THE IMMIGRANT, an early review

[Rick Lanham]

I see that the thread on Flicker Alley's release of Chaplin's films is now locked. If this post is seen as just continuing that discussion, then it can be deleted by a moderator.

I searched for and found an early review of THE IMMIGRANT. In fact it is from June 17, 1917, the very day that the IMDB gives as the film's release in the United States. The review is from a Victoria, B.C. newspaper, The Daily Colonist. I found it via a search on the Fulton History site. http://www.fultonhistory.com/Fulton.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

It seems to discuss only the first half of the film. Perhaps they ran out of space? The description of the action does include things that I did not notice in the 32 minute version on YouTube.



Oh, I tried to make it larger, but that didn't work. If you click on it, you are taken to PhotoBucket where it can be enlarged.

Rick

[silentfilm]

Michael Hayde's book on the Chaplin Mutuals has quite a few contemporary reviews on each of the Mutual shorts.

[Rick Lanham]

Michael Hayde's book on the Chaplin Mutuals has quite a few contemporary reviews on each of the Mutual shorts.

Oh, OK. I should have known others had explored that avenue.

Rick

[Robert Israel Music]

I am very sorry, but I really must be missing something here. Rick Lanham wrote, "The description of the action does include things that I did not notice in the 32 minute version on YouTube." The only thing that seems to appear in the YouTube version, that is discussed in the review, is the gambling sequence; however, the context is completely different in the film vs. the article:

This review begins by explaining that the gambler is the husband and father of Edna. (In the release version, Edna and her mother are introduced by title card as, "A widow and her daughter.") Then it goes on to say that Chaplin is a seasoned gambler with plenty of cheating tricks available to him to bilk money out of his marks. Then, it goes on to explain that Chaplin's winnings are so great that, "...his capacious trousers' pockets are scarcely able to contain it all." Next, he is thrown into the ship's hold and Edna attempts to help him escape using everything from a "...belaying pin, to a fire axe."

If this is a genuine article from 1917, then it must have been based upon a preview version, or a composite of material shot by Chaplin, but never released, or a film by Billy West. This clearly bears no resemblance to THE IMMIGRANT as we know it today.

It's very nice sleuthing on Mr. Lanham's part, but this article has absolutely nothing to do with the general release version of the film.

[martin arias]

I agree with Mr. Israel. The writer sounds like someone who just heard someone talk about the film but never watched it. Not even the rushes of outtakes seem to contain any charactes which could be takes as Edna's father. And Charlie's character is certainly not an experienced gambler.
But it's an interesting piece, nevertheless.

[martin arias]

And about the locked thread, it doesn't seem quite democratic to close a thread just because you don't like it, you don't agree with it, or you get tired of it.

[Mike Gebert]

It's not a democracy, whatever gave you that silly idea, but there are also some subtler things I can only do when I'm on an actual computer, not my phone, and the fact that we have another goddam Immigrant thread already is beyond my present powers until I get home. How long this one lasts is entirely a function of how much it does not become exactly like the other one.

In any case, that thread was a painfully clear violation of one of the oldest rules, always worth reviewing:

• Discussions that go round and round without advancing will be stopped. In other words, you can say the same damn thing twice, but not three or more times.

This one seems worth recalling too:

• Please don't fight with the volunteer moderators. Accept a decision, however boneheaded, with good grace and move on.

[martin arias]

Ok, so please use your divine grace to enlighten us, poor members how, when, how long and what about can we talk. I thought we were adults and could freely speak for ourselves, always without going to insult anyone. I still cannot see why anyone feels so insulted because someone just doesn't agree on the way a restoration has been done. And I sincerely cannot see why you are so bothered by it. Just stop posting if you don't care. The IMMIGRANT post received nearly 5,000 views and the youtube print was seen by more than 300, so it's clearly not a question of nobody beeing interested in it.

[rudyfan]

Dude, we're all enjoying watching the car wreck as we drive by.

[Frederica]

Dude, we're all enjoying watching the car wreck as we drive by.

More explosions than a Michael Bay film.

[Danny Burk]

Mr Arias clearly enjoys stepping on thin ice.

[martin arias]

"we're all" means you are 300 people, or maybe 5000.

good for you


m.

[Rick Lanham]

I just tried to add a medium length post and it went into thin air.

Short version:
I seem to have muddied the waters by posting an error-filled preview/review. It was published on the same day as the film was coming out, so he/she possibly didn't see the film.

The newspaper item is available on the Fulton site. PM me if you need help finding it.

Rick

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Ok, so please use your divine grace to enlighten us, poor members how, when, how long and what about can we talk. I thought we were adults and could freely speak for ourselves, always without going to insult anyone. I still cannot see why anyone feels so insulted because someone just doesn't agree on the way a restoration has been done. And I sincerely cannot see why you are so bothered by it. Just stop posting if you don't care. The IMMIGRANT post received nearly 5,000 views and the youtube print was seen by more than 300, so it's clearly not a question of nobody beeing interested in it.

Mike has been kind enough to quote some site rules, but, for your convenience, here's the whole "PLEASE READ THIS FIRST" thread which it the top of the SILENT NEWS subheading:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2

Specifically:

Welcome to NitrateVille, a discussion site for anyone who loves silent and classic-era sound film.

Any discussion relevant to the topic is welcome here-- from serious and technical preservation talk to newly-minted fans talking about their newfound love for old movies. Our intention is to make this a useful resource for the sharing of information and the growing of the silent/classic film community.

As a moderated site, we will do our best to eliminate spam, flamewars and other forms of internet kudzu and incivility which discourage discussion, while allowing the freest possible civil discussion of on-topic matters. We plan to moderate as little as possible-- but to moderate firmly whenever something truly crosses the line of basic civility or productiveness. This means:

• Personal attacks will be pulled, and you'll generally be given a chance to repost any useful content-- if there was any-- minus the personal stuff.
• Discussions that go round and round without advancing will be stopped. In other words, you can say the same damn thing twice, but not three or more times.
• While off-topicness is mostly discouraged anyway, certain specific forms which have a tendency to cause trouble will be policed especially closely. Politics, religion, sports, Mac vs. PC, personal lives of modern dysfunctional celebrities, etc. are among the topics that really don't belong here because of the distraction and threat they pose to the rational, on-topic operation of the community.
• Please don't fight with the volunteer moderators. Accept a decision, however boneheaded, with good grace and move on.
• Be aware that this is a public forum and blatant offers of copyright violating activities will be pulled.

Thank you for coming here, and we look forward to all the wonderful things people will have to say here..

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Ok, so please use your divine grace to enlighten us, poor members how, when, how long and what about can we talk. I thought we were adults and could freely speak for ourselves, always without going to insult anyone. I still cannot see why anyone feels so insulted because someone just doesn't agree on the way a restoration has been done. And I sincerely cannot see why you are so bothered by it. Just stop posting if you don't care. The IMMIGRANT post received nearly 5,000 views and the youtube print was seen by more than 300, so it's clearly not a question of nobody beeing interested in it.

And I sincerely cannot see why you are so bothered that people disagree with you. That's life. Not everybody agrees with what everybody says (or, here, writes.)

And that's OK.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you are certainly welcomed to offer your opinion here. However, everyone is not required to share your opinion, OR must swayed by your opinion OR will be swayed by your opinion if it is repeated often enough OR ...

[Mike Gebert]

Christopher/Harlett nails it exactly, thank you.

An interesting case has been made. It was interesting but in the end, not so convincing that it convinced me I needed to worry greatly that The Immigrant at 2 reels was a pale shadow of the The Immigrant at 2-1/2 reels it could be, for my $59.95 (actually less given Flicker Alley's assorted discounts).

The problem was never that case but the pages and pages of insults, incredulity at the stupidity and cupidity of all the sycophants on Shepardsville, which came with it. (Do not say "What insults? Are you hallucinating, you sycophant?")

I make no apologies for putting an end to that, and I'll do it again. Let's talk movies, not talk about how we talked about them that one time; let's be pleasant, not abusive as we do it. Those are the rules. They will be enforced.

[mcblue]

It sounds like the guy who wrote the review is getting The Immigrant mixed up with Shanghaied, a short he made for Essanay that likewise contains scenes on a boat.

[Doug Sulpy]

Well, when your definition of "pleasant" is "don't say anything people disagree with," it doesn't make for much of a discussion board, does it, Mike?

Points were REPEATEDLY brought up in the "Immigrant" thread that were simply not addressed by the rank-and-file, who were more interested in infantile responses and a seemingly infinite number of ways of saying "shut up."

I put up with the same nonsense when I began posting about the missing shots and errors in the Keystone set. For a board that's supposedly full of film geeks, not only did no one want to know, most people were actively hostile that errors and omissions were being pointed out (I subsequently deleted my posts so everyone would feel better, so don't go looking for them).

I've asked Mike to delete my account, so that you all can enjoy your edited silents without interruption.
Bye, now!

[Mike Gebert]

As you wish.

[Pasquale Ventura]

Good-bye.

[LouieD]

Sulpy ran away? No?? Really? He pulls the same baby thing on his Beatles forum "The 910". The only difference there is he controls the board so if someone either disagrees even slightly with his opinion of the Beatles or his political views, you are history.

[Rick Lanham]

Here's hoping that the Flicker Alley products are shipping on time.

Rick

[jjbluecaps]

Someone can edit the film and put together ALL the scenes existing in ALL those versions of "The Immigrant"?
Or at least do a list of all the scenes in their exact places, and then I put it together.
Thank you.

[Spiny Norman]

Someone can edit the film and put together ALL the scenes existing in ALL those versions of "The Immigrant"?
Or at least do a list of all the scenes in their exact places, and then I put it together.
Thank you.

It's possible to have a DVD play the version of your choice. Occasionally a DVD has this feature where it can either play the short version or put in the extra scenes.
When there's a marked quality difference this will of course not work so well. If it can't be near seamless, it should be a separate item.
Providing there is money for it, of course! Often lack of funds is secretly at the bottom of heated arguments here.

I must say, when it comes to that, there is a certain (over?)sensitivity here when it comes to criticising release and restoration efforts. A number of people will invariably hurry to the support of the companies & people involved, even if these were not under attack at all, making the whole thing a straw man. But when someone says something like "But why hasn't this been released?", it is not necessarily intended as an attack, complaint, or even a whine.

On the plus side, most boards don't recognise that moderators can make "bone headed decisions" and pretend to have a kind of papal infallability instead. Here at least they're only human when they ask one to move along.

[CoffeeDan]

Here's hoping that the Flicker Alley products are shipping on time.

Rick

Just got back from the post office with my copy of the Mutual Chaplin set -- looks terrific! Will have more to say about it later!

[Rick Lanham]

Here's hoping that the Flicker Alley products are shipping on time.

Rick

Just got back from the post office with my copy of the Mutual Chaplin set -- looks terrific! Will have more to say about it later!

Good to hear! Nothing here yet.

Rick