NitrateVille.com

I know claims about Tod Browning's infamous London After Midnight are a dime a dozen, but I found this through searching newspaper archives. I correspound regularly with Myspace's Lon Chaney and he directed me here. I think it may be a legitmate lead. At the very least it shows us that London was indeed in private collections.

From the December 22nd 1997 Chicago Tribune
DAVID BRADLEY, DIRECTOR, FILM TEACHER
Chicago Tribune - Monday, December 22, 1997
Author: Meg Murphy, Tribune Staff Writer.

David Shedd Bradley, 77, a director and film historian, died Saturday at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
A native of Winnetka, Mr. Bradley was a member of the Director's Guild of America and was once under contract at MGM. He directed films such as "Talk About a Stranger," which featured Nancy Davis, later Nancy Reagan, the former first lady.
His film directorial credits also included Ibsen's "Peer Gynt," featuring a young Charlton Heston, and "Julius Caesar."
In his autobiography, Heston recalled Bradley's visiting him backstage while Heston was performing in a school play at New Trier High School. Mr. Bradley, he said, insisted that Heston take the title role in "Peer Gynt."
"His vision of the piece (Peer Gynt) . . . was remarkable," Heston wrote.
Mr. Bradley was fascinated by movies since his boyhood, when he began a collection of films that eventually numbered several hundred titles, including a number of classic silent films.
Some of the titles he collected, such as 1926's "London After Midnight," starring Lon Chaney, were extremely rare and and were much sought after by other historians and film buffs.
A graduate of Northwestern University, Mr. Bradley served in the Army Signal Corps motion picture section during World War II and worked as a photographer during the European campaign, eventually filming the arrival of the Allies in Paris.
Most recently, Mr. Bradley was a popular instructor at a number of colleges and universities, including UCLA.
"His passion was the movies," recalled his nephew, Dan Bradley. "He enjoyed passing on his knowledge of the industry to the college-age students. His classes were always oversubscribed; they couldn't get enough of what he was offering."
In class, Bradley was known for being theatrical and involving his students in his lectures, according to a director and former student at Santa Monica College, Whitney Scott Bain.
"The guy just loved movies. His heart and soul was film," Bain said.
Mr. Bradley is also survived by a brother, A. Ballard Bradley. Services are pending in California.

When this piece came out there was discussion about it at alt.movies.silent. This post by an expert on Chaney sums it up:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movi ... 8d0421e2b0

Thanks for clearing that up

London After Midnight. Somewhere, I have a magazine from decades ago, maybe 195s or 60s and Films in review, maybe!! This has an ad or something about a guy somewhere around Connecticut renting out this title in 16mm!!!! I wanted to send a copy of this piece to my friends at Classic Images(Bob King) but do you think I can find it, not on your life. Of course, I did not believe it as I have seen too many quotes of people having this or that and, no, you can't see my copy etc. Yeah, they really don't have it in the first place. Wild goose chases when they are not necessary.

Mike Gebert wrote:When this piece came out there was discussion about it at alt.movies.silent. This post by an expert on Chaney sums it up:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movi ... 8d0421e2b0

I understand what Jon is saying in that post but I still would have thought it would have been worth while to to check into this from someone in an official position.

It just sound like a big generalization that Jon Mirsalis has been misquoted so many times that we should just blindly assume David Bradley's family was misquoted. I certainly hope I am misunderstanding this and this possible lead wasn't completely ignored. Hopefully the family was asked by someone.

A lot of people on this list knew David, what the real story was, and a handful of them went through the collection after he died. If he had LAM, we wouldn't be here discussing it right now.

Jack Theakston wrote:A lot of people on this list knew David, what the real story was, and a handful of them went through the collection after he died. If he had LAM, we wouldn't be here discussing it right now.

That is fine but none of that was revealed in this thread which makes a major difference. Some of us our new and don't know the history like you or others around here do.

That is fine but none of that was revealed in this thread which makes a major difference. Some of us our new and don't know the history like you or others around here do.

Then as a newbie, you're going to have to take the time out to re-read what has previously been written on the topic to catch up.

A lot of us are refugees from the newsgroup alt.movies.silent, which you can search over at Google Groups, such as Jon's post above. This topic of "did ___ have LAM?" (fill in the blank with Bill Everson, David Bradley, Raymond Rohauer, John Hampton, any deceased collector) used to come up at its worst once a week, so a lot of us are burnt out on the discussion.

The last people anyone knows that saw the film were Bradley and Everson on separate occasions. Both saw the studio print at MGM in the 1950s. Many on this group knew them and despite constant rumors (even when they were alive, to which they denied), no one ever saw or cataloged such a print in their collection.

I'm purely an amateaur in the preservation aspect. I just enjoy reading about and watch silent films.

Gregbert,

It is more than fine to be a newbie, we all start somewhere. Maybe
some of the older hands at this forget the knowledge that they hold
for granted can keep us from reinventing the wheel.

Keep reading and doing web searches. There are some great
sources of information out there if you are will to do some work
in finding them.

Pooky

Jack Theakston wrote:

That is fine but none of that was revealed in this thread which makes a major difference. Some of us our new and don't know the history like you or others around here do.

Then as a newbie, you're going to have to take the time out to re-read what has previously been written on the topic to catch up.

I think this is a bit harsh. I think it is pretty far fetched to expect people to search Google Groups to "catch up" before coming to Nitrateville. I have read a lot on LAM as missing film and television fascinates me but I had never heard of this "lead" before and was just curious if it had been looked into.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't imagine fans of silent films necessarily growing in large numbers on a yearly basis but in actuality is probably diminishing. I would suspect encouraging new people would be a better thing to do than being dismissive of them becasue people are "burned" out over a certain subjects.

Thanks for the nice words Pookybear!

Gregbert wrote:

Jack Theakston wrote:

That is fine but none of that was revealed in this thread which makes a major difference. Some of us our new and don't know the history like you or others around here do.

Then as a newbie, you're going to have to take the time out to re-read what has previously been written on the topic to catch up.

I think this is a bit harsh. I think it is pretty far fetched to expect people to search Google Groups to "catch up" before coming to Nitrateville. I have read a lot on LAM as missing film and television fascinates me but I had never heard of this "lead" before and was just curious if it had been looked into.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't imagine fans of silent films necessarily growing in large numbers on a yearly basis but in actuality is probably diminishing. I would suspect encouraging new people would be a better thing to do than being dismissive of them becasue people are "burned" out over a certain subjects.

Thanks for the nice words Pookybear!

I agree.
I found the original comment to be a bit snobbish.
Mr Theakston, whoever you are, I expect there was a time when you were starting out in your discovery of silent film and I'm sure you appreciated any help you could get at the time.
It seems like a good idea to help newcomers to the silent era.

This perhaps points to an issue worth addressing: is it time for a film-specific FAQ for Nitrateville? The one we have near the top of the page is concerned mostly with the mechanics of using the board; people who are very new to older films might find it useful to have answers to questions like
-Why are some films lost?
-What's the story with London After Midnight?
-Why are frame rates so controversial?
-Why do some early Technicolor films survive only in B&W?

all in one place for easy reference. Now, the argument could be made that Nitrateville doesn't usually attract people who are *so* new that they haven't read something about the above issues, but I think we'd also like to be open to people who really are. Perhaps instead of having one person write an entire FAQ, different topics could be tackled by different people according to their area(s) of expertise.

-Harold

Harold,

That sounds like a reasonable idea. Is it practical?

Good idea. I wouldn't want to see an "early film Wikipedia", but there are a whole lot of people who have become "Nitrateville acquaintances" than can productively contribute.

Is the old ams FAQ still up? I supposed that could be linked to or adapted. Someone was in charge of that but i dont' remember who.

greta

Well, my conviction is that an FAQ in blinking orange lights at the top of the screen won't stop some people from going right past it and posting the question for the millionth time.

That said, I actually wrote the London After Midnight portion of the AMS FAQ, which is to say I stitched together an answer from posts by Mirsalis and Birchard, mostly, so I must not be totally against the idea. I think it can be useful for questions which can be settled (does a collector have London After Midnight, very unlikely, here's why) as long as we keep out the ones that belong in the discussion area (what are the ten best silent films).

So here's my suggestion. I will start a thread in the Useful Info area, and my first post will be the index. If you want to answer a question, do so, and when I see your answer, I will add it to the index at the top and link it. So the answers can be all jumbled, but the index will keep them straight.

That said, it might be good to hash out any discussion ahead of time, so we don't have twenty posts in the FAQ thread.

Rick Levinson (from Toronto) and Emily Wray compiled the alt.movies.silent FAQ. Neither is a member here. It's been a few years since I talked with Rick, and he was really tied up with taking care of his elderly parents and didn't have time to devote to writing about silent films much (on the Internet and in magazines).

Both passed it off to me to edit in later years, and I think I still have the file with all the updates if someone wants to play with it or post it.

EDIT: Older draft is up online at http://www.vex.net/~emily/film/amsfaq/ams.html

Mike Gebert wrote:Well, my conviction is that an FAQ in blinking orange lights at the top of the screen won't stop some people from going right past it and posting the question for the millionth time.

I'm not sure that is a bad thing, as annoying as it can be. When I first started on ams, the irritable responses to the Weekly LAM Question bothered me; asking a question of knowledgeable people is the correct thing to do. Of course, that was before I'd heard that question a gadzillion times, so now I understand the irritation. It may require both patience and the orange blinking lights.

But then what happens is that it doesn't get answered at all. A FAQ at least gives new people a place to look and old hands something to point to rather than produce an answer from scratch, yet again. That said, every new person anywhere should at least try using the search function a little before posing questions, but....

The problem with LAM, too, is that people will come back with "I heard that..." and it can never end. Yes, a collector could have it. And there could be a print in the cornerstone of Rockefeller Center, for all we know, but everybody's tried the obvious and not-so-obvious ways to find it and nobody has. So if it ever reappears, it will be on its own sweet schedule, and it's not like nobody thought of your great idea of looking there (like the person who came on AMS and said, so don't you have to deposit a film with the LOC for copyright? So aren't all these things just sitting on the shelves there? Yes, of course, Jim Cozart just never thought of looking on those shelves where the staff has to deposit hundreds of new 35mm prints every week!)

Mike Gebert wrote:But then what happens is that it doesn't get answered at all. A FAQ at least gives new people a place to look and old hands something to point to rather than produce an answer from scratch, yet again. That said, every new person anywhere should at least try using the search function a little before posing questions, but....

Yes, that's what I meant by the orange blinking lights, a FAQ. Then when the question was asked, we could stifle our outraged screams and gently point to it.

LAM. It's really the silent film world's perpetual two year old. "Why?" "Why?"

Frederica wrote:LAM. It's really the silent film world's perpetual two year old. "Why?" "Why?"

Because.

Hello Everyone,

Well this topic can and will have people on boths sides going back and forth. But it is not just the film people that this happens with. Look at
any forum and this same thing happens between old hands and new blood.

Yes, newbies should read more before asking questions as not to cover
old ground again.

Yes, the more experienced people on the board should be a bit more
understanding to questions even if it is old ground.

Yes, QandA areas on forums give a place for the experienced to point
newbies to for answers. It is a great thing to have on the board.

Yes, the search function is great as well but.....The problem of the whole
search function is this....

It must be remembered just like searching the web the right answer
does not always show up the first time. Nor, is everyone who uses this
site or the web and expert at research.

What seems to be a simple task of looking up a small piece of information
can become a large troublesome project for many people. The access of
information today is one of the greatest things we have to offer, but the amount can be overwhelming to many.

True genius today can be measure by not what you know but by how
fast you can access the correct answer. This is a skill that we have to
some degree but few have mastered.

So please, try to remember when you started to collect and did not
have a clue. It is holding this older view point of oneself that we can
only truely become helpful in the continuing endeavor of trying to
save the film we all love so much and help those who are trying to learn.

The Newbie is Dead, Long Live the Newbie!

Pookybear

Mike Gebert wrote:Well, my conviction is that an FAQ in blinking orange lights at the top of the screen won't stop some people from going right past it and posting the question for the millionth time.

What if you call the FAQ "LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT FOUND!!!"?

PhilipS wrote:

Mike Gebert wrote:Well, my conviction is that an FAQ in blinking orange lights at the top of the screen won't stop some people from going right past it and posting the question for the millionth time.

What if you call the FAQ "LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT FOUND!!!"?

You are thinking.

It must be remembered just like searching the web the right answer
does not always show up the first time.

I'm for people being tolerant toward newbies, certainly, but at the same time, a simple Google search for London After Midnight provides several results on its first page; ignore the ones about some band of that name, and almost everything left will give you the right info about London After Midnight... though one, at least, will toy with you for a while first.

I'm definitely in approval to be kind to all who ask here. It's a good introduction to silent film scholarship to ask questions. I never understood, however, the desperation for this film. There's dozens of films I'd rather see first. Sorry, Jon!

I truly appreciated the last scam which was over Four Devils. I really wanted to believe that one.

Gregbert wrote:

Jack Theakston wrote:A lot of people on this list knew David, what the real story was, and a handful of them went through the collection after he died. If he had LAM, we wouldn't be here discussing it right now.

That is fine but none of that was revealed in this thread which makes a major difference. Some of us our new and don't know the history like you or others around here do.

I knew David Bradley. He was one of my profs at UCLA and we stayed in touch until he died. I borrowed a number of films from him through the years, and as he became less physically able to pull out prints from the cabinets and closets he kept them in I would go through the shelves and see what he had. "London After Midnight" was not among the films in his collection. He claimed to have seen it in the 1950s with Bill Everson when he was briefly employed by M-G-M, and said (and I quote): "It was lousy!"

It is indeed possible that he saw it, though it was not the cult 'holy grail' that it became with the attention given to it by Forrest Ackerman in "Famous Monsters of Filmland" in the 1960s. Supposedly the last known surviving material was lost in a vault fire at M-G-M in the mid-1950s, and I rather suspect Bradley would have had more interest in seeing the Garbos, Gilberts and Crawfords than he would have the Chaneys at the time he was there (1952). He may well have seen it as a boy. He would have been 7 when it was released, and it might have played in neighborhood houses in Chicago (where he grew up) some time after that.

It's amazing to think that there were still vault fires taking place by the mid-50's. Wasn't there fire inspectors or even insurance agents around warning that this wasn't safe?

Gary J.