Tweet THE LETTER (1929) on DVD!

Warner Archive today releases the Jeanne Eagels version of "The Letter" -- they say it was "thought lost for years," although I saw it in 1975 at the AFI in Washington. Sixty minutes seems a bit short for the length, but IMDB clocks it at 65 ... I don't see anything about restoration ...

Here's a link to today's Warner Archive release list:
http://yfrog.com/z/hsbnm0j

on the website it says it has not been restored or remastered.....

If it's anything like the version that played at MOMA a couple of years ago, it's plenty good. If you haven't see it, buy it and look at it as soon as possible. Miss Eagels gives a performance as magnificent as any I've ever seen -- the only thing comparable was seeing Joan Allen on stage in THE HEIDI CHRONICLES.

Bob

Cinecon showed it several years ago, and it looked fine, if a little stagy.

I was at the Cinecon screening in 2004; unfortunately whoever gave the introduction hyped the film and Eagels's performance so much that it (and she) couldn't possibly live up to the resulting expectations (I can speak only for myself, of course). At that time, it was mentioned that the '29 version was going to be included with the dvd release of the '41 version, but I guess that didn't happen, so it's nice to have it available now.

~Roger

Eagels is magnificent in the courtroom scene.

Just placed the order.

OHHH MAN I never seen 1929 Letter Bette Davis one YEAH there was 1929 version I hear that it really pre code this version

Show all warts and all

Lo! I guess Warner's bought up the rights from Paramount when they re-made this film in the 40's. I wasn't aware of that. However, I don't recall ever seeing the 1929 version on TCM before? Now what about MAN, WOMAN & SIN???

:o Lo! I guess Warner's bought up the rights from Paramount when they re-made this film in the 40's. I wasn't aware of that. However, I don't recall ever seeing the 1929 version on TCM before? Now what about MAN, WOMAN & SIN???

The problem with THE LETTER was clearing a clip from (I believe) an Ufa film. The problem with MAN ,WOMAN & SIN is that the print is held by WB/Turner, and the rights are held by NBC Universal. That's a knottier (and probably more expensive) situation to clear up.

dr, giraud,

Thanks for the response. I was not aware of that either. Kevin Brownlow mentioned that there were lingering rights issues back in May of 2008, but He did not elaborate on what they were.

I think that what was Gagman

Who really own the rights

Been wanting to see this film for ages. Can't wait to see if Jeanne Eagels lives up to all or some of the hype I have heard and read. I will be happy if its just a very good transitional talkie film of the period.

Just my opinion - but I think Eagels' performance is the greatest sound performance ever put on film by an actress. The court room scene is simply as good an acting job as one can find; a sort of lesson, if you will...

Did I not say on a blog here this week that this was to be with the Bette Davis version and covers printed with that information? Thus the film might have already been restored for that version as best as possible at that time and had to be withdrawn for some legality and covers reprinted. The Davis was then included in a later Davis set as well but still no Jeanne Eagels. the Davis had been part of a "What do you want" 20 titles survey a few years ago.

Just my opinion - but I think Eagels' performance is the greatest sound performance ever put on film by an actress. The court room scene is simply as good an acting job as one can find; a sort of lesson, if you will...

Her acting was "letter-perfect" one might say...

I enjoyed this very much. (Watched it twice last night. It's only 60 minutes, why not?)

Eagles is a live-wire, especially in the opening scene with Herbert Marshall (in his great pre-stodgy days) and at the end with (stodgy) Reginald Owen.

The mongoose and snake clip that held up the release is only seconds long. (Animals were definitely harmed in the filming of this scene.)

Can someone explain why this version would be missing the opening, end and some incidental music? Was this a "work print?"

I just saw it from Classic Flix

Eagels in the courtroom scene had me believing that she was telling the truth in spite of what the audience had just seen! Amazing acting.

I didn't understand why the snake/mongoose scene had to be included anyway (I barely watched, it was pretty grotesque) as it looked to be from another film.

So she was nominated for the Oscar posthumously? She should have won.

Saw this one recently. The Warner Archive print is VERY beautiful for one that hasn't had the massive digital overhaul of their Wizard Of Oz releases and such. And what a performance by Ms. Eagels! I haven't seen the Bette Davis one yet - I'm a fan of Bette, so I'm sure her performance is spectacular as well - but this one was a nice treat.

Saw this one recently. The Warner Archive print is VERY beautiful for one that hasn't had the massive digital overhaul of their Wizard Of Oz releases and such. And what a performance by Ms. Eagels! I haven't seen the Bette Davis one yet - I'm a fan of Bette, so I'm sure her performance is spectacular as well - but this one was a nice treat.

You should love the Bette Davis version. A more polished and developed film generally. Not only is Bette in one of her best roles but James Stephenson as the lawyer is equally brilliant. Rare to see two players going head to head with outstanding performances in the one film. Victor Sen Yung is also brilliant as the law clerk. The ending is different as this is a post code film but leaves a lot of uncertainty as to whether a muderer has gotten away or not with her crime.

Saw this one recently. The Warner Archive print is VERY beautiful for one that hasn't had the massive digital overhaul of their Wizard Of Oz releases and such. And what a performance by Ms. Eagels! I haven't seen the Bette Davis one yet - I'm a fan of Bette, so I'm sure her performance is spectacular as well - but this one was a nice treat.

You should love the Bette Davis version. A more polished and developed film generally. Not only is Bette in one of her best roles but James Stephenson as the lawyer is equally brilliant. Rare to see two players going head to head with outstanding performances in the one film. Victor Sen Yung is also brilliant as the law clerk. The ending is different as this is a post code film but leaves a lot of uncertainty as to whether a muderer has gotten away or not with her crime.

For reasons I can't now remember, I missed the showing of this film at Cinecon, and just had my first viewing this weekend. And my last, thank you very much. Although it is an interesting curio, it didn't even come close to dislodging the infinitely more cinematic Wyler version from my affections, and frankly, I found Eagels irritating and twitchy.

Just for the record, i reviewed this back on this year's movie night thread

http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.p ... =60#p76814

and i loved it!

greta