Tweet The Mack Sennett Collection: 100 Years of Keystone Comedy

Our DVR worked out fine. We have Direct. What I did first was program names, Mack Sennett, Roscoe Arbuckle, Ford Sterling, Ben Turpen, Mabel Normand etc etc and put them on Autorecord so any film with their names records.
Also went through TCM schedule and pressed record on each other short separatly just in case. Worked well.
Haven't had time to watch everything yet, even if a few didn't record all the way it's ok. After all, the upcoming DVD set will be most welcome. It will be on my Christmas list if it's out this year.

Can't wait for the DVD/BluRay to come out...hopefully by Christmas. It's a guaranteed wish list item for me. First the Mary Pickford Collection I received for my birthday, and now possibly this collection for Christmas. I just hope I was good enough this year to deserve both.

Okay, so, you've just gotten to see 100 year old films that someone has spent a lot of time and money and effort to dig up the prints, do a lot of restoration work to make them look fabulous, get the best accompianists to record terrific scores to present these films at their very best, and the one thing that sinks your boat is a tiny copyright notice on the end title? You'd deny the Cinemuseum Folk one claim on their handiwork in a place a little hard to remove so when all the weenies put this stuff up on Youtube that they'll have something to prove it's their handiwork and be able to get it taken down because, gee, it might be nice for them to actually recoup their money and actually be paid for their hard work and investment. One small line on the bottom of an end title just ruins that whole fortunate viewing experience for you, so much that you actually spend time to complain about it in a public forum, over anything else you could say about the work, then get uppity when someone jokes at you about how silly it seems for this to be your main concern? No, it is not an honest concern, it's an incredibly infinitecimal, teeny, tiny,winky-wanky whine.

You ain't my Brother, and you don't get a smile.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

What did I just tell you about turning this into an argument?
Let me put it to you this way. I'm a stickler about films being presented as originally as possible to their original form as you are about film speeds. I believe in original intertitles for foreign language films, not video reproductions. Subtitles do the same work and you don't deny the viewer the beauty of the original language or whatever art may be on the original titles. I don't believe in synths for scores because they weren't really around during the time these films were made, therefore were never played along with them in their original presentations (not to mention, personally, I think they sound terrible) and...dare I say it...I don't believe in bugs in film. It's gunna be pretty much pointless anyway as any old youtuber can just edit off the end or, if they really know their stuff, just tack on an old, original keystone logo from another film. Never underestimate the "paying for stuff is bogus, yo!" crowd. They're a tricky bunch!

But I'm not denying anybody anything. There's always room for credit...in the credits. ...and this didn't hinder my enjoyment of these films at all. No boats sunken here! All I did was think it was a little jarring is all. A quick "...the hell?" and it was all over when the next film began. That was it. Don't know how you got this notion that I'm whining or complaining. Nor do I get "uppity" over jokes, if, you know, they're actually jokes.

But if you wanna talk about a film. OK then. The Curtain Pole! Funny film. Seen it before. But on the TCM presentation there was an intertitle that says "in Lighter Mood" that I don't remember seeing before. Looked up a version of the film on youtube. Sure enough, that intertitle wasn't there. Was this a recently rediscovered intertitle? If so, how? Also, never seen that framing style with the four interlocking reels on said title card. Neat! I've also never seen examples of the original Keystone opening titles with a big, giant eagle perched on top. Also neat!

And I know you may like to deny it, we're all brothers (and sisters) here on Nitrateville.
So lets all try to get along and be nice to everyone, ok?
Now give me a hug, ya big sexy!

Was anybody else kinda put off by the "© 2012 Keystone Films, LLC" things at the end of each film?
...just found it kinda odd to see --© 2012-- at the end of films made around 100 years ago.

Winner of the 2012 MOST ORIGINAL WHINE OF THE YEAR" Award. Followed up by the " My DVR Couldn't record it properly" whine, indicating that turning on a recorder to simply record 3-6 hours of programming straight is too compliated to elude the average Nitratevillain. Does anyone want to go for third place and carp about the "Restored in Pure Michigan" logo in the credits?

Once again, Ya did yourself proud folks. It just makes all the hard work and finding, preserving, and sharing these films with you worthwhile. Call me when anyone actually bothers to discuss the friggin films.............


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Ok. The projection speeds are all wrong.

Other than the general air of it's great to see these films, is there anything useful to say? I suppose Mike Gebert might write one of his essays on the ouevre, but I have already noted that I have been writing reviews on some of them for the IMDB intended for an audience less knowledgeable about the context and that it turns out that Brent Walker's MACK SENNETT'S FUN FACTORY had really affected my opinion of these films.

Other than that, offering an opinion around here often seems like lecturing NOW on what women really want. Nonetheless, here's the review of THE WATER NYMPH that I did for the IMDB -- and after I read the review, I raised my rating of the movie from from 6 to 10 out of ten:

Looked at in the context of history, THE WATER NYMPH, the first release of the Keystone company, is a transitional film. Like Sennett's Biograph films, there is still an Eagle on the title card and the characters start out looking normal enough -- mama, poppa, Mabel and Mack, although their movements seem a bit broader than at Biograph.

It is with the second dialogue card that we start to notice the changes. It reads "His father -- a faithful husband when locked in." What is going on here? Where are the easily demarcated characters of the melodrama? Where did Ford Sterling get that ridiculous tie? Whence the casually offered violence and hand-stroking and how could Mabel wear such a revealing bathing suit? We are suddenly no longer in the world of Biograph melodrama, or even the world in which Sennett set his own comedies for Biograph. We are in Sennett's own askew world in which the id, superego and the libido are suddenly laid bare, and in more than the metaphorical sense! The audience sees what they imagine doing -- terribly inappropriate actions, but enormously funny, because this is not the audience of polite stage dramas at a dollar a ticket. It's the rough audience of the nickelodeon and they can't afford that dollar. Their justice is not administered in courts before judges, but in the street when they can get it or at the hands of the police when they can not.

Sennett's world is just as unreal as D.W. Griffith's world, but it is just as carefully and artistically formed. His cameramen are just as good, his editors may be better and his vision better appealed to the poor, The people might be grotesques, but it was the world they knew and if the rich got kicked in the pants more often than the poor, well, they had had it coming for a long, long time.


Given that this review is clearly derived from Brent's theses and that I expect to hear his voice on the commentary track saying it a bit better, it should be obsolete when the dvd comes out.

Bob

Ok. The projection speeds are all wrong.

Okay Lipton, it's obvious that we'll have to re-install the pole in front of your seat at our new Slapsticon venue next year.

Other than the general air of it's great to see these films, is there anything useful to say? I suppose Mike Gebert might write one of his essays on the ouevre, but I have already noted that I have been writing reviews on some of them for the IMDB intended for an audience less knowledgeable about the context and that it turns out that Brent Walker's MACK SENNETT'S FUN FACTORY had really affected my opinion of these films.

Other than that, offering an opinion around here often seems like lecturing NOW on what women really want. Nonetheless, here's the review of THE WATER NYMPH that I did for the IMDB -- and after I read the review, I raised my rating of the movie from from 6 to 10 out of ten:

Looked at in the context of history, THE WATER NYMPH, the first release of the Keystone company, is a transitional film. Like Sennett's Biograph films, there is still an Eagle on the title card and the characters start out looking normal enough -- mama, poppa, Mabel and Mack, although their movements seem a bit broader than at Biograph.

It is with the second dialogue card that we start to notice the changes. It reads "His father -- a faithful husband when locked in." What is going on here? Where are the easily demarcated characters of the melodrama? Where did Ford Sterling get that ridiculous tie? Whence the casually offered violence and hand-stroking and how could Mabel wear such a revealing bathing suit? We are suddenly no longer in the world of Biograph melodrama, or even the world in which Sennett set his own comedies for Biograph. We are in Sennett's own askew world in which the id, superego and the libido are suddenly laid bare, and in more than the metaphorical sense! The audience sees what they imagine doing -- terribly inappropriate actions, but enormously funny, because this is not the audience of polite stage dramas at a dollar a ticket. It's the rough audience of the nickelodeon and they can't afford that dollar. Their justice is not administered in courts before judges, but in the street when they can get it or at the hands of the police when they can not.

Sennett's world is just as unreal as D.W. Griffith's world, but it is just as carefully and artistically formed. His cameramen are just as good, his editors may be better and his vision better appealed to the poor, The people might be grotesques, but it was the world they knew and if the rich got kicked in the pants more often than the poor, well, they had had it coming for a long, long time.


Given that this review is clearly derived from Brent's theses and that I expect to hear his voice on the commentary track saying it a bit better, it should be obsolete when the dvd comes out.

Bob

Well, THE WATER NYMPH might be a transitional film if Sennett hadn't already used the "Mabel in a Swimsuit" concept in at least two Biographs, THE DIVING GIRL and WHY HE GAVE UP, both from 1911. There's not really that much difference between late Sennett Biographs and early Sennett Keystones, the melodrama aspect is gone in the late Biographs, and certainly recurs often in Keystones, but the last paragraph is good. As I said earlier, Sennett editing took Griffith editing and went light years beyond it. The Keystones keep getting faster and faster, and the technical skill is way beyond Griffith's sometimes fumble-fingered scissoring (I don't recall any scene in a Sennett film fading out, then continuing as badly matched close-ups of the heroine are inserted), and Sennett understood that the audience for motion pictures was essentially a lower-class one, and rebelled after years of attempted gentrification of the media to appeal to the upper-classes. I'm sure he did feel the leash gone once he left Biograph and formed Keystone, but the broad acting style really came into the fray when Ford Sterling joined Sennett at Biograph. Sterling is probably more responsible for the Keystone acting style than anyone apart from Sennett.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

It was fun seeing Ford Sterling in THE GROCERY CLERK'S ROMANCE (1912) without comic mustache or goatee. Not only does he use terrific facial expressions to explain his feelings but his entire body reacts as well in the most broadest mannerisms imaginable. He is one of Keystone best comics.

It was fun seeing Ford Sterling in THE GROCERY CLERK'S ROMANCE (1912) without comic mustache or goatee. Not only does he use terrific facial expressions to explain his feelings but his entire body reacts as well in the most broadest mannerisms imaginable. He is one of Keystone best comics.

GROCERY CLERKS ROMANCE is also interesting as the earliest known appearance of later Hal Roach and Columbia Comedy foil. James C. Morton.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Mike Gebert]

Amazing what can happen when moderators go to bed early. We need one in Japan, clearly.

Unfortunately this seems to be a particular fate of discussions on silent comedy, maybe because there are so many collectors and they are of course ALL correct about how things should have been done. It would be great fun seeing the anti-Shepard contingent from Chaplin at Keystone days feeling the bite this time, if not for the fact that it always seems to produce ill will that shrinks our numbers. And bolsters our reputation as the place where your hard work to restore things from oblivion in form 1000 times better than they've been seen before can get all the withering criticism and accusations of shoddiness it deserves. (Anyone notice yet if any of the Laughsmith transfers were PAL conversions? Good times, good times.)

I don't know how to cure human nature but I can tell you what we are going to do. First, and I grant this doesn't sound like much, but we're going to strongly encourage not getting caught up by picayune problems. My DVR probably botched something too, it always does, but really, I can afford the $49.95 or whatever the dvd set will cost and so probably can you, so c'mon, think about how that looks if you're somebody who worked on this and there's a whole page of that and nothing about the movies. Surely someone recorded them right and watched them?

Second, and this is where the moderators will start slicing and dicing, no personal attacks. We will start hacking that stuff right out. And third, here's a tip. This thread is not going to have a winner. Art engenders multiple opinions. Some are better than others, plainly, but there's never just one, so trying to beat others down and establish the primacy of a single viewpoint will be met with a moderator weedcutter as well.

Unfortunately timing puts this heavy message right after the discussion took a turn for the better. Let's try to keep it going that direction.

RICHARD M ROBERTS
GROCERY CLERKS ROMANCE is also interesting as the earliest known appearance of later Hal Roach and Columbia Comedy foil. James C. Morton.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, pardon me. I recognized him playing the father. Loved his scenes after he goes into the bar and stumbles out staggering all over the place drunk out of his mind then plops down on his bum passing out. Ah, the good old days of motion picture comedy when drunken humor was played to good comic effect. Just for laughs.

[quote=“Tastypotpie”]

Was anybody else kinda put off by the "© 2012 Keystone Films, LLC" things at the end of each film?
...just found it kinda odd to see --© 2012-- at the end of films made around 100 years ago.

...All I did was think it was a little jarring is all. A quick "...the hell?" and it was all over when the next film began.

Perhaps it’s also frustrating that you’re not seeing these films in 35mm prints, on the big screen...and on a digital apparatus instead. I know that’s how I feel about these things. However, we do live in 2012, nearly 100 years after these films were produced as you’ve stated, and things are quite different now.

What’s also different is that these are orphan films. As someone who works with orphan films on a constant basis, I can do nothing more than to put out a word of support for Mr. Gierucki and his 2012 copyright at the end of the films. Without nitpicking with you, getting into specifics, and with all due respect to you (and others who may have had the same reaction as yours), I wonder about the following. I wonder if you have had the experience of putting countless hours, years, and sometimes even decades, into researching films, finding actual film print elements AND paying to purchase or access them, and then spending many more countless hours to fix the films or to enlist the help of others to do it. Countless hours of personal time *and* life savings being involved...to rescue films from literal destruction or oblivion, and to do something with films that are not being utilized in any means by sitting idle in private collections and archives for decades.

It’s a profession that has **thankfully** received some praise in the news in recent years, but a profession that is difficult to profit from, is risky for economic reasons, and one that can be emotionally taxing as there is typically a lot of personal care and attachment given to these films by their ‘preservationists.’ There are often many emotional, social, and sometimes even economic rewards--and almost as many disappointments involved. It’s fun work, but it’s by no means easy or simple or affordable.

The least Paul Gierucki and others can do is to put a new copyright notice at the end of a 100 year old film, even if that notice is placed on an original end title card. After all, what you’re seeing is not only the fruit of the original producer, but also Gierucki and his staff. It’s the least bit of recognition that can be had from the fleeting presentation of the film itself. It truly does not even begin to explain or celebrate all of the work involved, nor does the general public (save for a few people on forums like this) really ever get the full picture of what is involved on a day to day basis in locating, caring for, and re-presenting these films.

Apologies for standing on a soapbox here, and I by no means have meant this post as a personal attack or criticism of you. But the copyright notices are the least of anyone’s problems. If one must worry about something (and is worrying really worth it?), take issue with the fact that countless films remain lost, and scores of others remain in the grasp of collectors, commercial distributors, rights holders, and certain commercial/archival establishments that provide access for impossible sums of money...if access is even at all possible with these entities. That is all.

Amen, Tom Stathes. Also there are the Passport Videos of the world (among others) that copy our finished works and sell them at bargain prices. After all, they have no cost basis and know that no silent movie in the world is worth the price of a lawsuit. Even with properly-copyrighted restorations, many of the films that might pay for the financial losers are drained off, sometimes even before there has been time to earn back the cost of preparation.

What do we do about it? Like the Joads, we keep comin'.

David Shepard

David Shepard
Passport Videos of the world (among others) that copy our finished works and sell them at bargain prices.

Isn't Passport out of business now? They were in receivership few year ago.

Apparently Passport Video got David's collection, but Alpha Video got mine, generally 3 generations down from what my masters were.

It's why I seldom do video at all anymore. I do film shows. I like film shows better and you can put video on YouTube, but not film. The fact that it's on film, which is a format that not many people use, is a wonderful copyguard. And it takes me effort to put it on video anyway...

Eric

[Christopher Jacobs]

I seldom do video at all anymore. I do film shows. I like film shows better and you can put video on YouTube, but not film. The fact that it's on film, which is a format that not many people use, is a wonderful copyguard. And it takes me effort to put it on video anyway...

Eric

This sensible logic seems to have eluded today's film studio executives who plan to eliminate film as a distribution medium by the end of this year if not within the next month or so. If they are so concerned about piracy, you'd think they would use a medium like film that takes a much greater effort and expense to duplicate at a high quality than modern digital files would. GENUINE 35mm FILM -- the anti-piracy format!!

Well, i've at least had a recording success story--my completely un-mechanical husband managed to get the VCR going and turned it on while i was at work, so i was able to catch up tonight on everything i didn't see live Thursday. Now i'm one of the folks without the slapstick gene but Sennett and Keystone are such a huge part of Hollywood lore and history that i wanted to see these in their best possible form. And they've turned out to be a real revelation. Not only can i see people's faces, i could even recognize people in the background. I'd seen some of these before but some of the funniest i hadn't seen. I'm loving Ford Sterling, and Minta is pretty darned funny too. We're even enjoying the California scenery! Was that Mission San Gabriel that Fred Mace ran by in A Dash Through the Clouds? And which parks is it with the lake and little bridge that kept turning up in one film after another?

Anyway, i'm thrilled to be seeing these, and all of you involved did an awesome job at excavating this hugely important part of film history.

greta

[Christopher Jacobs]

Well, i've at least had a recording success story--my completely un-mechanical husband managed to get the VCR going and turned it on while i was at work, so i was able to catch up tonight on everything i didn't see live Thursday. Now i'm one of the folks without the slapstick gene but Sennett and Keystone are such a huge part of Hollywood lore and history that i wanted to see these in their best possible form. And they've turned out to be a real revelation. Not only can i see people's faces, i could even recognize people in the background. I'd seen some of these before but some of the funniest i hadn't seen. I'm loving Ford Sterling, and Minta is pretty darned funny too. We're even enjoying the California scenery! Was that Mission San Gabriel that Fred Mace ran by in A Dash Through the Clouds? And which parks is it with the lake and little bridge that kept turning up in one film after another?

Anyway, i'm thrilled to be seeing these, and all of you involved did an awesome job at excavating this hugely important part of film history.

greta

While as I noted in my Cinecon review post in another thread, most of these are more historical curiosities than entertaining comedies, and most notably A DASH THROUGH THE CLOUDS (1912) has some amusing moments that are heavily overshadowed a full century later by the fact that it relied upon aerial sequences filmed less than a decade after the first flight by the Wright Brothers! And not only that, but it appears as if Mabel Normand did her own stunts flying in the "magnificent flying machine" used for the film. The high standard of picture quality makes it look all the more remarkable. I can hardly wait for the Blu-ray release of this set!

greta de groat
And which parks is it with the lake and little bridge that kept turning up in one film after another?

Echo park

http://historicechopark.org/id123.html

Yeah, unfortunately Echo Park is one giant construction site right now. They've drained the lake and are fixing up some of the historic structures on the site, but it won't be complete until next year.

[quote="Christopher Jacobs"]
While as I noted in my Cinecon review post in another thread, most of these are more historical curiosities than entertaining comedies,[quote]


Sez you Mr. Jacobs.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

Yeah, unfortunately Echo Park is one giant construction site right now. They've drained the lake and are fixing up some of the historic structures on the site, but it won't be complete until next year.

Well, frankly it was in need of a bit of refurbishment, and the lake was also in need of desludging. The last time we were out on the lake in the paddle boats a few years ago (we included, believe it or not, Myself, Phil Carli and my poor better-half Linda sitting on the back-half of the boat praying it wasn't going to sink), the park employees had all sorts of warning signs saying keep out of the deadly water (fears of flesh-eating bacteria I presume). We all amazingly made it back to shore.

Which always brings me to another thought any time I see A MUDDY ROMANCE or any poor comedian dog-paddling through Echo Lake's even-then slimy waters in those pre-anti-biotic days, those comedians were tough.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts
Which always brings me to another thought any time I see A MUDDY ROMANCE or any poor comedian dog-paddling through Echo Lake's even-then slimy waters in those pre-anti-biotic days, those comedians were tough.

My thoughts exactly. Even dunking in the studio tanks that probably sat there days on end. I have tremendous admiration and respect for these comedians and all that physical comedy they did, every day. For them, a work week was Monday-Saturday.

I noticed this on TCM this Thurs. on the Mack Sennett fest, at the 8pm slot, is this one of Harold Lloyd's first appearances?? Don't believe i ever saw it?

COURT HOUSE CROOKS (1915)
Cast: Charles Arling , Minta Durfee , Harold Lloyd .
BW-10 mins, TV-G,

I noticed this on TCM this Thurs. on the Mack Sennett fest, at the 8pm slot, is this one of Harold Lloyd's first appearances?? Don't believe i ever saw it?

COURT HOUSE CROOKS (1915)
Cast: Charles Arling , Minta Durfee , Harold Lloyd .
BW-10 mins, TV-G,

It's a goodie, but better make that 20 minutes, it's a two-reeler.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

The Knockout (1914) has sections that are being "projected" at 18fps and other sections that are running at 20fps, so removing the telecine is a bit of nightmare, but I was able to do it.

It always puzzles me why some video producers of silent films do this. I suppose they want to go with one speed and then change their mind later.

I noticed this on TCM this Thurs. on the Mack Sennett fest, at the 8pm slot, is this one of Harold Lloyd's first appearances?? Don't believe i ever saw it?

COURT HOUSE CROOKS (1915)
Cast: Charles Arling , Minta Durfee , Harold Lloyd .
BW-10 mins, TV-G,

It's been some years since I watched it now, but I remember COURT HOUSE CROOKS as one of the very best Keystones. Though the story is very simple, as should be expected, it provides less mayhem and more of a mature approach than the average Sennett-film, I think, and the sequence with the girl and the mirror is quite clever. Of course, it can be doubted if Keystone would've become so big had their majority of films been more like this one, but it's nice to see that they could, occasionally, make films different from their expected formula.

greta de groat
And which parks is it with the lake and little bridge that kept turning up in one film after another?

Echo park

http://historicechopark.org/id123.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

Hollenbeck Park also has a lake and a bridge, the films I've seen (admittedly, not a lot, I'm with Greta on the slapstick gene thing) seem to alternate park scenes between Echo Park and Hollenbeck.

Hollenbeck was where they shot the Laurel & Hardy short "Men O'War".

Hollenbeck was where they shot the Laurel & Hardy short "Men O'War".

And, it looks like, the opening scenes of the 1933 Columbia short UMPA and parts of the 1933 Paramount short SAILORS BEWARE!

And, I'm sure lots of others I can't think of right now...

Echo Park Lake is just under a mile from the Keystone Studio location. Hollenbeck Park is a touch over 5 miles from the Keystone.

[Christopher Jacobs]

While as I noted in my Cinecon review post in another thread, most of these are more historical curiosities than entertaining comedies,

Sez you Mr. Jacobs.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

I didn't mean to imply that I didn't enjoy seeing them (those alligator farm sequences were certainly something!), just saying YMMV, and I wouldn't expect more than a small percentage of today's film students to do more than tolerate them, if that. Of course all of us on Nitrateville are also "historical curiosities" and not always so amusing as Mack Sennett, so early Sennett rarities (or Vitagraph or Kalem or even late 20s Weiss Brothers) are exactly what we're often looking for (even if they're simply to see as a fellow historical curiosity). Still can't wait to order the Blu-ray release!