NitrateVille.com

Perusing Grapevine's catalog just now, I was rather dumbfounded to see this picture listed. Dumbfounded, because everything written about George Eliot cites this novel as the black sheep of her oeuvre, the one tainted with the stale odor of the lamp, an inexplicable deviation from her usual good judgment. I think it the best (or at any rate, most interesting) of all her work, but, given the critical consensus, never imagined it had been picturized.

Because I revere the book so highly,I'm almost afraid to buy or watch it for fear of being deeply disappointed, despite the great name of Henry King & the superb cast; they, however, didn't create the adaptation, & I wouldn't bet much they'd even read it. (I'm sure to be disappointed by the typical Grapevine score, but that I grimly accept.) Has anyone seen it?

I haven't seen it in a quarter of a century, but at the time I thought it was a real snorer.

Bob

My guess is that it's the same old grainy print( 7.5/10) that's been around for ages.... Given its poor video quality and length of 105 minutes, I've actually never watched it.

drednm wrote:My guess is that it's the same old grainy print( 7.5/10) that's been around for ages.... Given its poor video quality and length of 105 minutes, I've actually never watched it.

Those kinds of technical infirmities, along with the predictably lame score, I could accommodate myself to; but not to violence to the essence of the story (which Grapevine's synopsis suggests may have occurred).

I wish I could see a version that is not Grapevine's. I hate how they spoiled the movie in a lousy presentation.

radiotelefonia wrote:I wish I could see a version that is not Grapevine's. I hate how they spoiled the movie in a lousy presentation.

A lousy presentation would only improve Romola. It's one of the dullest films ever made. Jon Mirsalis insisted that it's not just the dullest silent film ever made, it is the dullest film of all time. There are many contenders for that title, but it's certainly in the top ten. Five. Three.

Frederica wrote:

radiotelefonia wrote:I wish I could see a version that is not Grapevine's. I hate how they spoiled the movie in a lousy presentation.

A lousy presentation would only improve Romola. It's one of the dullest films ever made. Jon Mirsalis insisted that it's not just the dullest silent film ever made, it is the dullest film of all time. There are many contenders for that title, but it's certainly in the top ten. Five. Three.

So bad, evidently, that potential aspirations to remake the picture have been forever quelled--there's no other listing in the AFI catalog. The BBC has produced adaptations of every other Eliot novel (some of them twice), but not this one.

One has to wonder how it all went SO wrong. A superb cast was assembled. Production was by a studio, Inspiration, with at least two great pictures to its credit, Tol'able David & White Sister. The latter, one of my supreme favorites, was written by the same screenwriter. How could a tale set in the most vibrant city of its time, during one of the greatest crises of its history, evolve into the "dullest film of all time"? The story even had the potential (by "improving" upon the author, which of course H'wood never shrank from attempting) of being turned into a Doug Fairbanks-type swashbuckler; I'm glad, at least, it didn't suffer that indignity.

Though I'm now prepared for the worst, my attachment to the novel mandates that I join the very small (evidently) circle who've actually sat through it; but I'll make sure to restock my liquor cabinet before undertaking it.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Frederica wrote:

radiotelefonia wrote:I wish I could see a version that is not Grapevine's. I hate how they spoiled the movie in a lousy presentation.

A lousy presentation would only improve Romola. It's one of the dullest films ever made. Jon Mirsalis insisted that it's not just the dullest silent film ever made, it is the dullest film of all time. There are many contenders for that title, but it's certainly in the top ten. Five. Three.

So bad, evidently, that potential aspirations to remake the picture have been forever quelled--there's no other listing in the AFI catalog. The BBC has produced adaptations of every other Eliot novel (some of them twice), but not this one.

One has to wonder how it all went SO wrong. A superb cast was assembled. Production was by a studio, Inspiration, with at least two great pictures to its credit, Tol'able David & White Sister. The latter, one of my supreme favorites, was written by the same screenwriter. How could a tale set in the most vibrant city of its time, during one of the greatest crises of its history, evolve into the "dullest film of all time"? The story even had the potential (by "improving" upon the author, which of course H'wood never shrank from attempting) of being turned into a Doug Fairbanks-type swashbuckler; I'm glad, at least, it didn't suffer that indignity.

Though I'm now prepared for the worst, my attachment to the novel mandates that I join the very small (evidently) circle who've actually sat through it; but I'll make sure to restock my liquor cabinet before undertaking it.

Just a few days ago I watched "Lloyd's of London" (again) and enjoyed it very much.
Now reading about "Romola" makes me wonder why Henry King, who is one of my favourite Directors doesn't get any love on this one.

For many years I have own a copy of Stanley Appelbaum's "Silent Movies, a picture quiz book", and have made the effort to watch/own as many films in that book.
Ms. Gish & William Powell are on the paperback cover, and was always intrigued about this film. William Powell seems to want to be anywhere else but here in this still. Sadly it has garnered mostly negative reviews.
I'll give it a try, and watch it sometime soon.

Hey, maybe I'll like it.

Javier wrote:...William Powell seems to want to be anywhere else but here in this still...

Suspect that HE may have contributed to the failure of this ambitious picture, because he was in 1925 still in the "miserable weasel" phase of his career...I mean such sniveling nogoodnik roles as he played in Beau Geste (1926) & Sherlock Holmes (1922). George Eliot's character Tito was quite the opposite personality type--delightfully charming & personable (albeit doomed by a hidden character flaw), which qualities won him the much coveted hand of Romola. (To play her, Gish seems absolutely perfect.)

Ironically, silent-era Powell would have been ideal for the part of the contemptible sneak (one of the many real historical personages in the novel) who conspired to destroy Tito.

I have the Grapevine edition. I had forgotten all about it, but reading the description of the film, I realize that I did watch it the other year. Not one of my favorites for sure.

Rick

Seems like a good time to relate my ROMOLA story, since I don't think I've done so previously.

The copies now floating around descend from an 8mm print that a friend and I co-owned in the early 1980s. At the time, John Hampton's 16mm print was the only one known (I seem to remember that he actually had 2 prints), and he considered it the gem of his collection, which was for sale at the time. Lillian Gish wanted a video copy, which he refused to make, even for her, as he feared that releasing copies would deflate his collection's value.

My friend contacted me one day, telling me that he had just come across an amber 1932 print of ROMOLA in 8mm, struck at the same time as Hampton's 16mm print. Would I be interested in going in with him to buy it? I said yes, and it was indeed a beautiful print in great condition. I haven't seen the Hampton print, but I've heard that it's superb quality, similar to others struck at the same time and also formerly in the Hampton collection, such as THE BRIGHT SHAWL.

I had the 8mm print transferred to video; the result was as good as it could look, but...it's an 8mm source, so one couldn't expect a lot. I haven't seen any of the current versions, but they would come either from the copies that I made in the '80s, or perhaps from the 8mm print itself, the current whereabouts of which I don't know. (I haven't been in contact with the friend in many years, who sold his entire film collection long ago...including, I imagine, the 8mm ROMOLA.)

Shortly after the video transfer was completed, I wrote to Lillian Gish; having heard that she wanted a copy, I asked whether she would like one from the new-found 8mm print. She wrote back to say yes (in Beta format) and sent a few nice handwritten notes and signed photos. I'll post one later after I make a scan.

And yes, it's a terrible yawn.

Ok, i saw this on the big screen at the Stanford Theatre, and while dull and unmemorable, i didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen far worse. On video it's probably a lot harder to sit through but on the big screen at least there were parts that were pretty, and Dorothy has some fun. William Powell's wig was so ugly that it was annoying any time he was on screen. I'd watch it again if i had nothing else to do.

greta

Danny Burk wrote:At the time, John Hampton's 16mm print was the only one known (I seem to remember that he actually had 2 prints), and he considered it the gem of his collection, which was for sale at the time....

So what became of "the gem of his collection"? Is Grapevine's ed. transferred from 8 or 16 mm?

I saw the 8mm print of ROMOLA at a Cinecon in the late 70s or early 80s, I believe when Lillian Gish was one of the guests. Having been reduced directly from the 35mm negative, it was a very sharp print, as good as most 16mm prints, but naturally the 8mm projector could not present a very bright or large image for a big audience. I saw it at another festival, probably a Cinecon, sometime within the past decade, this time a 35mm print restored and blown up from the John Hampton prints. It looked very good indeed on the big screen.

The film has beautiful art direction and costume design, and more than adequate performances. It does suffer from pacing problems and the usual clichés of silent melodrama. It is certainly not my favorite silent costume epic, but I found it reasonably diverting and very nice to look at. I do not believe I could bring myself to watch a dupey, low-resolution video copy, however, as the pristine image quality is one of the primary reasons for watching a film like this, especially if it has a good score. A well-authored Blu-ray is something I'd certainly buy, but obviously with the consensus among silent movie fans about its entertainment value that is unlikely to happen.

greta de groat wrote:Ok, i saw this on the big screen at the Stanford Theatre, and while dull and unmemorable, i didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen far worse. On video it's probably a lot harder to sit through but on the big screen at least there were parts that were pretty, and Dorothy has some fun. William Powell's wig was so ugly that it was annoying any time he was on screen. I'd watch it again if i had nothing else to do.

greta

Just glanced at the Henry King chapter in Parade's Gone By--King described this picture as "much bigger & more difficult" than White Sister, which was itself no small production. Description of the sets & attention to historical detail makes it clear that no effort was being spared to make this picture succeed.

I know what to expect from a Grapevine score, so I wonder if this picture has ever been presented with a top-notch, fully professional score, comparable, for ex., to Garth Neustadler's wonderful score for TCM's ed. of White Sister; it might even lessen the annoyance of Powell's ugly wig.

Christopher Jacobs wrote:...I do not believe I could bring myself to watch a dupey, low-resolution video copy, however, as the pristine image quality is one of the primary reasons for watching a film like this, especially if it has a good score...

That, however--as I've already ordered the Grapevine video--is exactly what I'm reduced to be doing, and without, most certainly, such a "good score."

Christopher Jacobs wrote:I saw the 8mm print of ROMOLA at a Cinecon in the late 70s or early 80s, I believe when Lillian Gish was one of the guests. Having been reduced directly from the 35mm negative, it was a very sharp print, as good as most 16mm prints, but naturally the 8mm projector could not present a very bright or large image for a big audience. I saw it at another festival, probably a Cinecon, sometime within the past decade, this time a 35mm print restored and blown up from the John Hampton prints. It looked very good indeed on the big screen.

The film has beautiful art direction and costume design, and more than adequate performances. It does suffer from pacing problems and the usual clichés of silent melodrama. It is certainly not my favorite silent costume epic, but I found it reasonably diverting and very nice to look at. I do not believe I could bring myself to watch a dupey, low-resolution video copy, however, as the pristine image quality is one of the primary reasons for watching a film like this, especially if it has a good score. A well-authored Blu-ray is something I'd certainly buy, but obviously with the consensus among silent movie fans about its entertainment value that is unlikely to happen.

I saw it at the Egyptian quite a few years ago (eek, 2001!), here is the ams discussion we had then.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... UV02dy1DMJ" target="_blank" target="_blank

Frederica wrote: I saw it at the Egyptian quite a few years ago (eek, 2001!), here is the ams discussion we had then.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... UV02dy1DMJ" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Now I know why Bob called it a "snorer"; he wasn't merely waxing metaphorical.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Frederica wrote: I saw it at the Egyptian quite a few years ago (eek, 2001!), here is the ams discussion we had then.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... UV02dy1DMJ" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Now I know why Bob called it a "snorer"; he wasn't merely waxing metaphorical.

I had forgotten what I wrote in '98, but looking back at my vivid prose, my mind recalls... Nothing. However, let me assure you that I rarely wax metaphoric, as a spit shine will usually do the job.

Reviewing my comments, made a couple of years earlier than the DoN fest, I see that I noted that Colman had the air of someone who has had his pants stolen but is going to muddle through nonetheless. I don't recall the performance, but I saw it in a beautiful print at New York's Film Forum and it is how I felt at the time.

Bob

Gee, this crowd is pretty rough on ROMOLA. I have the Grapevine DVD and on my laptop it looks decent if a tad too dark at times. I forget the music score but I'm sure I've heard worse. The Wm. Powell character is actually a lot of fun and he brings the only life there is into the story. He even does a couple of pratfalls (or a stuntman does them for him). Powell manages to two-time both Gish sisters which I thought amusing. Dorothy has the flashier role but the real disappointment is Ronald Colman who simply isn't given anything to do. He looks silly in his wig to such an extent that Powell looks relatively good in his. I suspect that a pristine 35mm print revealing the fine photography would cover a multitude of the film's shortcomings.

Here are some screen caps to give you an idea of the Grapevine quality:

I somehow managed to have no memory whatever of Colman in the film, even though i saw it at a Colman retrospective.

greta

greta de groat wrote:I somehow managed to have no memory whatever of Colman in the film, even though i saw it at a Colman retrospective.

greta

I had expunged the entire experience from my memory. Until now. (Weeps softly.)

Good grief, who was responsible for William Powell's wig? He looks like Norma Shearer in Idiot's Delight.

Lillian must have been awfully fond of the film - the cover of her 1970's photo album, "Dorothy and Lillian Gish" is a large dual potrait of herself as Romola, and Dorothy as Tessa. Inside she devotes more pages to it than she does to many of her better regarded films, including shots of herself and Dorothy with Sid Graumann at the premiere at Grauman's Egyptian Theater. I may be mistaken, but I think it was that theater's opening attraction.

In her photos the sets, the art direction, and the costumes (though admittedly not the men's wigs) do look superb. Even she acknowledged , though,that the drama itself perhaps did not match them.

It certainly sounds dramatic enough: one sees Savonarola being burned at the stake, Tessa has an illegitimate child and later goes to her reward in a prolonged drowning scene. The Arno avenges her suicide by soon swallowing up her dastard lover, William Powell, too. Granted, there is no volcano, but it certainly reads as more interesting than "The White Sister".

Danny Burk wrote:Seems like a good time to relate my ROMOLA story, since I don't think I've done so previously.

The copies now floating around descend from an 8mm print that a friend and I co-owned in the early 1980s. At the time, John Hampton's 16mm print was the only one known (I seem to remember that he actually had 2 prints), and he considered it the gem of his collection, which was for sale at the time. Lillian Gish wanted a video copy, which he refused to make, even for her, as he feared that releasing copies would deflate his collection's value.

My friend contacted me one day, telling me that he had just come across an amber 1932 print of ROMOLA in 8mm, struck at the same time as Hampton's 16mm print. Would I be interested in going in with him to buy it? I said yes, and it was indeed a beautiful print in great condition. I haven't seen the Hampton print, but I've heard that it's superb quality, similar to others struck at the same time and also formerly in the Hampton collection, such as THE BRIGHT SHAWL.

I had the 8mm print transferred to video; the result was as good as it could look, but...it's an 8mm source, so one couldn't expect a lot. I haven't seen any of the current versions, but they would come either from the copies that I made in the '80s, or perhaps from the 8mm print itself, the current whereabouts of which I don't know. (I haven't been in contact with the friend in many years, who sold his entire film collection long ago...including, I imagine, the 8mm ROMOLA.)

Shortly after the video transfer was completed, I wrote to Lillian Gish; having heard that she wanted a copy, I asked whether she would like one from the new-found 8mm print. She wrote back to say yes (in Beta format) and sent a few nice handwritten notes and signed photos. I'll post one later after I make a scan.

And yes, it's a terrible yawn.

Danny, I bought a copy from you in the late 1980's or early 1990's on VHS. It was a pride of my collection at the time, but, good god!, yes!, it is a horrific bore. For one thing, it plays too slowly, and, secondly, it goes on and on and on and on...

George O'Brien wrote:...It certainly sounds dramatic enough: one sees Savonarola being burned at the stake, Tessa has an illegitimate child and later goes to her reward in a prolonged drowning scene. The Arno avenges her suicide by soon swallowing up her dastard lover, William Powell, too. Granted, there is no volcano, but it certainly reads as more interesting than "The White Sister".

Tessa drowned??? Then there was massive abuse of George Eliot's story...and to no good end, given the general low opinion of this picture! One drowning scene wasn't enough? The story is supposed to end in a poetic & sadly moving scene, years after the tragedies that destroyed their former lives, of the two women's post-diluvian lives together as, in effect, sisters, joined in mutual acceptance of their unhappy fates.

In a place where hacks don't scruple to "improve" Shakespeare or Moses, I suppose it would be impossible for Eliot's beautiful work to escape undefiled.

R Michael Pyle wrote:Danny, I bought a copy from you in the late 1980's or early 1990's on VHS. It was a pride of my collection at the time, but, good god!, yes!, it is a horrific bore. For one thing, it plays too slowly, and, secondly, it goes on and on and on and on...

Well, it's good to know where one went! I sold it on VHS from c. mid-1980s to 1992. My copies had a piano score by Jon Mirsalis; hopefully it doesn't appear on any of the others, as they've duped Jon's score if so, and of course the latter isn't public domain.

bobfells wrote:

Wooooooowwwww. Incredible

Folks, you may not LIKE Bill Powell's coif - but it's not inaccurate!