Lost Keaton Feature Rediscovered, to be shown in Muskegon

dbpearson · Post by **dbpearson** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:17 am

Paul E. Gierucki has recently discovered a previously unknown and
radically different version of one of Buster's silent features. The
film will have it's world premiere this October in Muskegon, Michigan
at the annual International Buster Keaton Society (Damfino)
convention.

See http://www.busterkeaton.com under "convention" for more info.

DBP

Post by **silentfilm** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:35 am

Here's a quicker link with more information. There is no mention of the title of the Keaton feature that will be shown in an alternate version.

http://silent-movies.com/2008/about.html

dbpearson · Post by **dbpearson** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:56 am

silentfilm wrote:Here's a quicker link with more information. There is no mention of the title of the Keaton feature that will be shown in an alternate version.

http://silent-movies.com/2008/about.html

Yes Bruce, the title is not mentioned ON PURPOSE. The Damfinos LOVE a mystery. I will say it is a Keaton produced feature made prior to 1929. It is considerably different to the 'normal' print -- and it is one of the most important Keaton finds in the last 40 years, and certainly the most important in the last 25 years.

We are even planning a contest to see if anybody can guess what the heck it is.

I guess this is what one calls a tease!

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:46 pm

I guess SHERLOCK, JR. More out of wishful thinking than anything else, I guess...but this one is rumored to have run longer at one point, so it's as good a guess as any, I'd wager.

Damfino · Post by **Damfino** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:01 am

Ooh, ooh, it must be the three-hour version of THE SAPHEAD!

dbpearson · Post by **dbpearson** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:07 am

Damfino wrote:Ooh, ooh, it must be the three-hour version of THE SAPHEAD!

LOL.

No, it is a variation of one of Buster's independent silent features.

DBP

Post by **silentfilm** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:01 pm

Here's some information on the "lost" version that was screened at the convention, frolm the Buster Keaton Yahoo group...

It was a 46-minute rough cut of "Our Hospitality," called "Hospitality," Buster's original (and, we suspect, preferred title). It wasn't a preview print, but a rough cut that seemed designed as a story outline, perhaps so Buster could see how his first feature-length narrative ran as a story, with less emphasis on gags. There is no new footage, but there are some notable difference in editing, both structure-wise and scene-wise. I'm sure some of the folks who have spent more time with the print will chime in later.

Cheers,

Jeremy (Mathews)

gjohnson · Post by **gjohnson** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:10 pm

No new footage?...............bummer!

Gary J. (Who now wonders what all the yelling was about)

dbpearson · Post by **dbpearson** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:07 pm

Here's some information on the "lost" version that was screened at the convention, from the Buster Keaton Yahoo group...

Bruce,

Next time, you might try a bit of journalism and actually ask the people who presented the program rather than easedrop on somebody in the audience posting incomplete info, and -- hint hint -- admitting they were posting incomplete info, before posting that info to the world.

You are fast becoming the Faux News of the silent film community.

radiotelefonia · Post by **radiotelefonia** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:38 am

Ironically, this weekend I took the Kino video version of OUR HOSPITALITY, removed their unpleasant soundtrack and replaced it with the Carl Davis score for Thames Television.

Although it was for personal consumption (I also included Spanish language subtitles), the results are quite professional.

Post by **silentfilm** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:20 am

dbpearson wrote:Here's some information on the "lost" version that was screened at the convention, from the Buster Keaton Yahoo group...

Bruce,

Next time, you might try a bit of journalism and actually ask the people who presented the program rather than easedrop on somebody in the audience posting incomplete info, and -- hint hint -- admitting they were posting incomplete info, before posting that info to the world.

You are fast becoming the Faux News of the silent film community.

David, I don't understand your complaint. Jeremy's message was the only information posted on the internet during the convention or even a couple of days afterward. Since I was not at the convention, what would you want me to post? You and Paul Gierucki have the most information on thie newly rediscovered version and I'm glad that you posted more information in another thread today.

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:31 am

I don't understand the problem either, audience members paid to see it, they posted their reaction, Bruce posted it with full attribution so people can take it for exactly what it is-- a first blush reaction from one attendee.

I am glad that the better response-- additional information-- has been posted elsewhere as well.

Post by **silentfilm** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:20 am

I don't share Gary J.'s disappointment about the rediscovery of Hospitality. First of all, if it did have any previously unseen gags in it, they would have been gags that Keaton threw out as being not funny.

Hopefully some grad student will soon do a shot by shot comparison between this print and the actual release version. It would be interesting to see what sequences were shuffled around and to see why they play better in the final version.

I don't think that this rises to the level of all of the Chaplin Mutual outtakes used in Unknown Chaplin, since that was a huge amount of unused film, but it is still an exciting discovery.

dbpearson · Post by **dbpearson** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:53 am

silentfilm wrote:
dbpearson wrote:Here's some information on the "lost" version that was screened at the convention, from the Buster Keaton Yahoo group...

Bruce,

Next time, you might try a bit of journalism and actually ask the people who presented the program rather than easedrop on somebody in the audience posting incomplete info, and -- hint hint -- admitting they were posting incomplete info, before posting that info to the world.

You are fast becoming the Faux News of the silent film community.

David, I don't understand your complaint. Jeremy's message was the only information posted on the internet during the convention or even a couple of days afterward. Since I was not at the convention, what would you want me to post? You and Paul Gierucki have the most information on thie newly rediscovered version and I'm glad that you posted more information in another thread today.

I suppose I got really irked because the SAME PARTIAL information got passed around to several online boards without asking us if the information was correct or not, and that reaction spilled out here because I felt you guys should know better.

The way the partial thing read, it sounded like it were something some grad students spliced together while they were drunk, totally underplaying the importance of the find. We would not have played a 46 minute version of a 73 minute masterpiece unless we were darned sure of what in contained.

Sigh.

Chris Snowden · Post by **Chris Snowden** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:50 pm

dbpearson wrote:Next time, you might try a bit of journalism and actually ask the people who presented the program rather than easedrop on somebody in the audience posting incomplete info, and -- hint hint -- admitting they were posting incomplete info, before posting that info to the world.

You are fast becoming the Faux News of the silent film community.

Well.

I'm sorry to see this sort of thing in Nitrateville.

nsps · Post by **nsps** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:36 am

As the person who wrote the initial response in question, I thought I'd chime in...

I posted my short summary of "Hospitality" to the Yahoo Keaton group because some people were asking what the secret new feature was, and the folks who had the most information didn't seem to be back on the Internet yet. (I knew David had a 40+ hour train ride home ahead of him.) I wasn't home yet, so I didn't have time to write a detailed account of the evening. But I knew people were curious, so I wrote a quick description, based entirely on details that were discussed at the screening.

I was surprised to hear that my little note popped up in several different forums (including some that I've never read), but I suppose that's how the Internet works. Reading it again, I think I was clear that it was in fact a rough cut from 1923, and not something "some grad students spliced together while they were drunk." I don't think I said anything that was inaccurate, or that I made any attempt to evaluate the discovery (that would be something to do in a much longer piece after closer study of the film). I'm certainly looking forward to the results of further investigation of the print!

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:22 pm

I think David's being way too harsh on poor Bruce. What the hell? If Bruce had posted a blog rant something like "Dude I saw the big-deal-discovery at the Keaton festival this weekend and it like totally sucked ass and there was like no new footage dude cuz it was just like some stupid workprint or something that was like half an hour shorter and like who gives a rat's ass if there's no new footage dude...", that would be a horse of a different color.

And if he was that concerned and sensitive about accurate and thorough reporting of such a big-deal Keaton discovery (and what Bruce posted WAS accurate), why didn't David post an official release about it a day or two after the event instead of waiting a week?

Sorry, just my two cents.

Post by **silentfilm** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:11 am

I just want to say thanks to all of the people who have supported me publicly on Nitrateville and privately in email. I don't think that David meant anything that personal, but it just came out that way. I had several people email me the day after the screening and they were dying to know which film was shown, so as soon as I found out what the secret film was I posted the little bit of information that I could find.

Anne Dawson of the Keaton Society is going to have Paul Gierucki and Patty Tobias issue a press release on the rediscovery. As soon as I have it I will post it here.

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:45 am

WaverBoy wrote:I think David's being way too harsh on poor Bruce. What the hell? If Bruce had posted a blog rant something like "Dude I saw the big-deal-discovery at the Keaton festival this weekend and it like totally sucked ass and there was like no new footage dude cuz it was just like some stupid workprint or something that was like half an hour shorter and like who gives a rat's ass if there's no new footage dude...", that would be a horse of a different color.

That's EXACTLY the way Bruce writes!

Jim

sherlockjr · Post by **sherlockjr** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:24 am

silentfilm wrote:I just want to say thanks to all of the people who have supported me publicly on Nitrateville and privately in email. I don't think that David meant anything that personal, but it just came out that way. I had several people email me the day after the screening and they were dying to know which film was shown, so as soon as I found out what the secret film was I posted the little bit of information that I could find.

Anne Dawson of the Keaton Society is going to have Paul Gierucki and Patty Tobias issue a press release on the rediscovery. As soon as I have it I will post it here.

Anne and I are working on a press release over the weekend.

Oh, and I agree with what you said above, Bruce. I'm sure David didn't mean anything personal -- it just came out that way. We all value everything you do.

--Patty Tobias

dbpearson · Post by **dbpearson** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:39 pm

sherlockjr wrote:
silentfilm wrote:I just want to say thanks to all of the people who have supported me publicly on Nitrateville and privately in email. I don't think that David meant anything that personal, but it just came out that way. I had several people email me the day after the screening and they were dying to know which film was shown, so as soon as I found out what the secret film was I posted the little bit of information that I could find.

Anne Dawson of the Keaton Society is going to have Paul Gierucki and Patty Tobias issue a press release on the rediscovery. As soon as I have it I will post it here.
Anne and I are working on a press release over the weekend.

Oh, and I agree with what you said above, Bruce. I'm sure David didn't mean anything personal -- it just came out that way. We all value everything you do.

--Patty Tobias

Both Bruce and Patty are correct.

I didn't mean anything personal. I was in an incredibly foul mood, and
probably would have been ticked by anything less than perfect.

Because of gas prices, and my ultra-low budget, I was obliged to take a
49-hour train ride to Michigan, via Washington and Chicago from
Mississippi. That, coupled with my being stressed out over the event,
(lots of throwing up) and another 49-hour train ride back while being
kicked by children most of the way, I was not in the happiest mood when
I finally woke-up two days after I got off the damned train.

After going through that, I was no mood to – well in no mood to even
sit up. I’d assumed – and yes, assuming ANYTHING is bad – that the
information had gotten out correctly within minutes of the showing,
that some might be a bit disappointed by the lack of new
comedy footage, but that would be more than compensated by the
discovery of the extraordinary nature to it being a copy of Keaton’s
actual work print.

Well, it didn’t quite turn out that way. Everyone else involved were
also having various problems, and I guess so any “official” release got
delayed. Still, back on the web there were a LOT of people who would wanted
to know the details, and that’s when Jeremy stepped up to fill the gap,
because at that moment somebody had to step forward. And in the same
way, Bruce had to get the information out as best he could because
everybody wanted it so desperately.

So, the info came out incomplete, and missing what I felt was the key
point of running Paul E. Gierucki’s print in the first place – that its
source HAD to be a work or “dirty” print from the Keaton Studio, used
it the editing process of “Our Hospitality” because of the degrees of
nitrate decomposition (It’s literally changing from shot to shot, from
good to bad to pristine to awful to good again, depending on what clip
came from what vat.)

When Jeremy’s blurb didn’t get that idea across, I got concerned, which showed up in frustration.

Anyway, this is a long-winded way to say I apologize to both Bruce, and
to Jeremy, who were both in a no-win situation.

Next time, I'll take a plane.