Tweet Seventh Heaven (27)

I watched the Fox/BFI disc today. Is this from an inferior print?

Well, if it's like the print in the R1 Murnau, Borzage, & Fox box set, it's definitely worn, but it comes "from the best materials available," according to the disclaimer at the beginning.

[Danny Burk]

I've never seen a print that wasn't quite soft.

This wasn't soft - just well worn. There were a couple scenes where I thought it had started to rain heavily!
The liner notes do say that it's from the best available materials so I guess it must be!!??

I was pretty sure I'd heard about a MoMA print which was excellent - perhaps I'm thinking of a different film.

I've never seen a print that wasn't quite soft.

I saw a print of Seventh Heaven at UCLA about 5 years ago in their Janet Gaynor retrospective that was better than any print I had seen before and better than any of the DVDs, including the one in the Fox box set.

The UCLA print wasn't soft, but it did show off the atmospheric photography to it's best advantage. I can't recall if it was a print that UCLA had in their archive or if it came from somewhere else. I could look it up if anyone is interested, as I still have the program from the "Janet Gaynor: A Star is Reborn" series.

[Danny Burk]

Interesting - I haven't seen the UCLA print. I've seen MOMA, the old Blackhawk Super-8, a DVD released in Spain (official, not bootleg), and the newer Fox Murnau/Borzage DVD (but not the BFI blu-ray), and all seemed to be from the same source.

I recently rented this from Netflix and atmospheric best describes my impression.

Parts of the film were sharp and clear while other images appeared to be filmed through a gauze. The lighting on the taxi driver's face was so bright that much of his feautures are washed out, yet I can clearly seen small details of his clothing and hands (in the same frame).

It's seemed to have been done intentionally and not the result of a worn film. Some of the sewer scenes in the begining were crystal clear.

Well, I have the Borzage-Murnau set. I haven't seen the BFI release, or the new French Blu-Ray, but I was was hoping they were both better transfers. To me it looked like they poured some money into new transfers of SUNRISE, and LUCKY STAR, but not so much for SEVENTH HEAVEN or STREET ANGEL. I have also heard tell the that the MoMA not only has better elements, despite what Fox says, but a longer Road Show version of the film, containing as much as 15 minutes of extra footage. I know people who have seen it, and they describe scenes not in any VHS or DVD version that I have seen over the years.

Here is part of the problem. The original camera negative is lost. Destroyed in the 1937 Fox Studio Vault fire. So that is part of the reason for the softness. However, we heard the same thing for years about WAY DOWN EAST, until Kino released a new transfer from the MoMA Archive a couple three years ago. Much crisper than anything that had been in circulation in decades. So who knows?

SEVENTH HEAVEN is one of my favorite films. STREET ANGEL is finally running on TCM in February to my knowledge for the very first time. Sadly SEVENTH HEAVEN isn't on the schedule yet.

Interesting - I haven't seen the UCLA print. I've seen MOMA, the old Blackhawk Super-8, a DVD released in Spain (official, not bootleg), and the newer Fox Murnau/Borzage DVD (but not the BFI blu-ray), and all seemed to be from the same source.

I have seen all the same ones you have, including the Killiam (Blackhawk), the DVD from Spain, etc. I think the one at UCLA may have been a print from MOMA, and it was definitely not the same as the others, it was markedly superior.

I have also heard tell the that the MoMA not only has better elements, despite what Fox says, but a longer Road Show version of the film, containing as much as 15 minutes of extra footage. I know people who have seen it, and they describe scenes not in any VHS or DVD version that I have seen over the years.

This matches up with what I have been saying. I saw SH at UCLA, which I think was the MOMA print, and it is definitely better visually than the other versions I have seen. I think it is longer, but no way is it 15 mins longer. 2-3 minutes maybe, but just in snippets where scenes were edited a little differently. There is no big difference where there is a whole new scene or a different ending or anything like that.

For me, "Seventh Heaven" seemed more like watching a stage play than seeing a movie. I don't know if I would ever watch it again.

I story needs to be more believable before it can become one of my favorite films. This has nothing to do with image quality which felt was adequate.

For me, "Seventh Heaven" seemed more like watching a stage play than seeing a movie. I don't know if I would ever watch it again.

I story needs to be more believable before it can become one of my favorite films. This has nothing to do with image quality which felt was adequate.

Well, Seventh Heaven is allegory, so realism and believability is not what you should be looking for. Just the opposite, in fact.

As a side comment, I think the talkie version works pretty well, retains the allegorical qualities. I was kind of surprised by that. It is not that easy to pull off in a sound film.

Big Silent Fan,

Huh! How can you not like SEVENTH HEAVEN? Frankly it is a 10 times better film than MARE NOSTRUM. Were you seeing it with the Movie-tone track??? While based on a Stage-play, I don't see anything remotely Stagy about the film. Moreno and Terry have positively zero chemistry together. At least in what survives. By stark contrast, Gaynor and Farrell are pure magic.

Big Silent Fan,

Huh! How can you not like SEVENTH HEAVEN? Frankly it is a 10 times better film than MARE NOSTRUM. Were you seeing it with the Movie-tone track??? While based on a Stage-play, I don't see anything remotely Stagy about the film. Moreno and Terry have positively zero chemistry together. At least in what survives. By stark contrast, Gaynor and Farrell are pure magic.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I've always been puzzled by SEVENTH HEAVEN, particularly its literal third-act deus ex machina and tonally off battlefield sequences. This doesn't mean I dislike it; on the contrary, I find it to be a soulful, poignant, exquisitely made production with two stars who are, as you put it, "pure magic"... but I've never counted it amongst my favorite Borzage films. I can't explain it, really. The enthusiastic praise others have showered on it suggests that I might not have been in the right frame of mind for Borzage's strangely ethereal film; I do need to re-watch it, because my memories of certain sequences (the haunting staircase scenes, for instance) makes me think I'd change my mind completely with a second viewing.

But I'm curious. Are there prints of SEVENTH HEAVEN that have a different score other than the Movietone track? If so, I might track that version down, as I recall the sound quality of that track being a little tinny on the copy I saw.

Chuck W,

Don't worry, the Movie-Tone score is cleaned up nicely on the Murnau-Borzage set. Although, there are a few short adjusted edits. I assume that it sounds the same on the BFI DVD's. I happen to love the Movie-tone score. I think it's one of the best vintage tracks to any Silent film. The only other score that I know of is the William Perry Piano one from the very early 70's. Not one of his better efforts by the way. And I generally think highly of Bill's work.

Perhaps you need to be in the right frame of mind to enjoy `Seventh Heaven'. It plays particularly well in front of an audience, I've found (though that could be said of most silent films), and it has that slightly mystical tone that wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea.

[spoilers]

To me, the deux ex machina sums up the whole point of the movie - it's about fate throwing together Diane and Chico, connecting them in an almost supernatural way, and making sure they remain together against all odds. On the surface, that's the theme of many films, but fate in `Seventh Heaven' is almost like an offscreen character - a literal, in-story deus ex machina.

I can understand why some people find that aspect of the film a little off-putting (if you can't buy that individuals can be psychically connected across great distances, you're not going to buy that almost supernatural cases of luck or coincidence could reunite them) - or why you could watch it one day and find it sentimental gumbo, and another day and find it profoundly touching.

Big Silent Fan,

How can you not like SEVENTH HEAVEN? Frankly it is a 10 times better film than MARE NOSTRUM. Were you seeing it with the Movie-tone track??? Moreno and Terry have positively zero chemistry together.
Gaynor and Farrell are pure magic.

Are you suggesting that Gaynor & Farrell had chemistry in this? What kind of Chemistry was there in this loveless story?

I had no problems with the score since it matched what was seen on the screen.

"Seventh Heaven" begins just like a play (the scene in the sewer where we're introduced to the main character). The way the two sisters were introduced had me quickly loosing interest with all that arm twisting and whipping.

Time and time again, Farrell utters his boastful cliche about how smart he is, while carefully reminding the girl that this relationship is strictly business. Whatever it was, I didn't see anything to the relationship.

Then there's that "Comrade" character who lives across the roof and comes in through the window.

All the scenes between the two sisters are frankly unbelievable enough, but the clincher is at the end. It's a stupid Hollywood ending.

After the film finally gave us one real dramatization (his death on the battlefield), complete with his dying words to be sent home...we have to see this guy returning home by some unexplained miracle? No explaination required? That's a conclusion I cannot accept.

It's like watching a Titanic film where everyone survives.

I won't bother to mention that Taxi Cab assult on the Germans. This story is mostly a comedy, pretending to be drama.

I much prefer "Mare Nostrum" to this impossible story.

BTW: Who was that enchanting woman really? A Goddess or an Enemy Agent? To it's credit, "Mare Nostrum" actually leaves the question unanswered.

Well, I have many friends who consider SEVENTH HEAVEN the best film that have ever seen. No one has ever told me that MARE NOSTRUM was the best film they had ever seen. In-fact, what they said is it's to bad SEVENTH HEAVEN doesn't exist in such pristine condition. What did you think of STREET ANGEL and LUCKY STAR?

Let's find something we can agree on. What about OLD HEIDELBERG? I recorded THE STUDENT PRINCE (1952) last night aand watched it this afternoon. The sound, songs and Technicolor certainly didn't result in a better film. It's a pale shadow of the Lubitsch classic. I was surprised how bad it was. None of the heart felt emotion of the 1927 production.

:o Well, I have many friends who consider SEVENTH HEAVEN the best film that have ever seen. No one has ever told me that MARE NOSTRUM was the best film they had ever seen.

So I'm not misunderstood, "Mare Nostrum" certainly is not the best film I've ever seen...far from it. I've got too many favorite films to even consider adding either of these two films mentioned in this thread.

It's fine if you feel "Seventh Heaven" is a really great film (we all have our own tastes afterall).

Having just watched "Seventh Heaven," I am simply providing another point of view, complete with explainations since my original comment was challenged.

All the scenes between the two sisters are frankly unbelievable enough, but the clincher is at the end. It's a stupid Hollywood ending.

After the film finally gave us one real dramatization (his death on the battlefield), complete with his dying words to be sent home...we have to see this guy returning home by some unexplained miracle? No explanation required? That's a conclusion I cannot accept.

I very much like this film, but I agree with you about the ending. It's simply not remotely swallowable. Rather like the endings of two other films I mostly like, THE WIND and CITY GIRL. I really, really hate it when they muck up an ending. Especially CITY GIRL. I hope that absolutely ridiculous ending was studio-imposed, and not Murnau's fault.

Are you suggesting that Gaynor & Farrell had chemistry in this? What kind of Chemistry was there in this loveless story?
[/quote]

I find the relationship between Gaynor and Farrell quite convincing and powerful. It is by no means a balanced or "enlightened" relationship, but Farrell pulls Gaynor off the street and gives her a place to stay and -- more importantly -- confidence in herself, and she falls really hard (and very convincingly, to me, Gaynor was a brilliant actress) for him. He's a cynical, arrogant, but still likable fellow (because of his inherent optimism and his knee-jerk response of doing the right thing whenever he doesn't over-think it), who can't even bring himself to say "I love you," but comes up with something even more romantic. Compare this to the romance between the leads in, oh, I don't know, Camille, La Boheme, Nosferatu, The Cameraman, Flesh and the Devil, Girl Shy, Phantom of the Opera, Tumbleweeds, Sunrise, Faust, The Mark of Zorro, name just about any dozen other great silent movies. This one wins, in my opinion.

Then there's that "Comrade" character who lives across the roof and comes in through the window.

What of him? It's a French movie after the revolution. Working class people called each other "comrade." He's part of a comic device -- despite his communist language and his belief in the dignity of the working man, he still has a very strict idea of the proper class structure among Parisian city workers. But when the war scenes come, he's the one with a wife and baby at home, and that makes the war more weighty than just an inconvenience to two young lovers.

Also, the use of taxis in the Battle of the Marne is a true event (you can google it, it pops right up.) It probably wasn't very significant militarily, but it was huge in terms of giving Parisians morale in WWI, and was perfectly legitimate to use in this story. It's played for comedy, because as you note, this movie is a romantic comedy set in war time.

Since I'm usually a realist when it comes to films, I also find the ending a bit of a cheat -- though it's totally consistent with other Borzage films I've seen, and a completely Hollywood thing to do. E.T., anyone? I find that it's explained pretty well by Brooksie above.

On to the quality of prints, I noticed that the Murnau/Borzage boxed set has a short duplicated scene (where Chico is asking Mr. Boul to start his taxi, we get the title "Crank up Eloise!" and the following reaction shots twice). I'm curious if this is present in other video versions. There are also places where the music suddenly cuts off, which makes me think that the surviving print doesn't exactly match the Movietone discs.

The Kansas Silent FIlm Festival will be running this Feb 26 from a collector's 16mm print, so I'll report on that, for what it's worth. And Mont Alto is creating a new score, if anyone wants to see if hearing Diane played live in the concert hall makes a difference over hearing it on Movietone (and I agree, Erno Rapee made a fine score, and I've borrowed from it shamelessly).

With a new score in our repertoire, I'm naturally curious about where the 35mm print for the UCLA showing came from, and I'd probably be able to identify if there's more than a dozen seconds of extra material in the print (since our score will get out of sync at those points).

With a new score in our repertoire, I'm naturally curious about where the 35mm print for the UCLA showing came from, and I'd probably be able to identify if there's more than a dozen seconds of extra material in the print (since our score will get out of sync at those points).

As I suspected it was the MOMA print that UCLA ran. As shown here:

http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/calendar/cal ... e=2&id=202

They list the running time as 120m. The DVD in the Fox Murnau/Borzage box has a running time of 1:58:36. The Blu Ray from Europe says 110m.

They list the running time as 120m. The DVD in the Fox Murnau/Borzage box has a running time of 1:58:36. The Blu Ray from Europe says 110m.

The BFI DVD has 114min.

and she falls really hard (and very convincingly, to me, Gaynor was a brilliant actress) for him.

I totally agree.
This was the stand-out point of the movie for me.

I just hated the ending. It was all wrong. Didn't Chico die right in front of the priest's eyes in the trenches?? The very same priest who comes to tell Diane of his death???

and she falls really hard (and very convincingly, to me, Gaynor was a brilliant actress) for him.

I just hated the ending. It was all wrong. Didn't Chico die right in front of the priest's eyes in the trenches?? The very same priest who comes to tell Diane of his death???

Again, it is allegory. Think of the ending as something that Diane has dreamed or wished for.

The BFI DVD has 114min.

Have you actually timed it? All of the advertising I have seen, including here says 110m, but it would not be unusual for the publicity to be wrong.

Have you actually timed it?

Nope. The accompanying booklet has it at 114.

This one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Frank-Borzage-V ... 969&sr=8-1

The boxed-set release starts with almost a minute of music with a black screen, which might affect comparing the run times (does the BFI version do this?) It was fairly common for live orchestra shows of silent films to start with the music only as a kind of overture, then start running the movie a minute or two in (the printed score for Wings does this). Or it could be that the discs were created for a version with more opening titles that have been lost (the cue sheet score for The Thief of Bagdad suggests an extra opening cue to use if you've got the print with long titles).

Then there's that "Comrade" character who lives across the roof and comes in through the window.

What of him? It's a French movie after the revolution. Working class people called each other "comrade."
Also, the use of taxis in the Battle of the Marne is a true event (you can google it, it pops right up.) It probably wasn't very significant militarily, but it was huge in terms of giving Parisians morale in WWI, and was perfectly legitimate to use in this story. It's played for comedy, because as you note, this movie is a romantic comedy set in war time.

I was simply using "Comrade character" as a way of identifying the actor (I don't remember any name). I hadn't had any problem with him other than what I wrote.

Yes, I very much enjoyed Janet Gaynor's performance and her almost childlike love for...what was his name? Chico?

I did get the impression that the taxicab assault was true history, but it still didn't add anything to the story for me. I was trying to follow Gaynor and Ferrell and he wasn't involved in that scene as I remember.

It was more of a sub-plot, and they can often be distracting.

I should also end this by saying that no, I did not dislike the film. I watched it as if it were a stage play (which it was).

I've only explained why my opinion of it is not the same as others may have. Written (critical) comments can too easily be misread as attacks. That was never my intention.

I very much like this film, but I agree with you about the ending. It's simply not remotely swallowable. Rather like the endings of two other films I mostly like, THE WIND and CITY GIRL. I really, really hate it when they muck up an ending. Especially CITY GIRL. I hope that absolutely ridiculous ending was studio-imposed, and not Murnau's fault.

"City Girl" is also a favorite of mine, and I agree partially with you.

At least in "City Girl," we have the tramatic scene where the father shoots his own son, before having a change of heart.

Like with "The Wind," these happy endings at least are somewhat believable. That's very important to me when watching dramas. They must be believable and I approached "Seventh Heaven" as if it were a drama.