PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - So where are we at in 2011? in Silent Horror Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - So where are we at in 2011?

Author	Comment
cjh5801		#81	[-]
Nov 4 11 12:27 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks, Jack. Fascinating stuff. What do you think of the conclusions drawn by Carl Bennett over at silentera.com: Yet, to perhaps throw more confusion into the mix, we are prepared to state our guess (based on inspection of the surviving footage) that the surviving 1925 print is actually the international version prepared from B camera footage and that the surviving 1929 version is the domestic sound rerelease that was prepared from A camera footage. When the actors’ 1924-1925 performances are identical, the 1929 version features footage that presents better internal composition and framing of the action than the footage in the 1925 version. The position of foreground actors in relation to foreground props or background extras or action is consistently asthetically better in the 1929 footage. What also must be considered, if this premise is to be accepted, is that the 1925 print may not accurately represent the absolute continuity of the 1925 domestic general release version of the film. Subtle differences in the edited length of shots, sometimes even in the intertitles’ content, are inherent in the process of assembling two separate negatives. - Clark hollowaypages.com
	Remove this ad
TServo4		#82	[-]
Nov 4 11 1:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm going to have to say that Carl is wrong on this one. I've seen one reel of the 1930 sound re-issue—Thunderbird films had a print at one point, and made a cut-down of mainly the kidnapping and unmasking sequences that was distributed in 16mm. This has been transferred and featured on the ReelDVDClassics DVD set. It's obvious that the Eastman House print used the same takes/cuts as the 1930 sound re-issue, particularly the POV shot of Chaney after the unmasking coming towards the camera vs. the 1925 shot where it's underlit. Also, the logistic of this make it impossible—the 'B' neg would have been sent to Europe (either England or France) where it would be printed up, and intertitles printed up and inserted in each individual country it was sent to. The 'B' neg couldn't possibly be back in LA where Universal would print it up for the home markets. Likewise, it is apparent from the 16mm prints of THE MAN WHO LAUGHS to the 35mm safety elements Universal Pictures has that they were printed from the domestic neg, vs. the DVD, which is the 'B' neg (an Italian print). J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY
Wich2		#83	[-]
Nov 4 11 9:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	With Jack on this one, throughout. We all know the provenance of what we now have of the '29/'30 now is a tangled web - original stuff from '25 mixed with new stuff shot for the rerelease, and with some mixing of disparate elements again by Eastman decades later. But for me, that fact does not mean that what we have of the '25 now must, for some arcane reason, be just as much of a mutt! In fact, I think that, as Jack has shown, we do have some evidence in the case - and it tends to the opposite conclusion. This dog did not bark in the night... and, it's not a curious incident. Last Edited By: Wich2 Nov 4 11 9:15 PM. Edited 1 times.
TServo4		#84	[-]
Nov 4 11 9:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm in agreement with you there, Craig, although we're beholden to UCLA, who has Hampton's final print and about half a dozen other Show-At-Homes that he cannibalized for his master print. And original Show-At-Homes are reaally rare, so unless someone turns up something new, or a complete Show-at-Home, we're kinda stuck with transfers of Movie Wonderland dupes. Re: The completeness of the opening. I cracked out my copy of the musical cue sheet for the film, which has pretty specific timings based on 19 fps (REALLY SLOW). The start of the film to the title, "Gaston Leroux, the famous..." is 2 minutes, which works out to about 142 ft. From that to the title "But who thinks of cellars" (proving, BTW, that at least THAT title was in the original cut) is 50 seconds, or 59 ft. So the whole opening at 24 fps would run you about 2:13. The Hampton print is missing something, but it's mostly in the credits. J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY
cjh5801		#85	[-]
Nov 5 11 12:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Perhaps, but not according to other sources, such as Philip J. Riley (who I know isn't necessarily well respected around here). According to him, footage is still missing from the 1925 16mm print, and he has reason to believe that the talking man footage never showed up in any of the domestic prints. Sherlock Holmes would never draw his conclusions until all the available facts were known (you can't make bricks without straw). It appears to me that there are still enough unknowns that closing the book is premature, and I mean no offense to Jack's extensive knowledge here. Despite Jack's well-reasoned conclusions, we may yet learn that the dog did bark, or that some of the incidents are curious. And Craig, it surprises me that you can be so certain here based on some pretty scant evidence. You remain skeptical about my re-cut of DRACULA, and I have both the shooting script and Spanish version continuity on my side. Yet in the case of POTO, a number of the foundations for your assumptions are built on sand. - Clark hollowaypages.com
TServo4		#86	[-]
Nov 5 11 1:33 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Nope, no offense taken. But I am drawing speculation based on first-hand proof. I'd agree with Mr. Riley that there is footage missing from Hampton's print (which we all know as the 1925 cut). But I wonder, on what does he base his theory that the lantern man never showed up in the original cut? And if this is so, where does the medium shot in the Hampton print come from? J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY Last Edited By: TServo4 Nov 5 11 1:47 AM. Edited 1 times.
HalLane		#87	[-]
Nov 5 11 5:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Jack, thanx for the nitrate/safety film info (and double thanx for typing it out twice!). So then that nitrate '25 PHANTOM I watched some 14 years ago couldn't have been a Show-at-Home. We've talked about it before, most recently here: http://monsterkidclassich...925-Phantom#reply-462200 And our friend gardibolt was kindly diligent enough to dig up the Buffalo News account for us back then, so I know I didn't dream the whole thing. Written by the weekend feature editor in those pre-IMDb days, there's a typo or two, but it's substantially correct: gardibolt wrote: Here's what is available at the Buffalo News archive about the screening that Hal mentions : RIVIERA SETS SCREENING OF ORIGINAL 'PHANTOM OF THE OPERA' Published on December 5, 1998 The Riviera Theater, 67 Webster St., North Tonawanda, will turn back the calendar 72 years Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. for a special screening of the original "Phantom of the Opera," starring Lon Cheney. It will be the last time that the original nitrate print of the 1926 horror movie classic will be shown anywhere, organizer Marty Sadoff reports. On loan from the UCLA film archives, the nitrate print will taken out of circulation after it is returned to Los Angeles. The film will be transferred to acetate as part of a digital restoration, Sadoff reports. "This became available at the last minute," he says. "We were very lucky to get it." The Riviera's vintage projectors will run it at 20 frames per second, the higher speed which was introduced in 1926. Parts of the two-hour black and white film are tinted, he adds. The Riviera will celebrate the occasion by turning on the lights in its restored marquee for the first time, Sadoff says. The marquee message will be posted in the style common in the 1920s. Sadoff adds that the theater will offer reduced price seats in the balcony, just as movie theaters used to do. The film will be accompanied by the theater's Mighty Wurlitzer Organ playing the original score composed specially for the film. "We're trying to do it exactly like the old days," Sadoff says. My own memory's not perfect (I didn't remember the print having tints, for example) , so I can't say 100%, but I sure don't remember any Lantern Man like in Craig's link, or figure walking behind the credits either. Could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but I do remember specifically looking for extra "stuff", and coming up wanting. Only one "Carlotta", so it was definitely the '25. (No Technicolor or cape-stenciling either, for sure -- just deep silvery blacks and white). It wasn't a perfect print, parts showed deterioration, but there didn't seem to be any obvious holes, splices or chunks missing (unlike the accompanying nitrate Laurel & Hardy short, which wasn't complete). I know you contacted UCLA back during that thread, Jack, and came up empty, who knows what happened to it? Maybe Marty Sadoff changed his mind or something about donating it to UCLA, or whatever. But wouldn't it be cool to have another peek at it, just for comparison's sake? At the very least it might shut up that damn dog that's been barking in the night for 14 years now. Last Edited By: HalLane Nov 5 11 5:38 AM. Edited 1 times.
Wich2		#88	[-]
Nov 5 11 10:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	>And Craig, it surprises me that you can be so certain here based on some pretty scant evidence. You remain skeptical about my re-cut of DRACULA, and I have both the shooting script and Spanish version continuity on my side. Yet in the case of POTO, a number of the foundations for your assumptions are built on sand.< Clark, you are taking this much too personally. I have never attacked your DRACULA project; in fact, I have saluted the labor and love that obviously went into it. All I have said, is that I would classify it as a Fan Edit. There is no shame meant in that term, and yours is an excellent one. As far as POTO, I have never expressed certitude or finality. But on the other hand, the position I've taken is not based on sand at all. So those two swipes at me are unmerited. We DO have some bricks here - including the first-hand expertise with original sources of Jack and others, and the numerous existing prints that purport to be the '25. On that note Hal's viewing, and his report above, are valuable as well. And nearly all the info that we have supports the likely contention that what many people have called many prints for many years based on many things is just that: the '25 version (at least, as I wrote above, >95% that.) It's the theory that somehow, in some undefined way, that is NOT the case that has so little evidence to support it; Occam's Razor should apply here. And of course, not least by any means: if someone carefully watches both extant versions, the present '29/'30 hybrid looks and plays like just that; and the '25 looks and plays as a much more unified piece. A little story that's analogous here: A few years back, some pretty knowledgeable Old Heads went on a shortlived tear in OTR fandom, trying to rewrite history on Welles' WAR OF THE WORLDS broadcast... "WOW," they suddenly cried, "we've just heard a recording of a DIFFERENT version of the show!" (Though no one in 60+ years had claimed to have heard of such.) "Maybe they did it on two nights?" (No, there's no evidence for that with ANY Mercury broadcast in the many surviving radio logs.) "Well, then maybe they did an East Coast and West Coast version, the same night?" (No, survivors like Bill Herz and Arthur Anderson attest that it was hard enough to hold Orson the dervish in place for one show, let alone two.) So, finally, they carefully relistened to "both" versions. And grudgingly realized that what most of us had maintained all along was the case: the two copies were transferred at slightly different speeds, and some duper at some point had made some minor cuts, probably to clean up some damage. No two versions. No mystery. No great new discovery. Last Edited By: Wich2 Nov 6 11 6:45 PM. Edited 2 times.
DonM435		#89	[-]
Nov 5 11 10:26 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It seems clear to me that Phantom suffered so much tinkering from 1925 to the 1950s that the very existance of definitive versions is in question, and that lots of sorting out remains. No one's reasonable speculation should be ruled at once invalid.
Wich2		#90	[-]
Nov 5 11 10:37 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well for the record Don, if I haven't been clear: No one would like more than me to hear, "a 35mm 1925 POTO was just found in the permanfrost in Alaska - it looks great, and is 10 min. longer than anything we've seen before!" And I don't rule anyone's speculative opinion "invalid" (which I think Clark has mine, several times in this thread.) Speculation is just that. But I stand by my contention that we DO have some factoids to inform our speculation - and that it leans heavily towards the traditional view in this case, not the revolutionary. Where is the EVIDENCE that all of these created-and-licensed-close-to-the-original-era Universal Show At Homes are wildly divergent, either from themselves or from the known '25 release? Last Edited By: Wich2 Nov 6 11 6:42 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
DonM435		#91	[-]
Nov 5 11 10:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought that I was defending your speculation, (as well as the counter). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Wich2		#92	[-]
Nov 5 11 11:06 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks!
cjh5801		#93	[-]
Nov 5 11 1:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	And I don't rule anyone's speculative opinion "invalid" (which I think Clark has mine, several times in this thread.) Speculation is just that Craig, I think you misunderstand me here. All I've disagreed with you here since your post in message #45 has been what seemed to me to be your initial certainty that there was no dog barking in the night and no curious incidents--in other words, your apparent conclusion that what we have in the 16mm print "IS" the version of the film seen by audiences in 1925 (though I acknowledge that you are now qualifying that with the ">95%" bit). I'm not angry or bitter, and haven't been trying to start a fight. I've been trying to have a conversation with you and Jack about this. Perhaps this is a case of the enforced brevity of written communications over the Internet leading to the wrong impressions. I'm actually 100% in agreement with DonM435's statement, which is all I've been saying since back in message #46 (i.e., "I'm not so sure"). - Clark hollowaypages.com
cjh5801		#94	[-]
Nov 5 11 2:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	TServo4 wrote: Nope, no offense taken. But I am drawing speculation based on first-hand proof. Well, first-hand evidence, anyway. As I've said, I think your speculation is well-reasoned--very well-reasoned, in fact. I'd agree with Mr. Riley that there is footage missing from Hampton's print (which we all know as the 1925 cut). But I wonder, on what does he base his theory that the lantern man never showed up in the original cut? And if this is so, where does the medium shot in the Hampton print come from? Part of Riley's theory is a bit risible, but it leads to what seems to be a pretty logical conclusion. Here's what he writes about the lantern man on page 307 of his book: The close up reaction shots of Snitz Edwards taken from the outtakes of the silent original are seen for a brief second. Then a full frame shot of a man dressed similar to Edwards creeps out after the Phantom's shadow goes behind an arch. The man holds up the lantern and says: THERE ARE SHADOWS HERE, PHANTOMS AND SHADOWS, THE ATMOSPHERE IS HEAVY - IT CHILLS THE BLOOD - BUT SHHHH! HERE IT COMES! IS THIS A SHADOW? OR IS IT THE PHANTOM? [The Chaney double again comes around an arch and goes off screen. The man continues:] WE ARE IN THE TORTURE CHAMBERS DEEP BENEATH THE PARIS OPERA HOUSE THIS IS THE LAIR OF THE PHANTOM - HE HAUNTS THESE CHAMBERS. A GHASTLY FACE. YET THROUGH HIM MOVES A WEIRD, STRANGE POETRY. BUT SILENCE NOW! HE COMES - A PHANTOM - THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA! The character is so darkly lit that I asked a lip-reader and a deaf person to see if they could determine what was being said. Neither could be sure. One thought that he could make out the name Gaston Leroux, and the other said that the man appeared to be speaking in German. If it was in German, then it is possible that this short section was added for foreign distribution and included in the surviving 35MM negative - which was kept only as a work print, or reference print. The possibility would also exist if it were an outtake from the original 1925 print OR he could be saying the words scripted above. Because of the drop in quality and contrast, I believe that it was a silent outtake, spliced in with new footage - for a foreign prologue. Riley seems a bit confused about the origin of the dialogue on the title cards, and I nearly laughed out loud regarding the bit about the lip readers, but his speculation about the origin and purpose of the lantern man scene is intriguing. The medium shot could be an outtake from 1925, there is a drop in quality part way through the scene, and the long shots could well be a double. And I've mentioned before the speculation that the shadow of the Phantom on the wall might be of Chaney's double hired for the 1929 re-shots. And if the scene was intended for foreign audiences, it would explain why the title cards are missing (as evidenced by the splices you've mentioned). If the title cards were in a foreign language, it would make sense to delete them in the 1951 print. - Clark hollowaypages.com Last Edited By: cjh5801 Nov 5 11 3:00 PM. Edited 1 times.
Wich2		#95	[-]
Nov 5 11 3:03 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's all good, Clark - no disrepect meant here, either. But I'll plead guilty to "vigorous debate." And I feel that when you bring the DRAC case into the mix, the difference between that and POTO is - to me - strong. In the case of the Browning film, your admittedly solidly-based guesswork does not have to counter the evidence of other extant prints. We have the one standard release version that many of us find lacking, but no workprint or personal Browing print to refer to. So you can posit in an open field that the prospective other one would be much like yours. But with POTO '25, we have many prints of the given cut extant. They are all similar to a very high degree, and have been considered by knowedgable folks for decades to be what they are represented as. So - at least for me - the level of proof needed to change how we define what that cut is is VERY high. As far as my using the ">95%" phrase, I was just reacting to your issue with what "is" is! Again, if we consider that a print of THE BLOB, or HORROR OF DRACULA, or Universal's FRANKENSTEIN that we've seen over the years missing a few seconds, or varying slightly in some other way, still "is" that given film, then I think the same phrasing standard applies to PHANTOM as well. Onward! -Craig Last Edited By: Wich2 Nov 6 11 6:43 PM. Edited 2 times.
DonM435		#96	[-]
Nov 5 11 3:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Heck, even running times from that era are of no particular help. If we were told that this Phantom ran 2:02 and this one ran 1:49, that wouldn't prove that the latter one was cut. All the difference may have been in the projection speed. I'm grateful that some folks are actually researching this, but I don't envy them.
TServo4		#97	[-]
Nov 5 11 4:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	And if the scene was intended for foreign audiences, it would explain why the title cards are missing (as evidenced by the splices you've mentioned). If the title cards were in a foreign language, it would make sense to delete them in the 1951 print. Except that it's not, because all of the title cards Eastman House had printed up were from English flash frames (which would be translated in other countries). The text that Riley quotes, of course, is the thing Griggs made up for the Essex Films prints. J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY
cjh5801		#98	[-]
Nov 5 11 4:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	TServo4 wrote: And if the scene was intended for foreign audiences, it would explain why the title cards are missing (as evidenced by the splices you've mentioned). If the title cards were in a foreign language, it would make sense to delete them in the 1951 print. Except that it's not, because all of the title cards Eastman House had printed up were from English flash frames (which would be translated in other countries). The text that Riley quotes, of course, is the thing Griggs made up for the Essex Films prints. Jack, I'm not sure I understand this. I had thought you said that there were no English flash frames for the lantern man sequence, which is why Griggs had to invent the dialogue. It is those missing flash frames that I'm referring to as perhaps having been in a foreign language. Riley seems to be speculating that the whole lantern man sequence is a clip from a foreign print (which may have had title cards in a foreign language), and that this sequence was spliced into the existing 35mm print for archival purposes. And yes, that quotation is what I meant by Riley's confusion over the source of the lantern man's dialogue. - Clark hollowaypages.com
TServo4		#99	[-]
Nov 5 11 7:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Jack, I'm not sure I understand this. I had thought you said that there were no English flash frames for the lantern man sequence, which is why Griggs had to invent the dialogue. It is those missing flash frames that I'm referring to as perhaps having been in a foreign language. Riley seems to be speculating that the whole lantern man sequence is a clip from a foreign print (which may have had title cards in a foreign language), and that this sequence was spliced into the existing 35mm print for archival purposes. Correct. But since the rest of the picture's titles are laid out for what is obviously a domestic release (such as the opening credits), there's nothing to suppose that the neg was meant for foreign prep at all—and if it was, the negative wouldn't have been at Universal City for them to print up in the '50s, it would have been in Europe. It would be impossible to tell if Lantern Man was part of the actual negative, because if memory serves, it was assembled in tinting rolls. But again, what is the evidence to even start speculating that he was part of a foreign release? J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY
cjh5801		#100	[-]
Nov 5 11 7:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't believe Riley is saying that the entire neg was intended for foreign release, just that the lantern man footage was from outtakes and reshots that had been intended for foreign release but had for some reason been spliced into the archival print (or negative). The only actual evidence that I can see to indicate that the lantern man sequence was assembled sometime after the 1925 release is that the background in the closeup shot doesn't appear to match the backgound in the long shots, the actor in the longshots appears to be wearing a slightly different costume, and the shadow of the Phantom on the wall appears to match that of the Chaney double hired for the 1929 re-shots. I also wonder if the longer version of the lantern man sequence might include footage that would have been edited out in an official release. For example, when the shadow of the Phantom is first seen, he's standing upright and pauses to adjust his costume before he begins to skulk about. It seems likely that this little pause was something that would have been edited out in a release print. - Clark hollowaypages.com
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - So where are we at in 2011?

RIVIERA SETS SCREENING OF ORIGINAL 'PHANTOM OF THE OPERA'