Tweet The full Napoleon to be screened in the US at last.....

Abel Gance created a masterpiece (more than one, but..) NAPOLEON - I'll write about my experience soon but thought you would like to read the letter from Kevin Brownlow (and Patrick Stanbury)http://looking-for-mabel.webs.com/napoleon2012sfsff.htm

Just up to go to work after flying in late from SF....I'll write more later.

For those going to the next screenings, two logistical things:
When intermission comes, hit the isles flying, because the bathrooms (as nice as they are) are in woefully short supply. The ladies' lounge in particular becomes utterly hopeless in terms of lines out the door, and people cannot get back to their seats in 20mins.

Secondly, RESERVE YOUR DINING TABLE AT A LOCAL PLACE because you will be scrambling with a lot of people to get food in you in the time allotted and Oakland is something of a desert, with Luka's the closest eating place (and always full.)

Other than that, an amazing, moving experience....well worth every penny spent.

More to follow.

Ok,
Back from work, Carl Davis' beautiful music on the Hi-Fi (they sell the CD of the shorter score at the theatre) and a cold beer next to me, some (personal) semi-coherent thoughts about That Week-End.

Had the pleasure of meeting our own Bob Furem twice (he came back for seconds after the Saturday screening) and breaking bread with him while talking film. I only wish we could have hooked up with more folks.



"Napoleon":
The film just gets better. By that I mean, the more they find, the deeper it runs, dramatic flaws and all. This is not a case of director overindulgence where the "padding" starts to show with the re-discoveries of footage. I walked out with the thought: "Well, it couldn't really be any shorter, could it? What would you take out?" The thing works that magic on you. 5-1/2 hours suddenly seem reasonable.

I am going by 30 years of memory here from "the Coppola", so forgive any imaginings:
The battle of Toulon seems to have gotten longer.
The examination of Josephine is quite a bit more complex, with a wonderful subplot about her maid Violine as a crazed Napoleon groupie adding some very emotional moments.
The Bal des Victimes is increasingly becoming a rather risque, almost Roaring 20es style flapper ball, with naughty bits and all, complemented by ogling hand-held camera work and Gance's speedy cutting.

On the technical side:
Running the film at a more reasonable speed than 24fps allows deliberately undercranked scenes to work their magic rather than look silly. It also gives the powerful close-ups their time to work (Dieudonne in particular.)
The dye bath tinting process is gorgeous. Subtle, glowing accents abounded.
I get the impression of a print that has fewer "peaks and valleys" in fluctuation between formats than I recall from "Coppola."

Big kudos to Boston Light and Sound for a superb presentation, with the projectionists very much on top of a difficult assignment. I was especially pleased to see how the "wing" projector operators would make frame-height adjustments live during the Triptychs to try to make the horizons across the three images match as well as they could.

The music:
Carl Davis' score is big, bold and emotional, yet also throttles down to a single instrument at times...the East Bay Symphony should be proud of their achievement with this project, as they played beautifully and appropriately throughout.

An amazing 35mm screening in an amazing theatre, with full orchestra...there is hope yet...

My evening was capped (crowned, really) with finally (after decades) being able to shake hands with Professor Brownlow and being able say "thank you" for being such an inspiration for me at an early age with "The Parade's Gone By." He graciously signed my commemorative booklet.

I am somewhat in debt right now, and I couldn't be happier about it....

Here's a rather neat screening report from someone who sketched the event:
http://www.baycitizen.org/drawing-crowds-1/interactive/napoleon-invades-oakland/

It was, quite simply, the greatest cinema event, ever. I am still in complete shellshock, a tremendous film and a phenominal presentation.

It was, quite simply, the greatest cinema event, ever. I am still in complete shellshock, a tremendous film and a phenominal presentation.

Donna,

Does greatest cinema event ever translate into greatest film ever? I felt the same shellshock last weekend. It abates eventually.

Today is April Fools’ Day. A post on Napoleon, the masterpiece of Abel Gance is now at Looking for Mabel there is also a new comic of Chester Conklin. Looking for Mabel is a website is dealing with Mabel Normand and her friends and era. So it isn’t as paradoxical as it might seem, Mabel would have understood. http://looking-for-mabel.webs.com/napoleonbygance.htm

It was, quite simply, the greatest cinema event, ever. I am still in complete shellshock, a tremendous film and a phenominal presentation.

Yeah...what she said.

At the first intermission the person sitting next to me said "words cannot begin to describe..."(She was speechless) The words I heard most at intermission were "hypnotised" and "mesmerized".

During the third intermission I said to my companions "We haven't even gotten to the best part yet" and they replied "You mean there is a better 'best part'?"
The triptych looked fabuous. The print was amazing. The orchestra sounded wonderful. Definately a better score than the Coppola one.
Kudos to everyone involved. An event to remember.

At the first intermission the person sitting next to me said "words cannot begin to describe..."(She was speechless) The words I heard most at intermission were "hypnotised" and "mesmerized".

Geez, I haven't seen the film and I'm not trying to be clever here but I am genuinely amazed that ANY film can be this important, unique, hypnotising or mesmerising...

...and, before anybody jumps in with "see the film before you comment", I am commenting on the reported reactions - not the film itself.

At the first intermission the person sitting next to me said "words cannot begin to describe..."(She was speechless) The words I heard most at intermission were "hypnotised" and "mesmerized".

Geez, I haven't seen the film and I'm not trying to be clever here but I am genuinely amazed that ANY film can be this important, unique, hypnotising or mesmerising...

Well perhaps you might be able to see something about Napoleon if you watched the documentary, "Cinema Europe, the other Hollywood." Contained in that excellent collection of film history are some actual 'making of' scenes that were filmed when Napoleon was being made. It's facinating and a good place to start.

Yes, I think that in many ways, "Napoleon" stands by itself and is without comparison. That's not saying it's the best film ever made...but simply that it is (as you asked), important, unique, hypnotising and mesmerizing. The film engages the audience in a way that few films do.

While I haven't seen the latest restoration, I probably know this film as well as anyone from repeated viewing (more than thirty times) and reading everything I could about it. "Napoleon" is unlike anything else I've seen and I continually return and watch all or parts of it.

It's the way that the story was assembled with so many camera tricks (I cannot think of anything he didn't do and and do repeatedly). Yes, some of them really seem excessive after repeated viewings, but even if those parts weren't there, it's still an editing marvel. It doesn't simply contain fade-in double exposures, or rapid movement scenes, nearly the entire film is a product of extensive editing of these effects that Gance somehow was able to assemble. Through it all, the viewer becomes involved emotionally as the flashing images and matching musical score show you a very glamorized piece of history. This Napoleon is larger than life!

You won't see a minute of film without seeing multiple images dissolve in and out of each other, and very often there will be more than one thought being expressed on the screen at a single moment. Every face in the frenzied crowd (these were the hundreds of extras in costume), all perform as if the story is really happening to them.

Gance carefully developed the love affair with Josephine, and we watch as the very busy Napoleon finds himself in love while he's trying to fight a battle. In what seems to be the comic relief of the story, he has someone (an actor), school him in the art of romancing a woman since he has never done this before. The marriage of the two is also fun since Napoleon has no patience for delays. Josephine part is also very well done.

Water and wind and snow play a big part in the story too. You can't help but laugh watching the water pour out the ends of those French and British hats. Watching the scenes where the soldiers struggle with turning the cannons in the mud, the troops trying to find rest standing in waist deep water and then the storm Napoleon endures in the little dingy are all very memorable indeed. After the battle is won, we see the victorious Napoleon standing among the dead and the dying...underscoring the horrors of war, even in victory.

In a word; Exciting. That's what Napoleon is to the interested viewer. That might help explain the comments from others.

Thank you for your well expressed reply.
I have to say, I've never come across such enthusiasm for a single screening of any film before - hence, my suspicion of hyperbole.

Thank you for your well expressed reply.
I have to say, I've never come across such enthusiasm for a single screening of any film before - hence, my suspicion of hyperbole.

The enthusiasm is coming from a wide variety of sources, including some level-headed film critics for major newspapers who do not effuse lightly. Imagine almost no one in the world had seen an opera for 75 years, then a brilliant one is staged in the best possible circumstances... people will be impressed. Reading the libretto, playing the music on your piano, and reading a description of how it used to be done would not prepare you for the impact of seeing the collaboration of so many people on a live work of art, in an architectural setting designed to impress.

And watching a DVD of it, if one is ever released, is probably still going to leave you a little baffled about the response. A postcard of the Golden Gate Bridge will never be as impressive as the Golden Gate Bridge.

And part of the charm of this event is its pure impracticality, with people who don't understand silent film saying it's "a colossal waste of money," so much so that it's unlikely to ever happen again. Good on you, San Francisco Silent Film Festival. Well done.

I for one am joining the chorus of how magnificent the film is. Napoleon is portrayed as a all powerful, passionate, uberconfident leader who triumphs over everything to become grand military leader. The editing is amazing, with multiple images and ideas atop each other, and sometimes multiple frames beside each other relating feelings and information. The section wooing Josephine is comic relief as well as a humanizing moment, showing that Napoleon is unschooled and unconfident in lovemaking. Carl Davis's magnificent score and the wonderful playing of the Oakland Symphony contribute to make the film an emotional, breaktaking piece of filmmaking. And the overwhelming audience reactions draw you in as well. It was an exhilarating event. Thanks to the San Francisco Silent Film Festival and Kevin Brownlow for providing us with such a wonderful and emotional day of movie watching.

Your mileage may vary as to what is the "greatest" film of all time, but as a spectacle, as an event, as a tribute and valedictory to Abel Gance, Kevin Bronwlow, and Carl Davis, and as a performance of "live cinema" (as Brownlow calls it), the confluence of elements that combined for the screening of Napoleon will likely never be surpassed. I'm so glad I went, and the feeling seemed unanimous. Kudos to all for the tremendous talent and hard work that went into staging this unforgettable event.

So glad to hear the two remaining screenings went off without a hitch and with the same emotional impact as when I saw it on the 25th. All the players of the East Bay Symphony can look back with pride on 4 very special performances.

I guess now the print travels back to London.....

Thank you for your well expressed reply.
I have to say, I've never come across such enthusiasm for a single screening of any film before - hence, my suspicion of hyperbole.

I'll join that chorus and repeat what Donna said--this was the single most transcendent film-going experience of my life. That is not just because of the film, although the film is a huge part of it. The Paramount Theater is breathtaking, a gorgeous, lovingly maintained art deco movie palace, I could not think of a better place to experience this event. The Oakland-East Bay Orchestra played their collective guts out, and Davis's score is magnificent; lots of Beethoven, but what could be more appropriate for Napoleon than the Eroica? Is Napoleon the greatest film ever made? Of course not, that's Real Genius. Is it a great film? Yes it is, and no dvd will ever do it justice, and if that's the only way you've seen it, then you haven't seen it. I was sitting with Patrick Stanbury and when that triptych started, I grabbed his jacket sleeve and...well, thank heavens the jacket was well constructed, because I almost yanked the sleeve off. When the film finished even he gave the orchestra a Big Standing O. People in the balcony were turning around to give him a Big Standing O. The production was the very definition of great showmanship. Big kudos to them, to Kevin and Patrick, to the Oakland East Bay Symphony, to Carl Davis, to Abel Gance, and to the San Francisco Silent Film Festival.

My only regret is that I did not go see this a second time. The images that are seared on my brain, wow.

Fred is right, it was the total package, as John B said, this is what Photoplays' "live cinema" is all about. You cannot package this in a clamshell case and expect to be as blown away as the audience was. Three 80" tv sets lined up would not recreate the triptychs, this really REALLY is a film you need to see on the BIG screen(s) with an audience.

This was a perfect mixture, the venue was incredible, the sound coming out of the Oakland East Bay Orchestra was amazing (they're not a large full size orchestra) and Beethoven never sounded so grand. The film was incredible. I cannot comment on whether or not it is the greatest film of all time, it certainly is (to me) in the pantheon of one of the greatest. The technical aspects of the film, to me are astonishing. As an event, amazing. The shared experience of the audience was infectious. The hours flew like minutes (to paraphrase Addison Dewitt).

For me, it's an experience I can never forget. This was a grand event, the San Francisco Silent Film Festival deserves great kudos for taking the risk on this. It was a huge success and I'm so damned glad I went. To miss it was not an option.

Lastly, to share it with friends old and new, indescribable. It was great to be with Frederica, Greta, Missdupont, Penfold, Rollot24 Silentechoes and bunches of other non-Nville peeps. What a night it was!

From what I understand, it's going to be presented over here in the UK in late 2013. Is this correct?
If so, does anyone know why the long gap between the Oakland and the London?

From what I understand, it's going to be presented over here in the UK in late 2013. Is this correct?
If so, does anyone know why the long gap between the SF and the London?

If this version screens anywhere again within 1000 miles from you, do not miss it. That's my advice. Hopefully you will come close to experiencing what we just did, at least in part. Although Penfold told me there is no venue anything close to the Paramount in London.

From what I understand, it's going to be presented over here in the UK in late 2013. Is this correct?
If so, does anyone know why the long gap between the SF and the London?

If this version screens anywhere again within 1000 miles from you, do not miss it. That's my advice. Hopefully you will come close to experiencing what we just did, at least in part. Although Penfold told me there is no venue anything close to the Paramount in London.

I've never been to the Paramount, but from what I've read and seen, no there isn't anywhere comparable here.

Well, I'm certainly hooked on the idea of seeing it now.

My only regret is that I did not go see this a second time. The images that are seared on my brain, wow.

Like I said above, "what she said". If I could have, I would have. However, they were expecting a sell out for the final show. I hope it was.

In the four screenings and dozens of VHS and Laserdisc viewings I have seen, the version presented in Oakland with the footage not shown in this country tops all of them. From the anticipation of the event to the actual presentation, this may well be the single greatest motion picture experience I've ever been witness to.

On March 31st, the performance I attended, Carl Davis received a standing ovation every time he appeared before the beginning of each act. By the fourth act, he had to pause because the entire audience was up on their feet and wouldn't subside its cheers. He was a rock star that night.

In what has to be the most elegant gesture and classiest of moves, Kevin Brownlow did not appear on stage at any time. He let Carl and the orchestra take full command of the film and sat with the other 3,300 attendees as his reconstruction unfolded. At one point, someone congratulated Kevin on his "wonderful job on the film". He smiled at the woman and politely said, "I didn't make the film".

As for the four evenings at the Paramount, the benchmark has been set; it may never be topped.

In the four screenings and dozens of VHS and Laserdisc viewings I have seen, the version presented in Oakland with the footage not shown in this country tops all of them. From the anticipation of the event to the actual presentation, this may well be the single greatest motion picture experience I've ever been witness to.

On March 31st, the performance I attended, Carl Davis received a standing ovation every time he appeared before the beginning of each act. By the fourth act, he had to pause because the entire audience was up on their feet and wouldn't subside its cheers. He was a rock star that night.

In what has to be the most elegant gesture and classiest of moves, Kevin Brownlow did not appear on stage at any time. He let Carl and the orchestra take full command of the film and sat with the other 3,300 attendees as his reconstruction unfolded. At one point, someone congratulated Kevin on his "wonderful job on the film". He smiled at the woman and politely said, "I didn't make the film".

Kevin and Patrick finally appeared on stage at film end on Sunday, the last evening. Because of the cost and time factor, the orchestra wasn't allowed the curtain calls we would have been happy to give them and which they so richly deserved. The social aspect is an important one for me, and I so enjoyed meeting some people this weekend whom I've only had virtual communications with heretofore. I knew other people were there, but the theater is so big there was no way to find them. Donna, Penfold, Patrick, Greta and Ray De Groat and I had a fabulous VietNamese meal for dinner, too.

It being San Francisco, even the airport was more fun than is usual. Instead of a tacky "My parents went to San Francisco and all I got was this dumb T-Shirt" souvenir, I got artisanal cheese--a lovely Redwood Hill Farm California Crottin (creamy texture, delicious buttery flavor). Does that paragraph belong in the "One Cheese..." thread?

Frederica,

I do wish I had seen the cheese shop! I'd been hauling home a couple pounds of something good myself.
(I am assuming no Wensleydale was available.. )

I traveled from Dallas TX to see it on the 24th.




All the superlatives you read above and explanations of why they are not hyperbole are all true. There is nothing like "Napoleon" as presented on these occasions in these RARE A-list circumstances.

Part of what makes this amazing is that the subject, Napoleon, is not something most people, myself included, would go out of their way to see, but you are roped in very quickly none-the-less and by the end of the movie you are wishing you could go join up. This is "Napoleon: the early years" before he went to the dark side. This is Napoleon, the Dream.

Part of it is that you know that it's all really there. Except for a few miniatures and maybe a few matte paintings it's all real and you are gobsmacked by the knowledge that Gance somehow assembled all this in front of a camera without drowning or trampling or killing anyone. This isn't a CG army of Orcs that can be directed with mouse-clicks, these are real mobs

Part of it is that it looks so different from other films of that time. There's an enormous amount of hand-held camera footage doing crazy viewpoint stuff. Honestly, some of it looked a bit too much like home movies.

It has no "stars" that we remember and yet they all do a great job.

When it's funny, it's FUNNY, when it's sad it's HEARTBREAKING, when it's exciting it's AMAZING. How often do you get a film by anyone that is all that?

The presentation with a large live orchestra is essential. It can never be as loud as a modern theater sound system but the fact that they are there is daring in a way that a recorded soundtrack can never be. I also noted that the acoustics of the Paramount Theater were surprisingly good. Apparently the Oakland East Bay Symphony also plays its regular concert series in that venue, although not "in the pit".

It occurs to me that one advantage a silent movie has over a "talkie" is that the music doesn't have to be dimmed down while someone is "speaking". Napoleon has an extended speech at the end but the music never needs to recede while he's doing it.

And then the "Polyvision" finale... is beyond anything I've ever seen and I have seen a real Cinerama movie too which is about the only thing similar.

Technically, the Polyvision was very rough, the panoramic images never quite line up, but what he does with it in terms of montages and superimpositions and plain wild spectacle is so powerful that none of that matters. I can't imagine how he was able to conceive it all in a time when non-linear editing just didn't exist. Obviously a very powerful brain at work.

I went to see "The Artist" last night. A fine movie and well-done homage to silent film.

But "The Artist" is a 90 minute modern recreation of a warm campfire you might enjoy roasting marshmallows over. "Napoleon" is a five and a half hour thermonuclear blast somehow created with stone knives and bearskins that you are thrilled to be blown away by.

After you've seen "Napoleon" like I've seen it, all movies will be trifles from here on out.

I spent $800 on this trip to see a movie, a rare extravagance for me, and I don't regret a penny of it. (well, maybe the $18 I spent on the SF Museum of Modern Art the next day. Mostly crap.)

IF you are planning a European vacation and the rumored 2013 screening in London is a reality I would recommend targeting that date.

One more thing... the place seats 3400 and it was almost full. I've never been to a movie with a crowd like that before.

That's a dynamic you can't get at home or in the modern multi-plex.

Robcat2075
I read your post and was transported back to the première of the live cinema performance of Napoleon; yes your insights hit the absolutely right tone. Thanks so much for sharing…I think from this time forward, we as Kevin Brownlow wrote will be able to say “WE WERE THERE”

I traveled from Dallas TX to see it on the 24th.
Part of what makes this amazing is that the subject, Napoleon, is not something most people, myself included, would go out of their way to see, but you are roped in very quickly none-the-less and by the end of the movie you are wishing you could go join up. This is "Napoleon: the early years" before he went to the dark side. This is Napoleon, the Dream.

There is a foreshadowing of the Dark Side when he communes with the ghosts of Danton, Robespierre, Marat, and Saint Just, promising he will carry on the ideals of the Revolution and export them to Europe...via fire and sword, if necessary. There were a lot of Europeans who would have welcomed the export (Beethoven among them). But the "You need a Fearless Leader and it's pretty much ME!" statement sets off warning bells.

Ok, i've been mulling this over for a couple of days and need to get this off my chest.

Yes, this was an incredible viewing experience. The venue was fantastic, the Paramount is an Art Deco dream come true (The mezzanine ladies powder room is right out of The Women). The music was incredible, really top notch and got a well deserved ovation. It was so fun getting to see and talk to so many of you, and enjoyed the really yummy Vietnamese dinner. And glad to see that a few of you made it to Niles the next day, too.

As for the film itself, i have mixed feelings about that. It is an incredibly impressive, bold, and audacious film, and watching it in these circumstances is an unforgettable experience. But it is also grandiose and self-indulgent. Certainly Gance picked a subject he was sympathetic with, as one megalomaniac's tribute to another. And Napoleon is at least a subject big enough to stand up to such a treatment--in contrast to La Roue, with a slight story blown up to grotesque proportions.

For me the first 2 hours worked the best, despite the over the top hagiography (which i often found excessive to the point of amusement). I thought it worked well dramatically and the technique is overwhelming, particularly in the double storm sequence that left me exhausted (and somewhat seasick). One of the most incredible pieces of filmmaking i've ever seen. Actually if the film had ended there, i'd have been happy.

The Battle of Toulon eventually got to be somewhat trying for me, it was spatially incoherent, and the red tinting eventually made me feel like i was seeing the film in a dark room. Oddly, the third part of the film contained the parts that i remembered most clearly from the 1981 showing--the man who eats the documents (which may say something about who i think is the real hero of the film) and the Terror survivor's ball. This part was interesting (and more straightforward technically), but did drag in some places and it could lose the whole subplot with Annabella, which was definitely the weakest part of the film.

The polyvision is cool, even though the joins are not seamless, and very exciting (i remembered clearly the horse running across all 3 screens). But since there wasn't really much narrative content to it, just Napoleon giving imperialistic speeches and rallying the troops to invade Italy, i'm afraid that all that spectacle just made me think of Triumph of the Will.

Deudonne isn't that great an actor but for the most part he doesn't have to be. The woman playing Josephine was very striking. Robespierre was great, and Gance cast himself well as Saint-Just (loved the earrings). We were speculating over dinner on why Marat was wearing a leopard skin (i just checked, it's definitely not in the David painting). What was with that guy with the rabbit?

Anyway, despite the misgivings, it was a great show and i'm really glad to have been able to experience this extraordinary event.

greta

Gance cast himself well as Saint-Just (loved the earrings). greta

I thought he looked like Gene Wilder.