NOAH'S ARK (28)

[missdupont]

Here's s story from Film Daily that I found on the media History Digital project site from 1928, listing injuries to John Barrymore and still photographer John Miehle while filming KING OF THE MOUNTAINS on location in 1928.

[momsne]

Very interesting stuff on that one page: reports on the 1928 hurricane that ravaged Florida and the number of extras employed in Paramount productions and even a paid announcement from Harry Delf. After a fast start as a director/writer for three early sound Fox film shorts. Delf's movie career seems to have hit a brick wall.

[radiotelefonia]

Spain... original release



Spain... Robert Youngson's reissue

[Gagman 66]

I like NOAH' ARK allot. I'm glad that Warner Archive finally released it. To me the goat-gland talking sequences, spoil a great film. They seem extremely awkward, out of place, and do nothing but dramatically slow down the pacing of the film. I understand why they were included at the time, but today one just shakes their head. As a Silent is is excellent, as a partial Talkie A disaster. Wasn't there originally intended to be allot more to the Biblical story? I think much of it was cut because the film took so long in production.

[CoffeeDan]

NOAH"S ARK wasn't a "goat gland" film. It was originally planned and cut as a part-talkie. Back in the day, the term "goat gland" specifically referred to an already-completed silent picture that had talking sequences added later to make it more commercially viable. All "goat glands" were part-talkies, but not all part-talkies were "goat glands."

It also helps to know that, after producing 10 all-talking feature films in 1928, Warner Brothers announced that they would make only part-talkies from then on. In the December 15, 1928 issue of Variety, WB said they were making the move because audiences tired more easily watching all-dialogue features. Henceforth, they said, their feature films would be no more than 75 percent talking. NOAH'S ARK was released in March of 1929, three months after this edict went into effect.

I'm not sure how long WB adhered to this standard; my guess is that it lasted until the end of the 1928-29 season, because all of the films they announced for the following season were 100 percent talking.

[josephh]

What 10 all talkies did Warners make in 1928 and which ones survive?

[sepiatone]

NOAH"S ARK wasn't a "goat gland" film. It was originally planned and cut as a part-talkie. Back in the day, the term "goat gland" specifically referred to an already-completed silent picture that had talking sequences added later to make it more commercially viable. All "goat glands" were part-talkies, but not all part-talkies were "goat glands."

It also helps to know that, after producing 10 all-talking feature films in 1928, Warner Brothers announced that they would make only part-talkies from then on. In the December 15, 1928 issue of Variety, WB said they were making the move because audiences tired more easily watching all-dialogue features. Henceforth, they said, their feature films would be no more than 75 percent talking. NOAH'S ARK was released in March of 1929, three months after this edict went into effect.

I'm not sure how long WB adhered to this standard; my guess is that it lasted until the end of the 1928-29 season, because all of the films they announced for the following season were 100 percent talking.

I was under the impression 'goat-glands' or 'hybrid' was a silent instituted with a sound process ie Vitaphone, Movietone. Were music and sound effects only considered 'goat-glanding'? For instance some Warner films of May McAvoy were silents brought back in for Vitaphone which could mean sound effects/music and or dialogue sequences. Also may be a few of Dorothy Mackaill's First Nationals.

[CoffeeDan]

I was under the impression 'goat-glands' or 'hybrid' was a silent instituted with a sound process ie Vitaphone, Movietone. Were music and sound effects only considered 'goat-glanding'? For instance some Warner films of May McAvoy were silents brought back in for Vitaphone which could mean sound effects/music and or dialogue sequences. Also may be a few of Dorothy Mackaill's First Nationals.

In the industry, "goat gland" didn't apply to reissues with sound in the form of a music score and/or sound effects. Now, if dialogue scenes were added after the completion of the film, then it would be a goat-gland film. New dramatic material with dialogue was the determining factor.

[entredeuxguerres]

Resolving the goat-gland confusion is a good first step, but prominent in the news during this same period was another glandular disturbance: the monkey-gland craze...mentioned in one picture I saw recently (Slightly Scarlet, 1930, I think) & the subject of a Sherlock Holmes film, other details of which I've forgotten. Monkey-glands, anyone?

[CoffeeDan]

What 10 all talkies did Warners make in 1928 and which ones survive?

It's a little difficult to determine because so many Warner films made at this time are lost. I know of only these three 1928 Warner all-talkies which survive in any form:

LIGHTS OF NEW YORK (generally credited as the first all-talking feature film ever released) -- survives intact, and (according to Facebook) is a candidate for a future Warner Archive release
MY MAN -- reels 1, 4 and 11 (out of 12) known to exist
THE TERROR -- film is lost, complete soundtrack survives

[josephh]

What 10 all talkies did Warners make in 1928 and which ones survive?

It's a little difficult to determine because so many Warner films made at this time are lost. I know of only these three 1928 Warner all-talkies which survive in any form:

LIGHTS OF NEW YORK (generally credited as the first all-talking feature film ever released) -- survives intact, and (according to Facebook) is a candidate for a future Warner Archive release
MY MAN -- reels 1, 4 and 11 (out of 12) known to exist
THE TERROR -- film is lost, complete soundtrack survives

I can't wait till they release Lights of New York, but where do the My Man reels survive? Were the critics more accepting of the Terror? I'd personally love to see that one because it has some stunning stills.

[George O'Brien]

Coffee Dan, NOAH'S ARK was a "goat gland" movie. It premiered in Hollywood in late October - early November 1928 as a silent film. Episode 1 of Brownlow's HOLLYWOOD shows the premiere, with Dolores arriving solo, and George arriving with Olive Borden. The film was pulled from release after several weeks, and the talking scenes were then added. George O'Brien had been on loan to Warner's from Fox for this one film, and was at the time busy back at his home studio working on THE LONE STAR RANGER. Nevertheless, he graciously returned to Warner's to do the brief talking scenes, and Jack Warner thanked him by giving him Warner's stock.

The film, with the talking scenes added only to the modern story, was put back into release in 1929, that is why the review you quote is dated 1929. I remember that Mordaunt Hall's waspy New York Times review is from March 1929.

[greta de groat]

What 10 all talkies did Warners make in 1928 and which ones survive?

It's a little difficult to determine because so many Warner films made at this time are lost. I know of only these three 1928 Warner all-talkies which survive in any form:

LIGHTS OF NEW YORK (generally credited as the first all-talking feature film ever released) -- survives intact, and (according to Facebook) is a candidate for a future Warner Archive release
MY MAN -- reels 1, 4 and 11 (out of 12) known to exist
THE TERROR -- film is lost, complete soundtrack survives

I can't wait till they release Lights of New York, but where do the My Man reels survive? Were the critics more accepting of the Terror? I'd personally love to see that one because it has some stunning stills.

There is a trailer and some Vitaphone discs for ON TRIAL.

greta

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Resolving the goat-gland confusion is a good first step, but prominent in the news during this same period was another glandular disturbance: the monkey-gland craze...mentioned in one picture I saw recently (Slightly Scarlet, 1930, I think) & the subject of a Sherlock Holmes film, other details of which I've forgotten. Monkey-glands, anyone?

yes, during the 1920s, the ingesting (whether whole or precessed into pills or some other form) of the male gonads of highly sexed animals such as goats and monkeys were thought to add to the virility of sexually underperformning men. Think of it as 1920s viagra.

The term "goat-gland" was applied to silent films re-edited with quickly devised talking sequences were, likewise, believed to assist late silent films perform more robustly at the box office during the transition to sound.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

What 10 all talkies did Warners make in 1928 and which ones survive?

It's a little difficult to determine because so many Warner films made at this time are lost. I know of only these three 1928 Warner all-talkies which survive in any form:

LIGHTS OF NEW YORK (generally credited as the first all-talking feature film ever released) -- survives intact, and (according to Facebook) is a candidate for a future Warner Archive release
MY MAN -- reels 1, 4 and 11 (out of 12) known to exist
THE TERROR -- film is lost, complete soundtrack survives

MY MAN was a part-talkie. A complete set of discs survives. I have never heard of any film elements surviving for this title (but oh, how I wish there were!)

I wonder if THE DESERT SONG would be considered part of this list. It was filmed as an all talkie in late 1928, but held back from release until mid-1929. It survives in b/w.

[vitaphone]

Hi, I have most of the disks for MY MAN, and we offer a CD of all surviving disks (just last reel missing) as a thank-you for donations to The Vitaphone Project.

It's my understanding that NO film for MY MAN survives. Am I wrong?

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Hi, I have most of the disks for MY MAN, and we offer a CD of all surviving disks (just last reel missing) as a thank-you for donations to The Vitaphone Project.

It's my understanding that NO film for MY MAN survives. Am I wrong?

yes, I did a double-take on this as well. Oh please, someone prove us wrong!

fwiw

the WB 100% talkies, after LIGHTS OF NEW YORK, for the remainder of 1928 appear to be:

#2 - THE TERROR (6 sept 1928, lost)
#3 ?
#4 - ON TRIAL (1 December 1928, lost)
#5 - CONQUEST (22 December 1928, lost)

[bobfells]

Re LIGHTS OF NEW YORK, I saw a 16mm print back in 1973. It runs 50 mins but it seems like 500 mins. The sound man must have functioned as the defacto director. Everybody speaks slowly and enunciates to the point of exaggeration. There are pauses between each dialogue exchange. Even Eugene Pallette can't bring this movie to life. I think you can make an argument that the film was made deliberately bad as a last ditch effort to save silent films. Of course, the movie was a big hit.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Re LIGHTS OF NEW YORK, I think you can make an argument that the film was made deliberately bad as a last ditch effort to save silent films.

No you can't. If you're sane. The film was intended to be a 2-reel sound short and it was quickly (and without studio approval) expanded to a feature to exploit a current popular trend. And it worked.

It didn't need to be good. It needed to be first. And it was. And it made a mint. Guess what? The first silent films weren't SUNRISE or THE BIG PARADE either. They were created to make a buck.

[josephh]

Hi, I have most of the disks for MY MAN, and we offer a CD of all surviving disks (just last reel missing) as a thank-you for donations to The Vitaphone Project.

It's my understanding that NO film for MY MAN survives. Am I wrong?

yes, I did a double-take on this as well. Oh please, someone prove us wrong!

fwiw

the WB 100% talkies, after LIGHTS OF NEW YORK, for the remainder of 1928 appear to be:

#2 - THE TERROR (6 sept 1928, lost)
#3 ?
#4 - ON TRIAL (1 December 1928, lost)
#5 - CONQUEST (22 December 1928, lost)

#3 is the Melody of Love which was made at Universal. There was also The Home Towners and Women They Talk About.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Hi, I have most of the disks for MY MAN, and we offer a CD of all surviving disks (just last reel missing) as a thank-you for donations to The Vitaphone Project.

It's my understanding that NO film for MY MAN survives. Am I wrong?

yes, I did a double-take on this as well. Oh please, someone prove us wrong!

fwiw

the WB 100% talkies, after LIGHTS OF NEW YORK, for the remainder of 1928 appear to be:

#2 - THE TERROR (6 sept 1928, lost)
#3 ?
#4 - ON TRIAL (1 December 1928, lost)
#5 - CONQUEST (22 December 1928, lost)

#3 is the Melody of Love which was made at Universal. There was also The Home Towners and Women They Talk About.

note that I said WB 100% talkies, so Melody of Love, while a talkie, would not apply here. Was Women They Talk About 100% or part-talkie?

It appears that THE HOME TOWNERS (3 November 1928, lost) would be the third film on this list.

[bobfells]

Re LIGHTS OF NEW YORK, I think you can make an argument that the film was made deliberately bad as a last ditch effort to save silent films.

No you can't. If you're sane. The film was intended to be a 2-reel sound short and it was quickly (and without studio approval) expanded to a feature to exploit a current popular trend. And it worked.

It didn't need to be good. It needed to be first. And it was. And it made a mint. Guess what? The first silent films weren't SUNRISE or THE BIG PARADE either. They were created to make a buck.

I was being facetious. Perhaps I should have used a smiley face. So you're saying that even silents were made to make money? (There, I remembered that time!)

[Zool]

Coffee Dan, NOAH'S ARK was a "goat gland" movie. It premiered in Hollywood in late October - early November 1928 as a silent film. Episode 1 of Brownlow's HOLLYWOOD shows the premiere, with Dolores arriving solo, and George arriving with Olive Borden. The film was pulled from release after several weeks, and the talking scenes were then added. George O'Brien had been on loan to Warner's from Fox for this one film, and was at the time busy back at his home studio working on THE LONE STAR RANGER. Nevertheless, he graciously returned to Warner's to do the brief talking scenes, and Jack Warner thanked him by giving him Warner's stock.

The film, with the talking scenes added only to the modern story, was put back into release in 1929, that is why the review you quote is dated 1929. I remember that Mordaunt Hall's waspy New York Times review is from March 1929.

Quite right, George. Also, some silent scenes had to make way for the then-newly added talking sequences. The "talkie" portion of this film is perhaps 10 minutes in length. The surviving print is only about 1 hour and 40 minutes long, which is much shorter than the original release of 2 hours and 15 minutes. Obviously, more than enough was cut out of the final print.

I may be mistaken, but didn't Paul McAllister (Noah/Minister) have all his talking sequences removed at some point, or were they just never added? I remember reading something like this a couple of years ago somewhere on the net.

Falling on his sword? Doesn't that qualify as a suicide, then?

Jim

Not necessarily. Accidental death is more like it.

I like NOAH' ARK allot. I'm glad that Warner Archive finally released it. To me the goat-gland talking sequences, spoil a great film. They seem extremely awkward, out of place, and do nothing but dramatically slow down the pacing of the film. I understand why they were included at the time, but today one just shakes their head. As a Silent is is excellent, as a partial Talkie A disaster. Wasn't there originally intended to be allot more to the Biblical story? I think much of it was cut because the film took so long in production.

I liked it too, but I do not agree that the talking sequences slowed the movie down at all. I am curious as to why you say that. The talking scenes are actually interesting to watch, because I found them to be a reflection of how rough they were compared to their silent counterparts. For example, there is a scene where George O'Brien ends up saying something that is completely inaudible. This happened more than once and probably because he talked a little too low, thus rendering his speaking voice a little out of "microphoneshot" (as opposed to earshot)

Also, the scene where he was talking to his friend Al in the bedroom is another example. Just as George begins saying something to the other guy, the scene fades out. A little rough indeed!

[George O'Brien]

Now, it' s my turn to agree. I think The talking sequences in NOAH'S ARK are brief and interesting. Everyone gets a chance to speak: Dolores, George, Big Boy, Noah Beery, and even Myrna Loy who is only just one of the chorus girls. It puts to rest the canard that Dolores suffered from a lisp. Her voice is charming, wistful, and lispless, especially in that first talking scene on the park bench.

As for LIGHTS OF NEW YORK, I was never bored, always in a state of excitement whenever Dolores's even more beautiful sister Helene appeared, and then in pleasant expectation of her return.

[Richard Finegan]

As for LIGHTS OF NEW YORK, I was never bored, always in a state of excitement whenever Dolores's even more beautiful sister Helene appeared, and then in pleasant expectation of her return.

I've always liked it too, especially the musical number in which they play "The National Emblem" March as a Charleston!

[Mitch Farish]

The talking scenes are actually interesting to watch, because I found them to be a reflection of how rough they were compared to their silent counterparts. For example, there is a scene where George O'Brien ends up saying something that is completely inaudible. This happened more than once and probably because he talked a little too low, thus rendering his speaking voice a little out of "microphoneshot" (as opposed to earshot)

I guess that's fine if you approach these films from an academic standpoint, but not if you would rather be absorbed in a well-made and entertaining film that doesn't call attentions to its primitive origins. I don't differentiate between silents and talkies. Any film from any era - if it's successful - should engage you with its images, not clunky dialogue.

[Zool]

The talking scenes are actually interesting to watch, because I found them to be a reflection of how rough they were compared to their silent counterparts. For example, there is a scene where George O'Brien ends up saying something that is completely inaudible. This happened more than once and probably because he talked a little too low, thus rendering his speaking voice a little out of "microphoneshot" (as opposed to earshot)

I guess that's fine if you approach these films from an academic standpoint, but not if you would rather be absorbed in a well-made and entertaining film that doesn't call attentions to its primitive origins. I don't differentiate between silents and talkies. Any film from any era - if it's successful - should engage you with its images, not clunky dialogue.

Academic standpoint? No Sir. Merely stating something I saw to be a little obvious was in no way an indication of my view being academic as opposed to "artistic". That I noticed certain things, and perhaps, God forbid, viewed things a bit differently than you did (*gasp*) doesn't mean that I didn't see or feel the beauty in certain scenes of Noah's Ark.

I think you read read between the lines unnecessarily. Regardless, if the assumed "academic" standpoint I supposedly have is what you want to entertain yourself with, have fun.

[WaverBoy]

I think perhaps he meant was that the talking scenes themselves are interesting from an academic standpoint, but they don't really work well with the silent surrounding material, and interrupt the natural flow. In fact, you kinda proved his point yourself, mentioning that you found them interesting because of how roughly done they were compared to their silent counterparts. At any rate, I don't think he's necessarily saying you watched the entire film with that viewpoint.

I agree with him; in fact, whenever I watch a goat gland film, the talking sequences always disrupt the flow, and are extremely jarring.

[entredeuxguerres]

I agree with him; in fact, whenever I watch a goat gland film, the talking sequences always disrupt the flow, and are extremely jarring.

Extremely so; except, I'd be a dirty liar if I said I didn't relish that delightful bust-to-bust spat between Myrna & Dolores in the cabaret! Love Myrna's little "oh, what the hell" shrug at the end of it.

[Zool]

I think perhaps he meant was that the talking scenes themselves are interesting from an academic standpoint, but they don't really work well with the silent surrounding material, and interrupt the natural flow. In fact, you kinda proved his point yourself, mentioning that you found them interesting because of how roughly done they were compared to their silent counterparts. At any rate, I don't think he's necessarily saying you watched the entire film with that viewpoint.

I agree with him; in fact, whenever I watch a goat gland film, the talking sequences always disrupt the flow, and are extremely jarring.

I also loved the talking sequences because of George O'Brien. I didn't find them jarring in the least! My eyes and ear were quite pleased actually.

As a matter of fact, I've seen several silent/talkie movies and never got put off in any way when the talking began. Never been bothered by a "goat gland" at all. I'm not sure why, but oh well.