NitrateVille.com

Doug Sulpy wrote:

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.
.

Oh. Case closed, then.

You're right. Other than the teens, the 40s, and the 60s and 70s, Chaplin never had more than one version of his films, and it was unfair of me to suggest they might have changed other times too.

A fair discussion would be ever answering anyone's arguments with evidence, not saying it's stupid to ask how a two reeler was ever longer than a two reeler can be. I've been abused enough, I'm done. There will be a new thread for the set as a whole when we get it; posts focused on this one issue will be moved to this thread.

evidence:

1) The BBC version is there, with all the full scenes, most of which make no sense at all supressing. Many of them are fragments complementing already existing scenes.

2I ALL of the full missing scenes are specifically detailed on the OFFICIAL LONE STAR SYNOPSIS as quoted by Michael J. Hayde on his book "Chaplin's Vintage Year":

a) the extra vomiting scene:
"Here there is another 'storm' threatening, for an ambitious youth who insisted on a second service of pork, unfurls the white flag to a gigantic wave and with his mother's assistance he manages to empty the contents of his anatomy in a series of volcanic spasms, but in such a manner as to again cause much annoyance to Charlie, who suffers little damage other than a few stray bits which nestle on his derby while he is artfully dodging." (Hayde, page 375)

b) Charlie leaving the dining room
"Once more he wards off the storm and he happily shuffles along to survey the boat" (Hayde, page 377)

c) the pipe sequence with Loyal Underwood
"The infuriated gambler hurls everything within his reach with no particular destination in view and a swift moving bucket finds its way to the youth's head, sending him sprawling on the deck, while the uninterested maiden takes to her heels." (same page as above)

d) Edna being called over by the Captain
"Edna could not imagine what she was being summoned for and shyly walked over at the Captain's command." (Hayde, page 380)

And so on. Obviously the short transition shots are not specifically mentioned there. But if the missing long scenes are, it is easy to suposse all of them were part of the original form of negative A. Why would Chaplin send to the register a description based on the foreign negative B which, according to Sheppard, would contradict the negative A made under his own supervision? That's absurd.

The only possible conclusion is that the OFFICIAL LONE STAR SYNOPSIS was made taking into consideration negative A, which by then was surely very similar to negative B, but which was trimmed down by distributors shortly after, making it now impossible to find a complete print of it, while the untouched negative B distributed in Europe survives in a form more close to the original editing.

Thus, any version not fitting the OFFICIAL LONE STAR SYNOPSIS would be inevitably incomplete.


However, many people here seem to be more interested in defend Shepard's work (which of course I highly respect, as I already said on many other places) other than argument something about this particular subject.

Of course Chaplin changes his flims in later years. Of course there have been many versions of the Mutuals. It's clear that original prints of negative A do not exist anymore (given the fact that so many silent films completely dissapeared, this is not at all amusing). But the fact that apparently on the new set all of the Mutuals have their restored missing bits except THE IMMIGRANT, the decision not to restore them in this case seems to me highly arbitrary.

And I agree with Doug Sulpy, I wanted to finally have a high quality print of the entire film to show, not the low quality video transfer from You Tube I just posted.

With respect to the legality of the YouTube links, I was just trying to show that some of the films could be more than 27 minutes long. I know many of these links are based on Shepard's work, and I obviously own the original sets. I'm sorry if that hurted Mr. Shepard's feelings, which was in no way my intention.

Clearly, all the Chaplin Mutuals should be presented at the correct hand-cranked projection speed of at least 36 frames per second -- exactly as theatre owners would originally demanded in 1916-17, in order to present the maximum number of daily showings.

Besides -- fast is funny! It was then. It is now. And showing an 11-12 minute version of THE IMMIGRANT with Chaplin flying around the screen like a bat out hell, kicking people in the butt, certainly nobody would notice what inserted subpar footage might be foisted on the public, so long as it makes a handful of fanatics happy! Even better, one could slip all 12 films onto a single BluRay!

So screw quality! Lets get those 11-12 minute two-reelers out on the street ASAP!

And BTW, stop using those quality scores. Even those old Van Buren pieces are just way too good.

What needs to be done is bring in completely unprepared ragtime band, and have them score the film without any warning that the films will be played at 36 fps -- and just let them all improvise! And whatever they do -- that's it. Can one imagine a better simulation of a true 1916-17 silent film experience? With a little luck, maybe we can add a nitrate coating so the discs can catch fire.

DBP

(And if you are thinking I'm just poking fun -- consider how much closer what I described is to the historical reality than the absurdity of this entire thread demanding some sort of "director's uber-cut" from a filmmaker infamous for 50 to 1 shooting ratios. Ladies and Gentleman, be grateful for what you have... and kudos to Mr. Shepard, Mr. Bromberg and friends.)

That's what I admire about this place! So many of you people are so tolerant of opinions that are not your own and you have such funny little ways of expressing it.

Yes, they pretend to be so open to someone else's opinion, and so funny. But then between brackets someone else's opinion, even if based on real data that everyone can see with their own eyes, is "absurd", and you have to be "grateful with what you have", even if you clearly are not. And having a different opinion if giving a deadly blow to the work of Shepard and Bromberg (which is false)... Anyway, if you don't see the difference between the pace of the BBC version and the jumps and pop ups we've got used to in so many other versions, that's your fault, folks. But this site is, I quote, about "talking, collecting and preserving classic film", so I cannot see the absurdity of this thread, while I can clearly see the nonsense and short-sightness in many answers, more directed to make fun of the thread than to give an honest opinion about the subject. Maybe because this has really become a "silent comedy mafia" (i'm just quoting, this is not an insult), and we have to be for or against something, with no shades of grey in between. That seems particularly sad to me.

In any case, I just limit myself to repeat the evidence, which no one has contradicted so far (arguing that the official Lone Star synopsis could have been based on the B negative seems so far fetched to me; and just watching the BBC version you can clearly see everything fits there, while watching at the usual version I ALWAYS had the impression that everything was so jumpy and incomplete (just as much as it was with older versions of THE CURE before restoration, and with the cut during the stairs scene at ONE A.M.; you watched that on the old Blackhawk versions and you knew something was wrong with that jump).

So I repeat myself, just in case someone would consider to give an opinion about it, and not just discard it because of being aside whoever.

evidence:

1) The BBC version is there, with all the full scenes, most of which make no sense at all supressing. Many of them are fragments complementing already existing scenes.

2I ALL of the full missing scenes are specifically detailed on the OFFICIAL LONE STAR SYNOPSIS as quoted by Michael J. Hayde on his book "Chaplin's Vintage Year":

a) the extra vomiting scene:
"Here there is another 'storm' threatening, for an ambitious youth who insisted on a second service of pork, unfurls the white flag to a gigantic wave and with his mother's assistance he manages to empty the contents of his anatomy in a series of volcanic spasms, but in such a manner as to again cause much annoyance to Charlie, who suffers little damage other than a few stray bits which nestle on his derby while he is artfully dodging." (Hayde, page 375)

b) Charlie leaving the dining room
"Once more he wards off the storm and he happily shuffles along to survey the boat" (Hayde, page 377)

c) the pipe sequence with Loyal Underwood
"The infuriated gambler hurls everything within his reach with no particular destination in view and a swift moving bucket finds its way to the youth's head, sending him sprawling on the deck, while the uninterested maiden takes to her heels." (same page as above)

d) Edna being called over by the Captain
"Edna could not imagine what she was being summoned for and shyly walked over at the Captain's command." (Hayde, page 380)

And so on. Obviously the short transition shots are not specifically mentioned there. But if the missing long scenes are, it is easy to suposse all of them were part of the original form of negative A. Why would Chaplin send to the register a description based on the foreign negative B which, according to Sheppard, would contradict the negative A made under his own supervision? That's absurd.

The only possible conclusion is that the OFFICIAL LONE STAR SYNOPSIS was made taking into consideration negative A, which by then was surely very similar to negative B, but which was trimmed down by distributors shortly after, making it now impossible to find a complete print of it, while the untouched negative B distributed in Europe survives in a form more close to the original editing.

Thus, any version not fitting the OFFICIAL LONE STAR SYNOPSIS would be inevitably incomplete.


However, many people here seem to be more interested in defend Shepard's work (which of course I highly respect, as I already said on many other places) other than argument something about this particular subject.

Of course Chaplin changes his flims in later years. Of course there have been many versions of the Mutuals. It's clear that original prints of negative A do not exist anymore (given the fact that so many silent films completely dissapeared, this is not at all amusing). But the fact that apparently on the new set all of the Mutuals have their restored missing bits except THE IMMIGRANT, the decision not to restore them in this case seems to me highly arbitrary.

And I agree with Doug Sulpy, I wanted to finally have a high quality print of the entire film to show, not the low quality video transfer from You Tube I just posted.

I would like to offer this suggestion to Mr. Arias and Mr. Sulpy, and I mean it sincerely because clearly both individuals have spent a good deal of time investigating, researching, and building strong feelings about their respective points of view, and this by manner of expeience is the road to creating and producing something that may be of great value to other people:

1) Collect and put in order your own materials: that which you have documented, film sources which you have identified, materials you have personally collected, etc...

2) Develop a coalition, a team, a network of private collectors, professional institutions, and public companies, to help support and strengthen your views and proposals, and to stand behind you in the pursuit of realizing a new project, etc...

3) Collect bids from various digital video mastering houses, film labs, etc... so as to ascertain production costs...

4) Create a budget and a formal proposal and then determine to produce a version of what titles you feel most passionate about, and then pursue a production with the goal being to create the very best edition that you sincerely envision.

It is not easy, but it is VERY possible to achieve this goal. You have spent ample time on this forum presenting your case, your evidence, and your ideas concerning your personal vision. I find nothing wrong with any of that at all. (I suspect that there are people here who would gladly be a part of your project if you chose to pursue something in this realm). However, if you do feel so deeply passionate, there is nothing stopping you from producing a high quality edition of these titles, hand selected by yourselves. There is every chance that with a commitment to this cause, that the results can be achieved and from it, a good deal of notoriety garnered in the process: invitations to various film festivals around the world, special screenings in countless cities, and certainly an opportunity to contribute your passion with a public that is hungry for quality entertainment.

Sincerely,

Robert Israel

That's a high quality dismiss. If you don't like it, do it yourself. So, you cannot object anything unless you do it. You cannot critizise a book because you are not writing it. If you don't like film, then instead of saying it, produce a film you like.

In other words, if I don't like the way they do it, I should shut up and do it myself, and stop bothering you.

I don't buy that. I've spent loads of money in the various Lobster, Flicker Alley, Looser Than Loose, etc etc etc sets, and I think I'm as entitled as you are to give an opinion and to disagree.

And again, I don't understand why your commentaries have to be so dismissive. I don't understand why you cannot give an opinion on a little subject like this that contadicts Mr. Bromberg or Mr. Shepard's.

I work myself in the restoration of old music and everytime I get critizising I try to do better, or I explain I did everything that could be done for an economic reason, which I believe is the true reason for not properly restoring this film, given all the aggresive answers me and Mr. Sulpy (we two "individuals") have received.

Honestly, I think you have an interesting case and you might have convinced me of it if you had devoted one-tenth the energy to answering objections to it as opposed to acting hurt and offended, calling everyone who doesn't see your genius instantly names and accusing them of bad faith, portraying the forum where you've been given free rein as oppressive, and insulting as little better than a thief someone who's put tremendous effort into a set that even you would have to find 98.5% marvelous (that's six minutes vs. 400 total).

It's just grown tiresome and shrill, regardless of the merits. But the inability to defend the merits without invective doesn't speak so well for them, either.

Are you hallucinating?
There's none of that in Martin's posts, and none of it in mine.

And, even if there WAS, that's no reason to dismiss a cogent argument.

If you find the thread "tiresome and shrill, regardless of the merits," why not just refrain from participating in it?

Well, for one, I was told I was so wrong I was hallucinating...

Okay, now it's time to put this out of its misery. You've had four pages to make your case. Case closed.