NitrateVille.com

Anyone knows if Raymond Griffith's THE NIGHT CLUB (1925) has been or is about the be on DVD or Blu-Ray?

Grapevine used to have it. They may still.

Bob

yes, but on VHS, which I cannot watch anymore! As far a I know they haven't release it on DVD. Some "Loving the Classics" site offers it on DVDR, but they don't even have paypal, and I won't put my credit card out there with no security at all.

All video versions of The Night Club are bootlegs, because Paramount has never officially released it or any other Raymond Griffith films on video. We can always hope that Kino will license this film. Or, it will be public domain in 2021.

I would stay away from "Loving the Classics", as they don't love their customers...
viewtopic.php?t=14383

thanks for the advice!

That would be wonderful if companies started releasing films as PD status by year resumes...

We are only weeks away from the 1923s going PD.

Earlier this year I watched a worn 16mm print of The Night Club at the Niles Essanay Silent film Museum. Though enjoyable, it's not one of Raymond Griffith's best films. The direction is undistinguished, the story jumps through several equally cliched scenarios, and Griffith isn't convincing as a suicidal swain--his screen persona is too suave and dispassionate to get worked up over mundane things like love. But he's always captivating, and his charm and graceful timing are in evidence here. The film's climax is a hair-raising chase involving an out-of-control car; it's graced by several moments when the slapstick goes from mildly amusing to inspired.

In an odd way, the lesser films of Raymond Griffith often seem to emphasize his charisma and brilliance even more than his better films do; his presence saved more than one film production from being forgettable. From what I can recall, his performance is one of the few really memorable things about MISS BLUEBEARD (another 1925 feature -- granted, it's been more than a decade since I saw it, and I certainly didn't see it on a big screen then).

Just to reinforce two previous comments:
1.Unfortunately, THE NIGHT CLUB is a rather weak Griffith film.
2. AVOID! Loving the Classics - they still owe me a refund from possibly two years ago.

I feel like I saw this at Cinefest in Syracuse in the 1990s, but I don't have my programs handy to confirm. Does anyone else recall this?

Robert Frazer, unknown, and Raymond Griffith in Miss Bluebeard (1925).

Both The Night Club and Miss Bluebeard were cheaply produced features that were filmed quickly by Paramount. Even contemporary critics commented on their slap-dash appearance.

The title The Night Club has nothing to do with the story of the film, but Kevin Brownlow says that Paramount was contractually obligated to provide a Griffith film with that title, so that is what was used.

THE NIGHT CLUB was released on 8mm in a very nice print in the 1970's by Hartney Arthur's Milestone Movies Corp. The pre-print was a 16mm original owned by Bill Everson (may have been a Kodascope, IIRC).

One of the Milestone prints surfaced on ebay a couple of years ago. Sold for about $45.

If Bill Everson had a print, then the odds that I saw it at Cinefest are pretty good, I'd say.

silentfilm wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:24 pm

The title The Night Club has nothing to do with the story of the film, but Kevin Brownlow says that Paramount was contractually obligated to provide a Griffith film with that title, so that is what was used.

Not that I am doubting the facts, but why would anyone have in their contract that one of their films had to be titled "The Night Club?" That seems a rather crazy provision in a contract. But, maybe provisions like this were common among the stars that had the clout to insist upon things.

Matthew

I agree it seems kind of odd, but although I've obviously not seen the contract in question, this kind of thing is not unheard of in the movie industry. Two theories may be that Raymond Griffith was originally scheduled to play in another film by that title which was then shelved, and so the title had to be used on another project instead; or, Griffith may have liked the title himself and thought it had box-office potential. This is just pure speculation on my part, of course, it's been years since I read the parts of PARADE'S GONE BY where Griffith is discussed.

The film begins with a title card containing a weasel-worded tie-in of the movie's main title to the film's actual plot.

What probably happened, regarding the misleading main title, is an artifact of the old (later outlawed) block-booking practice, whereby the studio's distribution arm "dangled" in front of independent-theater bookers a list of (supposedly in the pipeline) film titles and their stars for the coming year -- in hopes of signing up those theaters to exhibit a continuous stream of features and shorts, week after week, from the same studio.

The catch was that in order to be assured of region-exclusive premiering of the most attractive titles, the booker would be obligated to "buy the whole package".

As those of us know who have read studio-placed trade-paper ads and publicity stories from the "golden age," there were oftentimes both casting changes and title (or even story) switches that followed the early announcement of forthcoming films -- but once a specific title and its star were "locked down" into a block-booking contract, the distributor was (usually) legally bound to deliver what was promised.

Frame Rate is correct in that the contractual obligation was between exhibitors and Paramount. The strange thing is that also in 1925, Wet Paint was originally announced as Fresh Paint. Also that year, all the photos from He's a Prince carry that title, but the film was apparently changed to A Regular Fellow just before release or during its release. The January, 1926 edition of The Educational Screen says that it was playing under both titles.


My herald still says He's a Prince though.


And when it played in Compton, California, it was still entitled He's a Prince.

Thanks for sharing, Frame Rate, that makes quite sense (from the perspective of the time we’re talking about, anyway).

I consider it something of a sport detecting which films were written on the basis of a pre-sold title. The distance between title and premise can be a dead giveaway. It's quite noticeable in some of the Columbia series films of the 40s. Take Boston Blackie Goes Hollywood (1942), for example - no celebrity cameos, no glimpses of famous Hollywood landmarks; nothing you'd expect given the title. Just a standard jewel thief story and a whole lot of chases through an anonymous hotel that could be anywhere in the world.

A famous example of a "pre-sold" title which finally wound up on a film which had rather little to do with the title at all, is of course REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. Bought, from what I can recall, by Warner Brothers in the 1940s and based on that famous book on juvenile delinquency, they never found a proper home for it until that second James Dean film in -55. And it can be debated whether the title fit that film, even slightly; yeah, I get that they saw a chance to establish Dean as a "rebel" akin to Marlon Brando and Montgomery Clift, but I certainly don't think the character of Jim Stark lacked a "cause"... He wanted recognition and a more stable family situation. As such, he had much more of a "cause" than Brando's miserable brute in THE WILD ONE. Oh well, this is getting mighty Off Topic, I know.