NitrateVille.com

I cannot agree more!

about the lengths

COMPLETE PRINT OF "THE PAWNSHOP" 29:17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpk_MC4AYgw" target="_blank


COMPLETE PRINT OF "THE FLOORWALKER" 31:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T09QbsvOQHQ" target="_blank


COMPLETE PRINT OF "THE CHAMPION" 30:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl5WvTrASS8" target="_blank


COMPLETE PRINT OF "ONE A.M." 27:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2MF29gsokM" target="_blank


I'M SURE NO ONE QUESTIONS THOSE ONES...

M.

Well, obviously running time can be anything depending on the speed you run it at, and those are all plainly transferred at slow speeds. If a 2-reeler tops out at around 2000 feet, as David Shepard indicates, is there any evidence that Chaplin ever released films longer than two reels at that point?

These look like they were transferred at a snail's pace. If I transferred The Pawnshop at 8 frames per second it would qualify as a full-length feature. Doesn't mean it's complete.

martin arias wrote:about the lengths

COMPLETE PRINT OF "THE PAWNSHOP" 29:17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpk_MC4AYgw" target="_blank" target="_blank


COMPLETE PRINT OF "THE FLOORWALKER" 31:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T09QbsvOQHQ" target="_blank" target="_blank


COMPLETE PRINT OF "THE CHAMPION" 30:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl5WvTrASS8" target="_blank" target="_blank


COMPLETE PRINT OF "ONE A.M." 27:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2MF29gsokM" target="_blank" target="_blank


I'M SURE NO ONE QUESTIONS THOSE ONES...

M.

As you can see, then, the original version of "The Immigrant" clearly exists. It's been issued in 16mm by Black, Inc. (for whom the Chaplin Estate provided material) and was shown on the BBC (according to Glenn Mitchell). This version of the film is also in the Library of Congress, where the footage could have been obtained for this newest restoration.

Are their any reviews yet for this

Well, "original version" remains the question, then. If it's longer than two reels, which it certainly seems to be, then the question of how one of Chaplin's two reelers isn't a two reeler remains.

I've been away from this forum for a while as my life has been wrapped up in a huge 78,000 acre wildfire that completely surrounded my home, which was miraculously spared. I mention this only because it provides needed perspective to the nattering of Messrs.Sulpy and Arias.

The Black, Inc.(Mo Rothman) versions of the Mutual and Essanay Chaplin films are conflations of various materials from the BFI National Archives (and yes, from Blackhawk Films) that were done in 1972 as speed-converted 16mm kinescopes on the BBC's "flying ashtray". (This is the same way that we handled the clips for the "Hollywood" television series at about the same time). The various kinescope transfers were then edited in 16mm A/B rolls and the new titles inserted. Contrary to Sulpy's assertion, the project received no film from Chaplin family entities although they inherited the film elements when Black, Inc. dissolved, and then gave all the materials to me. Even though we have those original 16mm negatives plus fine grains, 35mm blow-ups and 35mm prints, the quality is so deplorable by the standards of 40 years later than we did not use them for anything except occasional reference.

The versions of THE PAWNSHOP and THE FLOORWALKER that Arias references on YouTube are these 1972 Rothman versions.

The version of "The Champion" that Arias references is stolen (music and all) from the 1999 DVD produced by myself. It is conflated from three prints, one of which is cropped. Unfortunately I never found a set of real original title texts so titles in that version of "The Champion" are not completely authentic.

The version of ONE A.M. that Arias references is stolen (music and all) from the 2005 DVD produced by myself. It is conflated from two prints, one of which is cropped.

There was new creative work in all of these versions that is the basis of copyrights violated by the YouTube postings. It is nice that people get to see them for free, but almost everything we release is on YouTube in the wink of a gnat's eye, which has decimated our financial ability to continue working. As Google makes money by selling ads on these uploads they make it rather difficult for us to get them taken down, which in any case is more or less like a game of whack-a-mole. Whatever is taken down by Tuesday is usually up again on Thursday.

Sulpy still has not put up his own versions of the Mutuals so we all can see them. I have not seen them, nor do I communicate with this man who seems to have anger issues and for years has hurled quite personal invective in my direction.

To paraphrase a line from Thornton Wilder, these movies were brought into the world to give pleasure. Although perfection does not exist on earth, the partners in this project all hope our centennial editions from Flicker Alley bring even more pleasure than all of our previous efforts. We invested enormous thought, work and money, with full cooperation from several of the world's major film archives, the very latest technology, and support from such friends of film as George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, and Alexander Payne. To paraphrase a line (this time from Abraham Lincoln), we know that we cannot please all of the people all of the time. But we would love to please all of you except for Martin Arias, Doug Sulpy and perhaps Waverboy, and that will be reward enough.

David Shepard

Dear David-

>I've been away from this forum for a while as my life has been wrapped up in a huge 78,000 acre wildfire that completely surrounded my home, which was miraculously spared.<

Thanks for that, and continued prayers and best wishes during fire season.

>To paraphrase a line from Thornton Wilder, these movies were brought into the world to give pleasure ... perfection does not exist on earth<

Two bedrock truths often forgotten in this and other collecting circles.

All best,
-Craig Wichman

Well said, David.

<Facepalm>

Jeebus, what ever happened to a simple thank you David, Serge and Jeff (and everyone else involved) for bringing the best possible transfers to a nice DVD set?

I know I can be a nitpick, but, this takes it to a whole new level. Boggling!

How ironic that the person who accuses me of hurling "personal invective" in his direction seems to have no problem calling our posts "nattering," when all they're attempting to do is alert people that the upcoming "restoration" of "The Immigrant" looks like it's going to be woefully incomplete.

And how predictable that this is followed up by the usual chorus of support from sycophants, and absurd assertions that there must be Chaplin three-reelers we know nothing about.

It's nice to learn, David, that you don't have the slightest interest in pleasing those who wish to see "The Immigrant" restored to its original form. How could a true Chaplin fan and film lover possibly wish that, after all? You needn't worry, though, because I have no intention on buying this set until it's done right. I wouldn't want to fuel my "anger issues", after all.

Just so you know, the "assertion" that Black Inc. received material from the Chaplin Estate doesn't come from my imagination. It comes from a Library of Congress report from April 6,1989 which talks about the various sources of the Chaplin material they have in their archives.

Finally, although "perfection does not exist on earth," that's no reason one shouldn't strive for it - particularly when dealing with preserving Chaplin's films.

Doug Sulpy wrote:How ironic that the person who accuses me of hurling "personal invective" in his direction seems to have no problem calling our posts "nattering," when all they're attempting to do is alert people that the upcoming "restoration" of "The Immigrant" looks like it's going to be woefully incomplete.

be a dear and let us when and where your restoration of The Immigrant is available so we can be properly schooled on the subject.

I have been following this thread and have ordered this set. What totally amazes me is we have all this criticism but as far as we know, no one has seen this set yet, because it hasn't been released yet! Did you do your book reports at school after only reading the back of the book?! I would think that actually seeing the set would be the basic minimum before your criticism.

TerryC wrote:I have been following this thread and have ordered this set. What totally amazes me is we have all this criticism but as far as we know, no one has seen this set yet, because it hasn't been released yet!

Pshaw! Criticizing something you have actually seen is for amateurs! Passing judgment on something you know nothing about takes talent!

If you took the time to read the thread, you'd see that it's clear that we're not getting the longer print. I would, needless to say, be thrilled if this weren't the case.

Nor does it make a lot of sense to wait for a film to be issued before discussing footage which might be overlooked in the restoration. That's like waiting for the horse to escape from the barn before mentioning to anyone that the door's unlocked.

As for my restoration - you don't need it. All of the extra footage is in the youtube link posted by Martin (on page two of this thread).

Doug Sulpy wrote:If you took the time to read the thread, you'd see that it's clear that we're not getting the longer print. I would, needless to say, be thrilled if this weren't the case.

Nor does it make a lot of sense to wait for a film to be issued before discussing footage which might be overlooked in the restoration. That's like waiting for the horse to escape from the barn before mentioning to anyone that the door's unlocked.

As for my restoration - you don't need it. All of the extra footage is in the youtube link posted by Martin (on page two of this thread).

Then, logically, you shouldn't be concerned one way or the other about David's work as you already have what you want.

Wait, it's longer? As in, longer than two reels?

Mike Gebert wrote:Wait, it's longer? As in, longer than two reels?

As far as I can tell from the discussion so far:

• • it has more material than would fit on two reels, but
  • it IS the original two-reel release, since
  • the idea of the original being on three reels is "absurd," although
  • no prints of the original release survive, and
  • this version was assembled in 1972, and
  • it's a bad dupe made from inferior material, but
  • it should be considered more "original" than either of the two original negatives, and
  • although it doesn't affect those who are complaining, because either
  • (a) they already have the 1972 "original" in their personal collections, or
    (b) they can watch it on youtube, where it's even longer (since it runs so slowly), still
  • releasing a print based on the original negatives and the best current understanding of what was in the original release is a travesty against culture, since some poor unknowing sots may watch it without knowing that a longer version is possible to construct, though there is no solid evidence it was ever released anywhere.

Mike Gebert wrote:Wait, it's longer? As in, longer than two reels?

Sorry if I've missed it, but has anybody calculated the sum total of the additional footage? I quickly glanced at the YouTube post and the main thing I came away with is the impression that the added material didn't amount to much and that the quality was pretty lousy and would be really jarring if it were inserted in the near pristine Flicker Alley print.

While I am sympathetic to those who want the most complete print possible, I get frustrated with the inflammatory characterization of Shepard's restoration as "woefully incomplete". That is just so much hogwash. What I saw on YouTube is interesting in an academic way, but there is no way you could make a case that somehow "The Immigrant" is in any way significantly altered by the additional footage. In any event, there is no convincing evidence that this footage was part of the original release, and some fairly compelling evidence that it was not.

Much ado about not much, imo.

I have tried very hard not to repeat myself in this thread, but it is worth keeping this perspective in mind:

Six minutes which may never have been in it at all... Versus the 400 other minutes which are on the set

I don't care how bad a person it makes me, I am looking forward to those 400 other minutes in about a week.

DShepFilm wrote:But we would love to please all of you except for Martin Arias, Doug Sulpy and perhaps Waverboy, and that will be reward enough.

David Shepard

David, I've praised plenty of your releases, in public and via PM/email to you, and I own many of them as well. In fact, I'm hosting a screening of your lovely DVD of TOL'ABLE DAVID this Sunday.

Regarding the Chaplin Mutuals, your last release was the best so far, and this upcoming new set will no doubt best it again. As for being a Mutuals nitpicker and trying to help uncover which extant bits are missing from various releases of these particular films, which are some of my all-time faves, guilty as charged. And it's not because I'm trying to personally annoy you, it really isn't. It's because I'd like to see the films as complete as possible on video, so I help spread the word as to what's missing from which releases and what's present in other releases/film prints/etc. Many people have told me that it's been quite helpful, including a couple of Chaplin book authors.

We differ on whether some of your chosen running speeds for silent comedy are "visually correct", but so far I've only seen the Essanays really suffer from that (and they do suffer, unfortunately; otherwise, it's one hell of a knockout set). We also differ on your well-intentioned choice to sanitize your restoration of THE LOST WORLD (1925) for PC reasons. It also worries me that you don't notice annoying motion problems resulting from reasons such as improper flagging, squeezing non-sound-speed silents into 1080p, etc., but hopefully Flicker Alley will have someone on staff who does notice these issues so they can be avoided in future.

I readily admit, I can get overzealous, overanxious, overreactive, and put my foot in my mouth, and for that I sincerely apologize. I will also thank you once again for all you've done and continue to do for the cause of silent film preservation and presentation, and will continue to do my humble part by purchasing your products, including the forthcoming Mutuals set.

It's been said that Chaplin shot 90,000 feet of film for "The Immigrant". Maybe someday Sulpy can assemble a 15 hour print and we can see what Chaplin *really* had in mind.

The version posted as "complete" by M. Arias (are you related to Jodi...if so, I don't want to get on your bad side) runs at 32 minutes. The reason for this (and this is my supposition), is that this version was transferred at 16 frames per second. This means that the actual footage is about 1920' which is within the limit for a two reel subject. David Shepard has provided excellent references concerning the materials that are in his holding, and further discussion has revealed the various lengths of certain editions. If we suppose that the Shepard material is somewhere around 1800' to 1830', then there is difference in length of approximately 100' to 130' or so. This means that at 20 frames per second, roughly up to one minute and forty seconds is missing. We must not stop there, however, because very CLEARLY, the "B" version is using different takes of each sequence in this film. This means that some takes may run longer, and some may run shorter, and some may be very close. One thing is certain...the "B" version is comprised of secondary takes. For example:

Chaplin outside of the restaurant in the "B" version sees the coin. He tries to make a joke by looking at the bottom of his shoe, as if he has "stepped" in something, and then snatches the coin. In the "A" version, he dispenses with this in lieu of a stronger and more natural reaction. In my opinion, the comedy bit does not work in the "B" version as well as the more natural flow of the "A" version.

Example: The "B" camera placement is secondary to the primary and preferred placement of the "A" camera. The sequence with Albert Austin being violently ill at the very start of the film. The "A" camera is in the more convincing placement of being directly in front of both Chaplin and Austin, not off to the side as is the case with the "B" camera. And this example holds true throughout the entire film.

Notice the difference in Chaplin's emotional response when he sees the Statue of Liberty for the first time. In the "A" version, he bites his lower lip and this is a very noticeable and meaningful expression of the fact that there is a very strong reaction he is having to this symbol of what represents HOPE, and freedom, and the chance at a new life. The "B" take is very weak comparatively in that he simply looks on with a blank expression. On one hand, it does allow an objectivity, but it is ultimately weak as we then do not know what HE is feeling, and this is far more important that what we want to imagine what he MIGHT be feeling.

I do not feel comfortable reading a post that I sense has a belligerent undercurrent, and I am sure it makes it very difficult for others to want to embrace a different point of view; however, I must say that there may be good reason to believe that some of the additional footage in the "B" version may possibly have been in the "A" version. The problem here is that there is not evidence that substantiates this theory beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why? There is not an uncut "A" version as a reference. I can appreciate the fact that these bits and pieces are there, and they make sense to me: Edna getting up to go to dinner is in two shots in the "B" version. It is sensible and logical. The "A" version is missing the second shot of her just outside of the dining cabin. The shots of the gambler leaving in a rage and coming upon Loyal Underwood are a logical transition, and these are found in the "B" version, but again comes the problem...we cannot verify precisely if these shots were in the "A" version because an uncut "A" version does not survive. The PatheScope and Kodascope versions were created from "original" material, but NOT from the "A" version camera negative. There is a strong argument to support the idea that the material in the "B" version should be considered original and very likely to help guide an assembly of a "restored" edition, but it by itself is NOT conclusive. Sincerely, hammering a point and using phrases such as "Please try very hard to understand this," does not make it easier to feel open. Regardless of truth, facts, and presentation of material, the manner in which we share thoughts and ideas (not founded on principals of "political correctness," as I despise this concept) are just as much a part of swaying people to our way of thinking.

I have had the privilege of working with David Shepard for my entire professional career. He has always, and I say categorically that he has ALWAYS treated me with respect, with encouragement, and with a brutal candor that I fully respect and rely upon. He has never beaten me down with invective or disrespect, but always with a clear and respectful demeanor: he has always managed to inspire my creativity with his honesty, even when he has challenged me and one of my passionate ideas. To refer to the lot of his supporters (who have voiced their concerns and objections here) as "sycophants" is grossly insulting and far beyond an appropriate term. David Shepard has never once ever demanded my respect of his work, or even a support of what he does...he simply has earned all of the respect and enthusiasm for his work through his dedication, commitment, and vast experience for all that he has achieved, through hard work, over these many decades. I will not debase David's stature by attempting to defend him or to place him upon a pedestal, as this would actually offend him because he is sincerely modest about his own work, but if I say absolutely nothing about how I feel about him, then I have not honestly expressed my point of view to a complete and satisfactory level. These are points worth sharing because unlike many readers here, I have had the unique opportunity to work with David for many, many years and further, I have had the great joy of calling him my friend for most of my life: I met David Shepard the very first time when I was a lad of 14 years of age. In all these years, I have found David to be very open to dialogue and suggestions regarding the production of his videos and DVDs. When I have perceived what I considered errors, or mistakes, or missing footage which I knew about, or a sequence out of order, I was more than free to speak with David and to receive his generous support with candid and open dialogue. I am not without my own experience in dealing with multiple print sources and technical issues: I started working in a film laboratory when I was 14 years old. In all of my career, David Shepard has been a Rock of Gibraltar for me and has provided me with incredible projects upon which to work.

As for the Chaplin Mutuals, David will tell you (I know because he has told me) that he is always hopeful for finding new material and providing the best that he can possibly deliver, but there is a caveat. There will always be a limit to the financial resource allotted to a silent film project, and when archives are involved, there is a very serious discussion about how far one may go in a restoration if contemporary records simply do not exist; if there is not a provenance for a film subject, if there is not a source that can validate the exact continuity of a subject. Kevin Brownlow explored the discussion of Chaplin's production of the Mutual comedies in his "The Unknown Chaplin," and he revealed something very provocative with regards to the film BEHIND THE SCREEN. He explores an outtake in which Chaplin is almost struck by an axe as he walks through a set. The gag is very elaborate and Brownlow reveals that Chaplin worked several takes on this scene. It is a very funny gag and would easily fit into the film. In the end, however, Chaplin decided against it and it did not make it into the "A" version of the film. It is most likely not in the "B" version either, but the footage exists intact. Just because the footage is there does not mandate its use, and this is the crux of the matter when attempting to do a restored edition. Certainly, the "B" version offers a good argument for what might have been in the "A" version. The problem is that there are examples of films exisiting in both "A", "B", "C", and "D" versions (F.W. Murnau's FAUST as an example), and there are vast discrepancies between all of the exisiting versions...none of them are identical. There are shots appearing in one version that do not appear in any other version, etc... Even in the case of FAUST's "A" version for German release, and the "B" version for the Americamn release (and Murnau himself edited the "B" version, too), they are different from one another. This is why we cannot blindly accept alternate versions as conclusive evidence. I have named one feature and there are many others to boot.

I had not set out to write something so verbose, but I trust that this may be of some use to some of the fine people who visit this site, and I do appreciate your time and interest.

Thank you.

Robert Israel

Robert Israel Music said: "I must say that there may be good reason to believe that some of the additional footage in the "B" version may possibly have been in the "A" version. The problem here is that there is not evidence that substantiates this theory beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Refer to my earlier post with the screen caps. If we have two different versions of the same shot (which is not in the "common" version and will probably not be in the new "restoration," by the way) the only rational explanation is that one of them is from the A negative, and one from the B. In spite of David Shepard's assertion, there's no evidence that Chaplin ever issued any of his films in different lengths. Indeed, as much of a perfectionist as he was, I don't think it makes sense to even entertain that idea (much less insist on it).

If you watch the youtube video, it's also clear that we're not seeing outtakes in the longer version - we're seeing a copy of the film before it was trimmed in order to reduce the running time. This was clearly done very early on, since the edits were already made when the Kodascopes were issued in the 1920's. Other Chaplin Mutuals (for instance, "The Cure") show the exact same pattern in their edited versions, and I suspect it was done simply to save money (less footage = less money to print).

Harlett O'Dowd said: "Then, logically, you shouldn't be concerned one way or the other about David's work as you already have what you want."

Regardless of what you might imagine, I would prefer a blu-ray off of an original 35mm print to a re-encoded PAL -> NTSC dub of a videotape taken off of television a couple of decades ago. Then again, I'm picky.

Doug Sulpy wrote:
Regardless of what you might imagine, I would prefer a blu-ray off of an original 35mm print to a re-encoded PAL -> NTSC dub of a videotape taken off of television a couple of decades ago. Then again, I'm picky.

Well then, couldn't you just not buy the set?

there's no evidence that Chaplin ever issued any of his films in different lengths

The Gold Rush-- issued in an edited, narrated form in 1942.

Many of his films altered in some way for the 1960s-1970s reissues with Chaplin's scores: Modern Times trimmed of one stanza of a song, Shoulder Arms and others trimmed to fit into a single feature-length compilation (The Chaplin Revue).

That's setting aside the well-known fact that there were variants, for North America and Europe, in original release.

I guess this is what this comes down to for me: there are some variant versions floating around. This release picks one and makes a solid case for its provenance, you prefer another on more intuitively aesthetic grounds. Red River has two versions too. Nebraska is about to be shown on Epix in its color version, against the director's wishes. Anthony Hopkins had to dub Olivier for a scene that was restored to Spartacus. This is film history as it is.

I am excited to see all these films in better versions than I've ever seen before.

All I can say is that based on the three Mutuals shown at the SF silent Film Festival in January were the most beautiful Chaplin prints I have ever seen. I started my Chaplin Mutuals with Super 8 from Blackhawk and also purchased one set on VHS and at least 2 versions on DVD. I've ordered the FA set and am looking forward to seeing the rest of the set.

Mike Gebert wrote:

there's no evidence that Chaplin ever issued any of his films in different lengths

The Gold Rush-- issued in an edited, narrated form in 1942.

Many of his films altered in some way for the 1960s-1970s reissues with Chaplin's scores: Modern Times trimmed of one stanza of a song, Shoulder Arms and others trimmed to fit into a single feature-length compilation (The Chaplin Revue).

That's setting aside the well-known fact that there were variants, for North America and Europe, in original release.

I guess this is what this comes down to for me: there are some variant versions floating around. This release picks one and makes a solid case for its provenance, you prefer another on more intuitively aesthetic grounds. Red River has two versions too. Nebraska is about to be shown on Epix in its color version, against the director's wishes. Anthony Hopkins had to dub Olivier for a scene that was restored to Spartacus. This is film history as it is.

I am excited to see all these films in better versions than I've ever seen before.

Oh, come on, Mike. If you want to have a discussion, at least do it fairly. You know damn well I wasn't talking about edits he made in feature films decades later - I was talking about the A and B negatives of his short films having substantially different running times - and THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Frederica wrote:

Doug Sulpy wrote:
Regardless of what you might imagine, I would prefer a blu-ray off of an original 35mm print to a re-encoded PAL -> NTSC dub of a videotape taken off of television a couple of decades ago. Then again, I'm picky.

Well then, couldn't you just not buy the set?

I've already said I'm not going to buy the set. Does that mean I shouldn't want a complete set of Chaplin Mutuals fully restored with ALL of the available footage on blu-ray? Sorry. I still do.

Maybe the guys who did "Metropolis" will do it sometime. They didn't seem to mind incorporating lesser quality material into their restoration.