SilentComedyMafia.com

No, that's not the name of a Joe McDoakes comedy. In perusing Wm K Everson's program notes, I found this apologia regarding the print of The Pilgrim that he showed to the Huff Society in 1958:

"Like most bootlegged Chaplin prints, this one is in pretty groggy shape. Obviously the 35mm print from which it was duped had not only been run four times a day every day since 1923, but was also beginning to fade! In addition, it was a print with foreign subtitles. (These have now been replaced with English titles which may not necessarily correspond exactly with the originals). Parts of it are somewhat choppy, and we estimate that a total of about half-a-reel is missing. The film starts abruptly, and one section is full of jump cuts. Followers of the rarer Chaplin films have, unfortunately, accustomed themselves to this type of print. Nevertheless, it is a good deal better than nothing at all, and we're extremely fortunate to be able to see it again today."

Just a reminder of what even the most meticulous of film collectors had to put up with in the olden days. God, are we lucky!

Rob Farr wrote:No, that's not the name of a Joe McDoakes comedy. In perusing Wm K Everson's program notes, I found this apologia regarding the print of The Pilgrim that he showed to the Huff Society in 1958:

"Like most bootlegged Chaplin prints, this one is in pretty groggy shape. Obviously the 35mm print from which it was duped had not only been run four times a day every day since 1923, but was also beginning to fade! In addition, it was a print with foreign subtitles. (These have now been replaced with English titles which may not necessarily correspond exactly with the originals). Parts of it are somewhat choppy, and we estimate that a total of about half-a-reel is missing. The film starts abruptly, and one section is full of jump cuts. Followers of the rarer Chaplin films have, unfortunately, accustomed themselves to this type of print. Nevertheless, it is a good deal better than nothing at all, and we're extremely fortunate to be able to see it again today."

Just a reminder of what even the most meticulous of film collectors had to put up with in the olden days. God, are we lucky!

We are indeed lucky, and most if us do not realize how much. That Huff Society audience was likely delighted to be seeing THE PILGRIM at all, whereas today, how many would whine because their sparkling DVD of same was not progressive scan or some such same?

RICHARD M ROBERTS

That's the reason I generally stay out of those threads.
I still recall watching every silent comedy as a kid on Blackhawk's super 8 reels.

Gary J.

For me, the "defects" of Dr. Everson's more arcane materials--the Czech or flash titles, the cobbling together of prints of various conditions and generations--added to to the fascination, and feeling of great privilege, in being allowed to see them, and from what I saw and heard about he was always very generous in showing and sharing seemingly anything. From his collection I saw DUCK SOUP (L&H) and THE LOVE NEST in "raw" form, before they were widely available, and I don't think I've enjoyed either as much since.

Ian Elliot wrote:For me, the "defects" of Dr. Everson's more arcane materials--the Czech or flash titles, the cobbling together of prints of various conditions and generations--added to to the fascination, and feeling of great privilege, in being allowed to see them, and from what I saw and heard about he was always very generous in showing and sharing seemingly anything. From his collection I saw DUCK SOUP (L&H) and THE LOVE NEST in "raw" form, before they were widely available, and I don't think I've enjoyed either as much since.

Of course you did, because you knew that it was a special event, that someone had gone to great effort to find the material, cobble it together, bring it to this place to show it to an audience for perhaps the only time, and who knew that Raymond Rohauer wouldn't bust down the door during the show, have the print confiscated, and no one would ever see it again. Beats sticking in a DVD to watch something digitalized together, transferred at the wrong speed, and restored to the point of looking like a video game that anyone can pick up on Amazon for ten dollars a copy. Bill Everson shared the joy and excitement of film collecting with as many folk as he possibly could and he spread the word every which way but loose. In one way or another, we are all his children.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

And yet... No doubt many casual readers of this forum are saying to themselves, "Wait a minute! Aren't you the same guys who just about plotzed over the Keystone set?" The difference is that Everson always strived to show the best available surviving material, no matter how "groggy" to use his phrase. What frustrates the hell out of some of us is that more complete, and in the case of Recreation, better material was available to the restorers. Heck, Doug Sulpy probably would have consulted in exchange for a credit on the box and a free set. While it's nice the set is getting stellar press from the mainstream press, no doubt Everson would be among those decrying the missed opportunities.

Rob Farr wrote:And yet... No doubt many casual readers of this forum are saying to themselves, "Wait a minute! Aren't you the same guys who just about plotzed over the Keystone set?" The difference is that Everson always strived to show the best available surviving material, no matter how "groggy" to use his phrase. What frustrates the hell out of some of us is that more complete, and in the case of Recreation, better material was available to the restorers. Heck, Doug Sulpy probably would have consulted in exchange for a credit on the box and a free set. While it's nice the set is getting stellar press from the mainstream press, no doubt Everson would be among those decrying the missed opportunities.

Especially when all Shepard and Bromberg would have to do is make a few phone calls to get a lot of the missing material they needed. But as I said in my review of the set, the problem with it is not the missing foorage, it's the presentation that drains the life out of the films that is the killer.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts wrote:

Ian Elliot wrote:For me, the "defects" of Dr. Everson's more arcane materials--the Czech or flash titles, the cobbling together of prints of various conditions and generations--added to to the fascination, and feeling of great privilege, in being allowed to see them, and from what I saw and heard about he was always very generous in showing and sharing seemingly anything. From his collection I saw DUCK SOUP (L&H) and THE LOVE NEST in "raw" form, before they were widely available, and I don't think I've enjoyed either as much since.

Of course you did, because you knew that it was a special event, that someone had gone to great effort to find the material, cobble it together, bring it to this place to show it to an audience for perhaps the only time, and who knew that Raymond Rohauer wouldn't bust down the door during the show, have the print confiscated, and no one would ever see it again. Beats sticking in a DVD to watch something digitalized together, transferred at the wrong speed, and restored to the point of looking like a video game that anyone can pick up on Amazon for ten dollars a copy. Bill Everson shared the joy and excitement of film collecting with as many folk as he possibly could and he spread the word every which way but loose. In one way or another, we are all his children.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

When I was archiving the Everson papers, I came across some research projects they undertook in the late 50s. One of these was to compile a complete filmography of the films of Laurel and Hardy. Today, we can just check the IMDb and see all of their films listed, with full cast and credits, in a matter of seconds. His list contained a few errors ("Unaccustomed As We Are" was listed as a 1936 film, presumably because it was re-released that year), and they had not yet identified the original title of the film that, from it's description, is clearly "Liberty". But it's remarkable to consider almost all future research is built upon the work that Everson, Shibuk, Youngson, and others were doing as part of the Huff Society. It's impossible to read Everson's writing and not feel his enthusiasm for the films, actors, directors, etc. that he is writing about.