_Shoulder Arms_ Again

External Since: Mar 22, 2005 Posts: 564

On Apr 1, 12:35 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy... DeleteThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:41 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 12:06 am, "Feuillade" <Feuill... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 12:42 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 8:55 pm, "Feuillade" <Feuill... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 30, 11:31 pm, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
>
> > > > > <constance.kuriy... DeleteThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 7:57 pm, "Matt Barry" <bar... DeleteThis @bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "David Totheroh" <dtothe... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >news:1175209115.123190.167350@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 12:56 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
> > > > > > > > <constance.kuriy... DeleteThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Two corrections of details in my first post:
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> > > > > > > > > > hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > his mind. On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember
> > > > > > > details
> > > > > > > > > > of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties. I agree that
> > > > > > > > > > David Shepard has created another version of the film which is
> > > > > > > carefully
> > > > > > > > > > thought out and in certain respects closer to the original release
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Connie K.
>
> > > > > > > I was always under the impression that the David Shepard/First National
> > > > > > > Collection version was the version prepared in the early 40s. Was this
> > > > > > > version in fact reconstructed from different elements?
>
> > > > > > It uses different elements from the _Revue_ version and from the
> > > > > > Pathe. I 'm
> > > > > > not sure what the principle of selection was, but it does include some
> > > > > > material lacking
> > > > > > in the _Revue_ version, including the "three on a match" gag.
>
> > > > > One of your previous posts raises an interesting question.
>
> > > > > The timeline of the SA cut by Rollie is a little confusing.
>
> > > > > He put together his version in the early 40s. For a print to be shown
> > > > > to servicemen, which presumably means after December, 1941.
>
> > > > > But Chaplin saw SA when he was preparing Dictator. Which means 1939
> > > > > or 1940.
>
> > > > > Which version did he see? And if he saw the original 1918 cut, how
> > > > > could it have been in such lousy shape just two or three years later
> > > > > that Rollie would feel compelled to scrap it and start from scratch?
>
> > > > > Is anyone else as confused as I am?
>
> > > > > Tom Moran
>
> > > > Tom,
>
> > > > Are you not seeing my posts?
>
> > > I may have missed one or two.
>
> > > > I cut and pasted sections from Robinson that show that, in addition
> > > > to screening Shoulder Arms while working on The Great Dictator,
> > > > Chaplin saw the film at the very end of 1942 (after Christmas) or very
> > > > early 1943 BEFORE Rollie worked on the new neg., and in January
> > > > of 1944 when he saw the new "Army" version, at which point he decided
> > > > to have Rollie redo the rest of the First Nationals too.
>
> > > The implication being that Chaplin approved of and signed off on
> > > Rollie's version as early as 1944?
>
> > A reading of Robinson (pg. 520-522) makes that conclusion virtually
> > unavoidable.
>
> > > This, however, leads to yet another question.
>
> > > What happened to the print of the original that Chaplin saw at the end
> > > of 1942?
>
> > Good question. But remember, it is just as possible that the print
> > Chaplin saw in late '42 or early '43 was a Pathé print as that it was
> > an original 1918 version.
>
> > > > Remember, it is entirely possible that the studio could have had a
> > > > very clean PRINT and not had negs of sufficient quality to produce
> > > > reasonable release prints.
>
> > > That is indeed possible.
>
> > > But if they had clean prints then wouldn't it stand to reason that
> > > they'd have those same prints now?
>
> > Not necessarily. Remember that Chaplin ordered all materials except
> > what he considered to be definitive versions destroyed, rather than
> > deal with shipping them to Europe, in 1953. Ergo those prints would
> > more likely have ended up in the Rohauer stuff than still be in the
> > Chaplin archive.
>
> > > And as far as anyone knows, the Chaplin archives do not contain a
> > > single print of the original 1918 version of SA.
>
> > Again, we don't know that it wasn't a '20s Pathé reissue version. And
> > in either case, whichever print it was would likely have been orderd
> > destroyed in 1953, with the 1944 'Army' version now seen as the
> > definitive version. (Damn that McGranery!)
>
> > > Where did they go?
>
> > My personal opinion is that's a question better addressed to Rohauer.
>
> I thought Rohauer had gone to that section of Purgatory reserved for
> unscrupulous film collectors. Is he still with us?
>
No. Raymond Rohauer died, according to the IMDB, in November of 1987.

Tom Moran

External Since: Jan 16, 2005 Posts: 349

On Mar 31, 9:35 pm, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:41 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 12:06 am, "Feuillade" <Feuill... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 12:42 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 8:55 pm, "Feuillade" <Feuill... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 30, 11:31 pm, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
>
> > > > > <constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 7:57 pm, "Matt Barry" <bar... RemoveThis @bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "David Totheroh" <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >news:1175209115.123190.167350@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 12:56 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
> > > > > > > > <constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Two corrections of details in my first post:
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> > > > > > > > > > hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > his mind. On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember
> > > > > > > details
> > > > > > > > > > of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties. I agree that
> > > > > > > > > > David Shepard has created another version of the film which is
> > > > > > > carefully
> > > > > > > > > > thought out and in certain respects closer to the original release
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Connie K.
>
> > > > > > > I was always under the impression that the David Shepard/First National
> > > > > > > Collection version was the version prepared in the early 40s. Was this
> > > > > > > version in fact reconstructed from different elements?
>
> > > > > > It uses different elements from the _Revue_ version and from the
> > > > > > Pathe. I 'm
> > > > > > not sure what the principle of selection was, but it does include some
> > > > > > material lacking
> > > > > > in the _Revue_ version, including the "three on a match" gag.
>
> > > > > One of your previous posts raises an interesting question.
>
> > > > > The timeline of the SA cut by Rollie is a little confusing.
>
> > > > > He put together his version in the early 40s. For a print to be shown
> > > > > to servicemen, which presumably means after December, 1941.
>
> > > > > But Chaplin saw SA when he was preparing Dictator. Which means 1939
> > > > > or 1940.
>
> > > > > Which version did he see? And if he saw the original 1918 cut, how
> > > > > could it have been in such lousy shape just two or three years later
> > > > > that Rollie would feel compelled to scrap it and start from scratch?
>
> > > > > Is anyone else as confused as I am?
>
> > > > > Tom Moran
>
> > > > Tom,
>
> > > > Are you not seeing my posts?
>
> > > I may have missed one or two.
>
> > > > I cut and pasted sections from Robinson that show that, in addition
> > > > to screening Shoulder Arms while working on The Great Dictator,
> > > > Chaplin saw the film at the very end of 1942 (after Christmas) or very
> > > > early 1943 BEFORE Rollie worked on the new neg., and in January
> > > > of 1944 when he saw the new "Army" version, at which point he decided
> > > > to have Rollie redo the rest of the First Nationals too.
>
> > > The implication being that Chaplin approved of and signed off on
> > > Rollie's version as early as 1944?
>
> > A reading of Robinson (pg. 520-522) makes that conclusion virtually
> > unavoidable.
>
> > > This, however, leads to yet another question.
>
> > > What happened to the print of the original that Chaplin saw at the end
> > > of 1942?
>
> > Good question. But remember, it is just as possible that the print
> > Chaplin saw in late '42 or early '43 was a Pathé print as that it was
> > an original 1918 version.
>
> > > > Remember, it is entirely possible that the studio could have had a
> > > > very clean PRINT and not had negs of sufficient quality to produce
> > > > reasonable release prints.
>
> > > That is indeed possible.
>
> > > But if they had clean prints then wouldn't it stand to reason that
> > > they'd have those same prints now?
>
> > Not necessarily. Remember that Chaplin ordered all materials except
> > what he considered to be definitive versions destroyed, rather than
> > deal with shipping them to Europe, in 1953. Ergo those prints would
> > more likely have ended up in the Rohauer stuff than still be in the
> > Chaplin archive.
>
> > > And as far as anyone knows, the Chaplin archives do not contain a
> > > single print of the original 1918 version of SA.
>
> > Again, we don't know that it wasn't a '20s Pathé reissue version. And
> > in either case, whichever print it was would likely have been orderd
> > destroyed in 1953, with the 1944 'Army' version now seen as the
> > definitive version. (Damn that McGranery!)
>
> > > Where did they go?
>
> > My personal opinion is that's a question better addressed to Rohauer.
>
> I thought Rohauer had gone to that section of Purgatory reserved for
> unscrupulous film collectors. Is he still with us?

No, Rohauer is gone. That was my inarticulate and hamhanded way of
saying that just because materials existed in Chaplin's posession
pre-1952 it wasn't a good indication they'd still be there after 1953.

>
> > > > I'm not exactly sure of the timing, but in the early 1940s it is not out of the
> > > > question that they wouldn't even think of using a print to make an interneg
> > > > to produce other release prints; too much generational quality loss to satisfy
> > > > their standards.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > This begs the question: *whose* standards?
>
> > Chaplin's, of course. Who else's mattered?
>
> > > That's the frustrating thing about this whole subject -- everything
> > > just leads to several more questions.
>
> > But all with perfectly logical and reasonable (if somewhat
> > unsatisfying) answers. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -