NitrateVille.com

OK, some three years ago I was reigned here for suggesting that Herbert Brenon's BEAU GESTE might be in serious jeopardy of being lost. Has it been that long ago already? Subsequently, I was assured at the time by David Shepard and Rodney Sauer that this was not the case. I was blasted for spreading such false rumors. Fast forward to this morning, and Frank Thompson who screened the film last year said the same thing on Facebook. Very concerned just like myself that the film might be lost if something isn't done, and fast!

Here are some quotes:

"BEAU GESTE has most definitely not been restored by UCLA nor by anybody else. A good complete negative exists nowhere, nor are there any good complete 35mm prints. This film is in actual danger of being lost unless someone steps forward with big, big bucks to fund a true restoration. When I introduced it at the Academy last summer, they had to show a 16mm print borrowed from a collector with only the final reel shown in 35mm."

He had allot more to say than this, but I can't seem to find the correspondence right now. He mentioned that he just discussed this with someone of authority (can't think who), the4y told him that there were no good complete 35 millimeter prints around? Contrary to what David Shepard told us about Dupe negatives at MoMA and the LOC back in February of 2010. I'll try to find the rest of the conversation.

I told Mr. Thompson to please start a thread here on Nitrateville about this subject.

Oh by the way, A HAPPY EASTER to one and All!!!

Gagaman,

FWIW, I rented a 16mm print of BEAU GESTE from MOMA back in the 1970s and the image quality was badly washed out. It was full of splices too but that may have been due to its being an overused rental.

Bob,

I have several of what I would judge are about B minus quality clips print wise clips from BEAU GESTE posted on TCM-CFU. They have been there for years. Used to be on Youtube as well, but I never re-uploaded them from a previous account. These originated from a Japanese Laser-disc release of the early 90's, but with my scoring selections.

The point is I want to know why we are getting so many different stories about the film being in dire condition and in danger of being lost? This first came up when I mentioned that apparently no 35 Millimeter prints survived. I found out otherwise, but now that is being called into question again.

Gagman, the Library of Congress provided a beautiful 35mm print for the Pordenone Silent Film Festival a few years ago.
Unfortunately, what should have been a sublime experience was ruined by the accompaniment, improvised by the local Pordenone jazz band. To the Festival's credit, they never repeated the experiment.

The source for the Library's copy is a nitrate print that Paramount made for study purposes from the original negative when the studio was working on the 1939 remake. I have had this nitrate print in hand -- it had only been run once or twice and was in mint condition when it was copied.

David Shepard

Gagman 66 wrote:Bob,

I have several of what I would judge are about B minus quality clips print wise from BEAU GESTE posted on TCM-CFU. They have been there for years. Used to be on Youtube as well, but I never re-uploaded them from a previous account. These originated from a Japanese Laser-disc release of the early 90's, but with my scoring selections.

The point is I want to know why we are getting so many different stories about the film being in dire condition and in danger of being lost? This first came up when I mentioned that apparently no 35 Millimeter prints survived. I found out otherwise, but now that is being called into question again.

Gagman,

I have a DVD of BEAU GESTE from an overseas source. I watched it on my 7 inch screen portable player and after making a few contrast adjustments it looked quite good.

DShepFilm wrote:Gagman, the Library of Congress provided a beautiful 35mm print for the Pordenone Silent Film Festival a few years ago.
Unfortunately, what should have been a sublime experience was ruined by the accompaniment, improvised by the local Pordenone jazz band. To the Festival's credit, they never repeated the experiment.

The source for the Library's copy is a nitrate print that Paramount made for study purposes from the original negative when the studio was working on the 1939 remake. I have had this nitrate print in hand -- it had only been run once or twice and was in mint condition when it was copied.

David Shepard

David,

Thanks. I remember you telling me this before back in 2010. So why does Frank Thompson and his friend insist that there are no complete 35 Millimeter prints anyplace, including the MOMA and The LOC and the film is very much on the endangered list? Can we get some confirmation on this matter?

In addition, what about the impending Restoration that UCLA was reportedly working on in Mid 2011? Did that project fall through, or was it put on hold? No grant money, lack of funding, other projects taking priority, etc? If so, this is the first I have heard about it. Why is there so much conflicting information?

Gagman 66 wrote:

DShepFilm wrote:Gagman, the Library of Congress provided a beautiful 35mm print for the Pordenone Silent Film Festival a few years ago.
Unfortunately, what should have been a sublime experience was ruined by the accompaniment, improvised by the local Pordenone jazz band. To the Festival's credit, they never repeated the experiment.

The source for the Library's copy is a nitrate print that Paramount made for study purposes from the original negative when the studio was working on the 1939 remake. I have had this nitrate print in hand -- it had only been run once or twice and was in mint condition when it was copied.

David Shepard

David,

Thanks. I remember you telling me this before back in 2010. So why does Frank Thompson and his friend insist that there are no complete 35 Millimeter prints anyplace, including the MOMA and The LOC and the film is very much on the endangered list? Can we get some confirmation on this matter?

In addition, what about the impending Restoration that UCLA was reportedly working on in Mid 2011? Did that project fall through, or was it put on hold? No grant money, lack of funding, other projects taking priority, etc? If so, this is the first I have heard about it. Why is there so much conflicting information?

Because you keep spreading it.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

What the hey? Only 3 or 4 months ago, I watched (for the fourth time) the wonderful Grapevine VHS copy of this film which I bought from Jack Hardy maybe 10 or 15 years ago. Complete, too.

Jim

Okay, just to put this damn thread and vicious rumor to bed, I checked in with a few of my friends at various archives and set the record straight on this. Here's the facts:


MOMA has the best preservation material on BEAU GESTE, they made a beautiful preservation negative from original silent nitrate materials decades ago. Unfortunately, their only projection print is an acetate print, and their current policy is to only circulate polyester prints at this time. Though the film is well-preserved, they currently do not have funds to make a new projection print from their preservation materials.

The Library of Congress also made a preservation negative from a nitrate print they hold in their AFI Collection, it was unfortunately a print made in the 30's when Paramount was perhaps planning some sort of reissue or needed a print of the silent to look at for the 1939 remake and is either Academy Aperture or Movietone ratio, in any event, the left side of the picture is cut off for a soundtrack. Though the quality is good, it is considered sub-standard material compared to MOMAs negative, so no more consideration has been given to making a new negative from this material. They do have a projection print of this, but it has become very worn, and LOC also does not have the funds to make a new print.

So, in other words, yes, BEAU GESTE is indeed well-preserved in 35mm, and if Paramount wanted to make an HD transfer for a Blu-Ray release, they could well do so. Alternately, if someone wanted to write a decent-sized check for either of the above organizations to strike a new 35mm preservation print, feel free to do so. Until then, you will just have to make do with whats out there if you want to see the film.

So enough already........


RICHARD M ROBERTS (who has both a lovely 16mm print and a surprisingly good 8mm print of the film, and saw it once or twice in 35mm over the years, so could care less)

Gagman 66 wrote: Why is there so much conflicting information?

Undoubtedly this confusion arises from when we screened "Beau Geste" at Cinecon several years go. LOC claimed not to have a print, and MoMA only had a 16mm screening print. Sometime after we scened the picture in 16mm, LOC did a "Whoopsie" and said they were mistaken and did have a 35mm print. UCLA may undertake a restoration, but it has not happened yet.

Bob Birchard wrote:

Gagman 66 wrote: Why is there so much conflicting information?

Undoubtedly this confusion arises from when we screened "Beau Geste" at Cinecon several years go. LOC claimed not to have a print, and MoMA only had a 16mm screening print. Sometime after we scened the picture in 16mm, LOC did a "Whoopsie" and said they were mistaken and did have a 35mm print. UCLA may undertake a restoration, but it has not happened yet.

That was part of it, and then in the 2011 screening that gagman references at the Academy, which Mont Alto traveled out for, the Academy was unable to obtain a 35mm projection print from either LoC or MoMA for the reasons Richard describes. But a projection print is not the same as a preservation print, as Richard also makes clear. So there never was any confusion: BEAU GESTE survives in two 35mm nitrate prints being cared for at two responsible archives; and if they get the money to make a print, or if Paramount decides to make a scan (they own copyright, no one else can do it), we all may get to see it all pretty again.

For the Academy screening, MoMA sent a test reel that was copied from the MoMA nitrate, and (as much as I could tell from my off-to-the-side position while playing piano and reading from my score) it looked quite nice.

There was hope for a new print being made, but it seems that funding is a problem. If a print is made, I expect that some of the usual venues might want to show it.

I have played for Beau Geste in 16mm, and it's a very enjoyable show that way too. That's what I recommend for now (it'll surely beat VHS).

My only two cents worth here is that making or not making a new print is not a money issue for the Library of Congress. Rather it does have to do with who has the best material, and who has the time to spend on doing the restoration right. I'll look into this a bit more.

Rob

Bor Enots wrote:My only two cents worth here is that making or not making a new print is not a money issue for the Library of Congress. Rather it does have to do with who has the best material, and who has the time to spend on doing the restoration right. I'll look into this a bit more.

Rob

Agreed. In fact, I was told at one point that LoC may have had Beau Geste in the cue to make a show print, but then when it came up that MoMA had better source material, it made more sense to put LoC funds into other projects.

Bor Enots wrote:My only two cents worth here is that making or not making a new print is not a money issue for the Library of Congress.
Rob

Oh, so you don't want the $20,000 I was going to send you to make new prints..........ah, well......


(Tears up check)


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts wrote:

Bor Enots wrote:My only two cents worth here is that making or not making a new print is not a money issue for the Library of Congress.
Rob

Oh, so you don't want the $20,000 I was going to send you to make new prints..........ah, well......


(Tears up check)


RICHARD M ROBERTS

That's not what he meant, of course -- it was "why spend money on a print when a different archive has better source material." I hoped that the LoC could borrow MoMA's material and make their own show print, but apparently archives don't work that way

Rodney wrote: That's not what he meant, of course -- it was "why spend money on a print when a different archive has better source material." I hoped that the LoC could borrow MoMA's material and make their own show print, but apparently archives don't work that way

(Once again, a joke sails right over Sauer's head)

But this is exactly the reason more than one archive should have prints of the same film----because not all archives work the same, some make more effort to make their films available to the Public. Having the best quality print in the World is meaningless if it's not going to be made available to be shown. The second best print is perfectly fine if it's the only one available.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard, Bob, Rodney, David, Everybody,

OK, thanks for clearing this up. I appreciate all the informative response. Now we need to convince Frank Thompson. So I guess the UCLA Restoration we had been waiting to hear about never happened? Disappointing. The thing that concerns me is Bob Willeman saying in an interview that they acetate safeties less than 50 years old laying around that are already curled up into a ball and are now unusable?

Anything of note that UCLA is working on instead at the present time perhaps?

Yes, Gagman, it is true that some safety film improperly stored or insufficiently washed during processing will develop (now well-known) vinegar syndrome. But with film processed and stored to archival standards, that's about as likely as being struck by lightning, and it's especially true of negatives and fine grains (that are processed like negatives). Archives have programs in which each can of film is opened on a regular basis so that deterioriation can be dealt with in early stages. Deterioriating film is segregated and its future carefully considered. Molecular sieves made by Kodak can arrest early stage safety film decomposition.

We have approximately 20,000 negatives, fine grains and sound tracks in archival deposit (many of them multi-reel subjects) and of these approximately three rolls seem to go bad each year. So far, they have always been material that was purchased from unknown provenance when it was already old, never something that was responsibly handled from the day it was manufactured.

Just my opinion: you'd be better off worrying what North Korea might do with its nuclear arsenal or installing lightning rods than worrying that the last copies of your favorite films are becoming unusable even though they are in the care of a public benefit archive.

David Shepard

How much would it cost for MoMA to copy its current print to one that can be exhibited?

Seems like this would be a great film for a fund-raising, 'Make a Beau Geste for Beau Geste!'

Anyone seen the last remake of this?

Lokke Heiss wrote:How much would it cost for MoMA to copy its current print to one that can be exhibited?

Seems like this would be a great film for a fund-raising, 'Make a Beau Geste for Beau Geste!'

I'm all for there being a fund raiser to help preserve BEAU GESTE. It;s an important film that needs to be rediscovered.

The Academy Film Archive restoration of HER WILD OAT cost Eighty Thousand Dollars seven years ago. But with that they needed to make up new title cards in English, and the material probably wasn't nearly as well preserved. When the guy from Eastman House was on TCM he said that it roughly would cost around Forty to Forty-five Thousand to copy a 90 minute to 2 hour Silent feature if I recall correctly. Depending on the condition of the source material. He probably was keeping the numbers conservative, but he did say copying a sound film was obviously more expensive.

Any update on where the LOC is at with RAMONA (1928)? The copying was already done several months ago. I remember they said translating and making up new title cards would take quite a bit longer.

The reconstructed intertitles for RAMONA have just recently been completed and are going up to the lab to have a negative made. Then they will get cut into the negative and we will make a new print or two. I would guess we are looking at 6 weeks or so.

Rob

Rob,

Great news! Thanks so much for keeping us posted! What is the overall condition of the film? Being that different source materials were used. You mentioned a mixture of Nirtate, and Safety sources. Is it in pretty good shape? You haven't really said much about the condition of the surviving materials that were collected for the project?

Surely it is an exaggeration to suggest that a film that has exists in multiple copies, and that has been released on laser disc, and is floating around amongst collectors in various forms, could become "lost" in the foreseeable future. Sure, there could be a case that the best print might be in need of restoration, but to suggest it could be become lost is unlikely - unless all copies in all formats vanish!

Thanks to all for all the great (and disappointing) information. I spoke by email today with Rodney Sauer whose name led me to this site. My twenty piece New Orleans orchestra will be doing a tribute to our 92 year old theater owner (Rene Brunet) by performing Beau Geste for him and many friends as soon as possible. By luck we had the full Riesenfeld orchestration in our library, so about a year ago we decided to go for it. We've been working from that terrible DVD that's out there, and I'm afraid after reading your thread today, our hopes of getting a clean copy are dashed. Also Rene's theater only has facilities for 35mm and Discs now.

I'd love to throw in $1000 for a restoration fund. Would that help? How about Kickstarter?

I'll try to keep up with this board, but please if anyone hears any good news or leads to a decent 35mm or digital copy, please give me a call (Pete Wolbrette - 504-891-4786). Scammers - don't even think about it!
>-iii-(