Talking, collecting and preserving classic film.
https://www.nitrateville.com/
That was in 1996, and a researcher or archivist did a writeup and published it in a magazine related to the film archive. In the present essay, the writer wonders (amusingly to me) how the old, published writeup about material for a lost movie was somehow not noticed, so that the film material remained lost until 24 years later.
To me, this suggests the opposite - that the titles were deliberately saved. After all, one only needs to retain a single frame to preserve a title. If they didn't want to keep it, wouldn't it have been much easier to simply discard it?martin arias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 2:03 amI don't think the titles were intentionally preserved. Each of the titles shown here are still images originating just from one frame, which suggest that they were "accidentally" preserved. The fact that all of them have an incomplete portion in the upper or lower part, or show a bit of color from the tinting, indicates that the were next to the beginning or the ending of a scene.
) -- my main goal was to reconnect several of the shots that are broken up throughout the Filmoteca's original upload. Some of them, such as Salome speaking with Sejanus (1:05), recoalesce perfectly, while shots like Salome vamping along the steps (1:22) are still riddled with gaps and missing footage. Whoever saved these clips edited them really curiously. Still, it makes a little more sense of the slapdash editing of the original fragment. I elected not to reinsert the intertitles, because I couldn't figure out with limited context where they belonged in this footage, or if they even belong to these scenes at all -- I have theories about a couple of them, but as a whole, I'm not sure. Lastly, I thought it would be fun to soundtrack the clip with the lovely Salome tango posted by @radiotelefonia -- my appreciation to you; I think they pair well!Something to glue to? But if so, then shouldn't we see more splices in the frame immediately following? (I didn't check.)
Brooksie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:11 pmTo me, this suggests the opposite - that the titles were deliberately saved. After all, one only needs to retain a single frame to preserve a title. If they didn't want to keep it, wouldn't it have been much easier to simply discard it?martin arias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 2:03 amI don't think the titles were intentionally preserved. Each of the titles shown here are still images originating just from one frame, which suggest that they were "accidentally" preserved. The fact that all of them have an incomplete portion in the upper or lower part, or show a bit of color from the tinting, indicates that the were next to the beginning or the ending of a scene.
I think that's what everyone is now assuming and there hardly seems any other explanation.
I half agree. It can't have been left up to the individual projectionists to each apply their own pairs of scissors? Censorship is usually done on a national level.BudAbbott wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:25 amGive it a little thought and the 'documentary' theory falls apart: if these were to be used for a documentary, the clips would almost certainly be longer.
I think the 'censor' idea is the likeliest. There are stories of projectionists who assembled and kept reels of footage of small bits they were required to cut out of features -- this could be one of those. And notice how many of these clips show a lot of leg, etc.
I don't say it's dispositive, I'm just saying that it makes more sense.
One other guess is that some projectionist deliberately snipped these out for his own, er, enjoyment. That might explain the clips' brevity: he'd only trim as much as he could get away with before returning the print. Anyhow, it's a thought.
There was no national board of censors. It was done on a state basis- surviving prints still bear titles such as PASSED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF CENSORS. In addition, if local figures had enough power - or if the theater owner had opinions - films would be cut in individual towns.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:01 amI half agree. It can't have been left up to the individual projectionists to each apply their own pairs of scissors? Censorship is usually done on a national level.BudAbbott wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:25 amGive it a little thought and the 'documentary' theory falls apart: if these were to be used for a documentary, the clips would almost certainly be longer.
I think the 'censor' idea is the likeliest. There are stories of projectionists who assembled and kept reels of footage of small bits they were required to cut out of features -- this could be one of those. And notice how many of these clips show a lot of leg, etc.
I don't say it's dispositive, I'm just saying that it makes more sense.
One other guess is that some projectionist deliberately snipped these out for his own, er, enjoyment. That might explain the clips' brevity: he'd only trim as much as he could get away with before returning the print. Anyhow, it's a thought.
But indeed this would be absolutely useless for a documentary.
But the idea that this was taken for "a private collection" on the sly - yes. Maybe this was "souvenired".
I imagine that's why you would sometimes start from the title card onward, but never too long. You can only trim so little that no-one will notice.
This is a SPANISH print. By the way US states are still pretty big units, almost countries. But my point was, it would be edited and THEN go into circulation, surely?FrankFay wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:19 amThere was no national board of censors. It was done on a state basis- surviving prints still bear titles such as PASSED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF CENSORS. In addition, if local figures had enough power - or if the theater owner had opinions - films would be cut in individual towns.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:01 amI half agree. It can't have been left up to the individual projectionists to each apply their own pairs of scissors? Censorship is usually done on a national level.BudAbbott wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:25 amGive it a little thought and the 'documentary' theory falls apart: if these were to be used for a documentary, the clips would almost certainly be longer.
I think the 'censor' idea is the likeliest. There are stories of projectionists who assembled and kept reels of footage of small bits they were required to cut out of features -- this could be one of those. And notice how many of these clips show a lot of leg, etc.
I don't say it's dispositive, I'm just saying that it makes more sense.
One other guess is that some projectionist deliberately snipped these out for his own, er, enjoyment. That might explain the clips' brevity: he'd only trim as much as he could get away with before returning the print. Anyhow, it's a thought.
But indeed this would be absolutely useless for a documentary.
But the idea that this was taken for "a private collection" on the sly - yes. Maybe this was "souvenired".
I imagine that's why you would sometimes start from the title card onward, but never too long. You can only trim so little that no-one will notice.
Ahh- forgot it was Spanish. But still, there was censorship at the local level. It is dangerous to cite a piece of fiction as an example, but surely you have seen Cinema Paradiso?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 5:36 am
This is a SPANISH print. By the way US states are still pretty big units, almost countries. But my point was, it would be edited and THEN go into circulation, surely?
Plus, would this be the most offensive scenes? Doubtful. So my money is on the pilfering projectionist.
And even individual theaters. I can't remember where I read it (probably James Card's book?) The Eastman Theater in Rochester had a firm time limit (I think it was two hours) for their entire program. The projectionist would cut enough out of the features, shorts, and documentaries, to hit that target. If your theater was downstream of Eastman in the distribution chain for that particular print, you never saw those scenes.FrankFay wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:19 amThere was no national board of censors. It was done on a state basis- surviving prints still bear titles such as PASSED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF CENSORS. In addition, if local figures had enough power - or if the theater owner had opinions - films would be cut in individual towns.
There would be no-one to stop them. But these can't be the worst scenes in the movie?!FrankFay wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 6:26 amAhh- forgot it was Spanish. But still, there was censorship at the local level. It is dangerous to cite a piece of fiction as an example, but surely you have seen Cinema Paradiso?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 5:36 am
This is a SPANISH print. By the way US states are still pretty big units, almost countries. But my point was, it would be edited and THEN go into circulation, surely?
Plus, would this be the most offensive scenes? Doubtful. So my money is on the pilfering projectionist.
With respect, a good percentage of all the folks on the planet would have eyes like that, if they made up like that, acted like that, and were shot like that.
OK let's see. In the online article, it says first:Brooksie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:04 amOne of the only other things we know for sure about this footage is that it came from the collection of a working film director, who was making similar kinds of epics to Salome in the teens and early twenties. Perhaps he retained particular shots he admired for reference in his own works.
Files say source unknown. More searching leads to:Sobre la procedencia del material, la ficha únicamente recoge que proviene del “fondo histórico”, de origen desconocido.
"Various unidentified items" were bought in 1986 from the estate of Ramón de Baños.Uno de ellos comentó que «Diversos sin identificar III» provenía de una compra realizada en 1986 a los herederos de Ramón de Baños, director y pionero de cine.
Oh, I'm sorry to see it's no longer available. I was very grateful to see it that way and I found it a better watch than the unedited version. Perhaps you're working on an update?ElectricPhonograph wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:55 pmJust for kicks, I decided to reorder the Salome fragments into something slightly more coherent:
A few disclaimers: I didn't necessarily strive for story continuity (although, in my head, the sequence here works if you really, really stretch your imagination
Upon visiting the page, it seems the video was copyright claimed.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:34 amOh, I'm sorry to see it's no longer available. I was very grateful to see it that way and I found it a better watch than the unedited version. Perhaps you're working on an update?