NitrateVille.com

charlie wrote:That is a shame -- mind boggling, too. It makes no sense!

So, what makes the Image versions of the First National shorts and the features superior to other versions, if they're all using the same reconstituted takes?

(Thanks again, by the way, for sharing all this info in this thread -- and apologies for using it as Chaplin Film School, but this is all so complicated and fascinating! Trying to wrap my head around it all, so I know what to look for in my future Chaplin film purchases.)

Actually it does make sense, but you have to shift your focus somewhat, and also understand Chaplin's production methods to get a full sense of the choices being made. The use of the term "inferior out takes" is at least a bit misleading in the context of a Chaplin production.

A standard of quality was very important to Chaplin. He was rightly concerned with both performance and visual quality of his output. And with virtually all his films, certainly from the Mutuals on, Chaplin had multiple choices for any given scene. It wasn't as if all he had to choose between were one great take, a mediocre one, and one technically flawed one. So, as original materials wore out, Chaplin's choice was between a visually degraded best performance take and a pristine quality 'next best' take. For some directors, that might have meant the 'next best' of two or maybe three options. For Chaplin, it was often the second best of ten or maybe even tens of options. At the time Chaplin was making those decisions, the option to digitally clean up the best performance take was not available. So he made, the most reasonable (to me) next best choice of visually pristine source material of either the next best performance take, or in some cases pristine material of the best performance take from a slightly different 2nd camera angle.

After Chaplin was refused reentry back into the U.S., many of those degraded original elements were no longer in Chaplin's (or the Estate's) possession. So, one might fault Chaplin for his esthetic choices for reissues, but I think it not altogether accurate to uncatagorically describe them as "inferior" without a fuller context.

In terms of performance, the outtake footage is clearly sub-standard. As you can see in "The Unknown Chaplin," Charlie's working method was to perfect his performance as the cameras rolled until he nailed it. In some cases, I'm sure the alternate footage is very close to the original, but in many cases it plays like a rough draft. There's a shot near the end of "A Dog's Life," for example, where the criminals are shooting at Charlie and Syd in the lunch wagon, and Charlie actually breaks character and laughs. In the "real" film, of course, he does no such thing.

There are varying reports about the way these films were reconstructed. One story has it that Chaplin, ever the perfectionist, was so angry at Rollie Totheroh for assembling the alternate First Nationals out of discards that he never worked with him again - but by then it was impossible to do anything about it. Others deny this story, and place the "blame" on Chaplin himself.

Whoever was responsible, when the films were being re-released in the 1940's, it's perfectly understandable that the image quality would be a primary concern.

But it's not the 1940's anymore.

Chaplin, more than anyone else in film history, perhaps, was a perfectionist. The takes that he choose for the original releases of these films represented what he felt was his best performance, and the way he wanted his films to be seen.

And those wishes have been (and continue to be) completely ignored.

topchap wrote:
Actually it does make sense, but you have to shift your focus somewhat, and also understand Chaplin's production methods to get a full sense of the choices being made. The use of the term "inferior out takes" is at least a bit misleading in the context of a Chaplin production.

A standard of quality was very important to Chaplin. He was rightly concerned with both performance and visual quality of his output. And with virtually all his films, certainly from the Mutuals on, Chaplin had multiple choices for any given scene. It wasn't as if all he had to choose between were one great take, a mediocre one, and one technically flawed one. So, as original materials wore out, Chaplin's choice was between a visually degraded best performance take and a pristine quality 'next best' take. For some directors, that might have meant the 'next best' of two or maybe three options. For Chaplin, it was often the second best of ten or maybe even tens of options. At the time Chaplin was making those decisions, the option to digitally clean up the best performance take was not available. So he made, the most reasonable (to me) next best choice of visually pristine source material of either the next best performance take, or in some cases pristine material of the best performance take from a slightly different 2nd camera angle.

After Chaplin was refused reentry back into the U.S., many of those degraded original elements were no longer in Chaplin's (or the Estate's) possession. So, one might fault Chaplin for his esthetic choices for reissues, but I think it not altogether accurate to uncatagorically describe them as "inferior" without a fuller context.

Ahhhh, I'm getting a clearer understanding now. Thank you, topchap. That does make more sense to me now. Interesting about the Totheroh story.

And thank you, Doug Sulpy, for your further thoughts on all this, too -- I see your point about how all this relates to the Estate's stance on things, and how that does boggle the mind considering the fact that the technology (and motivation by many!) exists to bring some of these films back closer to Chaplin's original versions. That part of all this still doesn't make any sense to me.

Doug Sulpy wrote:
There are varying reports about the way these films were reconstructed. One story has it that Chaplin, ever the perfectionist, was so angry at Rollie Totheroh for assembling the alternate First Nationals out of discards that he never worked with him again - but by then it was impossible to do anything about it. Others deny this story, and place the "blame" on Chaplin himself.

Whoever was responsible, when the films were being re-released in the 1940's, it's perfectly understandable that the image quality would be a primary concern.

But it's not the 1940's anymore.

Chaplin, more than anyone else in film history, perhaps, was a perfectionist. The takes that he choose for the original releases of these films represented what he felt was his best performance, and the way he wanted his films to be seen.

And those wishes have been (and continue to be) completely ignored.

The story is just that, a story. And others don't need to deny it, all they have to do is cite the undeniable historic fact that it is just plain wrong. Chaplin hired Totheroh as his DP on Verdoux and as photographic consultant on Limelight. Additionally, after he was refused reentry into the U.S., he tasked Totheroh with going through the vaults to shepherd materials to England and setting up the film archives there. All after the 'official' First National changes were made. Does any of that sound like the actions of someone angry about choices made?

I'm with you that technology no longer forces the same kind of choices that were made in the 40s. But it does raise others. Since it is not always possible to determine either who made substitutions or when they were made (we know Totheroh made changes in the 40s when both he and Chaplin were still at the La Brea studio, but we don't know for sure that other changes weren't also made using alternate takes from international releases or illegally obtained materials both before and after the 'official' changes were made), who gets to make the choices about what best represents original intent for the films? Although there are clear, objective differences, the value to be placed on visual quality differences vs. performance differences still remains totally subjective.

The choice has already been made.

David Shepard has said that he believes that the early version of "Shoulder Arms" (for instance) that circulates on 16mm derives from a version of the film reissued in 1925, composed of second best takes from the A camera.

Now, it only stands to reason that Chaplin would have used what he considered the best takes for the original, released version of his films.

If both the A and B negatives were worn out as early as 1925, and the film needed to be re-assembled from outtakes, it also stands to reason that they would have been assembled from the second best takes of the films.

Therefore, by the time the '40's rolled around, they didn't even have the second best takes anymore - they're using third best takes (or, more likely, whatever they could still find).

David also wrote:

"Two summers ago in Denmark, I saw a true original 1918 English-titled print of ["Shoulder Arms"], easily identified by the First National main and end titles and the First National logo on each interior title. A few parts were chopped up... but it was generally in very good shape and the picture quality was stunning.

Well, I fell on the floor! It was a completely different picture! Incredibly funny, full of fresh (to me) little bits, and absolutely worthy of the superlatives heaped on this movie during its early years. I knew at that moment I had never seen "Shoulder Arms" before."

In this case, sub-standard image quality wasn't a factor, but the Estate still wanted nothing to do with it since, to them, the only "real" version of "Shoulder Arms" is the one on "The Chaplin Revue."

So, in the case of this film, at least, we still haven't seen the original version (or, evidently, anything like it) of one of Chaplin's most acclaimed films, nor are we likely to in the foreseeable future.

And I, for one, think that's a real shame – particularly knowing that this (and other early prints of his films with similar differences) still exist.

Interesting...

In old Hollywood film restoration technichs was not available, or at least not to save (rerun/revival) of some films.

They could not get a camera negative, fix all brake parts and wet gate it to a very high quality film duplicate stock.
Many of the "wor out" câmera negatives, they could not use anymore back then, could be restored today.



By the way: Have David managed to copy these original version prints to safety stock ?

Are the First Nationals now PD, if so couldnt people on this group with alternate versions get them released. What, if anything, prevents this.

Here's an interesting email from Josephine Chaplin posted in silentcomedians.com a while back:
01-12-2010

Chaplin Office Chaplin [email protected]" target="_blank

E-mail verzenden
E-mail zoeken Toevoegen aan contactpersonenAan Johnny L.
Van: Chaplin Office ([email protected]" target="_blank)
Verzonden: woensdag 1 december 2010 12:10:03
Aan: Johnny L.


To Mr Johnny L. and all the Chaplinites of the world

I was extremely hurt by your letter Mr L. about, I quote, "the Estate, through their draconian policy (!!!) is
making Criterion look bad and costing them sales. That'll be around $240 they won't be getting from me that they
absolutely would have gotten had the Estate let Criterion put out the films uncut as Charlie ORIGINALLY intended when
he ORIGINALLY released the films" etc. etc. etc.

We the family do not care about dollars that we could get from you, we just care about what my father, Charlie Chaplin,
wanted, and it was NOT to have the ORIGINAL films shown to all and sundry, but to have the cut versions of each film with
his newly composed music (for some) shown with the cuts HE decided on. Could you not respect his desires? Or do you know
better than Charlie Chaplin what he wanted or not?

As a matter of fact, I, Josephine Chaplin, his daughter, DO know what my father wanted. I was there. I was there when
he composed most of the music for his films, and I was there when he decided to cut some scenes out of The Kid. And I
testify that he took all decisions ALONE. He was influenced by NO-ONE, neither Mo Rothman nor my mother Oona. After all,
they were his films completely ( producer, script-writer, director, actor and composer of the music) and he did what he
wanted for the new release of his films and wanted them to be THE final cut of his films. So maybe you know better than
me???? I doubt it.

So please do not say anymore what Chaplin desired. You do not know. I do.

Also, after my mother Oona died we, the family and sole inheritors, could have sold everything to the highest bidder or
destroyed the archives or sold them also. Instead "the Estate" decided to RESPECT our father's desires and we are proud
of it. Do not insult us anymore please, all the hardcore Chaplin fans, because you are not true fans, you have no respect
for Charlie Chaplin's genius.

Josephine Chaplin


Association Chaplin
Paris

Link to entire page:
http://www.silentcomedians.com/forum/vi ... php?t=2286" target="_blank

Talk about looking at the world through the wrong end of a telescope.

Who does she think made the original artistic decisions when those films were released?

That's right... her father.

So the whole thing comes down to respecting the wishes of the artist in his prime, at the time he made the films, or the artist past-his-prime, altering his films for what he saw as the commercial necessities of the '40's and '50's (conditions which clearly no longer apply).

If this represents the attitude of the Estate as a whole, it's a wonder we ever got the silent version of "The Gold Rush" AT ALL. After all, Charlie only wanted it to be seen with that awful narration? Right?

I do not want to disrespect anybody...

But some kindness or diplomatic behavior, would be a good idea when contacting a Chaplin's Family member.


Instead of write to her almost accusing, why not request the original version (first versions) as a extra in a Blu Ray release???????


If Chaplin wanted the original silente The Gold Rush... why have he not cared to preserve any print of negative of the original version, and even tried to destroy the original version?

A bit difficult to judge from 720p captures, but it's like they did a good job:


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/City-Ligh ... creenshots" target="_blank


Looks sharper and with no collateral effect of typical low quality sharpning filters.

























I'm still curious to know what are the best surviving materials for City Lights...
A interpositive, a internegative...???


.

I found indicators that this new restoration of City Lights is from another 35mm source:

Look how Criterion cropped the left portion of the frame (were soundtrack use to be in the early 30's):

And Criterion it's also sharper (look the bush behind Carlitos).
Have Criterion found a original print of City Lights ???


Criterion:





Park Circus:




Again sharper and cropped in Criterion when compared to Park Circus:



Criterion:






Park Circus:






Park Circus captures: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/City-Ligh ... creenshots" target="_blank
Criterion captures: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/City-Ligh ... creenshots" target="_blank


I don't believe Criterion would intentionally cropp the frame just to remind how the soundtrack in the early 30's altered the frame.
I suspect they found a original 35mm print of the film with soundtrack.

From the framegrabs you posted, it looks to me like they're both cropped but in different directions. Criterion's shows more on both the top and right, and Park Circus shows more on the left but cuts off the top and a little on the right.

Look the ratio aspect of both, they are diferente.

Criterion is 1.19:1 (like the movietone version of Sunrise) while Park Circus is 1.33:1 (silent aperture).
That's why think Critirion found a original print for this 4K restoration.

Christopher Jacobs wrote:From the framegrabs you posted, it looks to me like they're both cropped but in different directions. Criterion's shows more on both the top and right, and Park Circus shows more on the left but cuts off the top and a little on the right.