The Mack Sennett Collection: 100 Years of Keystone Comedy

[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!

I don't know what todays film students might tolerate (in fact, I'm not sure how many of today's film students I tolerate), but the Sez You still sticks Chris. I find quite a lot of Sennett Comedies damn funny thank you very much, and audiences I run them for do the same (and oddly enough, a lot of modern-day kids still get them as well and laugh their heads off). They get more and more surreal as they go on, but Ford Sterling's performances in the early ones are delightful, and the accusations of his comedy style being crude is baloney, and the accusations of his being over the top, well----Duh, kinda the point ain't it, but it is completely calculated and achieves exactly the effect he and Sennett want. Thats why he really kills me when he spoofs his own acting style in the "film within a film" we see in MABELS DRAMATIC CAREER. by going even over his usual over the topness, a total personal comment on his own style.

What I love about the Sennett Modus Operandi, and many of it's impersonators and toppers, including Ham and Bud, is the concept that, okay, we're going for blunt crassness,let's see how blunt we can be, and then the numerous variations and subleties to be found within exploiting that crassness. I love ideas like the Father and Son Villains in CURSES-THEY REMARKED(1914), passing on the Family Business of Nastiness, or Chester Conklin's communicating to the camera his intentions during his search for a Holiday Turkey in the upcoming A BIRD'S A BIRD (1915) that the Family Cat might just fill the bill (as he sharpens his knife on the Cat's Tail). Or Josef Swickard as the undertaker in AMBROSE'S FIRST FALSEHOOD (1914), the whole film itself a blue print for Laurel and Hardy's SONS OF THE DESERT (1933), kindly consoling lovely assumed widow MInta Durfee, but also going for a quick kiss as he moves in fast on a potential future conquest. or the Baby with the Bomb in the Basket in A LIFE IN THE BALANCE (1913), brilliant, original, funny as hell and very surreal images that stick with you.

So sorry Chris, I don't take the word of yourself,or a lot of the Nitrateville population, depressive lonely film historians sitting alone at home watching these films daring them to make them crack a smile as they spend more time watching for blemishes and bugs or checking the speed rate than they do enjoying themselves, or the humourously-challenged Cinecon audience to determine whether these films are funny or not. The rest of us folk seem to laugh at em just fine, even a near-Century later, and plan to continue to. So There.

But hey, thanks for the WEISS-O-RAMA plug, you got those right.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[ILoveMary68]

So sorry Chris, I don't take the word of yourself,or a lot of the Nitrateville population, depressive lonely film historians sitting alone at home watching these films daring them to make them crack a smile as they spend more time watching for blemishes and bugs or checking the speed rate than they do enjoying themselves, or the humourously-challenged Cinecon audience to determine whether these films are funny or not. The rest of us folk seem to laugh at em just fine, even a near-Century later, and plan to continue to. So There.

But hey, thanks for the WEISS-O-RAMA plug, you got those right.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Couldn't agree more Robert. I could care less about bugs or slight blemishes, or especially speed rates (which i really don't know about anyway, and seems I'm better off not knowing). I think we should all just feel fortunate that these films even exist 100 yrs., give or take, later. I just enjoy them for what they are. No disrespect meant to anyone on here.

[telical]

I very much like Ford Sterling's comedy. His face seems to really
put out the inner mental workings of whatever he is parodying.
It's not that he's saying something different than another person
would be if in the role, but he's broadcasting it out further by the
way he's acting. Therefore, it becomes funnier.

[ILoveMary68]

sorry, my last post posted twice & can't find where to delete one of them for the life of me??

I've done it for you - DB

[gjohnson]

What I love about the Sennett Modus Operandi, and many of it's impersonators and toppers, including Ham and Bud, is the concept that, okay, we're going for blunt crassness,let's see how blunt we can be, and then the numerous variations and subleties to be found within exploiting that crassness.
RICHARD M ROBERTS

Do you really think the early clowns were that clinical about it or was it more a case of just doing what came natural to them? There was no true blue print at the time for film comedy; subtlety, crassness, occasional wit and outrageous mugging all seemed to go hand in hand. It would take another decade before rules of engagement would begin appearing about how clowns should comport themselves on screen. This was the free-wheeling time of invention, trial and error and anything goes. I can't imagine anyone over on the Keystone lot ever looked down their noses at "those slobs over at Kalem". Class gentrification would arrive soon enough in Hollywood concerning what studio one worked at, but not yet.

[Christopher Jacobs]

... I find quite a lot of Sennett Comedies damn funny thank you very much, and audiences I run them for do the same (and oddly enough, a lot of modern-day kids still get them as well and laugh their heads off). They get more and more surreal as they go on, but Ford Sterling's performances in the early ones are delightful, and ...

... the humourously-challenged Cinecon audience to determine whether these films are funny or not. The rest of us folk seem to laugh at em just fine, even a near-Century later, and plan to continue to. So There.

But hey, thanks for the WEISS-O-RAMA plug, you got those right.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Much of the fun of early Sennett (and other early silent comedy) is in the obvious fun the actors appear to be having. Whether it becomes chuckle-inducing amusing, laugh-out-loud funny, or roll-on-the-floor hysterical, however, depends upon both the individual viewer and the presentation situation. A wildly receptive audience will pull almost any viewer into the hilarity, a less-responsive audience less so. Much of the reception also relies upon viewers' ability to place the films within the context of what they're already familiar with and find funny. You and a a select but growing number of silent slapstick fans have had the luxury of seeing literally countless films from the era and can instantly make associations the average person, or even the average silent film fan cannot until they've amassed a similar body of viewing experience. Certain things always seem to get a laugh, while others rely to greater or lesser degree upon the context and detailed historical understanding of what they're referencing. For me, at least, a great deal of the enjoyment I get from the 1912-1915 Sennett comedies is marveling at the audacious and very modern editing techniques that almost nobody else was doing. Amusing gags and title cards just add icing to the overall cake, and a sharp clear print always helps substantially. Other viewers may well look past any techniques of camera setups and editing choices for the content of the story and humor itself. Still other viewers see only bad copies of choppy, scratched beat-up prints and can't see past the technical limitations of whatever has survived. As I noted, YMMV.

And although I appreciate both, I also am one who tends to prefer feature-length silent drama from the 1913-1919 era to the majority of comedy shorts I've been able to see from the same era, while many silent film fans prefer both comedy and drama from 1920 onward. As with Shakespeare, much of silent comedy can become suddenly comprehensible with detailed footnotes and commentaries, so that subsequent viewings need not rely upon such explanations. (Of course those footnotes and commentaries rather intrude upon first-time viewings, making the films into the historical artifacts they are today, rather than the contemporary cutting-edge entertainment and social satire they were when originally created.) The same thing applies to silent drama, and different silent film fans have varying tolerances for pre-1920 silent drama because they are not as familiar with the conventions, styles, goals, and techniques, causing the earlier films to stand out merely as "different" or "interesting" than transparently entertaining (as they are for those immersed in the period).

It is good to have these back-and-forth exchanges about just what we like (or dislike) and why we like (or dislike) it. The more we discuss these topics on forums like this, the more we all can come to understand why others are so passionate about a certain star, genre, studio, era, etc. and gain our own appreciation for (and desire to see) things we've not had the opportunity to see. I learn about obscure films and personnel on Nitrateville (and get first-hand exposure to them at Cinecons, Cinefests, and Cinesations) that I never would be able to find on my own without great effort and expense.

[Richard M Roberts]

What I love about the Sennett Modus Operandi, and many of it's impersonators and toppers, including Ham and Bud, is the concept that, okay, we're going for blunt crassness,let's see how blunt we can be, and then the numerous variations and subleties to be found within exploiting that crassness.
RICHARD M ROBERTS

Do you really think the early clowns were that clinical about it or was it more a case of just doing what came natural to them? There was no true blue print at the time for film comedy; subtlety, crassness, occasional wit and outrageous mugging all seemed to go hand in hand. It would take another decade before rules of engagement would begin appearing about how clowns should comport themselves on screen. This was the free-wheeling time of invention, trial and error and anything goes. I can't imagine anyone over on the Keystone lot ever looked down their noses at "those slobs over at Kalem". Class gentrification would arrive soon enough in Hollywood concerning what studio one worked at, but not yet.

So, you're suggesting biting peoples noses off came natural to Ford Sterling.....

Talk early clowns and you're talking Commedia Del Arte, or perhaps the first two cavemen who discovered the Mirror Routine, by the time we get to Keystone we have many Generations of Comedy and the basic rules have been in place for Centuries. You've just fallen into that old myopic trap of "nothing happened creatively before movies" and that other favorite, "movies were not influenced by any other medium". Comedy, even performance comedy, had been through decades of Vaudeville, Music Hall, Minstrel Shows,Medicine Shows, wandering troubadours, people telling jokes over the back fence,yep, People actually knew how to laugh before the 20th Century. Top it off that movies had already been around more than a decade, time for Sennett to be already swiping a comedy blueprint from the Europeans, who had already had and were currently enjoying a whole generation of film comics on their own, and to be looking at what companies like Vitagraph and Al Christie at Universal were doing and rebelling against politeness stereotypes as the Movie Business had spent the last five years or so trying to enforce middle-class morality on the Industry to woo in the middle and upper classes. Yes, Class gentrification has always been around too. Of course Sennett was watching what Kalem did, just as Universal, Fox, Essanay, Lubin, and everyone else was watching and stealing what Keystone was doing. Not much really has changed in the Movie Business either.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

[boblipton]

Chris, I find myself in substantial agreement. While I enjoy the sharply turned gags -- my favorite in last week's bunch is Ford Sterling arguing with an embankment in A Fishy Affair --I find that I am paying more attention to the editing of the Keystones and devoted a good deal of space in my review of A Life in the Balance to the sharp editing in the rescue sequence. Richard has pointed out that there are no fades-and-intermediate-shot sequences. He considers those sequences in Griffith to be sloppy. I consider them a step in the evolution in editing.

Of course I am doing this without any formal training in film editing and working my way through by looking at a lot of different early films, which is why I find abandoned paths so interesting. I also have to work my way intellectually through cultural issues -- I find this useful in writing reviews for a modern audience for the IMDB.

Other issues I have is a difference in cultural markers and assumptions -- clothing is much more important as class markers and role definers -- and the fact that I find I enjoy humor rather than raw comedy. I prefer stories in which I actually care about the people involved. That is an impediment for me to actually enjoying a movie in which everyone is annoying or ones in which we sympathize with someone just because he or she is a victim. It's why I consider the Ham & Buds so awful -- I just wish they would die when some one shoots them.

It doesn't stop me from appreciating something that is technically well done. It's just that I don't take as much pleasure in those cases. The Keystones are technically amazing and the earlier ones, when they are much more experimental much more so than the later ones.

Still, there's quite a few things that are funny.

Bob

[Christopher Jacobs]

Talk early clowns and you're talking Commedia Del Arte, or perhaps the first two cavemen who discovered the Mirror Routine, by the time we get to Keystone we have many Generations of Comedy and the basic rules have been in place for Centuries. You've just fallen into that old myopic trap of "nothing happened creatively before movies" and that other favorite, "movies were not influenced by any other medium". Comedy, even performance comedy, had been through decades of Vaudeville, Music Hall, Minstrel Shows,Medicine Shows, wandering troubadours, people telling jokes over the back fence,yep, People actually knew how to laugh before the 20th Century. Top it off that movies had already been around more than a decade, time for Sennett to be already swiping a comedy blueprint from the Europeans, who had already had and were currently enjoying a whole generation of film comics on their own, and to be looking at what companies like Vitagraph and Al Christie at Universal were doing and rebelling against politeness stereotypes as the Movie Business had spent the last five years or so trying to enforce middle-class morality on the Industry to woo in the middle and upper classes. Yes, Class gentrification has always been around too. Of course Sennett was watching what Kalem did, just as Universal, Fox, Essanay, Lubin, and everyone else was watching and stealing what Keystone was doing. Not much really has changed in the Movie Business either.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Excellent points, all, and you can add ancient Greek comedy as the origin for much of ancient Roman comedy, Shakespearean comedy, Restoration comedy, Lubitsch comedy, et al. In today's generation, unfortunately, very few people are exposed to these or even realize they existed much less understand how influential they were, let alone appreciate them as humorous in their own right. It still takes a substantial familiarity of whatever era any given piece of comedy was created to understand what is funny about it or even realize that it is supposed to be funny. There are some pretty funny comic monologues from the first century A.D. that have survived, but their topicality dates them as closely to their times as Bob Hope quips and Warner Bros. cartoons in the 1940s or Mack Sennett title cards of the 1920s, leaving only the broad and obvious, more timeless humor to survive for non-historians. Bitingly comic political doggerel of centuries past has become the children's nursery rhymes of today, its original satiric humor incomprehensible to the average person. And animated cartoons (as well as well-accompanied silent comedies) rely for their greatest comic effect upon viewers knowing the words to the tunes they incorporate at strategic spots.

[Gloria Rampage]

RICHARD M ROBERTS
the Baby with the Bomb in the Basket in A LIFE IN THE BALANCE (1913), brilliant, original, funny as hell and very surreal images that stick with you.

That was a funny one. It's a pleasure seeing comedies for the first time and this was one of them that left an impression. Funny as it is, the bad guys are so out there their fiendish plot of placing the baby in a basket with a bomb then hanging it out the window attached to a rubbery/springy exorcise apperatus so it makes it even the more difficult for Ford Sterling to pull it back up because it bounces up and down. Great gag because there's tension, suspense and comedy blended all in one sequence.
Like when Sterling is on the trolley tracks dodging the speeding cars cars. Very funny.

The rest of us folk seem to laugh at em just fine, even a near-Century later, and plan to continue to. So There.

Add me to that list. Imagine, one hundred year Keystone comedies making us laugh, and grateful to be able to see them thanks to the hard work of those who presented them.

thanks for the WEISS-O-RAMA plug, you got those right.

One of my favorite DVD sets. It introduced me to Poodles Hanneford and Jimmy Aubrey. Hope to see more of these guys some day.

[Christopher Jacobs]

Other issues I have is a difference in cultural markers and assumptions -- clothing is much more important as class markers and role definers -- and the fact that I find I enjoy humor rather than raw comedy. I prefer stories in which I actually care about the people involved. That is an impediment for me to actually enjoying a movie in which everyone is annoying or ones in which we sympathize with someone just because he or she is a victim. It's why I consider the Ham & Buds so awful -- I just wish they would die when some one shoots them.

It doesn't stop me from appreciating something that is technically well done. It's just that I don't take as much pleasure in those cases. The Keystones are technically amazing and the earlier ones, when they are much more experimental much more so than the later ones.

Still, there's quite a few things that are funny.

Bob

This is a good explanation why many modern viewers find early silent comedies hit-or-miss, Sennett or otherwise. It really boils down to personal taste. I knew someone who liked silent slapstick, especially Chaplin, who dismissed the films of John Bunny and Sidney Drew as "genteel," understated, gentle humor that was not particularly entertaining by comparison. I, on the other hand, find John Bunny only moderately amusing but have not found a Mr. & Mrs. Drew comedy that I didn't like and usually enjoy more than most Sennett of the same period (although I can still appreciate Sennett, and some films are really quite funny throughout -- especially the films making fun of themselves and other films).

[Richard M Roberts]

Chris, I find myself in substantial agreement. While I enjoy the sharply turned gags -- my favorite in last week's bunch is Ford Sterling arguing with an embankment in A Fishy Affair --I find that I am paying more attention to the editing of the Keystones and devoted a good deal of space in my review of A Life in the Balance to the sharp editing in the rescue sequence. Richard has pointed out that there are no fades-and-intermediate-shot sequences. He considers those sequences in Griffith to be sloppy. I consider them a step in the evolution in editing.

Yes, one that failed, though I and many still consider them just bad continuity.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Richard M Roberts]

Talk early clowns and you're talking Commedia Del Arte, or perhaps the first two cavemen who discovered the Mirror Routine, by the time we get to Keystone we have many Generations of Comedy and the basic rules have been in place for Centuries. You've just fallen into that old myopic trap of "nothing happened creatively before movies" and that other favorite, "movies were not influenced by any other medium". Comedy, even performance comedy, had been through decades of Vaudeville, Music Hall, Minstrel Shows,Medicine Shows, wandering troubadours, people telling jokes over the back fence,yep, People actually knew how to laugh before the 20th Century. Top it off that movies had already been around more than a decade, time for Sennett to be already swiping a comedy blueprint from the Europeans, who had already had and were currently enjoying a whole generation of film comics on their own, and to be looking at what companies like Vitagraph and Al Christie at Universal were doing and rebelling against politeness stereotypes as the Movie Business had spent the last five years or so trying to enforce middle-class morality on the Industry to woo in the middle and upper classes. Yes, Class gentrification has always been around too. Of course Sennett was watching what Kalem did, just as Universal, Fox, Essanay, Lubin, and everyone else was watching and stealing what Keystone was doing. Not much really has changed in the Movie Business either.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Excellent points, all, and you can add ancient Greek comedy as the origin for much of ancient Roman comedy, Shakespearean comedy, Restoration comedy, Lubitsch comedy, et al. In today's generation, unfortunately, very few people are exposed to these or even realize they existed much less understand how influential they were, let alone appreciate them as humorous in their own right. It still takes a substantial familiarity of whatever era any given piece of comedy was created to understand what is funny about it or even realize that it is supposed to be funny. There are some pretty funny comic monologues from the first century A.D. that have survived, but their topicality dates them as closely to their times as Bob Hope quips and Warner Bros. cartoons in the 1940s or Mack Sennett title cards of the 1920s, leaving only the broad and obvious, more timeless humor to survive for non-historians. Bitingly comic political doggerel of centuries past has become the children's nursery rhymes of today, its original satiric humor incomprehensible to the average person. And animated cartoons (as well as well-accompanied silent comedies) rely for their greatest comic effect upon viewers knowing the words to the tunes they incorporate at strategic spots.

Ah Hooey, how much historical reference does a brick in the head require? As I said before, kids seem to get this stuff easier than any number of humorless historians. Tell them it's old stuff and that the car chases aren't CGI and they're mightily impressed and have a good time. It's entertaining to watch a grown man run through alligators no matter what century it was done in.

Yes, gee, it is indeed all a matter of personal taste, and it seems to appear that the more pretensions and intellectual blinders you put on does nothing other than narrow your abilty to enjoy a broader spectrum of humor or entertainment in general. I like Keystone, John Bunny, the Drews, Ham and Bud and most comedy in general, as well as pre 1920 silent features, post 1920 silent features, and can separate wheat from the chaff with the best of them. Looks like I have a hell of a lot more stuff to enjoy than a lot of you.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[gjohnson]

I just checked my filmed record of a 16th century Commedia Del Arte performance and yes......they are biting each others noses off.

Nothing's original, damn it!

[boblipton]

I just checked my filmed record of a 16th century Commedia Del Arte performance and yes......they are biting each others noses off.

Nothing's original, damn it!

I saw A Man With Two Guv'nors on Bradway last month. Everything old is new again.

Bob

[Christopher Jacobs]

Ah Hooey, how much historical reference does a brick in the head require? As I said before, kids seem to get this stuff easier than any number of humorless historians. Tell them it's old stuff and that the car chases aren't CGI and they're mightily impressed and have a good time. It's entertaining to watch a grown man run through alligators no matter what century it was done in.

Yes, gee, it is indeed all a matter of personal taste, and it seems to appear that the more pretensions and intellectual blinders you put on does nothing other than narrow your abilty to enjoy a broader spectrum of humor or entertainment in general. I like Keystone, John Bunny, the Drews, Ham and Bud and most comedy in general, as well as pre 1920 silent features, post 1920 silent features, and can separate wheat from the chaff with the best of them. Looks like I have a hell of a lot more stuff to enjoy than a lot of you.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Actually, a movie like Chaplin's A NIGHT IN THE SHOW seems to go over much better with modern teenagers than a more organized Chaplin like EASY STREET, due exactly its random slaptick violence that perhaps seems less personal that some of the violence in EASY STREET, where we get to know the characters better but still need some historical perspective about 1910s socio-political reality to embrace it on its own terms. A NIGHT AT THE SHOW, however, is even funnier if students have already seen a few Georges Melies films and can make the connection when Chaplin is parodying them.

It is sadly true that a number of academic writers (and film fans, for that matter) limit themselves to narrow specialties, and a substantial number of people whether film historians, fans, or the general public tend to treat their particular favorites with a "snob appeal" that looks down on whatever the "less enlightened" enjoy, while themselves refusing to acknowledge how anyone could possibly like what they don't like (or not like what they do like). Thank heavens nobody who posts on Nitrateville falls into those categories!! We love or hate whatever we feel like, with equal abandon, and aren't afraid to express it! As for me, I can enjoy LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD, CONTEMPT, BLUE VELVET, and TREE OF LIFE just as much as TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE, HOT WATER, SHERLOCK JR, and DESIGN FOR LIVING (not to mention Ham and Bud, Izzie and Lizzie, Max Davidson, and Charlie Bowers) or INTOLERANCE, THE BIG PARADE, GONE WITH THE WIND, and 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY -- albeit all for quite different reasons!

(This thread is turning into the kind of interesting discussion for which Nitrateville is deservedly beloved!)

[gjohnson]

TREE OF LIFE could had used more random nose-bitings to enliven it's proceedings.

[Bob Meyer]

I watched most of these over the last couple of days. Thanks, Mr. Gierucki & Company! I have a couple of comments and a question…


Terrific footage of the pre-war aeroplane in A DASH THROUGH THE CLOUDS. I'm guessing Mabel Normand insisted on riding aloft for the long shots.

I did actually laugh out loud for the shots of the cannonball chasing folks in SHOT IN THE EXCITEMENT.

Surprised to see Charles Murray's face covered in blood after being hit at the start of THE NOISE OF BOMBS. Don't think I've ever seen that in an early comedy. And Ford Sterling killed an awful lot of cops in some of these!


Who was that guy dressed up as Chaplin's Tramp in HASH HOUSE MASHERS? Did Sennett do that just to thumb his nose at Charlie?


Bob Meyer

[Rodney]

And Ford Sterling killed an awful lot of cops in some of these!

I've got a 16mm print of a well-known short where Ford Sterling plays the villain (if I don't say which, then this isn't a spoiler, right?), and the audience reaction is usually very spirited, jeering the parody villain, cheering the heroes and the old race cars -- then there's a sudden, surprised damper at the ending... everyone's thinking it's like a Warner Brothers cartoon until suddenly there's a pile of dead policemen, all just to lead up to a gag where Sterling has used up all his bullets and has to commit suicide by choking himself to death.

It's an interesting lesson for audiences in "different times, different tastes."

[Gloria Rampage]

Rodney
Sterling has used up all his bullets and has to commit suicide by choking himself to death.

BARNEY OLDFIELD'S RACE FOR A LIFE (1913) Think he also does it in A MUDDY ROMANCE.

[Roscoe]

Any idea of when these films will be hitting DVD/Blu?

[Mr. Bear]

Any idea of when these films will be hitting DVD/Blu?

or DVD, from what I'm seeing is incredible.
I hope this doesn't wind-up like the silent Our Gang box set that was shelved.

[gjohnson]

Has anyone gotten around to watching THIRST (17) yet?

[Gloria Rampage]

Not yet. Will watch it tomorrow.

[boblipton]

Has anyone gotten around to watching THIRST (17) yet?

I have. I watched it twice. It look.... well, a bit botched. The auto hijinks at the end are good.

Bob

[Paul E. Gierucki]

The end slate for THIRST was incorrect, we caught the error just after the broadcast and it has been corrected on the archival master.

-- PG

[Marilyn Slater]

Last week, I did a short post about updating the information regarding ON HIS WEDDING DAY and adding it to Mabel Normand’s film list at New at Looking for Mabel but I think I want to repeat myself here; thank you, Paul and the others at CineMuseum for doing the restoration, if it wasn’t for their work, I would not have seen the ‘girl in the park’. Now if they can put the other half of reel together with this delightful short, it is only a wish as in a review from the NY Times in 1913 indicates that HER NEW BEAU storyline (such as it is) is linked.
Another Keystone comedy has been added to Mabel Normand film list, ON HIS WEDDING DAY. http://looking-for-mabel.webs.com/onhisweddingday.htm

[Marilyn Slater]

Just passing along information on TCM screening on Thursday September 20… prepare to be “dazzled.” Paul wrote:

“Hey Marilyn! Wanted to give you a quick heads up: We will have two version of MICKEY on the DVD – the standard seven reel version (with new titles and inter-titles) and an alternate version taken from 35mm nitrate materials and various other prints provided by your kind self, David Shepard and several others. Because of the amount of work and clean up time required for the “alternate” version, and the broadcast deadlines so tight, TCM will be airing the standard seven reel version and the alternate cut shall be exclusive to the DVD. However, we have provided you with a Special Thanks on both versions – it is the least we could do for all of your wonderful support and efforts to preserve Mabel’s memory.

132 MICKEY poster .jpg (22.45 KiB) Viewed 5640 times

The dark horse for Thursday is THE EXTRA GIRL. Expect to be dazzled as it is simple gorgeous and different from any other version you have seen previously. You know I love to give the fans special surprises…"[/i]

The Extra Girl fr France 004.jpg (217.68 KiB) Viewed 5640 times

[WaverBoy]

I'm a bit confused on MICKEY; is the "alternate cut" the complete version? Isn't the usual seven-reel version missing footage? Do these two versions contain alternate takes/scenes? Was the seven-reel version the one that was originally screened theatrically?

[Richard M Roberts]

I'm a bit confused on MICKEY; is the "alternate cut" the complete version? Isn't the usual seven-reel version missing footage? Do these two versions contain alternate takes/scenes? Was the seven-reel version the one that was originally screened theatrically?

I can hear Waveyboy's screaming voices already tuning up. Completeness! Completeness!

Well since we've been going over a number of versions of MICKEY in the last few months for this set, some interesting things have dawned on us. Of the two main circulating versions, the seven reel version, and the FBO reissue running closer to eight reels, it became quite obvious running them side by side that the seven reel version was the much better original release version, and the FBO reissue is derived from some sort of foreign second negative that reshuffles the action somewhat and derives from inferior second takes. The seven reel version is tighter, and definitely has way more energy and charm than the FBO version, which has in some ways surplanted the shorter original release version over the years since it's discovery in the 70's. So to present the film at its best, I believe Paul has decided to go with the original release version as the standard, upgrading quality from the FBO version where he could, but sticking with the narrative decisions made there, and putting out another version using all the other material that turned up for the completist whiners like yourself. Believe me-you, MICKEY will be seen in more new grand and glorious ways than ever before, while we also show it to be a much better film than the reputation that has befallen it in recent years. Get over it, it's gonna be great!


RICHARD M ROBERTS