GOLD RUSH on TCM

Post by Fair Pickings
Did anybody notice that Robert Osborne's into to THE GOLD RUSH the other
night did not indicate that it was the '42 re-issue that they'd be showing?
I wonder what the unenlightened thought of this "silent" film that had
talking throughout? I got the impression the folks at TCM didn't KNOW
they'd be showing the re-issue version.
Art Pierce

I'm pretty sure you're right. I set my VCR to tape the film, thinking it
was the 1925 version. All the advertising material I saw seemed to confirm
this. But alas, it was the 1942 re-issue, with its lethally improper
editing that destroys the lovely original ending.

Dan N.

Fair Pickings

2003-07-12 08:12:50 UTC

Post by Fair Pickings
Did anybody notice that Robert Osborne's into to THE GOLD RUSH the other
night did not indicate that it was the '42 re-issue that they'd be

showing?

Post by Fair Pickings
I wonder what the unenlightened thought of this "silent" film that had
talking throughout? I got the impression the folks at TCM didn't KNOW
they'd be showing the re-issue version.
Art Pierce

Well, I'm not necessarily OPPOSED to them running this version (it's the
first GOLD RUSH I knew and I still have a soft spot in my heart for it), but
if they ARE going to play it I think they should alert the unsuspecting
audience of it. After all, probably a goodly share of those tuning in had
never seen a silent before, and this would likely confuse them. And, as you
say, the ending is pretty much ruined.

Art Pierce

Karen Owen

2003-07-12 22:18:49 UTC

Entertainment Weekly featured the Chaplin set as the
pick of the week of new DVD releases. The writer
of the review gave the set good grades (I think A's or
A- for everything but Limelight) and must know
what he or she is talking about because they
included the suggestion to skip Gold Rush on the
first disc and go right to the silent version on the
second disc of "extras".

Robert Miller

2003-07-13 05:20:01 UTC

I hope the '25 version makes it to a Silent Sunday screening, if it hasn't
already. It looks beautiful on dvd.

Paul Killiam's 1970s restoration of the 1925 GOLD RUSH, with a William Perry
piano score, has played TCM multiple times, including the Sunday Silents
slot, and always in B/W.

IIRC, this version (back when it circulated often in 16mm) was color tinted
on Eastmancolor stock, but perhaps by the time it was copied to tape for the
TCM screenings, all surviving color prints had gone red.

Or was this an aesthetic decision by Killiam's successors?

Killiam's 1970s restoration of THE EAGLE is playing TCM's Sunday Silents
slot tonight, and that film was also once distributed by him in a
color-tinted version, I recall, but only shows up on TCM in B/W.

Perhaps the video transfers were made from the Blackhawk B/W 16mm prints
which Killiam also licensed back in the 1970s.

Come to think of it, has TCM ever run one of Killiam's restorations in its
color-tinted version?

When the copyright notice on Killiam's title card flashes by, the "new
material" claim is usually listed in small print as being made on both the
music score and on the color tinting --- but the colors (other than the
MS-DOS BSOD-style blue background of Killiam's title card) are usually
missing from the rest of the feature.

Denise Morrison

2003-07-13 16:36:59 UTC

I'm looking forward to seeing what the DVD looks like. Maybe someone on
this group can tell me. I've tried to buy it, but the stores keep telling
me it hasn't been released to them yet.
Hopefully, the jumpiness and noise of the old print will be gone when I
finally get to play the DVD.
Cheers,
Dan N.

Hey Dan,

I bought my set of Chaplin dvds at Costco last weekend (sort of an
independence day present to myself). The films weren't sold seperately but
as a set in one of those big plastic cases that are the devil to try and
open. But it's extraordinarily nice; all the films look first-rate to me. I
was surprised that the '25 Gold Rush, was one of the supplements but then
remembered that the Chaplin estate only holds copyright for the '42 version
so thought maybe they felt that version had to be the definitive one (which
it ain't for most of us). The '25 version is beautiful and not tinted, which
I'm not sure was originally. Wasn't that a Killiam thing? To add tinting
even to films that weren't originally? Don't know. Anyway, it's a beauty and
I hope you get your volume soon! You'll be pleased with them I'm sure.

denise

Robert Miller

2003-07-13 19:25:26 UTC

Post by Denise Morrison
Wasn't that a Killiam thing? To add tinting
even to films that weren't originally? Don't know.

Yes, it was, although back 25-30 years ago information was not as readily
available on a silent film's tinting status as it is now, in the cyber-age
of archival databases.

But there was also a commercial angle.

Killiam and his small restoration/distribution staff used to promote their
silents catalog (which certainly stood out in a competitive sea of fuzzy,
b/w dupers and their mute prints or endless repetitions of the Tarbox/Movie
Wonderland track) as exclusively featuring prints which were "color-tinted
and scored with new music tracks".

When Paul surprised his regular customers by announcing his acquisition of a
contract to score and distribute the Clara Bow-starring IT (through an old
school friend with ties to the rights-holders, IIRC) it marked a departure
into non-tinted print territory.

I remember asking him if we were going to see the famous redhead in a
color-tinted version of her great success, and he said, "No. We discovered
that the film was never released with color tints, and we decided it looked
best that way."

And now....

Some questions for the many Chaplin scholars on AMS:

Did Charlie ever go on record with his feelings about tinting or toning?

Assuming that at least some of his early shorts must have had colored stock
or emulsion, at what point did he call a halt to the process, and did he
ever explain why?

Constance Kuriyama

2003-07-16 15:50:31 UTC

Post by Robert Miller

Post by Denise Morrison
Wasn't that a Killiam thing? To add tinting
even to films that weren't originally? Don't know.

Yes, it was, although back 25-30 years ago information was not as readily
available on a silent film's tinting status as it is now, in the cyber-age
of archival databases.
But there was also a commercial angle.
Killiam and his small restoration/distribution staff used to promote their
silents catalog (which certainly stood out in a competitive sea of fuzzy,
b/w dupers and their mute prints or endless repetitions of the Tarbox/Movie
Wonderland track) as exclusively featuring prints which were "color-tinted
and scored with new music tracks".
When Paul surprised his regular customers by announcing his acquisition of a
contract to score and distribute the Clara Bow-starring IT (through an old
school friend with ties to the rights-holders, IIRC) it marked a departure
into non-tinted print territory.
I remember asking him if we were going to see the famous redhead in a
color-tinted version of her great success, and he said, "No. We discovered
that the film was never released with color tints, and we decided it looked
best that way."
And now....
Did Charlie ever go on record with his feelings about tinting or toning?

He disliked color in film, and my best guess is that he only used blue for
night scenes in his early shorts. As soon as it because feasible to film
realistic night scenes in black and white, in the '20s, that's what he did.
The night scenes in _Gold Rush_ are so filmed. No tint is needed.

Post by Robert Miller
Assuming that at least some of his early shorts must have had colored stock
or emulsion, at what point did he call a halt to the process, and did he
ever explain why?

Don't know, and as far as I know he never explained, except to say in his
autobiography that color in film to him was like painting on a marble statue.
He only succumbed in _Countess from Hong Kong_, probably because by then
color was the norm, and even then he seemed reluctant to go much beyond
pastels.

My guess is that black and white fit into his minimalist approach to film
technique, and it was also more affordable for a self-producer. But when he
was in his teens he made extra money doing street photography, undoubtedly
in black and white, and I suspect that first experience shaped his taste
in photography for decades thereafter.

Connie K.

--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."

Brent McKee

2003-07-17 06:28:43 UTC

Post by Robert Miller

Post by Denise Morrison
Wasn't that a Killiam thing? To add tinting
even to films that weren't originally? Don't know.

promote their

Post by Robert Miller
silents catalog (which certainly stood out in a competitive sea of fuzzy,
b/w dupers and their mute prints or endless repetitions of the Tarbox/Movie
Wonderland track) as exclusively featuring prints which were

"color-tinted

Post by Robert Miller
and scored with new music tracks".
When Paul surprised his regular customers by announcing his

acquisition of a

Post by Robert Miller
contract to score and distribute the Clara Bow-starring IT

(through an old

Post by Robert Miller
school friend with ties to the rights-holders, IIRC) it marked a departure
into non-tinted print territory.
I remember asking him if we were going to see the famous redhead in a
color-tinted version of her great success, and he said, "No. We discovered
that the film was never released with color tints, and we decided it looked
best that way."
And now....
Did Charlie ever go on record with his feelings about tinting or toning?

Post by Robert Miller
Assuming that at least some of his early shorts must have had colored stock
or emulsion, at what point did he call a halt to the process, and did he
ever explain why?

Don't know, and as far as I know he never explained, except to say in his
autobiography that color in film to him was like painting on a

marble statue.

Post by Constance Kuriyama
He only succumbed in _Countess from Hong Kong_, probably because by then
color was the norm, and even then he seemed reluctant to go much beyond
pastels.

There is of course a certain irony to that statement. While modern
people see statues from the classical period -- such as the Venus de
Milo -- as being pure white unsullied marble, a person of the period
in which they were made would have been appalled at seeing them in
that state. Classical statues were always painted, often quite
elaborately and garishly (by our standards).

Post by Constance Kuriyama
My guess is that black and white fit into his minimalist approach to film
technique, and it was also more affordable for a self-producer. But when he
was in his teens he made extra money doing street photography,

undoubtedly

Post by Constance Kuriyama
in black and white, and I suspect that first experience shaped his taste
in photography for decades thereafter.

There is of course a certain quality that can be achieved with black
and white photography -- both in stills and in motion pictures -- that
is difficult or impossible to achieve in colour. Black and white
photography allows much greater opportunities to work with light than
colour photography does. Comparing the colour and black and white
portraits made by the legendary Yosuf Karsh, my verdict would have to
be that the black and white photos are superior because they are more
dramatically composed and lit than is possible in the colour photos.
I think it is possible that, having worked all of his professional
career in black and white, Chaplin probably understood what he could
do with the medium and was reluctant to abandon it for one that he
wasn't as sure of. Others did -- Ford and Hitchcock obviously -- but
most didn't have the sort of restrictions he faced as a self-producer.
And even Ford and Hitchcock were doing black and white films into the
early 1960s ("Man Who shot Liberty Valance"; "Psycho").

--
Brent McKee

To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from
the email address

"If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly,
in one which is infinitely worse."
- Margaret Atwood

"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more
constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of
openness to novelty. "
- Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)

Uncle Dave Lewis

2003-07-13 18:47:28 UTC

Post by Robert Miller
Come to think of it, has TCM ever run one of Killiam's restorations in its
color-tinted version?

I can't recall if TCM has, but The Western Channel has shown them - I can't
exactly recall which film. It looked like the color was losing it's grip on
the print that was shown - the restoration was in need of a restoration!

Uncle Dave Lewis

Archie Waugh

2003-07-14 03:35:23 UTC

Indeed it has, and it is that particular print that I want to get away from.
"The Gold Rush" is a beautiful film (talking about the 1925 version, here),
and probably Chaplin's masterpiece. ("City Lights" comes close.) But the
print of it that has besmirched the airwaves (cablewaves?) over the last
five or six years -- first on AMC, lately on TCM -- is a disgrace to anyone
screening it for the public.
The scene where the little prospector (Chaplin) meets Georgia, in the dance
hall, jitters throughout the entire scene. I thought when the film switched
venues -- from AMC to TCM -- a better print would be used, but no. And the
William Perry piano score sounds hideously distorted, as if someone is
playing it at a faster speed than is proper.

Which shows how much a film can deteriorate in just a few decades...I remember
the color tinted version from PBS in the 70's...undoubtedly the first time I saw
the film, and I was bowled over. Aside from being a little contrasty, I
remember the print quality being quite impressive, the tints lovely, and Perry's
score gave me chills...I still have the Silent Years LP which featured it and
several other scores from the series..."Georgia's Theme" as I recall was used as
the overall Silent Years series theme as well.
I taped it last time TCM ran it...pitiable.
Archie Waugh

Constance Kuriyama

2003-07-16 15:26:19 UTC

Post by Robert Miller

I hope the '25 version makes it to a Silent Sunday screening, if it hasn't
already. It looks beautiful on dvd.

This isn't the version on the Warners. As for color tinting, Chaplin
generally didn't use it, except *possibly* for night scenes in the
early shorts.

Connie K.

Post by Robert Miller
Killiam's 1970s restoration of THE EAGLE is playing TCM's Sunday Silents
slot tonight, and that film was also once distributed by him in a
color-tinted version, I recall, but only shows up on TCM in B/W.
Perhaps the video transfers were made from the Blackhawk B/W 16mm prints
which Killiam also licensed back in the 1970s.
Come to think of it, has TCM ever run one of Killiam's restorations in its
color-tinted version?
When the copyright notice on Killiam's title card flashes by, the "new
material" claim is usually listed in small print as being made on both the
music score and on the color tinting --- but the colors (other than the
MS-DOS BSOD-style blue background of Killiam's title card) are usually
missing from the rest of the feature.

--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."

John Aldrich

2003-07-16 16:00:54 UTC

Post by Robert Miller
Paul Killiam's 1970s restoration of the 1925 GOLD RUSH, with a William

Perry

Post by Robert Miller
piano score, has played TCM multiple times, including the Sunday Silents
slot, and always in B/W.

What you'll be seeing is the Brownlow-Gill restoration, which is far
superior to the Killiam, with the ending you prefer well restored.
I like both versions of the film. I understand the preference for
'25 on this group, but at best what you'll get of it is a restoration.
Connie K.

I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed, Dan. I had not seen the
Brownlow-Gill restoration until I got the recent DVD. I was led to
believe that it was a huge improvement over the Killiam and other
circulating prints, but that is not the case at all.

In fact, it is obvious that the Killiam print was a major source for
an awful lot of the so-called "restoration".

One of the clues is in the dance hall scene you mention. The jumpines
is still there...just as in the Killiam version.

Overall, I thought the Brownlow-Gill version looked very flat...almost
like a xerox of a black and white photograph.

Griggs-Moviedrome used to sell a print of The Gold Rush that not only
was visually superior to the Killiam, but also had some footage that
was missing from the Killiam print. I have never read anything that
indicated that Brownlow-Gill had access to the 35mm print that Bob Lee
had, and I have no idea what happened to that material. It is a shame,
because that is still the best version of the 1925 Gold Rush I have
seen.

--John A.

Constance Kuriyama

2003-07-16 17:16:16 UTC

Post by John Aldrich

Post by Robert Miller
Paul Killiam's 1970s restoration of the 1925 GOLD RUSH, with a William

Perry

Post by Robert Miller
piano score, has played TCM multiple times, including the Sunday Silents
slot, and always in B/W.

Anyone interested in the facts of the resoration might want to
look at David Gill's detailed account of it, published in _Griffithiana_
54, pp. 123-131. According to Gill, '42 mostly preserved '25, so
75% of the scenes in their restoration were taken from a full aperture
print of the '42 cut. 22% were based on a Weisbaden print of Rohauer's
reconstructin, which was Killiam's source. According to Gill, Rohauer
claimed his restoration was at least partly composed of outtakes. 3%,
including the original ending, came from nitrate material in the National
Film and Television Archive, dated 1926 and 1931.

Post by John Aldrich
One of the clues is in the dance hall scene you mention. The jumpines
is still there...just as in the Killiam version.

Perhaps this is a characteristic of Rohauer's reconstruction, or of a
later stage print of it made with a worn neg.

Post by John Aldrich
Overall, I thought the Brownlow-Gill version looked very flat...almost
like a xerox of a black and white photograph.

I haven't seen the DVD transfer yet. They did do some wet gate work to
remove scratches from the Rohauer material. It looked fine in 35mm.

Post by John Aldrich
Griggs-Moviedrome used to sell a print of The Gold Rush that not only
was visually superior to the Killiam, but also had some footage that
was missing from the Killiam print.

Such as?

Post by John Aldrich
I have never read anything that
indicated that Brownlow-Gill had access to the 35mm print that Bob Lee
had, and I have no idea what happened to that material. It is a shame,
because that is still the best version of the 1925 Gold Rush I have
seen.
--John A.

According to Gill, Rohauer is the source of all prints of '25
circulating after the film fell out of copyright. He told Brownlow and
Gill he had 35mm material that was superior to the 16mm material he let
them use for _Unknown Chaplin_ (very bad), but would never give them
access to it.

Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."

WaverBoy

2003-07-31 16:42:19 UTC

Post by John Aldrich

Post by Robert Miller
Paul Killiam's 1970s restoration of the 1925 GOLD RUSH, with a William

Perry

Post by Robert Miller
piano score, has played TCM multiple times, including the Sunday Silents
slot, and always in B/W.

I think you're being way too harsh. Overall, it IS a huge improvement IMO;
75% of the restoration is from the '42 version, and is of notably far
superior quality to the Killiam print that's been on video and TV for years.
In fact, even the rest of the footage looks better than the video/TV Killiam
print. Pop in the old Criterion or Republic laserdisc of the Killiam, then
directly compare it with the DVD. Except for the opening shot, which is
still quite weak even on the DVD, it's like night and day for the bulk of
the film, and night and dawn for the rest (unless you're used to a better
print of the Killiam than was released to video or TV, which may be entirely
possible). Regrettably, however, they didn't/couldn't fix the jitter.

Post by John Aldrich
In fact, it is obvious that the Killiam print was a major source for
an awful lot of the so-called "restoration".
One of the clues is in the dance hall scene you mention. The jumpines
is still there...just as in the Killiam version.

Yes, but as I said, the print quality is still better than the Killiam.

Post by John Aldrich
Overall, I thought the Brownlow-Gill version looked very flat...almost
like a xerox of a black and white photograph.

I don't see that at all, except for maybe the opening shot.

Constance Kuriyama

2003-07-16 15:19:10 UTC

I think TCM knew exactly what they were doing based on the new DVD volume of
Chaplin's work that has been released, and of which I recently purchased. On
all the four films in Volume I there are two discs. Disc 1 is "the film;"
disc 2 is the supplements. For The Gold Rush, "the film" is the 1942
version; the original 1925 silent version is on disc 2 as a supplement.
Since the '42 version is the only one Chaplin was able to copyright, I'm
sure it's the one the estate sees as the official version. From that way of
thinking, perhaps TCM didn't feel they had a choice in what version to play.

Both versions were copyrighted. '25 fell out of copyright in the early
fifties by oversight, since Chaplin's life was being disrupted at the time.
The estate now claims copyright on all versions--a claim often disputed
here.

I don't think TCM is that clueless; they were highlighting the new dvd
release and showcasing the films and a supplement or two. But you are
right--they should have at least announced which version they were showing.
I hope the '25 version makes it to a Silent Sunday screening, if it hasn't
already. It looks beautiful on dvd.

It's an excellent restoration--certainly the best available.

Connie K.

BTW, the dvd set is gorgeous. The films are beautiful, most of the
supplements are appropriate (some of the government/industry stuff on Modern
Times were snorers but I understood why they were there at least) and they
are packaged nicely.
denise

Post by Fair Pickings
Did anybody notice that Robert Osborne's into to THE GOLD RUSH the

other

Post by Fair Pickings
night did not indicate that it was the '42 re-issue that they'd be

showing?

I'm pretty sure you're right. I set my VCR to tape the film, thinking

Post by Fair Pickings
was the 1925 version. All the advertising material I saw seemed to

confirm

Post by Fair Pickings
this. But alas, it was the 1942 re-issue, with its lethally improper
editing that destroys the lovely original ending.
Dan N.

Well, I'm not necessarily OPPOSED to them running this version (it's the
first GOLD RUSH I knew and I still have a soft spot in my heart for it),

but

Post by Fair Pickings
if they ARE going to play it I think they should alert the unsuspecting
audience of it. After all, probably a goodly share of those tuning in had
never seen a silent before, and this would likely confuse them. And, as

you

Post by Fair Pickings
say, the ending is pretty much ruined.
Art Pierce

--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."

Burbank74

2003-07-17 18:02:12 UTC

As one of the late Paul Killiam's right hand men - I can shed some light on the
history of the "Killiam" GOLD RUSH.

Paul was gearing up for THE SILENT YEARS around 1969/1970 for Public
Television. Color was a relatively new addition to TV and WNET wanted to play
it up for all that it was worth. When they found out that some of the silent
films that Paul would be providing were tinted - they then wanted ALL of them
tinted - regardless of whether they should be or not.

Another consideration was having a Charlie Chaplin film to open the series. THE
GOLD RUSH (with it's unchecked PD status at the time) was the obvious choice.
Paul actually commandeered a go-between (who will remain nameless) to snag a
Rohauer 35mm print between bookings - have it sent to his NYC lab - and have a
"tinted" 16mm negative made. William Perry's lovely score was married to this
"new edition" and it was premiered on THE SILENT YEARS with Orson Welles
hosting.

About a year or so later - Paul got many inquiries to rent THE GOLD RUSH in
35mm for screenings. As he had only produced a 16mm negative - he would need a
35mm negative to make prints to satisfy these requests. He went to his inside
source again to once again obtain access to the Rohaeur 35mm print between
bookings. However, when the material arrived it was clear that a lot of the
print had been mangled and was beyond copying. Paul was undeterred though and
did three things 1) copy what he could of this material, 2) got his hands on a
print of the '42 version and filled out what he needed and 3) resorted to going
back to a 16mm print of his tinted edition and blowing it up to 35mm to fill
out the rest. The resulting 35mm negative was done in black & white.

So the tinted 16mm - and - black & white 35mm Killiam editions of THE GOLD RUSH
actually have differences between themselves (!) The 35mm is actually a bastard
child (of probably several bastard children) and Perry's score had to be
"fitted" to the new 35mm edition.

The tinted 16mm edition was released on VHS and laserdisc through Republic. The
black & white 35mm edition was released only on laserdisc through Voyager.

Hope this saga clears up some questions and misconceptions.

Bruce Lawton

Robert Miller

2003-07-18 13:25:53 UTC