NitrateVille.com

Doug Sulpy wrote:Given Chaplin's working method and ego, I can't accept that he would have intentionally prepared different cuts of the Mutuals for the U.S. and overseas markets (and I'm speaking in terms of content, not camera angles).

I think that ego can just as easily be seen to want to further his reputation as a true artist and not just a knockabout comedian. This particular period in Chaplin's personal development is a fascinating one. He has come from success within a culture he's grown up in, English/European music hall, and is thrust into a new world and culture, U.S. filmmaking. Yes, the ego is there (this is Chaplin after all), but so is fairly significant insecurity. As Michael H. points out, U.S. Critics are bombarding him with charges of crude vulgarity, some no doubt as a reaction to others' budding recognition of "artistry." Which way to go? Stick with what worked in the familiar culture, or shape content to meet the criticisms? Just maybe, Chaplin and his ego think he's clever enough to meet both demands.

As to "working method", both his well documented hands on editing style, and his willingness to abandon segments (Unknown Chaplin) that are not meeting perceived needs, speak to the likelihood of Michael Hyde's ideas.

With all respect, no one can assume anything before watching Doug Soulpy's reconstruction and the quality of the material cut from the film. After watching that, it becames obvious that these cuts meet with the same logic that the cuts inflicted to the other Mutual shorts. Why else did they cut nearly 5 minutes out of "One A.M.", so many shorts from "The Cure", "Easy Street", etc? There was no vomiting there. So, the fact that no one could still find a decent copy of Negative A with these scenes doesn't mean anything. And the fact that the continuity mentions the shots, confirms they were cut from the original film the same as there were shots cut from all of the other Mutual films, to put them on the market in cheaper, shorter ways, and not based on any artistic judgement. The hypotesis that the person who wrote the continuity perhaps watched the foreign version, being a Chaplin collaborator, with all due respects, seems a bit unlikely to me. Either way, even as a bonus, this longer and more complete version should be restored and issued somewhere. The same way they did with longer films of which we have both negatives (as I mentioned before, that was the case with the NON-KEATON Keaton film "The Saphead", the indeed Keaton film "Steamboat Bill Jr."). And no one complained about that. By the way, the two versions of "The Blacksmith" are obviously worth watching and I assume the recently found print (now known to be the final cut) will soon be put somewhere on DVD or Blue Ray. I hope so. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to put BOTH "The Blacksmith" and BOTH "The Immigrant" on the same issue, as a way to show the way in which these two masters worked.

martin arias wrote:With all respect, no one can assume anything before watching Doug Soulpy's reconstruction and the quality of the material cut from the film.

Just to be clear: Doug sent me his reconstruction of the film, along with those he did for THE PAWNSHOP and THE CURE, when I was writing the book. I haven't seen the new restoration of THE PAWNSHOP yet, so I can't speak to that one, but the restored CURE is almost exactly like Doug's, except that Albert Austin still makes only two trips to toss Charlie's bottles into the well, as he did in both Negs A and B of the original release. The only variance between A & B is the take used for Austin's second trip; neither version had him making 3 trips.

My hypothesis about THE IMMIGRANT is just that, an educated guess. With no pristine 1917 domestic print in anyone's possession, there's no way to prove who's right or wrong, regardless of how one perceives the flow of the film with and without those scenes. Most of the wholesale cutting, including the butchery of ONE A.M., happened during the Van Beuren era, so any 1920s print of THE IMMIGRANT is likely to be very close to what Lone Star released.

All that said, I'd love to see the B-neg version of THE IMMIGRANT restored in full on its own merits. As always, it's a matter of funding, plus the standard belief that the domestic release is the definitive version of a US-produced silent era film.

Michael

I agree, but I don't believe that the edited version of "The Immigrant" WAS the original domestic release.

It's not a matter of just cutting out a few more vomiting gags - but trimming the film to have people popping in and out of shots rather than walking in and out of them makes the film jumpier and come off as more primitive film-making than it actually was. That's where I think Chaplin's ego would have come into it. He was a perfectionist, and would have wanted the best possible version of his films shown everywhere.

Just for the record, when I did my edit of "The Cure," I didn't realize that the footage of Albert and the bottles came from both the A and B negatives. If I had, I would have cut it accordingly. There's a similar doubling-up of footage on "Easy Street" - the close-up of Eric Campbell being gassed is different in both the A and B negatives (though they, too, could be edited together to have one twice-as-long take).

Okay, I have known David and Serge for many, many years and I have admired much of their work in the past. But I am shocked, yes, SHOCKED, to find out that they have not gone the distance necessary to dig up the bodies of Roman Wardas and Gantscho Ganev so they can dig up the body of Charlie Chaplin so Shepard and Bromberg could reshoot the missing frames. Of course, then they would really have to get Rollie as well for the camerawork. And I will NOT volunteer to be the one who digs up Eric Campbell.

I think we should all go out and buy the Flicker Alley set and be grateful that such care has been taken to bring out the Chaplin short films. And I will definitely defend the practice of leaving out a couple of frames instead of editing in bad 16mm replacement footage. The secret to restoration is that no one should see your work. Every time a bad frame pops up and you think, "Oh, it's a bad frame!" takes you out of the film and back on to the couch. And as comfy as that might be for your five lumbar vertebrae, it's bad for the movie experience.

I find it hilarious that the whole set should come down to a gag about vomiting for some people, and nothing else in it matters.

I pledge $25 to the Kickstarter for the blu-ray set Chaplin Pukes!

This morning I measured two prints of THE IMMIGRANT that I have here, to check them against the original footages for this film given by David Robinson (1809') and Michael Hayde (1916').

Without knowing how these footage counts were derived, it is difficult to use them as definitive measures. The usual (almost without exception for silent films, except in modern archival measurement) is to use the lab billing footage as the film length, as there was no standardized running speed. For this purpose I measured the prints from first frame of picture to last, then added 30 feet to each reel to account for part titles, head and tail leaders, plus the standard lab practice of adding 2% for waste.

The 1925 print measured 1710'; with leaders and waste, that's 1805' or almost exactly Robinson's length of 1809'. There are 13 splices in the 1925 print but I did not make any attempt to figure out how much footage had been lost due to them.

A new Van Beuren print measured 1852'; with leaders and waste, that's 1950' or 35 feet longer than the length cited by Hayde. The Van Beuren print does contain some additional footage for the music and studio credits at the beginning, but without those it would almost exactly match Hayde's footage.

Martin Arias in one of his several posts on this subject claims that "to believe that he left on the foreign negative 4 minutes or so more than on the American one, is simply hard to believe". Obviously 4 minutes is a very soft estimate, but at 18 fps (that is probably slower than the film was projected), the 35mm footage would have amounted to 270'.

NOT COUNTING the footage for leaders and waste, nor estimating the footage lost at the 13 splices, that would bring THE IMMIGRANT print of 1925 to 2079' per Robinson's footage; for the Ven Beuren print, 2122' per Hayde's footage; but of course the film would have to be shipped with leaders, so using the billing footage, the length would respectively be 2182' or 2225'. In either case, that's more than a 2-reel subject would ever be, as it would not fit on the spools.

We used or our base source of this film the nitrate lavender print from which the 1932 Van Beuren dupe negative was made. Fortunately it is full aperture whereas the Van Beuren dupe and prints are cropped.

David Shepard

Mike Gebert wrote:

I find it hilarious that the whole set should come down to a gag about vomiting for some people, and nothing else in it matters.

I pledge $25 to the Kickstarter for the blu-ray set Chaplin Pukes!

Well, that's an extraordinary simple-minded put-down of people's criticism. Six missing minutes? Bah! Shut up. Just buy it!

Thank you.

Six minutes which may never have been in it at all, or only in certain countries, or who knows what (David Shepard's comment above certainly suggests that it does NOT fit into the film as neatly as a puzzle piece that was always there, anyway).

Versus the 400 other minutes which are on the set, and go unmentioned here. I look forward to those.

if actual 3D conversion technology can reshape a bit a frame to create a little diferente angle version, I presume in a few years will be possible to get a 16mm frame intercaletd in 35mm scene, and add the texture and details based in the 35mm frames around it.

I wish they had used the few inferior 35mm footage of Nosferatu, to replace the missing frames in the Berriatura restoration, despite the noticeable quality loss or little bit of distration it could generate. Hope in near future technology advances fix problems and the missing frames can be inserted seamless.

David can't please greeks and trojans.

DShepFilm wrote:A new Van Beuren print measured 1852'; with leaders and waste, that's 1950' or 35 feet longer than the length cited by Hayde. The Van Beuren print does contain some additional footage for the music and studio credits at the beginning, but without those it would almost exactly match Hayde's footage.

Actually, the 1,916' for THE IMMIGRANT came from Mitry/Asplund (CHAPLIN'S FILMS: A FILMOGRAPHY, 1973), and I treated their figures as an estimate of each film's original release length. The length I have for a pristine Van Beuren print screened in January 1934 by the NY State Censorship Board in Albany is 1,886'. That is the exact length hand-written on the Board's standard one-page log; sadly, I have no idea whether or not it includes leaders and waste.

Nice piece of research, David. And Mike, I'm betting there'll be plenty of discussion about what IS on that set, probably starting somewhere around July 30!

Michael

DVD home vídeo technology had a option of mastering, rarelly used, that would allow a scene or alternate scene to be automatically sellected according what version of the film was choosed.

At least was what a videophile told me once. Not sure if BD is also able of that.

Would be possible to máster a film in two version, one with more scenes, to be used or jumped, and a alternate soundtrack fo fit the longer version???

Forgive me if I spoke any fullish.

That's just what I said. To have the longer version at least as a bonus option would have been nice. Ok, when I said "four minutes" I was just doing a wrong estimate. Maybe the total time for missing bits is 2 minutes, maybe it's just one minute and a half, depending on the projection speed. Whatever, I don't care how many meters or seconds. And I obviously already bought the set, and I obviously can appreciate the whole effort of making it. I don't see why pointing an obvious imperfection about which a lot had been said since at leat 15 years ago is taken so hard by David. I can enjoy his work and at the same time disagree in details. And there are many missing shots and bits on THE IMMIGRANT whether you want to admit it or not. I understand the if you tell me this restoration wasn't done for economic reasons, or because the music was already done, or whatever. But the "decision" not to complete the film based on this presumption over the two negatives just doesn't seem logical to me for the same reasons Doug and I exposed many times in this post. I cannot get why you're being so puntillous about meters and milimeters, and at the same time decide excluding so many existing shots and bits from the restoration of the film.

Every line of what you say, though, presumes that he has made a mistake, that the release is flawed. His evidence indicates that he has good reason to believe that the footage was never in the film as released in the U.S., wherever it comes from.

I don't know which is true but I don't think it helps anyone to delegitimize this release by repeatedly suggesting that it's a rush job that's incomplete ("because the music was already done"... "the 'decision' not to complete the film"... " excluding so many existing shots and bits from the restoration of the film" [emphasis added]). It's a different choice about a set of material, based on someone's reasonably expert belief that it was not part of the film in its primary release in the country where it was made.

Mike, I don't think, again, that by stating some point in which I think something wasn't properly done I'm saying everything has been done badly. Again, I think the better option in that case would have been to present the second negative as a bonus. And again, expert opinions sometimes are right, sometimes are not. I've seen many times Doug Soulpy's reconstruction and I strongly believe the timing is much better with those bits and scenes added. I'm not condemning anyone for thinking different. I already bought the set in pre-order along with the Sennett one. In any case, if the first set 10 years ago would had not received a certain amount of complains on different levels, there probably wouldn't have been this new one. And as I remember, the reason for not adding any missing bits on most of the films on the previous set a decade ago, was the fact that Carl Davis had already recorded his scores. So, I wasn't stating any fact. I was just speculating. But whatever the reason, I have the right not to agree with David Shepard on this single, minimal, possibly not important at all matter, even if he is obviously the restorer and the expert. I'm not trying to be hard on anyone or to insult anyone. I love Shepard's work in general. But in this particular case, I don't think he's right. Is this so hard to accept? I'm no God. I won't punish anyone. Just a fan, and I'd have loved to be able to finally watch after so many editions a print with all the bits added in an acceptable print quality.

David seems to be claiming that "The Immigrant" can't possibly be as long as we're claiming because it's "more than a 2-reel subject would ever be, as it would not fit on the spools." Well, clearly, since we HAVE the film with the extra minutes, it WAS issued as a two reel subject and DID fit on the spools... unless someone's going to claim that America had smaller spools (or Europe had thinner film).

Mike, in turn, uses David's illogical argument and claims that this is "good reason to believe that the footage was never in the film as released in the U.S."

What contortions you people bend yourselves into to support what you want to believe!

martin arias wrote:I don't see why pointing an obvious imperfection about which a lot had been said since at leat 15 years ago is taken so hard by David.

And I don't see why people keep ignoring David's statement that he is not trying to release the longest-possible version of each film. He's trying to release as accurate a representation as possible of how the film was originally released theatrically, based on the known historical data and surviving prints.

To repeat Mike's suggestion, why not talk to Doug Sulpy and the Library of Congress and start a Kickstarter campaign to release the Longest Possible Edition of The Immigrant with the Vomiting Gags that THEY Didn't Want You to See? You'd apparently get some takers.

The illogic is "a piece of film exists, it must have been in the final cut." Obviously there are countless examples from the present to prove that is not so. More outtakes exist for Chaplin than any other filmmaker of that era, no?

That said, I'm perfectly happy to see the footage and compare for myself, talking about it in absentia (and nothing else about this set) has worn thin.

Rodney wrote:

martin arias wrote:I don't see why pointing an obvious imperfection about which a lot had been said since at leat 15 years ago is taken so hard by David.

And I don't see why people keep ignoring David's statement that he is not trying to release the longest-possible version of each film. He's trying to release as accurate a representation as possible of how the film was originally released theatrically, based on the known historical data and surviving prints.

To repeat Mike's suggestion, why not talk to Doug Sulpy and the Library of Congress and start a Kickstarter campaign to release the Longest Possible Edition of The Immigrant with the Vomiting Gags that THEY Didn't Want You to See? You'd apparently get some takers.

Please try very hard to understand this.

David was talking about conflating different takes of the same action from the A and B negatives (such as he did with "A Night Out" on the Essanay set). In "The Immigrant," for example, the B negative has different takes of the shot where Charlie first meets Edna in the restaurant. It would incorrect to have Charlie meet Edna twice by repeating that footage.

That is NOT the same as refusing to release a longer version of a film with footage added in from an alternate print which ADDS to the action in the shorter version (rather than repeating it).

David's explanation for this is, as I understand it, is that the additional footage is not available in the same quality as his negative, and therefore will not be added (of course, this makes a nice excuse for not adding ANY additional footage, doesn't it?).

As for your smarmy reply about the "vomiting gags" - you're simply repeating the dismissive response that Mike already offered. Perhaps you are unaware that only a few seconds of the extra footage consist of more "vomiting gags," and that most of it, in fact, adds immeasurably to the flow of the film. Perhaps.

But I'll agree with Mike. Trying to argue sense with some of you does get tired.

However, let me ask this... what, exactly, is wrong with Martin's suggestion that the b-negative be included as an extra? Is there anyone here who DOESN'T want to see several more minutes of "The Immigrant"?

If Mr. Sulpy believes so strongly in his reconstruction, why not post it online
so the rest of us can see his results...?

Or is it easier to just to throw stones ..?

I was not trying to be smarmy. Flippant, perhaps, but apparently I failed. Apologies.

And Serge has already given his explanation, which is adequate for me:

For example, a lot of remarks have been made about The Immigrant. But as you certainly know, there were two negatives on each Mutual film, and if the edit is different, we have made the only choice possible of restoring Neg A (the reference camera for Chaplin), using the less possible material from neg B only to fill in gaps where neg A material is not available. We are not trying to make the longest possible film, which would be an illegitimate act for a restorer, compiling two versions of a film that were never assembled before. In The Immigrant, the edit of all the neg A material is consistent, and it does not have the extra shots we can see in neg B : this is why we have not kept them. In The Cure, Albert Austin could have thrown 3 times bottles through the window into the well we've retained only the two in neg. A.

The bigger the differences between the Neg A and Neg B, the more it costs to put both on the release; hence my repeating Mke's not-that-silly Kickstarter suggestion. When you ask who could object to including Negative B, it's probably the accountants. Kickstarter solves that.

I'm quite happy with my contribution to this set (Britt Swenson did an awesome job with the violin Mickey-Mousing in The Vagabond), and am looking forward to seeing the completed results for the rest of the films.

Right. I'd be happy to have that alternate as an extra, I understand if it was not possible in a given release. And I was entirely serious; if someone wants to make Chaplin: The Alternate Versions using European material, I'd be interested in that and would contribute or pre-order or whatever. But it hardly invalidates a prime edition of the standard versions to not be that, for the princely sum of $60 or so. Perspective.

Mike, who spent twice as much on this and that isn't stopping him from spending more money either

I just bough the Divisa/ARTE set from Europe, which arrived today.
In my opinion, the restoration was good, but can have much more improvement - what I believe happened in the Flicker Alley set.
About the music, I found it good... There's occasional laughs, like an audience, and sometimes doesn't fit with the film breaks and speed. In "The Pawnshop", there's someone coughing. Weird.
Here's the cover. The package says region B, but actually is region FREE.

dbpearson wrote:

Doug Sulpy wrote: P.S. - Good thing the folks who put out "Metropolis" didn't have the sane definition of "restoration" that these Chaplin people have, or they would have ditched that nasty, distracting 16mm footage.

Sorry, but the truth is, while I'm glad the "Metropolis" material was found on 16mm for historical reasons, it's also easy to see why the material was cut in the first place. Entertainment-wise, "Metropolis" was better without it.

The truth is nothing of the kind. The truth is that the great METROPOLIS has been (nearly) restored to what it always should have been, and it (nearly) makes narrative sense at last. What was done to that poor film was one of the worst butcher jobs in film history.

I would just like to know two things: in any of these restorations of The Immigrant is negative A utilized as the main source, and do any contain the original titles? That is all.

I'm not so sure there's a simple answer to your first question, Allen. Even as early as the 1925 Kodascope of "The Immigrant," we have shots that differ from those we usually see (the scene where Charlie meets Edna in the restaurant, for instance). So was the Kodascope cobbled together from differing A and B negatives, or were the later prints from Van Beuren? In other words, unless we have "virgin" release prints of both the U.S. and overseas negatives, it's hard to know for sure WHAT the source is for what we're seeing in any given print.

As far as original titles are concerned, Blackhawk's original silent version of "One A.M." had the original Mutual intertitles (though not the main title). I'm not aware of any others, but there might be something in the upcoming set. I don't know.

Hi, Doug, is it possible to post here your reconstruction of The Immigrant just for comparison? I have it for you sent it to me some time ago, but I wouldn't dare to post it without your permission. I think it would be useful for the purposes of debate.

M.

Here is a complete print of THE IMMIGRANT based on the infamous negative B with all (or nearly all of the missing bits -just two of them are missing, a short seconds of Charlie getting up after the hiccup attack with Albert Austin -which was on Doug Sulpy's reconstruction-, and a short sequence of Edna getting up and going to join Charlie and the Captain after the latter "catches" Charlie apparently stealing Edna's money -this one is on a Pathescope abridged version-). Everything else is here, and it adds lots of missing bits (the print lasts 32 minutes against the nearly 24 of the usual prints. I would seriously love to know how can anyone dare to say that all of these scenes were not part of the original film, whatever negative it was. To my eyes this was just another case of a film butchered to make it shorter by careless distributors. All of the bits fit in their place, the film flows much better, and many of them are not even new scenes but segments that complete already known scenes.

the link to the negative B version for everyone to judge for himself/herself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1RW1mSzzLE" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank


the very short sequence of Edna aproaching is on this Pathescope abridged print, at 5;10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZLiv3-FyrY" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

I would seriously love to know how can anyone dare to say that all of these scenes were not part of the original film, whatever negative it was.

Well, unless there's some reason to believe it was a three-reeler in Europe, it can't have all been in any two-reel release version because that's more than two reels would hold, no?

No.

It all depends on what speed the long version has been transferred at. Clearly it was not released as a three-reeler ANYWHERE, and clearly this print is complete (or near enough).

Is there anyone who thinks the film DOESN'T play better with the additional footage? Don't be shy. Speak up. No? Okay, then why aren't you ALL asking: "So why hasn't THIS version of the film been used for any of the restorations?"

Thanks for the link(s), Martin. Nice to see the "new" shot in the Pathé print. By the way, the shot of Charlie getting up after the dinner call in my restoration was from the Kodascope. I think I scanned it from the film frame-by-frame, and then re-animated it.

The thing is, that same shot is in the Pathé print - but from a different take, and shot from a different angle (the top of Charlie's cane is pointing in different directions in each).



Having two different versions of this same shot proves that this shot was in BOTH the A and B negatives - which indicates (to me, at any rate) that all of this talk about the missing footage not being in both original negatives is nonsense.