First Wave Musicals (2)

[Danny Burk]

Guys, if you want to keep up the back and forth.....take it to PM. Thanks.

[LouieD]

Sure it is. Festivals? I'm not satisfied with watching it once. Especially if while doing so there's risk of running in to the likes of you.

Boo-hoo baby. So you won't go and see it at a festival or showing because you want to see it more than once? Wow, that's brilliant. You should be fortunate you're seeing it at all.

[LouieD]

Guys, if you want to keep up the back and forth.....take it to PM. Thanks.

Thanks Danny!

[entredeuxguerres]

Guys, if you want to keep up the back and forth.....take it to PM. Thanks.

Thanks Danny!

"Thanks Danny!" And then you ignore his request?

Or do you believe you enjoy special privileges unavailable to others?

I only wish my stomach was strong enough to dig up the vitriolic comments you've made about this site on a certain other site, but I'm sure I'd puke to death if I tried doing so.

[LouieD]

I only wish my stomach was strong enough to dig up the vitriolic comments you've made about this site on a certain other site, but I'm sure I'd puke to death if I tried doing so.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I'd say 'em all here too, but the mods don't allow swearing.

[azjazzman]

"The Vagabond King" was screened twice at UCLA's Festival of Preservation (1991 & 2000) with at least two other "non-Festival" screenings at Melnitz Hall. UCLA most recently ran it in August 2013 at the Billy Wilder.

It has been screened at Film Forum (twice), The Museum of Modern Art and Eastman House. The film festivals that have screened it include Capitolfest 6, Cinecon 30 and Cinevent (not sure which one).

Anyone who says the film has been sequestered away in UCLA's vaults and not made available for public viewing is either misinformed or not trying very hard to see it.

[Changsham]

For someone like me who lives In Australia, I have not much chance to get to some of the prestigious film festivals. TCM here is so lousy I got rid of it after the same endless repeats for years. Film festivals here don't show many early films and if they do I almost certainly seen them already. A lot of fans for whatever reason have to depend on DVD''s, Youtube and black market sources and cannot get to festivals far away. Its so frustrating being an old film fan in many places of the world though visual media has never been so easy to access. Would be great if LOC and UCLA had a burn on demand service for their collections. I would pay a premium for something like The Vagabond King on a WA standard DVD-R.

[Donald Binks]

"The Vagabond King" was screened twice at UCLA's Festival of Preservation (1991 & 2000) with at least two other "non-Festival" screenings at Neeb Hall. It has been screened at Film Forum (twice), The Museum of Modern Art and Eastman House. The film festivals that have screened it include Capitolfest 6, Cinecon 30 and Cinevent (not sure which one).

Anyone who says the film has been sequestered away in UCLA's vaults and not made available for public viewing is either misinformed or not trying very hard to see it.

A bit difficult for those of us who live in Australia though isn't it!

[azjazzman]

A bit difficult for those of us who live in Australia though isn't it!

Your beef isn't really with UCLA, it is with the people who program the National Film & Sound Archive's Arc Cinema or other venues in Australia that would be likely to show a film such as "The Vagabond King". Feel free to contact them with your request.

Here is UCLA's policy, as stated on their web site:

"The UCLA Film & Television Archive may be a local treasure, but it doesn't restrict its programming to Los Angeles. Films, television programs and newsreel footage are provided to other archives, museums, universities and film festivals around the world."

As far as a DVD release is concerned, good luck with that one. "The Vagabond King" would likely be pretty far down the list of potential releases for any MOD service.

[Donald Binks]

A bit difficult for those of us who live in Australia though isn't it!

Your beef isn't really with UCLA, it is with the people who program the National Film & Sound Archive's Arc Cinema or other venues in Australia that would be likely to show a film such as "The Vagabond King". Feel free to contact them with your request.

Here is UCLA's policy, as stated on their web site:

"The UCLA Film & Television Archive may be a local treasure, but it doesn't restrict its programming to Los Angeles. Films, television programs and newsreel footage are provided to other archives, museums, universities and film festivals around the world."

As far as a DVD release is concerned, good luck with that one. "The Vagabond King" would likely be pretty far down the list of potential releases for any MOD service.

I fear you over-simplify the situation. Most retrospective cinema exhibitions are run by 23 year old arts graduates who are more intent on including such wonderfully entertaining features as for example the 1957 Mugwumpian classic "Bingo Bangle" concerning the life-long struggle of a young lesbian mother with attention deficit disorder, who joins a Marxist Leninist collective and eventually buys a tractor. To put on something like "The Vagabond King" would be considered far too bourgeois.

Seriously, the costs of importing the film and playing it to a very limited audience would not be a feasible possibility.

My curiosity is therefore piqued as to why the UCLA went to the trouble of restoring the film and does not seek to compensate the costs associated with that exercise by at least selling made to order DVD copies to people like me who would be interested in buying one.

To my mind the act of restoring a film must instil a desire for it to be seen by as wide an audience as is possible?

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

Thanks again for the further posts re THE VAGABOND KING (1930). Obviously there are problems on both fronts either in the difficulties and economics in making films available and from the fan viewpoint of affording to travel to see films as well as fitting them in with work and family. At least the preservation of such film makes seeing them a possibility...

On the Barrios thread, on p135 he is not very complimentary about SONG OF THE WEST (1930), BRIDE OF THE REGIMENT (1930) and GOLDEN DAWN (again 1930). Given that it is not clear whether SONG OF THE WEST is lost or survives in b/w, BRIDE OF THE REGIMENT is reported lost (aside from the sound disks) and GOLDEN DAWN survives in b/w only, he should not give these comments as his own opinions, tho' survival of discs means he can comment on the music and singing. In the case of GOLDEN DAWN he can hardly criticise the photography! Similarly he describes PRIVATE IZZY MURPHY (1926/7) as 'a piece of dreck' on p32-33, despite this also apparently being lost, tho' perhaps the shooting script survives. In these cases it is usually best to refer to contemporary reviews. And should some of these films turn up, we may get a delightful surprise as with VIENNESE NIGHTS (1930).

My copy is the first edition, so if this has been amended or corrected I apologise! The stills in my copy strike me as perfectly satisfactory, though, and benefit from not being the usual ones roped in for books on musicals.

[LouieD]

My curiosity is therefore piqued as to why the UCLA went to the trouble of restoring the film and does not seek to compensate the costs associated with that exercise by at least selling made to order DVD copies to people like me who would be interested in buying one.

Really? Why do you think archives restore films?

[Donald Binks]

My curiosity is therefore piqued as to why the UCLA went to the trouble of restoring the film and does not seek to compensate the costs associated with that exercise by at least selling made to order DVD copies to people like me who would be interested in buying one.

Really? Why do you think archives restore films?

Perhaps you could elaborate? And I really don't understand why you are taking me to task. Surely I am entitled to have an opinion?

[drednm]

Well I'm confused as usual.... re: The Vagabond King (1930), I asked WAC if they knew about any intended DVD release and they answered, "that's up to Universal, since they own it." WHOOPS. So Universal bought the Paramount library of 1929-49 films.

Does Universal have a good track record of releasing classics on DVD?

[Salty Dog]

Does Universal have a good track record of releasing classics on DVD?

If they're not the usual classic horror titles like Dracula, Frankenstein, etc., no.

[BixB]

While I don't deny that Universal can be lax in releasing library titles (especially when you consider their library is second only to Warner's in terms of sheer volume and desirable titles), the problem with THE VAGABOND KING as well as FOLLOW THRU is music rights clearance. That's not to say they would release them on DVD if such problems were resolved but it only compounds their reluctance to bother with these films.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

On the Barrios thread, on p135 he is not very complimentary about SONG OF THE WEST (1930), BRIDE OF THE REGIMENT (1930) and GOLDEN DAWN (again 1930). Given that it is not clear whether SONG OF THE WEST is lost or survives in b/w, BRIDE OF THE REGIMENT is reported lost and GOLDEN DAWN survives in b/w only, he should not give these comments as his own opinions, tho' survival of discs means he can comment on the music and singing. In the case of GOLDEN DAWN he can hardly criticise the photography! Similarly he describes PRIVATE IZZY MURPHY (1926/7) as 'a piece of dreck' on p32-33, despite this also apparently being lost, tho' perhaps the shooting script survives. In these cases it is usually best to refer to contemporary reviews.

I'm not quite sure what you are hoping to accomplish by raising the spectre of GOLDEN DAWN. Do you *really* think that a beautifully preserved and restored color print would restore its reputation?

I have yet to find a contemporary review that didn't laugh it off the screen. GD was one of the nails in the coffin that was the musical moratorium of late-1930-late-1932.

That said, I *love* GOLDEN DAWN (I have a GD-decorated bath room and I've named two of my dogs Mooda and Dawn in its honor) but I am still sentient enough to realize that it's an awful film. It's just a film I find hysterically funny and endlessly entertaining - for all the wrong reasons.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

I only wish my stomach was strong enough to dig up the vitriolic comments you've made about this site on a certain other site, but I'm sure I'd puke to death if I tried doing so.

This is a joke, right? You don't actually speak like this.

[BGM]

I am still sentient enough to realize that it's an awful film. It's just a film I find hysterically funny and endlessly entertaining - for all the wrong reasons.

I agree-it is like a train wreck-you can't look away! I still hold out hope that a color print will surface in a mislabeled can in a dark corner of some archive somewhere......

[azjazzman]

My curiosity is therefore piqued as to why the UCLA went to the trouble of restoring the film and does not seek to compensate the costs associated with that exercise by at least selling made to order DVD copies to people like me who would be interested in buying one.

To my mind the act of restoring a film must instil a desire for it to be seen by as wide an audience as is possible?

UCLA doesn't own the home video rights to the films they restore, so they couldn't release a DVD if they wanted to. That is up to the studio that owns the rights.

[entredeuxguerres]

I only wish my stomach was strong enough to dig up the vitriolic comments you've made about this site on a certain other site, but I'm sure I'd puke to death if I tried doing so.

This is a joke, right? You don't actually speak like this.

When provoked to respond to disagreeable characters, I find, alas, no better alternative. My heartfelt apologies for treading on your refined sensibilities, but if the matter *so* concerns you, why not peruse the site in question to judge whether such deplorable coarseness might perhaps, in extreme cases, be warranted? (Unwise to linger there, however, lest your own genteel vocabulary suffer corruption.)

[BGM]

UCLA doesn't own the home video rights to the films they restore, so they couldn't release a DVD if they wanted to. That is up to the studio that owns the rights.

That is a very good point-although Glorifying the American Girl and Becky Sharp are in Public Domain and seeing the UCLA logo on dvd's of the Sherlock Holmes films makes me wonder if it is just a matter of someone taking the time to check into it. I understand the rights issues and I respect that. Look what was done with the recent Kickstarter project of Enchantment-the Marion Davies silent. I for one would support a similar project especially with Glorifying the American Girl.

[entredeuxguerres]

I for one would support a similar project especially with Glorifying the American Girl.

To liberate, do you mean, the restored print of that wonderful picture? (One of my supreme favorites.) A color print of the finale was included in the PBS "Broadway" series, & compared to the B&W print, it was magnificent. Having the restored print transferred to DVD would be a consummation devoutly to be wished, but I fear the cost would far exceed that of the Davies project.

[drednm]

So far as I know, no archive beyond Library of Congress sells prints of films they hold period. They will lend certain ones to festivals and other "institutional" forces but not to individuals. Most archives allow you to go and watch certain films on premises. Those are the options. As noted, archives do not produce/sell commercial DVDs.

What part TCM plays in this I do not know. If an archive, let's say UCLA has a restored film, let's say The Vagabond King that TCM might be interested in, I have no idea if TCM would help or has ever helped in clearing rights issues.

I have no idea if showing a film on TCM involves the same set of legal hoops as putting a film out on DVD. Some films have been tied up for decades and then suddenly burst free (The Trespasser, The Constant Nymph), while others languish.

Each film likely has its own unique set of legal hoops. Then again, it may be that no one (corporate America) cares enough to even try to free up The Vagabond King, The Barker, or His Glorious Night, although I can't imagine why TCM wouldn't offer a little nudge.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

I only wish my stomach was strong enough to dig up the vitriolic comments you've made about this site on a certain other site, but I'm sure I'd puke to death if I tried doing so.

This is a joke, right? You don't actually speak like this.

When provoked to respond to disagreeable characters, I find, alas, no better alternative. My heartfelt apologies for treading on your refined sensibilities, but if the matter *so* concerns you, why not peruse the site in question to judge whether such deplorable coarseness might perhaps, in extreme cases, be warranted? (Unwise to linger there, however, lest your own genteel vocabulary suffer corruption.)

OK. I get it. It's a joke.

[Donald Binks]

So far as I know, no archive beyond Library of Congress sells prints of films they hold period. They will lend certain ones to festivals and other "institutional" forces but not to individuals. Most archives allow you to go and watch certain films on premises. Those are the options. As noted, archives do not produce/sell commercial DVDs.

What part TCM plays in this I do not know. If an archive, let's say UCLA has a restored film, let's say The Vagabond King that TCM might be interested in, I have no idea if TCM would help or has ever helped in clearing rights issues.

I have no idea if showing a film on TCM involves the same set of legal hoops as putting a film out on DVD. Some films have been tied up for decades and then suddenly burst free (The Trespasser, The Constant Nymph), while others languish.

Each film likely has its own unique set of legal hoops. Then again, it may be that no one (corporate America) cares enough to even try to free up The Vagabond King, The Barker, or His Glorious Night, although I can't imagine why TCM wouldn't offer a little nudge.

I am a trifle confused - a situation I am often in unfortunately.

My little brain suggested to me that the film must have in some way been released to the UCLA in order for them to have attended to a restoration in the first place? Why would they have bothered to do a restoration unless there was some light at the end of the tunnel allowing rights to be cleared for public screenings?

Would it not have made good business sense for the UCLA to have entered into a partnership with the rights holders agreeing that a percentage of the take on any copies of the film put into distribution would go their way?

I don't agree with you on the fact that archives don't sell prints. The F.W. Murneau Stiftung has a commercial arm - Transit Films which sells DVD's. The Australian Sound and Film Archive used to sell VHS copies of films although I haven't seen any DVD's emerge - just two examples.

It would therefore be an interesting exercise to find out exactly why "The Vagabond King" remains tied up in red tape. The film was made in 1930 so allowing for 75 years for estates to hang on to rights - it should have ended being tied up in 2005. (Although copyright in America seems to go on forever).

The thought that it might surface on TCM in America is interesting in that someone might accidentally leave their DVD recorder on.

[drednm]

Donald... many archives sell DVDs but they don't make them to order or make transfers from film to DVD as LOC does.

In general, an archive is apparently a neutral watchdog/repository. Even if they restore a film, it's not THEIR money that is used and they have no rights. The rights remain with whoever owned them to begin with. Even with LOC, not every film they hold is available to buy. If there are copyrights or even donor restrictions on PD films, you ain't getting them.

How they choose and who makes the decision to restore film X vs film Y, I have no idea. Probably all depends on the money stream....

[Donald Binks]

Donald... many archives sell DVDs but they don't make them to order or make transfers from film to DVD as LOC does.

In general, an archive is apparently a neutral watchdog/repository. Even if they restore a film, it's not THEIR money that is used and they have no rights. The rights remain with whoever owned them to begin with. Even with LOC, not every film they hold is available to buy. If there are copyrights or even donor restrictions on PD films, you ain't getting them.

How they choose and who makes the decision to restore film X vs film Y, I have no idea. Probably all depends on the money stream....

What you say is understandable.

It does beg the question though doesn't it - that if an organisation goes to the trouble to restore a film, why should another party still hold all the commercial rights? I would campaign for the extinguishing of rights in those instances where the rights holder does not wish to restore the film themselves and where an independent authority has determined that the film is worthy of restoration. The party then responsible for the restoration should be able to profit by marketing copies of that restoration. I think this makes sense, but when does sense ever prevail?

[Harold Aherne]

I am a trifle confused - a situation I am often in unfortunately.

My little brain suggested to me that the film must have in some way been released to the UCLA in order for them to have attended to a restoration in the first place? Why would they have bothered to do a restoration unless there was some light at the end of the tunnel allowing rights to be cleared for public screenings?

Nitrate prints for the Paramount sound films were donated to UCLA around 1969-70, at about the same time that the AFI was facilitating donation of the remaining Paramount silent material to the Library of Congress. The major distinction is that Paramount no longer owned the intellectual property rights to most of its talkies released up to 1949. According to Bob Epstein, "...it was very complicated because it was a three-way deal between Paramount, MCA, which was the copyright owner, and the University" (Anthony Slide, Nitrate Won't Wait, page 69).

Paramount's AFI/LOC donation included some odds and ends from the 1930s that were not part of the EMKA package, like Honeymoon Lane (1931) and Are You a Mason? (1934). An index of donated titles may be found in Nitrate Won't Wait.

Donating the physical prints and negatives to an archive does not imply the legal transfer of intellectual property. Indeed, the studios' retention of legal ownership for donated titles is part of what made such donations possible in the first place. When a given film is copyright-protected, the archive usually must seek permission to transfer it. Preservation is -- or it should be -- an end unto itself, independent of how popular a title is or the likelihood of public screenings. Extant films that have rights entanglements may theoretically be seen at some point; lost films can *never* be seen, by anyone.

-HA

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

My point regarding GOLDEN DAWN (1930) wasn't whether or not the film was dreadful*. Barrios comments: 'In none of these did she [Vivienne Segal] have direction and photography to facilitate her projection of the lyric sensuality so attractive on Broadway...' As the film is [to my knowledge] only extant in b/w, this is an unfair comment from someone who hasn't seen the film in two-color Technicolor, even though it might be true. If he's referring to contemporary opinion or reviews he should say so. And GOLDEN DAWN was scheduled for showing over here at London's National Film Theatre about thirty years or so ago, but I never got to see it as living some seventy miles away I could only manage two or three visits a month on average.

The appearance of a reportedly splendid copy of KING OF JAZZ (1930) and other Technicolor movies from that period should make one wary of reckless comment. Indeed until recently I had no idea that SWEET KITTY BELLAIRS (1930) was extant until recently, though at present shorn of its Technicolor. The economies of tv stations in the 1950s in preserving early musicals in b/w seem very short-sighted** and unfortunate, particularly as color tv came to America much earlier than over here, but at least they survive in some form at least...

*I have since caught up with GOLDEN DAWN (commented March 11, 2021), albeit in a slightly fuzzy upload. It was by no means the unbearable experience some would have had me expect, but I am usually prepared to accept a 1930 artefact for what it is.

**It seems as if I may have been mistaken on account of the problems in making copies from an obsolete technology. However, was it not possible to donate the originals until such future time that such things were possible. And KING OF JAZZ was indeed splendid, to put it mildly...