Exciting Discovery of DRACULA Film Element! (1 Viewer)

[Steve...O]

The originator of this "news" now is saying this in response to Richard-W's query:


As I said earlier, the horror board has been a source of misinformation before (Kong Spider Pit comes to mind) so a healthly skepticism is in order.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well, the DRACULA thing now seems to be false. But since you mentioned the deleted scenes for BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, while I would love to have them as separate extras, those sequences seem as though they wouldn't work within the framework of the movie itself and I've always felt it was a good thing they were removed.

Now, for me, I'd gladly pass up any rare film or footage if I could see the Bela Lugosi monster dialogue scenes from FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Ah hoaxes, gotta love 'em!

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I'm reminded that in an interview promoting "Sweeney Todd," Tim Burton was asked if he had seen Lon Chaney's "London After Midnight," and he replied, "Oh, sure!"

I have no idea if he was being sarcastic, lying or just confused.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

It'd be nice if it were true; I think estimation of the picture would go up with good source materials. Wait & see I guess--though this doesn't seem to fall into the outlandish category of the spider pit or London After Midnight. There had to have been a lot of prints struck of Dracula on its original release and it wouldn't be all *that* surprising for one to be lurking out there somewhere.

 

[Robert Harris]

The discovery of a new Dracula element is, or was, not a hoax. A query was made to an LoC - National Archive archivist, who gave an apparent off-hand answer that something had been found, without going into detail.

After a conversation with someone from the archive, the facts are quite simple. An element was located almost a year ago, and as Universal has an ongoing restoration and preservation program, it was immediately dispatched to the studio.

The studio has been creating new protection elements with redundancy.

I'm told that the element is a full frame (FA) lavender positive from 1930 and has a lavender track positive to go along with it.

It apparently contains no new or unknown material, but may be off a higher quality than previously held.

RAH

 

[Michael Elliott]

Another rumor is that Stanley Kubrick owned a print of it. I hope he didn't toss it like the alternate ending to THE SHINING.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Perhaps Robert, Jack or someone more knowledgable could answer but I've always been curious as to how much stuff is out there to be found. I know prints are always turning up but I'm curious if the studios have searched their vaults well enough to know if they do or don't have something. I've been told Warner and MGM searched very hard for a copy of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT but found nothing. I'm not sure how possible it is to hope that they simply overlooked something, although, as we all know, THE UNKNOWN was lost for quite sometime and then discovered because it had "unknown" on the film print.

I think the real answer are the private collectors. In trying to track down various silent films through the years I've met some personal collectors and I know some people who have rare items but refuse to release them because either the studio isn't willing to pay them enough or they just want to hold onto something rare and know they are the only one with a copy.

If something like LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT, an uncut GREED or whatever was to eventually show up, would it come from a studio vault or a private collector?

 

[Richard--W]

Thank you for clearing up the confusion.

So Universal did make a lavender in 1930 in this instance.

Now we know.

If additional information comes to your notice I hope you will post it here.

 

[Robert Harris]

There really is no answer to this.

The studios know what elements they hold on site in their own archival facilities, in addition to what is held off site.

More or less.

Especially with off-site elements, and even moreso for foreign held materials, the information on cards and shipping papers may not be valid.

A "negative" is usually a negative, but it might turn out to be an original negative.

A track negative may or may not be what it sounds like it is.

The bottom line is that the only valid inventories are those which have been inspected and input by someone who knows what they're looking at and / or cares to correct same.

As far as how much is out there that's un-inventoried and unknown in both private and public hands?

Tons!

Would I suggest that LaM will never be found?

No.

RAH

 

[Richard--W]

What prevents Universal from inspecting film cans and updating the cards? What prevents them from making an inventory of off-site holdings? What prevents them from conducting a search in the first place, I wonder.

 

[Jack Theakston]

I can only reiterate from personal experience what RAH says is pretty much true-- that in general, the studios know exactly what they have, but there are instances where their inventory is foggy. They're constantly rechecking things as time goes by, particularly if they're working on a particular film. So if they've got it and it's going to be worked on, chances are that they'll find it if it's mislabeled.

As for what is in collector's hands-- entirely hit or miss depending on the film, studio, etc. The kind of films we're talking about here are nitrate, and I can pretty much count the collectors who actively collect nitrate on one or two hands.

A majority of now lost, damaged or even "orphaned" films can be accounted for at some point with the labs that did the work on the titles. For example, when CFI closed down, everyone who had stuff there was notified to the best of the lab's ability, and when no one came to claim the stuff, they junked it.

The real gold to be found is in archives, in my opinion. They're getting stuff all the time and it takes time to go through each reel of film, figure out what it is, the condition, etc. If someone donates something like 200 reels, it's going to take time to sort it all out. So there's a good chance there's something in an archive right now that's waiting to be cataloged that something interesting.

And that's not to say that the archives don't accidentally glance over stuff, either. Library of Congress received a color print from 1923 and labeled it as a Prizma color of "Kelly's Plasticon." To someone who has no idea, that could be anything, but I knew what it was right away and had it pulled to be preserved and restored-- the earliest known 3-D film!

There's stuff out there, every where. I've found film in the strangest of places. Depots used to have auctions where you could buy film prints at a dollar a reel, so stuff got out there. You just have to look for it.

 

[Robert Harris]

1. The studios are constantly looking for elements for older titles, and always wish to upgrade.

2. When it comes to inventory, one of the classic examples is of the lost Chaney film "The Unknown" at the Cinematheque around 1968. It was in cans marked "l'inconnu"...

or "Unknown."

RAH

 

[Joe Karlosi]

After seeing his bastardization of PLANET OF THE APES I'd have to go with the latter.

 

[CameronMcC]

there was a great TCM documentary a few years back called "the Race to save 100 years" It went into film preservation, as well as the labor and cost of cataloging, storing, and restoring films. I think the problem becomes that the sands of time are moving faster than the budget allows sometimes.

I asked if they ever had plans to add this doc onto a warner disc at one of the past chats, and they didn't have an answer. a fellow HTF member mailed me a copy they had from the broadcast years back.

 

[Richard--W]

Can you comment on the conflicting information with regard to Universal making lavender negatives? Did they make lavenders in 1930 or was it made later?

 

[Simon Howson]

It's excellent that Universal have an ongoing restoration and preservation program, but I wish they were more aggressive releasing their classic films on DVD.

Isn't that at least one reason to preserve films, to put them out on home video and make some money back on them, which helps fund the preservation of even more films?

Well, as well as all the other reasons such as preserving a bit of film history.

 

[Jack Theakston]

The Home Video department and the film archive at Universal are two separate entities. The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing.

Economically, Universal is putting out a fairly steady flow of vintage titles on DVD, and many I'm sure lose money (which is later balanced out by your blockbuster hits). To ask them to simply put everything out haphazardly is, from a business perspective, irrational.

 

[Richard--W]

Some useful information, which if true answers some of my questions, from usenet group alt.movies.silent:

---------------------------

"What has been found is something that was never missing and it is NOT a fine-grain lavender from 1930, but rather from 1938, the first major reissue.

I have now spoken with a number of in-the-know people (not the third-and-fourth-hand stuff that's been posted) and the consensus is that we cannot say for certain whether the epilogue is present.

A lavender print is a lavender-shaded print that was used for duping in the 1930s. They were very fine-grained and made superior prints. The print is indeed a lavender, has never been projected, but has been printed a number of times. The original camera negative to Dracula apparently does not survive and was in need of help in 1938, which is why this lavender was made.

It is widely known that the 1938 prints of Dracula were not printed from the original camera negative and had a replaced main title. All but a very few 16mm prints that I've seen derive from this printing. Alas, Universal's DVD is from a poor dupe of this printing, which is why it's so dark. My 16mm of Dracula is substantially better than the DVD, and my print is not a particularly good one (don't ask... my print is from the 1938 reissue and has a replaced main title).

There are surviving 35mm prints from this era (1938) and they do NOT contain the epilogue. The surviving 16mms from the pre-1938 era are choppy, and there is only a fragmental piece of the epilogue that survives in this form. The 1951 reissue prints do not contain the epilogue either. I've seen some of both runs. I do not know of a release print from 1931 that survives in 35mm.

The real cause for jubilation would be an original 1931 lavender print made from the original negative, which I can state categorically that this is NOT.

I would suggest that we wait for the lab work to be done on this and we will all find out soon. The good news is that Universal is listening and has dug up the best surviving material on this title, which this print does appear to be.

Eric Grayson
January 18"
====================

I would like to see Universal rethink how to release DRACULA on DVD. The issue is the picture quality. Another release would interest consumers if it offers additional prints of the film in upgraded quality:

DISC 1 -- as issued
DISC 2 -- this 35mm lavender negative
DISC 3 -- the best 16mm print they can find with its brighter, sharper, more contrast image.

DISC 4 -- Spanish Dracula, as issued, with a new commentary.

This would offer an opportunity to repair a few minor sound problems, upgrade the soundtrack, and for additional commentaries and supplements, such as the continuity for the silent version.

If Blade Runner can be released in 5 different versions, why not 3 different prints of Dracula?

 

[Jack Theakston]

Because people still remember BLADE RUNNER (or at least have a desire to own such a thing), and there's also enough of a major difference between the versions to warrant a 5-disc set.

Frankly, this is apples and oranges. There's no way Universal is ever going to put out a four disc set of essentially the same film with slight variation in quality (particularly when they've issued it... what.. three, four times now?).

Honestly, I know the film pretty well. Unless this story is true (which I really tend to doubt at this point), what you see is what you get. The film has looked like garbage for decades (having seen a 1951 print, I can attest to that), and will continue to, unfortunately, unless better material shows up. A marginal quality difference would mean going back to the earliest element for transferring, rather than the preservation element that was used as the transfer material, but the problem then is one of handling a rare element and the disasters that may impose themselves on such a situation.

Universal should focus their efforts towards films that HAVEN'T been released yet, in my opinion, or at the very least, work on titles that can benefit from new masterings at this point (like THE INVISIBLE MAN, for example). I think the DRACULA well is dry, for now.