weary flake
2022-04-21 21:04:57 UTC
adding alt.movies.silent instead of "rec.movies.silent" which doesn't exist
supposed to be both the silent and the sound version, but only the silent
version is viewable: the sound version is presented twice, on the same disc as
the silent stretched from 1.20 to 1.33 and also a separate disc squished from
1.20 to 1.10. There's a spinning wheel near the beginning of the movie
that naturally should look round: for the sound version Kino only gives you a
choice of an oval, horizontal or vertigo.
I've seen the Universal region 2 DVD (discs set to region 2 are to try to keep
Americans from seeing it) that has both the silent and sound versions on
it and it is, unlike the Kino Blu-Ray, proper, with the silent version at 1.33
and the sound version at 1.20, which is better than what the DVD said it
would be: 1.33. Every review I saw of this all blandly repeated what the
packaging for the DVD saying it's 1.33 for the sound version and not the
1.20 ratio it is and should be. This foreign DVD is yet another reason to have a
multi-region player, to see this movie, the sound version of which is denied to
Americans by Kino.
Another Kino defective by design release is the blu-ray of Nosferatu (1922).
Kino deleted %12 of the movie frames and tried to make up for it by using
some inexplicable pattern of repeated frames, ruining the motion, according to
reviews. This is the Region A (blu-ray discs are set to Region A to try to keep
non-Americans from seeing it) release palmed off to Americans while the Region B
(discs are set to region B in an effort to keep Americans from seeing it)
released on Eureka doesn't impose monkey editing of the frames. But I've seen
pictures from both editions, and they both impose tinting and the Eureka may
be slightly worse, but I haven't seen either yet. Why impose tinting anyway?
If the film already has tint than so be it, but what I suppose happens with most
tinting (a modern fad in reissues of silents) is the film source either doesn't
have it or only suggestions of a tint and the excuse is then used to tint the film
with a computer, making the result look gaudy. Revisionist "restorers" will
always claim that any alteration of the original is always more authentic than the
original and no questions about the authenticity of these computer tints
is even open to consideration; this attitude alone makes it questionable.
Looking at the reviews for the recent Blu-Ray releases of Shakedown (1929) on
Kino in the USA or Eureka in the UK, I saw only two that mentioned the
grotesque gaps in the film and only one mentioned that it is the fault of
"I was disappointed with this release. I saw this movie on youtube
before this release came out. The one on youtube is an Italian
release which has English subtitles and also includes a score
which sounds like it must have been the original. After seeing
that version, I pre-ordered the movie on Amazon because it seemed
like it was decent enough to own in my silent film collection.
This new 2020 release from Kino is a disappointment. The movie is
over 7 minutes shorter than the one I saw and it shows. There are
a multitude of spots where the film is cut out, almost to the
point where it is unbearable. Too many times in the film did I
have to tell my wife what happened because many important scenes
in the movie are cut out, but I saw them on the complete version
so I knew what happened. There are scenes where people are
interacting and then all of a sudden someone is missing or
someone is reacting to something that happened, but you have no
idea what happened. Too many key scenes - even in the final
climax - there are parts cut out that simply ruin the film and
the experience. I am not a fan of the score either, it feels
detached from the movie at times. I don't know who is to blame
for this, but from the looks of the film before and after the
cuts it just can't be possible that the film is so damaged in
those areas that they had to cut them out. What's wrong with a
little film damage if it allows you to see what is happening in
the movie? It is also cut in far too many places to simply be
missing footage, as it appears to me at least. I love silent
films and own most of the best ones that are available to us
today. I would not recommend buying this new 2020 Kino release,
it is no good. We need a good complete version with the original
score or at least a better one. I think that companies who
release old films should be more real and open about the results
of their restoration and not try to keep you in the dark just to
trick you and make a buck. Most people who buy these old films
have no chance of seeing them in the first place as it is, so
they could be spending their hard earn money on a movie that
isn't any good. That is why I mostly only buy old films if I have
seen them before, either on VHS, TV, or on the internet. You
can't blame Kino because they hardly ever give you any info at
all about most of their releases (I'm still trying to find out
whether their updated release of The Blue Angel has new improved
subtitles which I believe is the most important element needed
for a new release of that film), but Universal did the
restoration of this one."
I disagree with that reviewer about complaining about the score
to silent movies, I feel they should not be judged because whatever the
original score is, it either never was recorded or in this case the
recorded score with effects and additional dialog was lost. So any
included score is going to be some anonymous music that doesn't match
the picture anyway, so I listen to my CD player when watching silents.
I also strongly disagree that product-makers can't be blamed when they
are secretive about the products they sell.
The reviewer did not reveal the specifics on what was cut by
Universal, but the most glaring one on the Blu-ray is in the
beginning where the boxer barely moves his arm to start a punch at 4:53
then jump cuts to the boxer sitting on the ground and looking up angry.
Listening to the commentary on the Blu-ray at this point he mentions the
obvious cut, and suggests that it is the movies fault or because of it's
difficult journey to the 21st century. But the jump cut wasn't there
before "restoration"! It is a defect caused by restoration and the
expert didn't know it.
This jump cut doesn't exist on the six year old youtube video where at 4:49
the boxer throws a punch and then receives a punch and is then knocked
backwards through the crowd to flat on the ground, then a different
camera view, then the boxer sits up and then we are at what Kino is
at 4:53 on the Blu-ray. Universal's restoration cut 7 seconds from the
action. I haven't watched the full youtube yet, and even then I might
not remember exactly which scenes didn't appear on the Blu-ray.
The word "restoration" is often thrown around when revisionism is actually
what is meant, like when mono is "restored" to fake surround or black and
white is "restored" to fake color or original footage is re-filmed or
re-animated, re-dubbed with current actors, etc. A less professional
more common sense meaning of the term restoration would suggest a film
must be as complete as possible and not to introduce jump cuts, and not
suggest that a film is "restored" merely because the surviving 16mm original
film is scanned in 4000K, and a new score slapped on a shortened film.
The Eureka Region B release as Early Universal Vol. 1 is the same as Kino
https://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/2021/09/early-universal-vol-1-1926-1927-1929/
"It looks there's a shot or two missing where Roff knocks Dave down,"
but Roff doesn't knock down Dave, Roff misses his punch and Dave knocks him
down, but it's easy to see how the Blu-Ray can mislead someone because
of it's jump cut.
http://youtu.be/_zRicDEHx20
I wonder if Universal will "respond" to the revealing fact of it's bad
restoration by getting the un-restored video banned!
There are other blatantly bad Kino releases like Blackmail (1929), that'sKino in the USA or Eureka in the UK, I saw only two that mentioned the
grotesque gaps in the film and only one mentioned that it is the fault of
"I was disappointed with this release. I saw this movie on youtube
before this release came out. The one on youtube is an Italian
release which has English subtitles and also includes a score
which sounds like it must have been the original. After seeing
that version, I pre-ordered the movie on Amazon because it seemed
like it was decent enough to own in my silent film collection.
This new 2020 release from Kino is a disappointment. The movie is
over 7 minutes shorter than the one I saw and it shows. There are
a multitude of spots where the film is cut out, almost to the
point where it is unbearable. Too many times in the film did I
have to tell my wife what happened because many important scenes
in the movie are cut out, but I saw them on the complete version
so I knew what happened. There are scenes where people are
interacting and then all of a sudden someone is missing or
someone is reacting to something that happened, but you have no
idea what happened. Too many key scenes - even in the final
climax - there are parts cut out that simply ruin the film and
the experience. I am not a fan of the score either, it feels
detached from the movie at times. I don't know who is to blame
for this, but from the looks of the film before and after the
cuts it just can't be possible that the film is so damaged in
those areas that they had to cut them out. What's wrong with a
little film damage if it allows you to see what is happening in
the movie? It is also cut in far too many places to simply be
missing footage, as it appears to me at least. I love silent
films and own most of the best ones that are available to us
today. I would not recommend buying this new 2020 Kino release,
it is no good. We need a good complete version with the original
score or at least a better one. I think that companies who
release old films should be more real and open about the results
of their restoration and not try to keep you in the dark just to
trick you and make a buck. Most people who buy these old films
have no chance of seeing them in the first place as it is, so
they could be spending their hard earn money on a movie that
isn't any good. That is why I mostly only buy old films if I have
seen them before, either on VHS, TV, or on the internet. You
can't blame Kino because they hardly ever give you any info at
all about most of their releases (I'm still trying to find out
whether their updated release of The Blue Angel has new improved
subtitles which I believe is the most important element needed
for a new release of that film), but Universal did the
restoration of this one."
I disagree with that reviewer about complaining about the score
to silent movies, I feel they should not be judged because whatever the
original score is, it either never was recorded or in this case the
recorded score with effects and additional dialog was lost. So any
included score is going to be some anonymous music that doesn't match
the picture anyway, so I listen to my CD player when watching silents.
I also strongly disagree that product-makers can't be blamed when they
are secretive about the products they sell.
The reviewer did not reveal the specifics on what was cut by
Universal, but the most glaring one on the Blu-ray is in the
beginning where the boxer barely moves his arm to start a punch at 4:53
then jump cuts to the boxer sitting on the ground and looking up angry.
Listening to the commentary on the Blu-ray at this point he mentions the
obvious cut, and suggests that it is the movies fault or because of it's
difficult journey to the 21st century. But the jump cut wasn't there
before "restoration"! It is a defect caused by restoration and the
expert didn't know it.
This jump cut doesn't exist on the six year old youtube video where at 4:49
the boxer throws a punch and then receives a punch and is then knocked
backwards through the crowd to flat on the ground, then a different
camera view, then the boxer sits up and then we are at what Kino is
at 4:53 on the Blu-ray. Universal's restoration cut 7 seconds from the
action. I haven't watched the full youtube yet, and even then I might
not remember exactly which scenes didn't appear on the Blu-ray.
The word "restoration" is often thrown around when revisionism is actually
what is meant, like when mono is "restored" to fake surround or black and
white is "restored" to fake color or original footage is re-filmed or
re-animated, re-dubbed with current actors, etc. A less professional
more common sense meaning of the term restoration would suggest a film
must be as complete as possible and not to introduce jump cuts, and not
suggest that a film is "restored" merely because the surviving 16mm original
film is scanned in 4000K, and a new score slapped on a shortened film.
The Eureka Region B release as Early Universal Vol. 1 is the same as Kino
https://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/2021/09/early-universal-vol-1-1926-1927-1929/
"It looks there's a shot or two missing where Roff knocks Dave down,"
but Roff doesn't knock down Dave, Roff misses his punch and Dave knocks him
down, but it's easy to see how the Blu-Ray can mislead someone because
of it's jump cut.
http://youtu.be/_zRicDEHx20
I wonder if Universal will "respond" to the revealing fact of it's bad
restoration by getting the un-restored video banned!
supposed to be both the silent and the sound version, but only the silent
version is viewable: the sound version is presented twice, on the same disc as
the silent stretched from 1.20 to 1.33 and also a separate disc squished from
1.20 to 1.10. There's a spinning wheel near the beginning of the movie
that naturally should look round: for the sound version Kino only gives you a
choice of an oval, horizontal or vertigo.
I've seen the Universal region 2 DVD (discs set to region 2 are to try to keep
Americans from seeing it) that has both the silent and sound versions on
it and it is, unlike the Kino Blu-Ray, proper, with the silent version at 1.33
and the sound version at 1.20, which is better than what the DVD said it
would be: 1.33. Every review I saw of this all blandly repeated what the
packaging for the DVD saying it's 1.33 for the sound version and not the
1.20 ratio it is and should be. This foreign DVD is yet another reason to have a
multi-region player, to see this movie, the sound version of which is denied to
Americans by Kino.
Another Kino defective by design release is the blu-ray of Nosferatu (1922).
Kino deleted %12 of the movie frames and tried to make up for it by using
some inexplicable pattern of repeated frames, ruining the motion, according to
reviews. This is the Region A (blu-ray discs are set to Region A to try to keep
non-Americans from seeing it) release palmed off to Americans while the Region B
(discs are set to region B in an effort to keep Americans from seeing it)
released on Eureka doesn't impose monkey editing of the frames. But I've seen
pictures from both editions, and they both impose tinting and the Eureka may
be slightly worse, but I haven't seen either yet. Why impose tinting anyway?
If the film already has tint than so be it, but what I suppose happens with most
tinting (a modern fad in reissues of silents) is the film source either doesn't
have it or only suggestions of a tint and the excuse is then used to tint the film
with a computer, making the result look gaudy. Revisionist "restorers" will
always claim that any alteration of the original is always more authentic than the
original and no questions about the authenticity of these computer tints
is even open to consideration; this attitude alone makes it questionable.