How many screwed up Chaplin films are there?

In article <2bac2741.0307282255.2d0d335 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>, Constance
Kuriyama <ckuriyam RemoveThis @ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:


> Chaplin made a total of 62 one and two reelers (assuming _Police_ and
> _One A.M._ weren't intended to be 3-reelers, which I doubt that they
> were)for Keystone, Essanay, and Mutual. They were so enormously
> popular that not one survives in a completely intact print, as far as
> I know.

"Dough And Dynamite" and "Gentlemen of Nerve" exist 100% intact, thanks
to the paper prints in the Library of Congress.
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

Doug Sulpy <dsulpy DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in message news:<290720030513053469%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> In article <2bac2741.0307282255.2d0d335 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>, Constance
> Kuriyama <ckuriyam DeleteThis @ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Chaplin made a total of 62 one and two reelers (assuming _Police_ and
> > _One A.M._ weren't intended to be 3-reelers, which I doubt that they
> > were)for Keystone, Essanay, and Mutual. They were so enormously
> > popular that not one survives in a completely intact print, as far as
> > I know.
>
> "Dough And Dynamite" and "Gentlemen of Nerve" exist 100% intact, thanks
> to the paper prints in the Library of Congress.

Thanks for the information! But we'd have to say that 2 out of 62 is a
pretty low score. Too bad LOC stopped using the paper print system so
early.

How good are the paper prints as sources? The videos I've seen made
from paper prints are pretty fuzzy, but then they're early VHS
transfers, so I'm assuming it's possible to do better.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

In article <2bac2741.0307290737.572f5a RemoveThis @posting.google.com>, Constance
Kuriyama <ckuriyam RemoveThis @ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy <dsulpy RemoveThis @optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:<290720030513053469%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> > In article <2bac2741.0307282255.2d0d335 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>, Constance
> > Kuriyama <ckuriyam RemoveThis @ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Chaplin made a total of 62 one and two reelers (assuming _Police_ and
> > > _One A.M._ weren't intended to be 3-reelers, which I doubt that they
> > > were)for Keystone, Essanay, and Mutual. They were so enormously
> > > popular that not one survives in a completely intact print, as far as
> > > I know.
> >
> > "Dough And Dynamite" and "Gentlemen of Nerve" exist 100% intact, thanks
> > to the paper prints in the Library of Congress.
>
> Thanks for the information! But we'd have to say that 2 out of 62 is a
> pretty low score. Too bad LOC stopped using the paper print system so
> early.

Actually, they stopped requiring paper prints for copyright purposes 2
years before Chaplin made his first film - Charlie's two late Keystones
were submitted by Sennett as further protection against piracy.

> How good are the paper prints as sources? The videos I've seen made
> from paper prints are pretty fuzzy, but then they're early VHS
> transfers, so I'm assuming it's possible to do better.

They look great! Did you see AMC's "Gentlemen of Nerve" years ago? That
was the paper print.

D.
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

Doug Sulpy <dsulpy.RemoveThis@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<290720030513053469%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> In article <2bac2741.0307282255.2d0d335.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>, Constance
> Kuriyama <ckuriyam.RemoveThis@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Chaplin made a total of 62 one and two reelers (assuming _Police_ and
> > _One A.M._ weren't intended to be 3-reelers, which I doubt that they
> > were)for Keystone, Essanay, and Mutual. They were so enormously
> > popular that not one survives in a completely intact print, as far as
> > I know.
>
> "Dough And Dynamite" and "Gentlemen of Nerve" exist 100% intact, thanks
> to the paper prints in the Library of Congress.

100% consistent with the print submitted for copyright, anyway. But do
we know the source of the paper print? Was it from a domestic, or
export, or some other neg.? I know that early on, a story outline, and
maybe a few stills, was considered sufficient evidence for a copyright
claim. A bit later the paper prints became the acceptable defining
document. But all this significantly predated the nitpicking times we
now live in where the difference between an eyebrow up or down in a
particular scene is grounds for fraud charges. I'm only being slightly
sarcastic here. What evidence do we have that confirms which version
(when there were more than one, as defined by current standards) was
chosen as the copyright submittal? Anybody know for sure?
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

On 29 Jul 2003 17:37:25 -0700, dtotheroh.RemoveThis@aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:
\
>100% consistent with the print submitted for copyright, anyway. But do
>we know the source of the paper print? Was it from a domestic, or
>export, or some other neg.?

Did Keystone even make more than 1 neg?

Mark
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

In article <31dd3eaa.0307291637.15815d70.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>, David
Totheroh <dtotheroh.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy <dsulpy.RemoveThis@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:<290720030513053469%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> > In article <2bac2741.0307282255.2d0d335.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>, Constance
> > Kuriyama <ckuriyam.RemoveThis@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Chaplin made a total of 62 one and two reelers (assuming _Police_ and
> > > _One A.M._ weren't intended to be 3-reelers, which I doubt that they
> > > were)for Keystone, Essanay, and Mutual. They were so enormously
> > > popular that not one survives in a completely intact print, as far as
> > > I know.
> >
> > "Dough And Dynamite" and "Gentlemen of Nerve" exist 100% intact, thanks
> > to the paper prints in the Library of Congress.
>
> 100% consistent with the print submitted for copyright, anyway. But do
> we know the source of the paper print? Was it from a domestic, or
> export, or some other neg.?

There's no reason to believe it would be anything other than a domestic
print. In fact, there's no reason to believe that foreign prints from
Keystone would be any different from the domestic prints - the several
examples I've seen have had identical shots.

> I know that early on, a story outline, and
> maybe a few stills, was considered sufficient evidence for a copyright
> claim.

Story outlines weren't submitted until the later Keystones.

> A bit later the paper prints became the acceptable defining
> document.

Your chronology is wrong.

> But all this significantly predated the nitpicking times we
> now live in where the difference between an eyebrow up or down in a
> particular scene is grounds for fraud charges.

Well, I suppose in your typically amiable way, you're saying that:

1. Pointing out that vastly inferior versions of the First Nationals
have been issued to the public as the original films is "nitpicking."
2. The differences in those prints are nothing more than "an eyebrow up
or down."

The idiocy of these statements speaks for itself.

> I'm only being slightly
> sarcastic here.

Oh, come on. Turn it on full blast. Let's see what you can do... :-)

D.
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

Doug Sulpy <dsulpy DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in message news:<300720030806256087%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> In article <31dd3eaa.0307291637.15815d70 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>, David
> Totheroh <dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Doug Sulpy <dsulpy DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:<290720030513053469%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> > > In article <2bac2741.0307282255.2d0d335 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>, Constance
> > > Kuriyama <ckuriyam DeleteThis @ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Chaplin made a total of 62 one and two reelers (assuming _Police_ and
> > > > _One A.M._ weren't intended to be 3-reelers, which I doubt that they
> > > > were)for Keystone, Essanay, and Mutual. They were so enormously
> > > > popular that not one survives in a completely intact print, as far as
> > > > I know.
> > >
> > > "Dough And Dynamite" and "Gentlemen of Nerve" exist 100% intact, thanks
> > > to the paper prints in the Library of Congress.
> >
> > 100% consistent with the print submitted for copyright, anyway. But do
> > we know the source of the paper print? Was it from a domestic, or
> > export, or some other neg.?
>
> There's no reason to believe it would be anything other than a domestic
> print. In fact, there's no reason to believe that foreign prints from
> Keystone would be any different from the domestic prints - the several
> examples I've seen have had identical shots.
>
> > I know that early on, a story outline, and
> > maybe a few stills, was considered sufficient evidence for a copyright
> > claim.
>
> Story outlines weren't submitted until the later Keystones.
>
> > A bit later the paper prints became the acceptable defining
> > document.
>
> Your chronology is wrong.
>
> > But all this significantly predated the nitpicking times we
> > now live in where the difference between an eyebrow up or down in a
> > particular scene is grounds for fraud charges.
>
> Well, I suppose in your typically amiable way, you're saying that:
>
> 1. Pointing out that vastly inferior versions of the First Nationals
> have been issued to the public as the original films is "nitpicking."
> 2. The differences in those prints are nothing more than "an eyebrow up
> or down."
>
> The idiocy of these statements speaks for itself.

Somebody must've altered the definitions of the words "vastly" and
"inferior" in the Encarta and Webster's Unabridged dictionaries I use.
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

Doug Sulpy <dsulpy.DeleteThis@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<290720031432155322%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> In article <2bac2741.0307290737.572f5a.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>, Constance
> Kuriyama <ckuriyam.DeleteThis@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Doug Sulpy <dsulpy.DeleteThis@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:<290720030513053469%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> > > In article <2bac2741.0307282255.2d0d335.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>, Constance
> > > Kuriyama <ckuriyam.DeleteThis@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Chaplin made a total of 62 one and two reelers (assuming _Police_ and
> > > > _One A.M._ weren't intended to be 3-reelers, which I doubt that they
> > > > were)for Keystone, Essanay, and Mutual. They were so enormously
> > > > popular that not one survives in a completely intact print, as far as
> > > > I know.
> > >
> > > "Dough And Dynamite" and "Gentlemen of Nerve" exist 100% intact, thanks
> > > to the paper prints in the Library of Congress.
> >
> > Thanks for the information! But we'd have to say that 2 out of 62 is a
> > pretty low score. Too bad LOC stopped using the paper print system so
> > early.
>
> Actually, they stopped requiring paper prints for copyright purposes 2
> years before Chaplin made his first film - Charlie's two late Keystones
> were submitted by Sennett as further protection against piracy.
>
> > How good are the paper prints as sources? The videos I've seen made
> > from paper prints are pretty fuzzy, but then they're early VHS
> > transfers, so I'm assuming it's possible to do better.
>
> They look great! Did you see AMC's "Gentlemen of Nerve" years ago? That
> was the paper print.
>
> D.

No, I missed that (no cable). I do have the Melies laser disk which uses
some paper prints as source material, and they're much better than the ones
I saw on VHS.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

In article <31dd3eaa.0307301011.61abc13a.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>, David
Totheroh <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

> Somebody must've altered the definitions of the words "vastly" and
> "inferior" in the Encarta and Webster's Unabridged dictionaries I use.

Glad to know you get your ability to judge a comedic performance out of
a dictionary, David. :-)
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

> How good are the paper prints as sources? The videos I've seen made
> from paper prints are pretty fuzzy, but then they're early VHS
> transfers, so I'm assuming it's possible to do better.
>
> Connie K.

I recall hearing that many transfers from paper prints (including lots of
Griffith shorts) have been rephotographed to film in like the seventies, and
that improved techniques are available nowadays.

Uli
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

Doug Sulpy <dsulpy DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in message news:<300720031756089148%dsulpy@optonline.net>...
> In article <31dd3eaa.0307301011.61abc13a DeleteThis @posting.google.com>, David
> Totheroh <dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Somebody must've altered the definitions of the words "vastly" and
> > "inferior" in the Encarta and Webster's Unabridged dictionaries I use.
>
> Glad to know you get your ability to judge a comedic performance out of
> a dictionary, David. :-)

Just the words to describe it, not the judgment itself. And since
those words were YOURS, can I assume you too got them from a
dictionary. (Or, and this might be the main problem here, if your
primary method of communication is ESP, and written words the
secondary translation, that might explain why you frequently appear
illogical to me. It's simply the faulty translations.)
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

"Darren" <dnemeth01.RemoveThis@sprynet.com> wrote

> Sounds like most are.

Which of course means we ought to be even more grateful to those wo have
tried to put them back together, rather than bashing them for a ten second
fragment they failed to re-instate, or for choices they had to make...

Uli
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there? 

>From: "Ulrich Ruedel" uruedel.RemoveThis@t-online.de

>Darren" <dnemeth01.RemoveThis@sprynet.com> wrote
>
>> Sounds like most are.
>
>Which of course means we ought to be even more grateful to those wo have
>tried to put them back together, rather than bashing them for a ten second
>fragment they failed to re-instate, or for choices they had to make...

A-men to that!

Richard Carnahan
 >> Stay informed about: How many screwed up Chaplin films are there?