Theda Bara SALOME footage found

[Histogram]

In fact, a previous archivist had identified it as Salome and separated it from the other fragments, but this was somehow not noticed until now.

That was in 1996, and a researcher or archivist did a writeup and published it in a magazine related to the film archive. In the present essay, the writer wonders (amusingly to me) how the old, published writeup about material for a lost movie was somehow not noticed, so that the film material remained lost until 24 years later.

[Ed Lachmann]

"Since like everybody else, I was full of silly prejudices I missed out on incredible things. Salome with Theda Bara was for sale. I thought, 'Fox, Theda Bara, American spectacle...who needs it?' Now the film is lost forever. It was probably quite good. From that point on, through trial and error, I saw that people, intent on triage, who think they have taste, me included, are idiots. One must save everything and buy everything. Never assume you know what's of value." -Henri Langlois
In Phantom of the Cinematheque Langlois claimed he turned it down in the 1940's. Maybe there's still hope.

[Brooksie]

I don't think the titles were intentionally preserved. Each of the titles shown here are still images originating just from one frame, which suggest that they were "accidentally" preserved. The fact that all of them have an incomplete portion in the upper or lower part, or show a bit of color from the tinting, indicates that the were next to the beginning or the ending of a scene.

To me, this suggests the opposite - that the titles were deliberately saved. After all, one only needs to retain a single frame to preserve a title. If they didn't want to keep it, wouldn't it have been much easier to simply discard it?

We also have no indication that the titles and images are part of the same contiguous piece of film. The fact that the tint colour so often changes between title and image suggests not, which would again imply that they were kept for some good reason.

Henri Langois was not the only archivist guilty of the sin of snobbish omission - Iris Barry of the Museum of Modern Art turned down Pandora's Box (1928) (of which Langois was a major champion, ironically) because she did not consider it worthy of preservation. It just goes to show that every generation's attitudes are shaped by undercurrents of trend and personal opinion - our own included.

[ElectricPhonograph]

Just for kicks, I decided to reorder the Salome fragments into something slightly more coherent:



A few disclaimers: I didn't necessarily strive for story continuity (although, in my head, the sequence here works if you really, really stretch your imagination ) -- my main goal was to reconnect several of the shots that are broken up throughout the Filmoteca's original upload. Some of them, such as Salome speaking with Sejanus (1:05), recoalesce perfectly, while shots like Salome vamping along the steps (1:22) are still riddled with gaps and missing footage. Whoever saved these clips edited them really curiously. Still, it makes a little more sense of the slapdash editing of the original fragment. I elected not to reinsert the intertitles, because I couldn't figure out with limited context where they belonged in this footage, or if they even belong to these scenes at all -- I have theories about a couple of them, but as a whole, I'm not sure. Lastly, I thought it would be fun to soundtrack the clip with the lovely Salome tango posted by @radiotelefonia -- my appreciation to you; I think they pair well!

[martin arias]

Watching it again, parts of the same scene are edited here and there. It's really enigmatic why someone would patch them this way. The sequence with the haren girls behind is divided into several fragments, as well as other sequences. Someone could re-edit this at least putting everything that exists in a more logical order. I would, if I had any editing skills.

[martin arias]

Electric Phonograph just did what I was saying! Only he left out all of the original title cards.

[Spiny Norman]

Yes I had a feeling all along that some of the material seemed to belong together but had other clips in between.

To me, this suggests the opposite - that the titles were deliberately saved. After all, one only needs to retain a single frame to preserve a title. If they didn't want to keep it, wouldn't it have been much easier to simply discard it?

Something to glue to? But if so, then shouldn't we see more splices in the frame immediately following? (I didn't check.)

[DavidWelling]

I’ve now watched the clips multiple times. My God, those eyes! Even with the overacting, she is electrifying. It is a miracle to even have these brief clips and it only confirms what all those still images of her suggest. Now if we could only find the same with LAM.

[telical]

If some archives are so mismanaged as this one was, there is hope a lot more will turn up in the future.

[Rodney]

I don't think the titles were intentionally preserved. Each of the titles shown here are still images originating just from one frame, which suggest that they were "accidentally" preserved. The fact that all of them have an incomplete portion in the upper or lower part, or show a bit of color from the tinting, indicates that the were next to the beginning or the ending of a scene.

To me, this suggests the opposite - that the titles were deliberately saved. After all, one only needs to retain a single frame to preserve a title. If they didn't want to keep it, wouldn't it have been much easier to simply discard it?

If the titles (and the closeup of Bara) were present as single frames, it may be the archive that lengthened them after the transfer, to give viewers the ability to see (and read) them.

[Spiny Norman]

If the titles (and the closeup of Bara) were present as single frames, it may be the archive that lengthened them after the transfer, to give viewers the ability to see (and read) them.

I think that's what everyone is now assuming and there hardly seems any other explanation.

[BudAbbott]

Give it a little thought and the 'documentary' theory falls apart: if these were to be used for a documentary, the clips would almost certainly be longer.

I think the 'censor' idea is the likeliest. There are stories of projectionists who assembled and kept reels of footage of small bits they were required to cut out of features -- this could be one of those. And notice how many of these clips show a lot of leg, etc.

I don't say it's dispositive, I'm just saying that it makes more sense.

One other guess is that some projectionist deliberately snipped these out for his own, er, enjoyment. That might explain the clips' brevity: he'd only trim as much as he could get away with before returning the print. Anyhow, it's a thought.

[Spiny Norman]

Give it a little thought and the 'documentary' theory falls apart: if these were to be used for a documentary, the clips would almost certainly be longer.

I think the 'censor' idea is the likeliest. There are stories of projectionists who assembled and kept reels of footage of small bits they were required to cut out of features -- this could be one of those. And notice how many of these clips show a lot of leg, etc.

I don't say it's dispositive, I'm just saying that it makes more sense.

One other guess is that some projectionist deliberately snipped these out for his own, er, enjoyment. That might explain the clips' brevity: he'd only trim as much as he could get away with before returning the print. Anyhow, it's a thought.

I half agree. It can't have been left up to the individual projectionists to each apply their own pairs of scissors? Censorship is usually done on a national level.
But indeed this would be absolutely useless for a documentary.

But the idea that this was taken for "a private collection" on the sly - yes. Maybe this was "souvenired".
I imagine that's why you would sometimes start from the title card onward, but never too long. You can only trim so little that no-one will notice.

[FrankFay]

Give it a little thought and the 'documentary' theory falls apart: if these were to be used for a documentary, the clips would almost certainly be longer.

I think the 'censor' idea is the likeliest. There are stories of projectionists who assembled and kept reels of footage of small bits they were required to cut out of features -- this could be one of those. And notice how many of these clips show a lot of leg, etc.

I don't say it's dispositive, I'm just saying that it makes more sense.

One other guess is that some projectionist deliberately snipped these out for his own, er, enjoyment. That might explain the clips' brevity: he'd only trim as much as he could get away with before returning the print. Anyhow, it's a thought.

I half agree. It can't have been left up to the individual projectionists to each apply their own pairs of scissors? Censorship is usually done on a national level.
But indeed this would be absolutely useless for a documentary.

But the idea that this was taken for "a private collection" on the sly - yes. Maybe this was "souvenired".
I imagine that's why you would sometimes start from the title card onward, but never too long. You can only trim so little that no-one will notice.

There was no national board of censors. It was done on a state basis- surviving prints still bear titles such as PASSED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF CENSORS. In addition, if local figures had enough power - or if the theater owner had opinions - films would be cut in individual towns.

[Spiny Norman]

Give it a little thought and the 'documentary' theory falls apart: if these were to be used for a documentary, the clips would almost certainly be longer.

I think the 'censor' idea is the likeliest. There are stories of projectionists who assembled and kept reels of footage of small bits they were required to cut out of features -- this could be one of those. And notice how many of these clips show a lot of leg, etc.

I don't say it's dispositive, I'm just saying that it makes more sense.

One other guess is that some projectionist deliberately snipped these out for his own, er, enjoyment. That might explain the clips' brevity: he'd only trim as much as he could get away with before returning the print. Anyhow, it's a thought.

I half agree. It can't have been left up to the individual projectionists to each apply their own pairs of scissors? Censorship is usually done on a national level.
But indeed this would be absolutely useless for a documentary.

But the idea that this was taken for "a private collection" on the sly - yes. Maybe this was "souvenired".
I imagine that's why you would sometimes start from the title card onward, but never too long. You can only trim so little that no-one will notice.

There was no national board of censors. It was done on a state basis- surviving prints still bear titles such as PASSED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF CENSORS. In addition, if local figures had enough power - or if the theater owner had opinions - films would be cut in individual towns.

This is a SPANISH print. By the way US states are still pretty big units, almost countries. But my point was, it would be edited and THEN go into circulation, surely?
Plus, would this be the most offensive scenes? Doubtful. So my money is on the pilfering projectionist.

[FrankFay]

This is a SPANISH print. By the way US states are still pretty big units, almost countries. But my point was, it would be edited and THEN go into circulation, surely?
Plus, would this be the most offensive scenes? Doubtful. So my money is on the pilfering projectionist.

Ahh- forgot it was Spanish. But still, there was censorship at the local level. It is dangerous to cite a piece of fiction as an example, but surely you have seen Cinema Paradiso?

[Rodney]

There was no national board of censors. It was done on a state basis- surviving prints still bear titles such as PASSED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF CENSORS. In addition, if local figures had enough power - or if the theater owner had opinions - films would be cut in individual towns.

And even individual theaters. I can't remember where I read it (probably James Card's book?) The Eastman Theater in Rochester had a firm time limit (I think it was two hours) for their entire program. The projectionist would cut enough out of the features, shorts, and documentaries, to hit that target. If your theater was downstream of Eastman in the distribution chain for that particular print, you never saw those scenes.

[Spiny Norman]

This is a SPANISH print. By the way US states are still pretty big units, almost countries. But my point was, it would be edited and THEN go into circulation, surely?
Plus, would this be the most offensive scenes? Doubtful. So my money is on the pilfering projectionist.

Ahh- forgot it was Spanish. But still, there was censorship at the local level. It is dangerous to cite a piece of fiction as an example, but surely you have seen Cinema Paradiso?

There would be no-one to stop them. But these can't be the worst scenes in the movie?!

[pathe16mm]

[/quote]There would be no-one to stop them. But these can't be the worst scenes in the movie?!
[/quote]

The Chicago censor notes talk about "bare breasts" in a couple scenes.

[Brooksie]

One of the only other things we know for sure about this footage is that it came from the collection of a working film director, who was making similar kinds of epics to Salome in the teens and early twenties. Perhaps he retained particular shots he admired for reference in his own works.

[wich2]

My God, those eyes!

With respect, a good percentage of all the folks on the planet would have eyes like that, if they made up like that, acted like that, and were shot like that.

[Spiny Norman]

One of the only other things we know for sure about this footage is that it came from the collection of a working film director, who was making similar kinds of epics to Salome in the teens and early twenties. Perhaps he retained particular shots he admired for reference in his own works.

OK let's see. In the online article, it says first:

Sobre la procedencia del material, la ficha únicamente recoge que proviene del “fondo histórico”, de origen desconocido.

Files say source unknown. More searching leads to:

Uno de ellos comentó que «Diversos sin identificar III» provenía de una compra realizada en 1986 a los herederos de Ramón de Baños, director y pionero de cine.

"Various unidentified items" were bought in 1986 from the estate of Ramón de Baños.
I can see where the "documentary theory" comes from.
Although, De Banos may have simply gotten them from someone else.
Or, speculating further, what if he DID use material from Salome, and these are the leftovers?

[barafan]

This is what I get for writing so much and never checking in. I am anxious to see this, if I can figure out how to get a vimeo password.

[Spiny Norman]

v

This is what I get for writing so much and never checking in. I am anxious to see this, if I can figure out how to get a vimeo password.

Password? Is that new?

[barafan]

Password? Is that new?

I don't know, because I've never used Vimeo. But I posted that before I saw that Electric Phonograph had kindly put up a version I could see. Utterly fascinating, but like the little Cleopatra clip, too short to really judge what kind of actress Bara was. And that's without allowing for her Delsarte training.

[Brooksie]

Someone has posted the Bara footage to YouTube. It turns out that the Cineteca Espagñola only leaves their videos from that series public for a short while, hence the sudden password requirement.

[Spiny Norman]

Just for kicks, I decided to reorder the Salome fragments into something slightly more coherent:



A few disclaimers: I didn't necessarily strive for story continuity (although, in my head, the sequence here works if you really, really stretch your imagination ) -- my main goal was to reconnect several of the shots that are broken up throughout the Filmoteca's original upload. Some of them, such as Salome speaking with Sejanus (1:05), recoalesce perfectly, while shots like Salome vamping along the steps (1:22) are still riddled with gaps and missing footage. Whoever saved these clips edited them really curiously. Still, it makes a little more sense of the slapdash editing of the original fragment. I elected not to reinsert the intertitles, because I couldn't figure out with limited context where they belonged in this footage, or if they even belong to these scenes at all -- I have theories about a couple of them, but as a whole, I'm not sure. Lastly, I thought it would be fun to soundtrack the clip with the lovely Salome tango posted by @radiotelefonia -- my appreciation to you; I think they pair well!

Oh, I'm sorry to see it's no longer available. I was very grateful to see it that way and I found it a better watch than the unedited version. Perhaps you're working on an update?

[alicefaye]

Oh, I'm sorry to see it's no longer available. I was very grateful to see it that way and I found it a better watch than the unedited version. Perhaps you're working on an update?

Upon visiting the page, it seems the video was copyright claimed.

[Nick_M]

ElectricPhonograph, I hope you contest the copyright claim! Salome, being 1918, is public domain. Further, what you did is fair use.

[AManAndAMouse]

I've had this footage on a loop since I found it. She seems so much more natural here than in A Fool There Was. I guess that comes down to being more at ease in front of the camera. It's just wonderful that these were found. And the clips are pretty sharp considering their age.