely worthy of the
> superlatives heaped on this movie during its early years. I knew at
> that
> moment that I had never seen SHOULDER ARMS before.
>
> I asked Association Chaplin whether they would let me restore this
> picture,
> using what I could of the original print and filling in where
> necessary with
> the material we used for the LD. [I know Doug Sulpy would hate it just
> for my
> fingerprints but the rest of you probably would think it was great].
> Unfortunately, Charlie's children, who must vote on all such matters,
> decided
> that as their father left the film as it is seen in THE CHAPLIN REVUE,
> he would
> not have wanted further changes and so permission was denied.
>
> I have it on authority very, very close to the horse's mouth that
> Rollie
> undertook this assembly of the films when Charlie wanted to provide
> SHOULDER
> ARMS to the Army during WWII and discovered that the existing
> negatives were
> tuckered out. Although he was of course aware what Rollie was doing,
> it somehow
> didn't really "click" that the films were being heavily altered, and
> Rollie's
> priority was obviously to achieve a clean, unblemished image.
>
> When CC saw the new versions much later, after he was in Europe (the
> fine
> grains weren't made until 1953), he was apparently devastated but by
> then it
> was too late to retrieve acceptable quality on the first negative
> material. So
> he let them go but the blame he lay against faithful Rollie was said
> to explain
> the omission from MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY of his longest, closest
> collaborator.

And there you have it, straight from the Shepard's mouth. THREE different
sets of takes for SHOULDER ARMS. First-choice takes (A/B negs),
second-choice takes (C/D negs), and outtakes (Chaplin Revue
reconstructions).

The Chaplin Estate's stance on only releasing the Chaplin Revue versions
doesn't make logical sense, if Chaplin himself was appalled at these
versions. Hopefully they'll reconsider at some point before I die.

> The sharp-eyed among you may have chances to compare two different
> versions of
> THE IDLE CLASS, PAY DAY, THE PILGRIM and THE KID, and THREE different
> versions
> of A DOG'S LIFE. One does not have to go to Denmark to find them.

So WHERE DO I FIND THEM???
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs 

In article , WaverBoy
wrote:

> And there you have it, straight from the Shepard's mouth. THREE different
> sets of takes for SHOULDER ARMS. First-choice takes (A/B negs),
> second-choice takes (C/D negs), and outtakes (Chaplin Revue
> reconstructions).

Actually, this re-post of Mr. Shepard's comment does solve one minor
mystery... perhaps there were not C/D prints made in 1918 for unknown
regions, but:

A - U.S. (1918)
B - World (1918)
C - Prepared in 1925 for Pathe reissue
D - Prepared in 1940's for showing to the forces

That makes more sense - David Totheroh's observations that there were
only 2 negatives suddenly fits - and why the public domain print
differs from the original archive print that Shepard saw ALSO makes
sense.

Also, I did not realize that the film was prepared in the 1940's to
entertain the troops - I thought it was for reissue purposes (i.e.,
money!).

> The Chaplin Estate's stance on only releasing the Chaplin Revue versions
> doesn't make logical sense, if Chaplin himself was appalled at these
> versions. Hopefully they'll reconsider at some point before I die.
>
> > The sharp-eyed among you may have chances to compare two different
> > versions of
> > THE IDLE CLASS, PAY DAY, THE PILGRIM and THE KID, and THREE different
> > versions
> > of A DOG'S LIFE. One does not have to go to Denmark to find them.
>
> So WHERE DO I FIND THEM???

Ditto. That's the problem... with the films going out of copyright, the
knock-off companies are just copying the Fox laserdiscs or DVDs, and
not going to inferior 16mm dupes anymore for their source material. If
this material was floating several years ago, it's probably floating
significantly LESS these days...
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs 

In article , David
Totheroh wrote:

> That only leaves the problem of why AFTER seeing the "new print" of
> Shoulder Arms "and decid[ing] it would be a good idea to do the same
> for all his old films" (according to David R.), years later Chaplin
> would have been quite upset by what had been done but by then it was
> too late (according to David S). I (David T.) have a theory, but it is
> based purely on the speculation that I know the source of David S's
> statement about CC's upset, and that that discontent had less to do
> with aesthetic judgments than other, legal factors.

Are you verifying, then, that CC was unhappy with the '40's versions?
Would you be willing to elucidate a little on the "other, legal
factors"? Something to do with copyright, or rights? Would you comment
on whether or not it's true that the '40's edits DID cause a rift
between Charlie and your Grandfather?

> > Ditto. That's the problem... with the films going out of copyright, the
> > knock-off companies are just copying the Fox laserdiscs or DVDs, and
> > not going to inferior 16mm dupes anymore for their source material. If
> > this material was floating several years ago, it's probably floating
> > significantly LESS these days...
>
> It is my eminently non-legal understanding that "knock-off companies"
> would need to prove their source material was other than that of the
> Fox LDs and DVDs in order to not be guilty of copyright infringement.
> Not that they would necessarily care about such things.

I'd think that if the film itself is public domain, it shouldn't matter
where the company snags the print from, as long as they don't use the
recreated intertitles, or music. I have no knowledge of law to back
this up ... someone correct me if I'm wrong.

D.
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs 

Doug Sulpy wrote in message ...
> In article , David
> Totheroh wrote:
>
> > That only leaves the problem of why AFTER seeing the "new print" of
> > Shoulder Arms "and decid[ing] it would be a good idea to do the same
> > for all his old films" (according to David R.), years later Chaplin
> > would have been quite upset by what had been done but by then it was
> > too late (according to David S). I (David T.) have a theory, but it is
> > based purely on the speculation that I know the source of David S's
> > statement about CC's upset, and that that discontent had less to do
> > with aesthetic judgments than other, legal factors.
>
> Are you verifying, then, that CC was unhappy with the '40's versions?
> Would you be willing to elucidate a little on the "other, legal
> factors"? Something to do with copyright, or rights? Would you comment
> on whether or not it's true that the '40's edits DID cause a rift
> between Charlie and your Grandfather?

I'm verifying that there were some legal issues. I'm not sure just how
'public' the information is (I don't think it's any big secret) but
since neither I nor any of my relatives were parties, I don't feel
it's my place to talk about it. Besides, I don't have all the details.
It occurred after Rollie was retired, and suffice it to say that CC
was pretty frustrated with my grandfather's unwillingness to get
involved. Other than that I'll say I've never seen any statements
outside that context that would indicate Chaplin had any problems with
the '40s versions' of the FNs. And the passage from Robinson indicates
that at least with SA, CC was extremely pleased.

>
> > > Ditto. That's the problem... with the films going out of copyright, the
> > > knock-off companies are just copying the Fox laserdiscs or DVDs, and
> > > not going to inferior 16mm dupes anymore for their source material. If
> > > this material was floating several years ago, it's probably floating
> > > significantly LESS these days...
> >
> > It is my eminently non-legal understanding that "knock-off companies"
> > would need to prove their source material was other than that of the
> > Fox LDs and DVDs in order to not be guilty of copyright infringement.
> > Not that they would necessarily care about such things.
>
> I'd think that if the film itself is public domain, it shouldn't matter
> where the company snags the print from, as long as they don't use the
> recreated intertitles, or music. I have no knowledge of law to back
> this up ... someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs 

In article , David
Totheroh wrote:

> I'm verifying that there were some legal issues. I'm not sure just how
> 'public' the information is (I don't think it's any big secret) but
> since neither I nor any of my relatives were parties, I don't feel
> it's my place to talk about it. Besides, I don't have all the details.
> It occurred after Rollie was retired, and suffice it to say that CC
> was pretty frustrated with my grandfather's unwillingness to get
> involved.

I don't think anyone involved would care, given that they're all dead,
but of course, you have the right to remain silent (ahem).

So I'll throw it open.

Anyone ELSE here have any idea what this was about? If so, would you
please enlighten me? Mr. Shepard, are you out there? Would you care to
comment? Come on, fellas. Do I have to write one of the Chaplins, or
have a seance or something?

D.
 >> Stay informed about: Reviews and the new DVDs