LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT: Amazing News or Same Old, Same Old?

1 Kudos

Add Reply

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

Koukol 5

[-]

(07/24/08 5:42 PM)

Wow...I can't believe I spent 10 minutes on that site.

Bobtheman

[-]

(07/24/08 6:18 PM)

Sid wrote when he had the film in his hands

http://thehorrordrunx.yuku.com/topic/753?page=1

I gasped aloud. "Oh...my...God".

This was more than gold in my hand. This was more than platinum, or titanium. This was the
Holy Grail. Honestly-- and I'm a big enough man to admit this -- my eyes pooled and I may
have wept a little.

And then he didn't, by his own post, tell Turner what he had discovered, and the
section, row , and shelf number Rosalind had written down for him. He just had
Rosalind update the database file with AKA London After Midnight.

He instead "waited to see what the Turner company would do with the film." "We had to
trust it was in the right hands." But Turner didn't have the film in the database as London
After Midnight, and Rosalind told him wasn't being released , Sid wrote

"They want to do something with it as far as some kind of release, but the only hold-up is
a reel or past of a reel is missing."

Then why didn't he at least tell Rosalind that he reviewed the film and it was complete?

And, when it wasn't shown on A MC in 1992, why didn't he do something then?

Johnny Staccato

[-]

(07/24/08 7:03 PM)

That's quite an interesting mini-biography of Mr. Terrors life experiences and his accomplishments...but WHERE is this ground breaking news concerning LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT?

I feel a pulling sensation in my leg...

Bobtheman

An Inconsistentcy London After Midnight Story

[-]

(07/24/08 7:39 PM)

http://thehorrordrunx.yuku.com/topic/753?page=1

Sid:

Rosalind wrote down the information for me, section, row , and shelf number.

From Ted Newsom on the same page:

The listing for THE HYPNOTIST did not describe the type of "assets" -- whether it may have
been a positive print , a negative, a foreign print , or just a bunch of stills or studio notes. Nor
did it note where these "assets" might be ( the entry usually identified the vault location, too) .
There was nothing specific, which was odd.

Ted furthur wrote " in every other instance I could find, "assets" translates as print or negative."

The inconsistency is that Rosalind was able to loacte the section, row , and shelf number
for Sid and Ted had no such information where the assets might be at a later date.

Why is this?

bgart13.thelatarniaforums

[-]

(07/24/08 7:56 PM)

Damn, if I had found LAM and held it in my hands, no one, NO ONE would be able to pry it out of my hands until it was in someone official's possession. I would sacrifice my job at said company to make sure something like this got out there. Just plain silly.

Now, where is that METROPOLIS print showing once it's restored, etc?

Bill Warren

[-]

(07/24/08 8:06 PM)

You'll note that Ted has never claimed that he found proof that a print of LAM still existed, only that he found paper records indicating that some elements might still exist.

I notice that all this is attributed to the group that proudly calls itself "Horror Drunx."

I'll believe there's something to this story when the print (or whatever) actually turns up. Not until.

specterman

[-]

(07/24/08 8:28 PM)

Personally, I'd rather see a copy of the 1916 film the Half Breed turn up, Wyatt Earp was an extra...

cheer

[-]

(07/24/08 8:38 PM)

It seems strange to me that, with all of the searching that has gone on for this film, nobody noticed "a.k.a. London After Midnight" written in Sharpie on the containers. You would think that at least one person would see that and say, "Hmm, somebody wrote 'a.k.a. London After Midnight' here; perhaps I should examine the contents."

I'm not saying this isn't possible; it just doesn't "listen" IMHO.

--chris

Michael Blake

[-]

(07/24/08 8:39 PM)

specterman wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see a copy of the 1916 film the Half Breed turn up, Wyatt Earp was an extra...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Earp WAS NOT an extra in this film. Both myself and fellow Earp historian Jeff Morey have looked at this film (independently) and Earp is NOT in it.

A fanciful story by Allan Dwan.

Michael F. Blake

Michael Blake

To the Kool-Aid Drinkers....

[-]

(07/24/08 8:44 PM)

I am amazed at how many people ignore the FACTS and keep going, "Yeah, but he said he saw the print..."

The facts do NOT add up here, people. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and realize the Emperor doesn't have a new suit of clothes.

Geez, get over it. People who have had unlimited access to the MGM files (including execes) have gone through things and there is nothing. The "facts" as Sid Terror lists do not simply add up with what is known by many people.

If he knows, why hasn't he taken either myself or Michael Elliott up on our offers to take him to THE people at Warners/Turner???

Is it me or is the crickets chirping?

I dunno, maybe people like being stupid......

Michael F. Blake

Ted Newsom

[-]

(07/24/08 9:32 PM)

Sid T's story dovetails with things I personally know from 2002, and information I've gleaned from the past couple of weeks (like the closure of Bonded and the dispersal of the material held there.) BUT... I've got a Naive Ted story.

When I was in the Army in Germany, I knew a guy named Sgt. Rose. He was older than most of us--early 30s, content, apparently, to be a lifer. None of us early-20-something dope-smoking establishment-hating guys hung out with him, but he was a smart guy, and one evening a couple of us were having beers with him at the 9-High Club, the on-base dive at the medical kaserne. Someone mentioned Heidelberg Castle; it was right downtown, a trolley car away, and a gorgeous place to walk through, get high, or whatever. And Sgt. Rose mentioned that he'd been there a couple years back and saw the monkeys.
What?
"The monkeys. The monkeys at the Heidelberg Castle. There's monkeys."
We looked at him like he was drunk. He shrugged.
"There aren't any monkeys at the Heidelberg Castle," I told him.
"I saw them. In the trees."
Several rounds of awwwbullllshhttt and some eyeball rolling followed, but Sgt. Rose patiently shook his head.

I thought about it. "There are no monkeys indigenous to Europe. None. Africa, South America. Asia. Not here."

I started thinking. The castle itself was built on a forested hill, arboreal as all hell. The castle grounds, neat and trim, also had a lot of trees. Maybe--
"Naaahhh, come on. There are no frigging monkeys."
"I saw them. They're there." Sgt. Rose just sipped his beer.
"Well, wait a minute," I said. Now he had me thinking. "Used to be, there were no such things as public zoos, they were all private, mostly in the hands of royalty. Well, there'd be a prince of something in the castle, and it could be there was a private zoo, and they got wild and-- no. Wait a minute, There are no monkeys!"
He just grunted. "I saw them. I was down there with my wife and a couple of friends who were over visiting."
More general scoffing. "I've been there dozens of times. We all have. There's no monkeys."
"We saw them," Sgt. Rose said. "We were near one of the trees and took a picture. The monkey's in the tree, in the picture."
Whoa. Whoa.
Well, now, think about it...parrots sometimes escape and run wild, and multiply... feral cats come from some form of domesticity...weirder things have happened. I mean, he's not talking about gorillas or orangutans, just, maybe, you know, a cute little spider monkey or something. Wow.
"And you've got a photograph?"
He nodded blandly. "There are monkeys at the Heidelberg Castle."
I'll be damned.
Well, a week later I was kicking back in the apartment of my friend Steve Hessler. His wife Deb was pregnant, and it was pretty dull just hanging around doing nothing. One of those MARTY "Whaddya wanna do?" situations. So I said: "Let's go down to the castle and see the monkeys."
Steve looked at me. "What?"
"There are monkeys at Heidelberg Castle."
He gave me another look, kinda like he wouldn't trust me around his wife, or with the car keys.
"No, really. You know, in the trees or something. I've never seen them, but they must just be small or something, I figure, they're probably feral, maybe descended from monkeys in a private zoo or something. It'll be neat."
"What are you talking about?"
"Sgt. Rose told us the other night. Oh, now, hey, I didn't believe it either at first, my mother didn't raise idiot sons. But he's got a picture."
"Huh," said Steve sagely. "Did you see this picture?"
"Oh, sure, I--"
Uh.
Oh.
Duh.

Now, I've thought about this a lot since then, and Sgt. Rose really, truly was brilliant. He didn't weave a fanciful explanation; he just made a simple, fantastic statement. It was me who weaved the tale, somehow making sense out of it. There were obvious things in his story, in retrospect, that made little sense. I'm not sure he actually WAS married, for one thing; I had the impression this was his first tour of Germany for another. But, boy, that mental ju jitsu, using a person's imagination against them...

Now, as for the smell of un-rotted film--I beg to differ. There is a distinct tang to film--not a stench like vinegar rot, but an almost-chemical sort of scent. Nice. Smells like movies.

As for companies caring about their assets-- no. Individuals do, but corporations don't. Blindness is endemic to any bureaucracy.

And as for Sid's claim of holding film in his hand-- who knows? It wasn't his. He was a punk kid freight driver, what the hell was he supposed to do? We can all fantasize about the TOPKAPI scenario we'd pull of to heist the precious thing--but in practice, most of us would not risk felony jail time for a silent monster movie.

I jes' don' know...

I'm just sayin'...

Last Edited By: Ted Newsom 07/24/08 9:36 PM. Edited 1 times.

back lot charlie

[-]

(07/24/08 10:05 PM)

Well if it is true, he should have ran out the door with the film, quickly duped it, brought it back a couple of days later and said, "I'm sorry, I don't know what came over me...temporary insanity...I'm returning your film". The fame and satisfaction he would have received from unleashing LAM would have been worth any fine a judge would have thrown at him.

Dr Acula

[-]

(07/24/08 10:35 PM)

Addendem to Ted's story:

Apparently, there IS something about Heidelberg and monkeys.... maybe Sarge was refering to this?

GaryP11111

[-]

(07/24/08 10:58 PM)

Burgomaster

I posted this at horrordrunx:

Some problems with the story.

1) LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT, as a later era silent film, would have been projected at 24 fps, not 18 fps.

2) Turner did not own AMC. They own Turner Classic Movies, "TMC," not AMC.

3) The film that TMC was scheduled to show was SEVEN FOOTPRINTS TO SATAN (1929), not LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT. The year was 1996, not 1992 (I broke the news on the Classic Horror Film Boards, then located on AOL). At broadcast time, the film was pulled and another substituted in its place. Turner did give an explanation, which was carried in VIDEO WATCHDOG magazine -- the elements were not in good enough shape for broadcast and that they hoped to reschedule the broadcast after proper restoration. My guess is they simply did not have a print. In fact, the same thing happened recently, with TCM scheduling SEVEN FOOTPRINTS again, though this time they pulled it from the schedule before the scheduled broadcast. The only good print of SEVEN FOOTPRINTS TO SATAN is a Danish 35mm print at the Fondazione Cineteca Italiana in Milan. An inferior Italian print also exists.

4) It is well known in silent movie circles that every film vault has been scoured for LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT by people who had access and knew what they were doing and yes, they searched using its American working title THE HYPNOTIST (which was kept for release in Great Britain).

GARY L. PRANGE

"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectos nunc."

Check out my YouTube Video of the Week! (updated 3-24-08)

captainmarvel1957

[-]

(07/24/08 11:10 PM)

I think Michael is right. If it surfaces, great, but the story doesn't seem to fit. Like Tom said, nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong and have a print pop up.

But, the thing I keep referring back to is what Jack pointed out in one of his posts yesterday. That the cutting continuities do not have a shot, or scene, with the Man in the Beaver Hat at the beinning of any reel of the film. If only ten or fifteen feet of each reel was looked at there would not have been a shot with that character in it. That seems to be a fairly telling piece of information.

GaryP11111

[-]

(07/24/08 11:11 PM)

Burgomaster

My gut feeling is that the horrordrunx spotted Ted's story on this site, and either 1) allowed Monster kid enthusiasm to convince themselves the story would lead to a discovery of print of LAM, or 2) understood the potential publicity coup if the lead panned out, or 3) both. Sorry, but I think the back story was concocted to lend additional credence to Ted's story (which I believe; I just don't think there were/are any film elements there) in order to give it the immediacy needed to bring attention to the story so that somebody might actually investigate Ted's lead. And a little publicity wouldn't hurt either.

GARY L. PRANGE

"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectos nunc."

Check out my YouTube Video of the Week! (updated 3-24-08)

cjh5801

[-]

(07/24/08 11:46 PM)

On the other hand, there was a Rosalind Dewitt who died in LA on 1/7/1993. From the California death index:

Name:	Rosalind Dewitt
Birth:	5 Nov 1939 - California
Death:	7 Jan 1993 - Los Angeles

The story may be phony, but it's woven around some real details.

- Clark
hollowaypages.com

Ted Newsom

[-]

(07/25/08 12:11 AM)

Which is, of course, the best way to tell a tall tale.

I'm jus' sayin'...

Now, as for the 18fps/24fps thing-- I should say, it was me who hypothesized that discrepency in a phone call with Sid last week, and it made sense to us naive souls. He incorporated this guess as factual in his article. How long is the movie? 70 minutes or so? OK, guys, could you split up a 70 minute/24fps movie onto 4 reels? You tell me. Seriously.

As for seeing a close-up of Chaney while unspooling the film...I dunno. I wasn't there. But I do know that when unspooling 35mm to try to actually SEE what's on it, frequently you have to shuffle through a LOT of material to find a recognizable image; that's a pretty tiny little image, postage-stamp size. Hyperbole, perhaps? That the recognizable face was actually deeper into one of the reels? Or Heidelberg monkeys?

I dunno.

Last Edited By: Ted Newsom 07/25/08 12:27 AM. Edited 2 times.

HalLane

[-]

(07/25/08 12:12 AM)

GaryP11111 wrote:
My gut feeling is that the horrordrunx spotted Ted's story on this site ....

By the time I'd gotten to the end of the horrordrunx's online anecdote last night, that was my first hunch as well.

I did enjoy Ted being cast as Count Sak-Newsom, discovering the trail left by Sid's 'Arnie Saknussem'. Perhaps Sid was inspired by the recent remake, and thus the timing of this 'revelation'.

Ted Newsom

[-]

(07/25/08 12:37 AM)

In Sid's defense, regarding factuality: he was aware of the film vault in Inglewood--which is scarcely common knowledge outside of a pretty circumspect little industry (it was a big, absolutely generic building with no identifiable signs on the outside, like HERE BE THERE MOVIES or something)--

-- he was aware that there were MGM assets stored in the facility (again, that's pretty much insider info.)--

-- and claimed that he found a nitrate print there on a shelf (which I did not believe). Now, I only spent 3-4 days there, and everything I saw was positive safety film (or containers of 1" tape, or boxes full of trims.) I was told that nitrates and safety orints were never housed in the same storage facility--so that claim struck me as potential bullpucky.

However, when I checked with my ex-boss Todd Trainer (and back then, I'd shown him the L.A.M. listing), he said that, yes, indeed, Bonded had nitrates, which upon the Warners acquisition, were sent to UCLA, while the positives & cetra were moved to Warners. When next I talked to Sid, he had separately found out exactly the same thing (UCLA/nitrate, Warners/safety)--so clearly he knew who to ask, at the very least.

PS- Just checked IMDB-- it says LAM is 69 min, designed to run at 22 fps. Sounds like that might fit on 4 reels after all.

Fer whut itz wurth, gemm'en... there t'is...

Last Edited By: Ted Newsom 07/25/08 12:52 AM. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT: Amazing News or Same Old, Same Old?

Quick Reply