RESTORATION OF THE HAL ROACH L&H COLLECTION

Dirwuf · Post by **Dirwuf** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:04 pm

Here's a great piece by Richard Bann detailing the history of the mutilation and degradation of the L&H catalog and what's being done...

https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/support/ano ... dys-legacy

Paul Penna · Post by **Paul Penna** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:37 pm

Dirwuf wrote:Here's a great piece by Richard Bann detailing the history of the mutilation and degradation of the L&H catalog and what's being done...

https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/support/ano ... dys-legacy

The article leaves me confused as to what materials are where. Some seem to be in Munich (the "inaccessible to American audiences" ones) and some at UCLA (the ones in their "state of the art vaults"). I'm wondering what the differences are in these materials. Are they all from the same films? Which collection is of higher quality (i.e., earlier generation and/or in better state of preservation)?

Post by **silentfilm** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:04 pm

And here is the donation link, with more information...

https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/support/laurel-and-hardy

sethb · Post by **sethb** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:53 pm

I just had another thought about this situation.

It's ironic that UCLA and the LOC are now chasing around for the best elements and funding to preserve this material. I say that because under U.S. copyright law, at least from the 1920's to the 1970's and possibly later, one requirement for copyright protection was that the registrant had to deposit two copies of the copyrighted work with the LOC.

Nobody ever questioned this requirement for books, but the studios claimed that it was too onerous and expensive in the case of film. So the studios and the LOC supposedly worked out some deal, whereby the studios didn't have to deposit the copies, which were technically "lent back" to the studios by the LOC (but never returned). I also understand that sometime in the 1970's, this policy was modified or reversed to some extent. But by then, the major damage had already been done.

In this fashion, the LOC deprived itself of a pristine and complete film archive, which could have been created at no expense to the Feds. Of course, in fairness I would have to note that the LOC would have had to store all this film somewhere, which it had neither the space, the funds nor the inclination to do. However, I would think that this policy has probably come back to haunt the LOC on a number of occasions.

Ironically, in later years the LOC often ended up with the nitrate negatives anyway, because the studios didn't want to continue paying for storage. But by then the elements were often battered, bruised or chemically unstable, requiring large sums of money to restore and preserve -- as is now the case with the L&H material.

BTW, it's not my intention to "point the finger" only at the LOC; there's certainly plenty of blame to go around! I was just making an interesting point. And I'm sure that LOC has done whatever it can in recent years to rectify the situation, as time and funding allows. SETH

Jim Reid · Post by **Jim Reid** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:36 pm

Paul Penna wrote: The article leaves me confused as to what materials are where. Some seem to be in Munich (the "inaccessible to American audiences" ones) and some at UCLA (the ones in their "state of the art vaults"). I'm wondering what the differences are in these materials. Are they all from the same films? Which collection is of higher quality (i.e., earlier generation and/or in better state of preservation)?

If you read Dick Bann's article, it appears that the German restoration work was all done in the US, so the original elements never left the country. What's in Germany are the results of the earlier restoration.

DShepFilm · Post by **DShepFilm** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:58 am

In his article, my good friend Dick Bann has been somewhat unfair to Blackhawk Films. Although he was indeed employed there, it was as advertising manager and not in production so perhaps he never knew that beginning in 1952, when the films were not all that ancient, the company made a mountain of safety preservation on the Roach films, all of which has been on deposit at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences since 1989 where it is, of course, accessible to UCLA as needed (and some of which UCLA has already used).

The Roach contract stipulated not only that Blackhawk not show the MGM trade mark but also that it show the renewal copyright information. The notorious Blackhawk titles are not works of art but they were a legal requirement, and of course the availablity of these films in home movie prints contributed a great deal to the maintenance of the L&H and other Roach comedies in popular culture.

David Shepard

sethb · Post by **sethb** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:52 pm

As a former Blackhawk customer, I can attest to the fact that their 16mm L&H prints were absolutely gorgeous. And while the Blackhawk titles were not exactly Art Deco, they appear to have been a necessity.

It seems to me that Blackhawk was one of the more careful licensees with regard to the Roach material. In fact most everything they did was first-rate, especially compared to some of the other "home movie" outfits that were operating during that time (think Thunderbird Films or Niles, for example). SETH

Tommie Hicks · Post by **Tommie Hicks** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:44 pm

The Blackhawk material on THEIR PURPLE MOMENT has a scene with an awry phonograph that the Agee and Universal (Europe) elements lack.

Derek Gee · Post by **Derek Gee** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:08 pm

Tommie Hicks wrote:The Blackhawk material on THEIR PURPLE MOMENT has a scene with an awry phonograph that the Agee and Universal (Europe) elements lack.

Interesting, I wonder where that scene went? The production credit from the laserdisc reads: "Produced by Michael Agee with much thanks to David Shepard for hiw wise council, moral support, and the original Vitaphone elements. Digitally mastered and transferred from the original 35mm Library of Congress preservation elements, alternate camera angles, and first-generation safety fine grain elements."

Perhaps that scene deteriorated between when the Blackhawk preservation elements were made and when the LOC made their elements?

Derek

Tommie Hicks · Post by **Tommie Hicks** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:05 pm

The scene was in my 8mm Blackhawk print, but I sold that long ago. This scene is in the Robert Youngson compilation FOUR CLOWNS and I assume Youngson acquired his material from the late '60's incarnation of the Hal Roach Studios. Here is a frame grab from an old Blackhawk Bulletin.

moviepas · Post by **moviepas** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:14 am

Worth reading the Scott MacGillivray book Laurel & Hardy from the Forties Forward 2nd Ed 2009. Page 173 on Theatrical Reissues. Rather interesting and somewhat disturbing information on those pre-1940 films in various hands. The question will probably remain unanswered forever but WHY?

radiotelefonia · Post by **radiotelefonia** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:25 pm

gjohnson · Post by **gjohnson** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:13 am

Well, that was a disturbing puppet show.

westegg · Post by **westegg** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:31 am

What the hell was that?!

Doug Sulpy · Post by **Doug Sulpy** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:36 am

I dunno. But the Hardy-thing seems to be swimming through thin air.

Scoundrel · Post by **Scoundrel** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:28 pm

radiotelefonia · Post by **radiotelefonia** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:19 pm

At least the video I brought was more in tune with the thread.

That film was shown in the United States... and where are the historians since they are not writing here about it!!!!!!!!

Rob Farr · Post by **Rob Farr** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:17 am

How will the historians write about it if unless you enlighten us?

radiotelefonia · Post by **radiotelefonia** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:21 am

Rob Farr wrote:How will the historians write about it if unless you enlighten us?

That film is called IDOLOS DE LA RADIO (1934) and it was released in the United States the following year. The film has never been preserved and some archives keep their prints that have never been restored. It is not going to be restored either because nobody cares... and, by the way, that clip comes from an incomplete version of the film.

Those comedians, Freddy and Leo, were very popular on radio and I even saw a picture of them in an Argentine magazine from 1943.

Rob Farr · Post by **Rob Farr** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:31 pm

Do these two just contribute a single cameo or do they play L&H thoughout the film (at least as much as has survived)? The way the swimming "Hardy-thing" is played it seems like they were doing less an imitation than a caricature.

radiotelefonia · Post by **radiotelefonia** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:30 pm

Rob Farr wrote:Do these two just contribute a single cameo or do they play L&H thoughout the film (at least as much as has survived)? The way the swimming "Hardy-thing" is played it seems like they were doing less an imitation than a caricature.

I think that this is their only screen time, which is credited. If they did other films I don't know.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:26 am

Tommie Hicks wrote:The scene was in my 8mm Blackhawk print, but I sold that long ago. This scene is in the Robert Youngson compilation FOUR CLOWNS and I assume Youngson acquired his material from the late '60's incarnation of the Hal Roach Studios. Here is a frame grab from an old Blackhawk Bulletin.

The odd thing is they used that same gag with the overwound Victrola in their next film Should Married Men Go Home?

While the still does seem to be from Their Purple Moment (judging from the decor and costumes) and the opening scene of that film has Stan bringing home a Chinese phonograph record, I find it hard to believe they'd use exactly the same (unusual) gag in consecutive films. Maybe it was shot for Their Purple Moment then deleted from most release prints, and that's why they felt able to re-use it in the next film?

We do see a phonograph in the living-room corner in Their Purple Moment but it's still intact just before Stan & Ollie leave the house, so an elaborate gag at that point would surely have been disruptive to the flow of the film.

antoniod · Post by **antoniod** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:40 pm

And most/all of the Laurel and Hardy sound films made before 1936 have wildly fluctuating light levels-even the ones that MGM owned.Wonder why?

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:56 am

Further to my post above, a friend has checked 4 Clowns and tells me that gramophone gag is not included in the extracts from Their Purple Moment. While the still suggests it may well have been shot, I wonder if - in terms of what was released or at least survives - there is some confusion here with the same gag in Should Married Men Go Home? ?

Tommie Hicks · Post by **Tommie Hicks** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:55 pm

There is no confusion on my part. I have seen this gag in TPM.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:34 am

I asked someone to examine their Blackhawk print of Their Purple Moment (not the same person who checked 4 Clowns) and he reports the phonograph gag is not there either...(see post 7 especially but also the later ones from another collector who owns a Blackhawk print).

I think you must have seen a unique print as the gag is not mentioned in the mostly detailed accounts of this film in books by Everson, or McCabe, Bann & Kilgore, or Mitchell, or Skretvedt, or indeed me, all of us writing before the DVD era and all of whom refer to the same gag when discussing Should Married Men Go Home? I note you've mentioned its presence in your 8mm (and 16mm?) Blackhawk print several times over the past decade on the Google groups, but I didn't see any response confirming its existence, and the same is true when it was discussed by others on the Laurel & Hardy Forum after they had read your posts.

I'm not saying the scene cannot exist but I'd appreciate your matching my efforts to supply physical evidence that it does!

I believe it would be an important contribution to Laurel & Hardy scholarship as it sounds like an alternate cut or even pre-release print (given that it's unlikely they'd repeat this kind of gag in their next film if it had already been seen) and thus may contain other variations from the prints in circulation.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:31 am

Hopefully the pending UCLA L&H restorations will finally provide us with quality Laurel and Hardy DVDs. But until then DO NOT BUY the following L&H compilation DVD:

"Laurel and Hardy"
Hallmark / FHE / Artisan Home Entertainment
UPC# 707729143345

The transfers are choppy and atrocious, some obviously from videotape. Even if you find this DVD in the $1 bin, stay away from it!

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Mon May 23, 2011 11:48 am

Uhuunnhhnn... Would they have a better master for Sons of The Desert ???

The one available on video it's not very good.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Mon May 23, 2011 12:56 pm

All Darc wrote:Uhuunnhhnn... Would they have a better master for Sons of The Desert ???

The one available on video it's not very good.

We all hope that UCLA has quality prints to work from. When 'Sons of The Desert' and other L&H films are shown on TCM, the prints are good, much better than the prints used for the Hallmark DVD. So there are decent L&H prints out there somewhere.

sethb · Post by **sethb** » Tue May 24, 2011 10:23 am

My understanding was that although better elements were available to it, Hallmark took the lazy/cheap/quick way out on this. They used a colorized video version of SONS OF THE DESERT, washed the color out of it, and then used it as the video master for the Hallmark/WalMart reissue.

In addition to a few "video rolls" during the feature, I could also see some hairs and dirt in the main credits that were apparently in the projection gate when it was transferred to video in the first place. So much for offering a "restored" version!! As some Nitrateville pundit already noted in a previous thread on the Wal-Mart L&H reissue, "With Hallmark, they obviously don't care to send the very best."

Still, I will confess that I bought it, only because it was better than having nothing at all. But not THAT much better!! I too am looking forward to seeing the UCLA restored versions of these wonderful classics. SETH

RESTORATION OF THE HAL ROACH L&H COLLECTION

Restoration of the Hal Roach L&H films

Roach Restoration