NitrateVille.com

I know that all circulating copies of this film have image and sound quality which varies from excellent to poor.

But I just noticed (while looking for something else entirely) that UCLA appear to have an incomplete nitrate studio print, which covers all but the start and the end of the film.

Does anyone know anything about this print and whether it is of higher quality that the copies circulated by Universal? Can Universal access the Paramount nitrate if it wishes?

I have a 16mm original print which has printed-in dupe footage at the usual places.

It's interesting that you say the original elements may be in existence. I, and many other collectors, thought these sequences lost.

That would be great news indeed. Its been a while since I watched the film, but I remember the quality of the land auction switching from pretty bad to beautiful over halfway through it. Is this the only part that is missing from the nitrate? or is there more?

From my notes - there are two 10min (one reel) sections at around 28mins and again at around 48mins where dupe footage is dropped in. One of these is in the hotel lobby; the other is the land auction sequence.
This footage is (or was til now) presumed missing.
If this nitrate print you mention covers all but the start and end , then I presume these sequences must be present.

Do you have a link to the article/site?

UCLA has Paramount's nitrate collection. When Paramount sold their pre-'48 library to Universal, they still kept their studio reference prints, which were donated to UCLA a few years later.

The print would be tough from work from, but with modern techniques might not yield as bad an image as a couple of years ago.

Here's the info from the UCLA catalog:

Location: Non-circulating Nitrate Vaults archival copy
Inventory Number: M3785
Collection: MP Motion Picture Collection
Format: 3 reels of 5 (r2-4) (ca. 6000 ft.) : opt sd., b&w ; 35 mm. nitrate print.
Condition: Incomplete.
Notes: Reserved for preservation; no use (rrg, 10/10/1989).
NOTES: Studio print. F43-L18-1
HLDID (manifestation): 26744

The nitrate appears to cover both 'dupe' sections and there are no remarks regarding the print's quality [there generally are if there are bad scratches, poor image quality or poor sound].

I was just doing some research into early library sales for television purposes. From what I can gather, these nitrate prints tend to be the best material on the Paramount titles as MCA didn't take much care in transferring them after the sale.

I was thinking that the print might also be an improvement even for the non-dupe sections as Universal's print is pretty battered in general.

Sounds like we need to get a campaign going - I am just shocked that this element hasn't been examined for 20 years, particularly as the Marx Brothers' movies still tend to be relatively valuable commercially.

I wonder what "no use" means exactly??

Michael O'Regan wrote:I wonder what "no use" means exactly??

No use generally means that UCLA don't have the right to licence clips from the film. If was decomposing, it would be noted on the database.

What I am wondering though is whether because its incomplete, it's at the back of the copying queue, possibly because Universal haven't realised that it may be a signficant step up photographically from their master.

Actually, I thought that "no use" indicated that since it was unique material, it wasn't to be handled except in preservation situations (ie. don't project).

Getting anyone to do anything at this time is a pretty daunting task. With the home video market collapsing and everyone tightening the belt from this depre... er.. recession, only the really critical is getting done.

KenGriffin wrote:Here's the info from the UCLA catalog:

Location: Non-circulating Nitrate Vaults archival copy
Inventory Number: M3785
Collection: MP Motion Picture Collection
Format: 3 reels of 5 (r2-4) (ca. 6000 ft.) : opt sd., b&w ; 35 mm. nitrate print.
Condition: Incomplete.
Notes: Reserved for preservation; no use (rrg, 10/10/1989).
NOTES: Studio print. F43-L18-1
HLDID (manifestation): 26744

The nitrate appears to cover both 'dupe' sections and there are no remarks regarding the print's quality [there generally are if there are bad scratches, poor image quality or poor sound].

I was just doing some research into early library sales for television purposes. From what I can gather, these nitrate prints tend to be the best material on the Paramount titles as MCA didn't take much care in transferring them after the sale.

I was thinking that the print might also be an improvement even for the non-dupe sections as Universal's print is pretty battered in general.

Sounds like we need to get a campaign going - I am just shocked that this element hasn't been examined for 20 years, particularly as the Marx Brothers' movies still tend to be relatively valuable commercially.

This material was looked at years ago by our "Al Joy Fan Club" group, when we were going through UCLA nitrate material.The print is a 1939 reissue print missing the first reel (and another reel in the middle), and is indeed nicer than the dupe portions in the MCA release print that has been the standard on this title for decades. Universal was informed of this, and hopefully a full restoration will someday be done.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts wrote:The print is a 1939 reissue print missing the first reel (and another reel in the middle), and is indeed nicer than the dupe portions in the MCA release print that has been the standard on this title for decades.

Thanks for that info. I just raised it because I had previously thought that the dupe portions were all that remained of those sections of the film. I hope it gets restored as it's an important title and one that sells well in the home video market.

Is any of this Paramount nitrate material *entirely* unique; i.e. Universal doesn't have a safety copy in any gauge? I've looked through some of UCLA's entries for 1929-30 Paramount titles, and quite a few nitrate prints are incomplete (entire reels discarded or portions snipped because of decomp). There are a couple in particular that piqued my interest.

Their entry for The Dance of Life notes "Extra can has incomplete color sequence from r7; all other cans b&w". This is certainly intriguing, as most sources have indicated that only B&W survived on this title. Neither Paramount nor Universal seems to have the rights to this one, however, as according to David Pierce's article "Forgotten Faces" the rights went to 20th Century-Fox for remake as When My Baby Smiles at Me in 1948 (along with Swing High, Swing Low). Neither of the earlier versions was renewed, apparently, but there could be donor restrictions or underlying rights involved. Nonetheless, getting this colour material preserved is something that should be of interest to those who typically fund such projects.

The Right to Love is a rare Ruth Chatterton picture from 1930, not included in the 1958 MCA package... [edit: ...but recently restored, which is awesome to hear! Thanks!]. Hopefully it can gain some wider exposure if TCM chooses to run it as part of their new deal with Universal.

-Harold

Richard M Roberts wrote:
This material was looked at years ago by our "Al Joy Fan Club" group, when we were going through UCLA nitrate material.The print is a 1939 reissue print missing the first reel (and another reel in the middle), and is indeed nicer than the dupe portions in the MCA release print that has been the standard on this title for decades. Universal was informed of this, and hopefully a full restoration will someday be done.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Thats good to know.

THE RIGHT TO LOVE was completely and excellently restored by Universal in the last few years. They made a presentation to a meeting of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers about three months ago at the Linwood Dunn Theater, and ran the entire film.

Their entry for The Dance of Life notes "Extra can has incomplete color sequence from r7; all other cans b&w". This is certainly intriguing, as most sources have indicated that only B&W survived on this title. Neither Paramount nor Universal seems to have the rights to this one, however, as according to David Pierce's article "Forgotten Faces" the rights went to 20th Century-Fox for remake as When My Baby Smiles at Me in 1948 (along with Swing High, Swing Low).

The nitrate print on "The Dance of Life" (1929) was donated by Columbia to the Hollywood Museum back in the early 1960s and was preserved by the Library of Congress - complete with colour sequence. When I presented the colour section (a Follies number) a few years back as part of a lecture at the NFT, the colour reel had faded. The EK negative is probably fine.

David Pierce

I'm puzzled.If there had been a Coconuts reissue as late as 1939, why did MCA have such trouble assembling the TV print? Did they just not know what they were doing?(Coconuts must have looked 100 years old to anybody watching it in '39)

antoniod wrote:I'm puzzled.If there had been a Coconuts reissue as late as 1939, why did MCA have such trouble assembling the TV print? Did they just not know what they were doing?(Coconuts must have looked 100 years old to anybody watching it in '39)

I get the impression that MCA didn't really pay much attention to what they were copying or whether it was the best material Paramount had. They probably weren't going to go fishing for reissue elements.

KenGriffin wrote:

antoniod wrote:I'm puzzled.If there had been a Coconuts reissue as late as 1939, why did MCA have such trouble assembling the TV print? Did they just not know what they were doing?(Coconuts must have looked 100 years old to anybody watching it in '39)

I get the impression that MCA didn't really pay much attention to what they were copying or whether it was the best material Paramount had. They probably weren't going to go fishing for reissue elements.

No, MCA used what they could find at the time. The neg had decomposed on several reels and they filled it out with a dupe neg made from a positive print. They had to do the same thing with HORSEFEATHERS, which is why the sequence in Thelma Todd's apartment has a number of splices in it. 1939 is only ten years later, although they did have to remove material from the film to please the Breen office for that reissue just as they had to for reissues on ANIMAL CRACKERS and HORSEFEATHERS.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

antonoid wrote:The nitrate print on "The Dance of Life" (1929) was donated by Columbia to the Hollywood Museum

Dance Of Life (1929) was a Paramount film. Columbia had nothing to do with it.

As too Coconuts, I ran this in 35mm last year at The Landmark Loews Jersey. The dupe footage is very noticeable in what otherwise is a sharp print. However, the sound was terrible for large sections of the print, not just the dupe sections.

Given the marketability and historical significance of The Cocoanuts, I would think compiling and preserving the best possible print possible would be a priority. Even if it didnt get a commerical release on DVD right away, Im sure it will be released again in the future.

David Pierce wrote:
The nitrate print on "The Dance of Life" (1929) was donated by Columbia to the Hollywood Museum

Mitchell Dvoskin wrote:
Dance Of Life (1929) was a Paramount film. Columbia had nothing to do with it.

Not true. As I've written elsewhere, "Columbia Pictures bought the properties in 1944 for a reported $65,000, for an Al Jolson film which was never made. Following the show’s successful 1946 Broadway revival with Bert Lahr, Columbia offered the property for sale and Twentieth Century-Fox bought the rights, resulting in the 1948 version called When My Baby Smiles at Me with Betty Grable and Dan Dailey."

My source is the assignments records at the U.S. Copyright Office and contemporary press clippings. The records of the Hollywood Museum clearly show that the print came in a batch of titles from Columbia Pictures.

David Pierce

David Pierce wrote:As I've written elsewhere, "Columbia Pictures bought the properties in 1944 for a reported $65,000, for an Al Jolson film which was never made.
David Pierce

Jolie, of course, did a radio version of the original play, BURLESQUE, on Lux Radio Theater in 1936. The Broadway play starred Barbara Stanwyck and Hal Skelly (who did the picture in '29) and it was revived on Broadway in 1946 (with Bert Lahr), followed by Fox's remake.

Sorry to be the Ethiope in the fuel supply, but I so despise the Marx Brothers that I made an expugated copy of the COCONUTS that contains the musical numbers only and no M Brothers. I have a good sense of humour and can prove it!

Norma

Sure you can....
by telling us your post was a joke.

Gary J.

Well, I do not find control-freaks funny. Are you telling me and the world that anyone who thinks the Marx Bros. outdated, low-grade humour lacks a sense of humour? Very funny are L&H, Harry Langdon., Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, and many more.

Norma

Norma Desmond wrote:Well, I do not find control-freaks funny. Are you telling me and the world that anyone who thinks the Marx Bros. outdated, low-grade humour lacks a sense of humour?

Well, lets just say it ain't going to be one of your strong points.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

colbyco82 wrote:Given the marketability and historical significance of The Cocoanuts, I would think compiling and preserving the best possible print possible would be a priority. Even if it didnt get a commerical release on DVD right away, Im sure it will be released again in the future.

It seems like a no-brainer to me, particularly as the currently distributed print isn't even regarded as being of sufficient quality for TV screening by most stations.

Bit of a chicken and egg situation here I reckon. There doesn't exist a decent print; therefore it's never shown; therefore it's not seen as popular within the Bros body of work; therefore new prints/restoration is not high priority.

Michael O'Regan wrote:Bit of a chicken and egg situation here I reckon. There doesn't exist a decent print; therefore it's never shown; therefore it's not seen as popular within the Bros body of work; therefore new prints/restoration is not high priority.

That it's a transitional talkie is also bound to scare the bejesus out of all but the most hearty cinephile. So, while the Marx Bros are still enough of a name to think they should warrant more care taken to assemble the best elements possible, I can understand why Paramount (or whoever owns it these days) would be leary of expending the time and money to undertake such a project.

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:

Michael O'Regan wrote:Bit of a chicken and egg situation here I reckon. There doesn't exist a decent print; therefore it's never shown; therefore it's not seen as popular within the Bros body of work; therefore new prints/restoration is not high priority.

That it's a transitional talkie is also bound to scare the bejesus out of all but the most hearty cinephile. So, while the Marx Bros are still enough of a name to think they should warrant more care taken to assemble the best elements possible, I can understand why Paramount (or whoever owns it these days) would be leary of expending the time and money to undertake such a project.

Back in my college film programming days (circa 1977), we showed THE COCOANUTS to a standing-room-only crowd. We expected a good turnout, but people lining the walls as well? Who'da thunk it?

I think one reason is we had unusually good publicity -- we found that just about everybody we sent press releases to publicized the film, including several nearby Cleveland radio stations. I found out later that, while many who attended knew of the Marx Brothers, many of them didn't know about this film, including some real die-hard Marx fanatics who had seen everything else they did. Name recognition coupled with curiosity and completion probably had a lot to do with our success.

On that basis, I think a new restoration of THE COCOANUTS would definitely attract the curious and the completist, and classic comedy fans of any stripe. The film is still obscure enough that a new restored and remastered DVD would probably sell if the Marx Brothers were heavly promoted along with it.