Tweet His Glorious Night (1929)

Having seen the print quality from the clip in Paul Merton's documentary last night is there any reason, other than commerciality, why this film has never been released? Going on the Phantom of the Opera principle I assume it's a film that many members of this site and numerous others besides would shell out a reasonable sum for particularly if an overdue bio doc on Gilbert was included.

According to imdb:

This film has been restored and preserved for historical purposes, and is presently owned and controlled by Paramount Pictures [us] who bought the rights from MGM when they remade it as A Breath of Scandal.

The clip included by Merton is the one that's always trotted out - it was in the Star Treatment episode of Hollywood and in When the Lion Roars, among other documentaries I've seen.

The film is in Library of Congress and perhaps other archives. IMO this a a film TCM should show.

This is one of the films I want most to see.

Kevin Brownlow told me he's seen it and thought it flat. Leatrice Fountain writes that it's a pleasant little comedy.

Reports that people laughed at Gilbert have sort of lost context over the decades that the film hasn't been seen. It was a comedy for pete's sake....

Presumably, therefore, since Paramount owns the rights there will be no release of any sort. As I have posted on another thread once a film has been produced before living memory (say 100 years minus minimum attendance age) there should be a burden of proof of use/intention of use on the rightsholder absent which the film becomes a historical document and available for release upon reasonable commercial terms and quality assurances.

I agree. Why own the film and do nothing with it. If the owner sees it as having no commercial value, then release the rights. Also, the PD date of 1923 needs to be moved up to include all silents.

That certainly is an arguable point of view. The only difficulty with it is that I know several people who attended screenings of late 20s films and I'm sure some other members do too. As this sort of initiative would inevitably involve the removal of intellectual property rights the historical test of beyond living memory would put it on a more solid foundation at least in common law jurisdictions like the Uk and the US. I would settle for the 88 years benchmark thisd provides since in 6/7 years time all silents would be covered.

You sound awfully lawerly.... LOL

Can BFI catalog of films be accessed online? I don't mean their database....

Reports that people laughed at Gilbert have sort of lost context over the decades that the film hasn't been seen. It was a comedy for pete's sake....

Yes.....but there is laughing out of context.

Guilty I'm afraid but the truth is it would require fairly controversial lergislation and would have implications for a lot of things other than film. Setting the historical document/beyond living memory test would sort of turn it into a freedom of information issue and not just simply the deprivation of some corporation's intellectual property rights.

Personally, I would rather see the French version of His Glorious Night, shot simultaneously at MGM. It's called Si L'empereur savait ça and the director is the great Jacques Feyder. According to Françoise Rosay's memoirs, the film is quite different from the American version (and no doubt better directed!). It managed to make a star of Rosay back home in France. I read a brilliant review in a 1930 French movie magazine signed by no less than Marcel Carné who called it an excellent comedy. Alas it's invisible since its first release...


Si L'empereur savait ça (1929, J. Feyder) with André Luguet (third from left) and Françoise Rosay (second from right).

Did MGM lock up the French version? I think the olny film I ever saw Rosay in was a late 40s film called September Affair, which starred Joan Fontaine and Joseph Cotten.

Nowadays it belongs to Warner. If they ever kept a print...not sure!

The film is in Library of Congress and perhaps other archives. IMO this a a film TCM should show.

This is one of the films I want most to see.

Kevin Brownlow told me he's seen it and thought it flat. Leatrice Fountain writes that it's a pleasant little comedy.

Reports that people laughed at Gilbert have sort of lost context over the decades that the film hasn't been seen. It was a comedy for pete's sake....

I've studied the contemporary reviews on this one as extensively as I could do, in the context of getting to the bottom of the old chestnut about Gilbert's voice.

The critical consensus seemed to be that the film was mildly entertaining at best, or flat at worst; and that Gilbert was doing his best with a stagy script. In fact, his notices for the film are often better than Catherine Dale Owen's. The worst I could find any reviewer saying about his voice is that it was slightly monotone, or slightly over-cultured. I can think of a dozen other stars for whom the same could have been said.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that the case for making the film available and letting us all make up our own minds about Gilbert's voice is enormous, as far as I'm concerned. It's one of the defining silent-era myths, and it deserves interrogation.

If it does indeed belong to Warners nowadays, then it would be an ideal candidate for a Warner Archive release, IMHO.

Good point Brooksie. I'd always rather see a film and judge for myself than take as gospel Hollywood myths or contemporary reviews.

The bit about "the film has been restored and preserved for historical purposes" seems rather ominous.

Of course he also speaks in QUEEN CHRISTINA.

To Ann Harding: as mentioned above, HIS GLORIOUS NIGHT was sold by MGM to Paramount many years ago. The only copy I know of is at Library of Congress.
I borrowed this print when at Turner, out of curiousity, just to see it.
Very creaky early talkie, with a full reel of Gilbert and Owen saying "I love you" repeatedly.

Gilbert's voice is just fine. It is the dialog provided by the writers, and poor direction that made his early sound roles laughable.

His last picture, THE CAPTAIN HATES THE SEA (Columbia 1934) has him in a part that is suited to his personality, and he is quite likeable. I understand it will be available in Sony's "classics" series soon.
This picture has the oft-quoted remark about its production:
Harry Cohn to Lewis Milestone (the director): The costs are staggering.
Milestone: So is the cast.

Will TCM ever show it?

Just to add my own small contribution to the debate, I feel that Gilbert's problem in His Glorious Night (from the clips I saw in Hollywood) is more to do with the way he handles his dialogue rather than his voice per se. I found the same declamatory tone with Norma Talmadge and Gilbert Roland in New York Nights. They sound self-conscious. The worst example is certainly Ford's atrocious The Black Watch where everybody is ar-ti-cu-la-ting its lines like mad.
Gilbert was much better later on playing down-to-earth characters in Fast Workers and Downstairs. Playing upper-class characters didn't suit him in the talkie period.

To Ann Harding: as mentioned above, HIS GLORIOUS NIGHT was sold by MGM to Paramount many years ago. The only copy I know of is at Library of Congress.

Then it makes it even more improbable that a print of the French version was kept. Unless we can find one in a film archive somewhere in Europe? Who knows...?

He's quite good playing a roguish cad in BACKSTAIRS. His voice is good, his acting's a bit stiff at times (stylized might be a better term) but no more so than Richard Barthelmess.

edit

poor Lionel Barrymore, his name has not come up once(until now) in this thread!

Just to add my own small contribution to the debate, I feel that Gilbert's problem in His Glorious Night (from the clips I saw in Hollywood) is more to do with the way he handles his dialogue rather than his voice per se. I found the same declamatory tone with Norma Talmadge and Gilbert Roland in New York Nights. They sound self-conscious. The worst example is certainly Ford's atrocious The Back Watch where everybody is ar-ti-cu-la-ting its lines like mad.
Gilbert was much better later on playing down-to-earth characters in Fast Workers and Downstairs. Playing upper-class characters didn't suit him in the talkie period.

Lionel Barrymore seems to have have that effect on actors when he directed. The worst case is Ruth Chatterton in Madame X, and she got an Oscar for it. So somebody valued that style of voice production at the time, however stilted it seems to us now.

greta

Lionel Barrymore seems to have have that effect on actors when he directed. The worst case is Ruth Chatterton in Madame X, and she got an Oscar for it. So somebody valued that style of voice production at the time, however stilted it seems to us now.

greta

There's a misconception about Lionel Barrymore as a director. Yes he was on medication by this time for his arthritis but still he's mobile and walking though as Jackie Cooper once said remembering Lionel in the early 30s, "he was already limping". As an actor in late silents Lionel can be seen leaving out a window in WEST OF ZANZIBAR(1928) and doing a lot of standing/walking in SADIE THOMPSON(1928). Lionel had directed silent movies, the majority which are lost. His last silent directed film was in 1917 LIFE'S WHIRLPOOL, the only film in which he directed his lovely sister Ethel Barrymore. So between 1917 and 1929 when HIS GLORIOUS NIGHT was made it was 12 years. 12 years in which directorial 'rust' sets in and the industry underwent tremendous changes.

Just to add my own small contribution to the debate, I feel that Gilbert's problem in His Glorious Night (from the clips I saw in Hollywood) is more to do with the way he handles his dialogue rather than his voice per se. I found the same declamatory tone with Norma Talmadge and Gilbert Roland in New York Nights. They sound self-conscious. The worst example is certainly Ford's atrocious The Back Watch where everybody is ar-ti-cu-la-ting its lines like mad.
Gilbert was much better later on playing down-to-earth characters in Fast Workers and Downstairs. Playing upper-class characters didn't suit him in the talkie period.

Lionel Barrymore seems to have have that effect on actors when he directed. The worst case is Ruth Chatterton in Madame X, and she got an Oscar for it. So somebody valued that style of voice production at the time, however stilted it seems to us now.

greta

I'd tend to agree. He does it in THE UNHOLY NIGHT but that one is so stylized it sort of seems aproptiate- except for Roland Young who seems to have wandered in from the set of a more interesting comedy.

There's a misconception about Lionel Barrymore as a director. Yes he was on medication by this time for his arthritis but still he's mobile and walking though as Jackie Cooper once said remembering Lionel in the early 30s, "he was already limping". As an actor in late silents Lionel can be seen leaving out a window in WEST OF ZANZIBAR(1928) and doing a lot of standing/walking in SADIE THOMPSON(1928). Lionel had directed silent movies, the majority which are lost. His last silent directed film was in 1917 LIFE'S WHIRLPOOL, the only film in which he directed his lovely sister Ethel Barrymore. So between 1917 and 1929 when HIS GLORIOUS NIGHT was made it was 12 years. 12 years in which directorial 'rust' sets in and the industry underwent tremendous changes.

It's a bit bizarre to watch him in THE THIRTEENTH HOUR, a 1927 comedy-drama, he plays the villain and is racing about the set like a demon.

and Gilbert is excellent in The Phantom of Paris, a role intended for Lon Chaney.

Gilbert seemed to squeak less in his non MGM films. Perhaps the presence of Louis Mayer had the same effect on him as girls do to Jack Haley in Follow Thru.

Gilbert seemed to squeak less in his non MGM films. Perhaps the presence of Louis Mayer had the same effect on him as girls do to Jack Haley in Follow Thru.

Maybe it had something to do with early sound recording. After seeing Sunnyside Up, I had a hard time getting the idea that Janet Gaynor sounded like Alvin Chipmunk's sister out of my head, yet by State Fair she sounds fine. Sunnyside Up didn't do Charles Farrell any vocal favors, either.

Gilbert seemed to squeak less in his non MGM films. Perhaps the presence of Louis Mayer had the same effect on him as girls do to Jack Haley in Follow Thru.

Maybe it had something to do with early sound recording. After seeing Sunnyside Up, I had a hard time getting the idea that Janet Gaynor sounded like Alvin Chipmunk's sister out of my head, yet by State Fair she sounds fine. Sunnyside Up didn't do Charles Farrell any vocal favors, either.

This is exactly why I'd like to see `His Glorious Night'. I've heard Gilbert in all of his talkies except `Redemption', and his voice is absolutely no worse than anyone else's in any of them.

There have always been suggestions that his voice didn't record well in his earliest films - or even that there was some deliberate manipulation to make it sound higher than it actually was. That's something I'd like to judge for myself.