Chaplin's "Modern Times" on Blu-ray/DVD - Nov. 16

fwtep · Post by **fwtep** » Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:26 am

azjazzman wrote:
Doug Sulpy wrote:Speaking for myself, I'm not happy that "Modern Times" (and some of the other, upcoming Chaplin films) are going to only be issued in butchered form on blu-ray
C'mon Doug. "Butchered"? Over the top much? Thanks for making my point for me. If you think the minor edit in Modern Times makes it "butchered", you simply have lost touch with reality.

This one cut (in Modern Times) may or may not be "butchering" or "defacement" (and I have the Blu-ray), but the changes in his other silent films ARE things I'd call butchering and defacement. Are you going to tell me that the changes to The Gold Rush are minor and not worth being concerned about?

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:51 am

No. They're also many, many times more extensive and comprehensive in tone and effect than a single minute snipped from an otherwise intact film.

I wouldn't buy the official Gold Rush releases until they put out the Brownlow-Gill reconstruction on the CBS DVDs; of course, there wasn't that much reason to since I owned the laserdisc of the Killiam version. When it's that different, I'm willing to be a purist. In this case, I can think that their choice is wrongheaded, but still figure, a great-looking version of Modern Times in the same form as the first half dozen times I saw it is not a bad thing.

JM · Post by JM » Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:25 pm

antifrodis wrote:I picked up the Modern Times Blu-Ray yesterday. The film looks better than I've ever seen it. For those who were wondering, the extras all seem to be in standard dvd quality including the missing last verse. No new transfers there. "The Rink" is the version from the more recent Mutual dvd release. It was very pixelated and definitely not HD quality. I don't recall the dvds looking like that. I got the disc for around $20.

I noticed the same - the version of "The Rink" is the same, but looks much poorer than it does on the excellent 90th Anniversary dvds - very pixelated, as you say. In fact, many of the SD extras looked (to me) very low-res, with the exception of the cut scene of Chaplin trying to cross the street. That said, I also agree with you that the film itself looks (and sounds) fantastic on this Blu-Ray.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:33 pm

azjazzman wrote:
WaverBoy wrote:It's over a minute, not 30 seconds; it's some great stuff; and it's crudely, senselessly hacked out. I prefer my Chaplin classics complete.
Since it was Chaplin himself that made the cut, the film is, in fact, complete.

I'll have to go for "complete as originally edited and released by Chaplin in 1936" over "complete as originally shortened and reissued by Chaplin in 1954".

azjazzman wrote:And the truth is, in the longer version, the song *does* go on too long. Chaplin knew what he was doing, and I trust his judgement when it comes to comic timing.

The truth according to whom? And I think I'll trust Charlie's judgement of comic timing regarding MODERN TIMES in 1936 when he made the film over his judgement of comic timing regarding MODERN TIMES in 1954 nearly two decades post-original-release/past his prime.

Post by **Danny Burk** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:38 pm

Around and around we go.......and it's time that we move on to other subjects and give this one a rest.

Chris Seguin · Post by **Chris Seguin** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:44 am

Has nobody pointed out that the obvious reason the last verse was cut was the stereotypical Jewish pawnbroker pantomime?

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:43 pm

Oh my God, now look what Chaplin's done!

Chris Seguin · Post by **Chris Seguin** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:21 pm

"As disgusting as he is unfunny..."

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:47 pm

mutantmoose · Post by **mutantmoose** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:09 pm

I took a look at this last night - it's kind of funny how the sound of the boss on the television is fine, and his appearance is at sound speed, but Chaplin in the bathroom is cranked at "silent speed". I'd be REALLY curious to see how the Chaplin production company chose their speeds and made sure that it looked silent.

AFA the cut bit goes - I NEVER liked the song, I neved liked the way it doesn't fit in the movie, the way Chaplin's voice doesn't match the character's mouth movement, the way the print looks totally different at that point - it's a mess. The butcher cut doesn't help or hurt - it just seems to fit in, as if to say "Well, that was unsalvageable, let's just move along, shall we?"

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:17 pm

I took a look at this last night - it's kind of funny how the sound of the boss on the television is fine, and his appearance is at sound speed, but Chaplin in the bathroom is cranked at "silent speed". I'd be REALLY curious to see how the Chaplin production company chose their speeds and made sure that it looked silent.

I'd rather not this turn into another film speed debate, because heaven knows we've had enough of those, but to me, this would seem to indicate Chaplin's preference for a slightly faster projection than take rate during his comedy.

The Boss on the TV is shot at sound speed since obviously both the rear-screen projector and the camera had to maintain phase, and since the boss is talking, the take speed for the rear-projection footage is 24 fps.

Just my opinion, but the effect of the undercranking is contrasted quite nicely by this insertion of same take/projection speed when the Boss shows up, thereby halting the action at a jarring stand-still. I don't think it was a happy accident that it was orchestrated this way.

mutantmoose · Post by **mutantmoose** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:11 pm

Let's brawl! (Takes off gloves)

Kidding -

Actually, when I took a really careful look at the bathroom scene, I was sure that Chaplin was moving at a faster "silent speed", but was not sure if the boss was moving faster too, and was just overdubbed, or if the boss was at sound speed. It didn't occur to me that it was rear projection, either - I had just assumed that it was a masked-off shot thingie.

I hate, and I mean HATE to add this, but I wonder if the 25fps transfer done for PAL also adds to the speed. (I was watching the MK2 version at the time.) I'll have to pull out an older Image dvd and compare.

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:52 am

If you're sensitive to speed, I'm sure it does make a difference. Most people can't perceive one frame a second's difference, but some can't see change-over cues, either.

Personally, I can't see it, but I can *hear* it, and it bugs the heck out of me.

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:29 pm

Actually I think it's more obvious in the opening, "artillery gun" sequence of The Great Dictator that he was shooting the Tramp's comedy scenes silent style, a few frames below sound speed, and then having to dub in other characters somewhat awkwardly when they start talking to the Tramp in the same shot.

It would be interesting now, what with these newfangled computerees they've got, to see how you could blend a silent comedy performer shot at a higher speed on greenscreen with other actors moving in real time. It would be easy enough to do, but I wonder if the eyes and mind wouldn't rebel at it.

Rodney · Post by **Rodney** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:53 am

Jack Theakston wrote:
I took a look at this last night - it's kind of funny how the sound of the boss on the television is fine, and his appearance is at sound speed, but Chaplin in the bathroom is cranked at "silent speed". I'd be REALLY curious to see how the Chaplin production company chose their speeds and made sure that it looked silent.
I'd rather not this turn into another film speed debate, because heaven knows we've had enough of those, but to me, this would seem to indicate Chaplin's preference for a slightly faster projection than take rate during his comedy.

I don't think there's any debate that Chaplin (and Fairbanks, and other silent film comedians) wanted their silent comedy undercranked. It's a question of degree. If we could determine the film speed of the undercranked portions of Modern Times (or City Lights, for that matter) it would give an idea of how undercranked Chaplin actually preferred to be (at least, in the 1930s) when he actually knew how fast the film would be projected.

Jeffrey Vance · Post by **Jeffrey Vance** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:11 am

Documents from the Chaplin Studios reveal the camera speeds for MODERN TIMES. As an example, on the first day of filming--October 11, 1934--the cameras were cranking at 18 fps and sometimes 16 fps.

Jeffrey Vance

DShepFilm · Post by **DShepFilm** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:29 am

There's lots of documentation in the supplements on the laserdisc edition of MT. Of course CC knew the film would be run at 24 fps, but he did not know how much speed up he wanted; so he did shots repeatedly with the camera turning at different speeds, to make his decisions in projection.

What we do not know is which take he finally chose.

David Shepard

Jeffrey Vance · Post by **Jeffrey Vance** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:48 am

I have in hand the complete run of the Chaplin Studios daily production reports and continuity reports for MODERN TIMES. The cameras cranked at mainly 18 and 16 fps from the beginning to end of production. The cameras also cranked at 20 and 24 fps.

Jeffrey Vance

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:10 pm

mutantmoose wrote:AFA the cut bit goes - I NEVER liked the song, I neved liked the way it doesn't fit in the movie, the way Chaplin's voice doesn't match the character's mouth movement, the way the print looks totally different at that point - it's a mess. The butcher cut doesn't help or hurt - it just seems to fit in, as if to say "Well, that was unsalvageable, let's just move along, shall we?"

Chaplin's voice perfectly matches the character's mouth movement. Perhaps you saw a print with the song dubbed in Japanese nonsense. (Sorry, I couldn't resist, please forgive me.) As for the song not fitting in the movie, and/or being a mess, I guess I can't relate to that viewpoint. It's a perfect capper to Charlie's last silent comedy classic, and I've always loved it, since I first saw it as a 13-year-old.