Phantom of the Opera: Ultimate Edition pre-book sheet! (1 Viewer)

[Bill Burns]

Patrick -- ah, my mistake. Thanks for the clarification.

Derek -- thanks! I wasn't aware of this edition. I ran across a couple of Navarre DVDs at a local store, and was about to look right past them when I noticed that not only were they Bela Lugosi films, but they were the only copies of these "poverty row" horror features authorized by Bela's estate and taken from original film elements (his son provides commentary on both, and there are other supplements as well). I haven't bought them yet, but they certainly looked intriguing. I'd never heard of Navarre before; that triple feature may be a good ticket. Thanks for the info.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Hi folks

I am absolutely stoked about Phantom coming out and all of the other titles you guys are mentioning.

Love the way this thread is going

 

[TimJS]

Bill:

A review of the Chess Player here .

Tim

 

[Bill Burns]

Thanks, Tim. It looks like a great disc.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Dear Bill,

[On the subject of the framerate for PHANTOM OF THE OPERA]
The print that Kevin Brownlow did his restoration from is from a 35mm print that was made for the George Eastman House in the 1950s by Universal. The negative that it was struck from is neither 1929 nor 1925, but really seems to be a hybrid of both. The intertitles have been replaced and some scenes are "B" rolls derived from foreign prints, so it's a real mess when it comes to frame rate. I don't know myself what Brownlow used, but my educated guess is that scenes that were reshot (some scenes on the roof, other Christine/Raoul scenes) will be run at 24fps, and the rest at an even 18 fps (I derive 18 from the 1925 cue sheet, which calls for a frame rate of 14 minutes per 1000 feet). Brownlow actually has written some fascinating details about what the general consensus at the time was as opposed to what actually was done. The Technicolor scene falls into the "1925" category, since it's from the 1925 release, however it's been restored by Brownlow (as well as a bit of footage which only survives b/w, but has been colorized).

I think it's an issue that will never quite satisfy most cinephiles out there, no matter what the outcome. As one fellow I know said, it is like asking "What is the correct religion for me to believe in?" There will always be a group that thinks one thing, and then another that thinks opposite. I personally don't have any regrets showing later films at 24 fps, which sometimes is actually too slow! METROPOLIS fell under a lot of criticism at the time Kino did it's release, and I've found that a projection rate of 27 fps was actually suggested at the time! BIRTH OF A NATION on the other hand, falls at something like 15 or 16 fps as I recall. In general, it seems the earlier silent films tend to have slower projection speeds then the later ones.

I do agree with you about Paul Killiam being largely responsible for the preservation of many films, but he himself only made PHANTOM the popular number it is today, mainly though "The Silent Years" PBS program he ran back in the 1970s. It really Jim Card who was responsible for the preservation of the 35mm print and without him, all we would have are 16mm prints.

The 16mm print, by the way, will be from an original Show-At-Home print, which is owned by Ray Faiola (whom I am convinced has the biggest 16mm collection around). I believe it's the most complete, and I'm guessing that they'll run it at the aforementioned 18 fps.

As Pat was wondering before, the whole restoration was done on a digital scale, so I'm guessing there will not be any PAL artifacts, and it will be a digital -> NTSC transfer.

As far as Navarre goes, if you'd like to have it just for having it, by all means, but don't expect anything grand out of it. The scores are cobbled together and the prints are all badly transferred from 16mm. Still, you do get a 3-for-1 deal.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Does any e-tailer have this up for preorder yet? Even DVD Planet, which Image owns, doesn't list it.

DJ

 

[Jack Theakston]

I believe amazon.com does.

 

[Jim Peavy]

I've just ordered the Navarre Devil Bat. I've heard it looks the best of the many public domain copies of this out there.

Actually, others online have told me the Roan (now Troma) disc of Bowery At Midnight is better than the Navarre one (though the Navarre is s'posed to be pretty good, too).

 

[Mark Zimmer]

According to David Shepard, the Technicolor sequence was restored by him and provided to Brownlow. I suppose Brownlow may have done further work on it, though.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Thanks, Jack, for clearing that stuff up.

According to David Shepard, the Technicolor sequence was restored by him and provided to Brownlow. I suppose Brownlow may have done further work on it, though.

Shepard and Brownlow actually provided a lot of stuff to each other for their restorations of Phantom.

Of course, Brownlow could afford stuff like colorization and digital work since he usually gets British TV funding. (I wonder what reaction would CBS or AMC execs get if someone wanted to restore a silent with their money...)

 

[Bill Burns]

Jack --

The full speed range of recorded historical projections for Metropolis is 16-28 fps, which of course is very broad. There was a wonderful study of these recorded versions (largely premiere versions from one country to another, and then restoration premieres) made available on-line by a university a few years ago, but I can no longer find it. The only recorded use of the 16 fps rate was an advanced screening in Germany from either November or December of 1926. The 1927 premiere was said, I believe, to use the 28 fps rate, which as you can imagine must have been a very different experience for audiences.

There is therefore a great deal of flexibility for those engaging upon any "new" edition of the film. The restoration team in Germany behind the version presented by Kino on DVD (and which made its way to theatres there and in the States) was "coordinated and overseen" by Martin Koeber. He has stated that natural motion occurs in the film at around 20 fps, excepting those sequences intentionally undercranked. I've read these comments in multiple places, but here's one:

http://www.filmthreat.com/Interviews.asp?Id=392

And extensive exploration of the restoration process has been written up by Koeber himself, and can be found here:

http://www.goethe.de/an/syd/german_f...ges/CL_NTS.HTM

Click on each of the subject headings on that page for the individual sections of his full article. Note that while he assumes the premiere rate to be 24 fps, he explains in his footnotes what he also says in the interview: the score notes indicate 28 fps, and the actual rate is "unclear." The university link (I'm sorry this no longer seems to be up) mentioned the additional preview version from late '26 at 16 fps. These rates were arrived at by the comparison of known physical film lengths, in meters, and running times when the rates themselves were not recorded.

Kino's DVD presents the film at either 24 fps or 25 fps (probably the latter, as I've heard in one or two on-line reports that it seems to be a PAL conversion which has not been slowed for NTSC). This choice seems to relate to what's best for the score, rather than what's best for the picture, but there's no pleasing everyone. I haven't purchased their edition.

The last person I heard (or rather read) use the "what religion to believe in" comment was, I think, "Lon Chaney fan" Jon Mirsalis (who provides many fine piano scores for silents on disc*), but it makes the rounds. It's a good mantra for those asking if there's a "true" silent speed in the same way that there's a "true" sound speed: 24 fps. Most individual silent films only achieve natural motion within a two or three frame range (a sound film would look more or less natural, on casual inspection, at 23-25 fps, for instance), but that range is individual to the year the film was made, the country in which it was made, the production team that made it, and the nature of the material contained in the picture. "Correct" frame rates further expand to include the edicts of the studio that distributed the picture, and, of course, the whims of the theatres that exhibited it. Because this quagmire is almost impossible to navigate meaningfully for the casual film fan on a film by film basis (you could do a month's worth of research to enjoy a two hour film experience; the laws of diminishing returns eventually prevail), I use one litmus test: do scenes clearly intended -- by their subject matter and the overall style of the picture -- to play out in real time appear to play out in real time, or do they seem unnaturally slow or fast? It's a rule of thumb that has lead me to praise a great many silent releases on DVD, and criticize a few (while Slapstick Encyclopedia is a fantastic release, for instance, I find the rate of Teddy at the Throttle, despite its title and chase material, too fast by a small but notable rate, perhaps two frames -- the chase material was undercranked to begin with, and would play plenty fast two frames slower, but scenes of more mild action, such as folks bumping into one another -- or Gloria beating her fists on a door -- would play more pleasingly, and the quiet moments of this short film would be just about perfect; it's a mild criticism, but one I nevertheless make). As an adjunct to that rule, I generally find that when a range of speeds is indicated first by filmmaker preference and second by historical exhibition (as per Metropolis above), where a range of some sort almost always crops up, a median often proves best, rather than a return to either extreme of the range; this would indicate a 22 fps rate for Metropolis, for whatever that's worth, but I'm quite sure Koeber's right and 20 fps looks most natural.

As to Phantom, again, it was Dennis Doros who said that Kevin Brownlow "likes" to use multiple frame rates -- I doubt sections taken from 1925 will play at 18 and sections from '29 at 24 uniformly, as this would give the film a very jumpy quality. Doros suggested that scenes which benefit, in their content, from a longer running time will enjoy slower speeds, and scenes (such as chases, and I imagine the mob hunt at the end of the film) which benefit from speed will be transfered faster. I doubt a range of six frames (18-24) will be seen very often, if at all, though -- it would just be too jumpy, too strange to the eye, to see the same people moving slowly and then quickly to such a degree from one scene to the next, or one section of film to the next. We'll know when the disc is released, but I'd expect a frame rate in the 18-21 or 22 range altogether. It should be noted that Shepard's Image edition of the 1929 reissue was slowed in its entirety to 20 fps ...

Back Cover Scan of The Phantom of the Opera at DVDEmpire, where those with magnifying glasses or large monitors may note this information

... and while some have complained that a few segments are just too slow (I'd say 22 fps would fix these sections, but some will argue for 24 fps), overall I find that 20 fps speed for the 1929 reissue very pleasing. A/B comparisons with the new Milestone release should prove fascinating.

Damin: here's DVDPlanet's link ...

The Phantom of the Opera -- Milestone

... and DVDEmpire's link ...

The Phantom of the Opera -- Milestone

... and Amazon's link ...

The Phantom of the Opera -- Milestone

The choice is yours! But the woman is mine, bwah ha ha ha ... oh, cough -- sorry.

* He provides another for the 1925 Phantom on Milestone's upcoming release.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Dear Bill,

I don't doubt that they will be run at multiple framerates!

Metropolis was an interesting case, since a lot of the original paperwork doesn't really survive anymore (Huppertz's score is nice, but incorrect in a lot of its speeds. Almost as if whoever commissioned him to write the score (usual for a silent film indeed) had to do it quick, so they ran the film very fast for him to watch and take notes on.

The framerate issue is quite tedious, but as you say, up to whatever the editor finds aesthetically pleasing. On PHANTOM, I just bring up the fact that Universal's "suggested" running speed for the original film was 18 fps. Personally, that's what I run it at because when I do, I use the original cue sheets as a basis for my musical setting, but others may like it a little faster (scenes like Snitz Edwards jumping around run at a much better effect at 22-24 fps).

Shepard's DVD release (the best one IMHO at this point), is really a cleaned up version of the second LD print of the film, since the first one they ran at a way too fast 24 fps so that they could fit Gaylord Carter's masterful score for the film in it. I also agree that 20 fps looks good for the "1929" print.

What I found quite funny is that a lot of the "Movie Memories" one-reelers from the 1930s-50s *had* to run their films at 24 to fit the annoying voiceovers onto it, not only compromising any "normal" speed to the film, but coincidentally giving it a comedic pace which to run it with.

Oh well, I suppose we'll just have to leave it to the masters to figure it out!

 

[Bill Burns]

Jack wrote:

... since the first one they ran at a way too fast 24 fps so that they could fit Gaylord Carter's masterful score for the film in it.

In some cases (perhaps in most), I'd advocate issuing a great score on an included CD and stopping any trend of issuing films too fast to accommodate that score. I believe we're seeing more and more of a return to a "the picture is the thing" philosophy on DVD over what was seen on laser or (certainly) VHS. Most of my silent experience has been in the last ten years or so, which thankfully has spared me a few of the painfully fast early home video releases and the television series' of yesteryear (which nevertheless served a great purpose in bringing the silents in at least some form to an audience unfamiliar with them). But you still run into speed problems here and there (Killiam discs seem a common culprit), and I believe you're right on target in a search for cause: the history of these pictures on television "revivals" and scores, often great scores, created for them at improper speeds (this might be due to that same television "repurposing" of the product or theatrical revivals that wished to exhibit the films on standard projectors, now married to soundtracks ... or indeed, as you suggest, Jack, it may simply be that the film was mistakenly run at too fast a speed for the composer by a producer or revivalist who didn't know any better) make the temptation to speed up transfers that seem able to "bear it," rather than placing the picture itself first and perhaps doing away with much loved accompanying material (a great sound era score), too great to resist for home video producers.

The other option is to present the film at an ideal rate with a new musical score, and at a faster rate with its "beloved classic" score, but to present the film twice in one release might be prohibitively expensive (particularly if it requires the use of two discs). I'll always be in the "put the picture first" camp, but there remain those who, knowing (for instance) a Gaylord Carter score to exist, would consider any release incomplete without it. I can easily see home video producers cursing and taking the easy route. But really, if one loves the music, buy the music (or perhaps enjoy it on an included CD), and leave the picture to play out in a fashion best in accord with the intent of its makers.

Such is my hope for all releases, at any rate. Again, I'd say that the DVD format is helping an exceptional number of silent films find truly definitive home video presentations, and that deserves a very big . Milestone's Phantom will undoubtedly prove another. I've never seen the '25 version, so I'm very much looking forward to it at 18 fps. Thanks for the info, Jack. It sounds from your post as if you're a silent film projectionist or accompanyist? If so, keep up the good work -- great art is always worthy of rediscovery, and revival houses make the silents modern once again, a "new" release into which patrons who've never before seen a silent may wander and find themselves enthralled. That's magic in a bottle.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Having seen the Metropolis restoration in its limited theatrical run at 20 fps, I'm firmly convinced that this is the right speed. At that rate it plays out majestically but not tediously, and even then several segments are undercranked (and these instances make sense: one is when Freder is just hanging around in the gardens being dull, and another is the flood sequence near the end to increase the excitement). The old Eureka R2 disc that plays at about 14 fps is excruciatingly slow and clearly wrong, while 24 or 25 fps is just comic and ludicrous. I'd agree that the DVDs running at 25 is just an expediency to save money: the German licensors had gone to the not inconsiderable expense of recording the Huppertz score with an orchestra and felt they had to use it....and put the best face on it that they could by the ridiculous claim that it's supposed to be even faster than that. I've gotten into this issue with the folks at alt.movies.silent repeatedly, but I remain unconvinced that Lang really intended this to be a slapstick comedy.

To get back on topic, I don't think Phantom is generally quite as sensitive to variances in the frame rates. I've seen a number of different versions (including sound speed) and none of them seemed to be as destructive to the mood as the fast rate on Metropolis.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Well, if it means anything (which in this case it really doesn't), the cue sheet lists it at a speed of 27 fps. That's the American musical cue sheet (the american cut is a bastardized version), and it could be a general framerate.

Usually the projectionist would get a "cue sheet" as well, to judge what worked. Both he and the conductor would work together to find an adequate speed if they had the time, otherwise they would just play it out as the cue sheet said.

What I'm surpassed at is the fact that they actually listened to the Huppertz notes. It's incredibly stupid since there's a little known thing called "tempo" which works wonders with incidental music! However, they had nothing else to base it upon, so of course they chose the easy route and not the logical route of aesthetics.

Just to put my two cents in, I thought the Huppertz score was nice, but not great, and conducted a bit unsteadily. Kino rather blew the whole "official" score thing out of proportion considering the number of movies actually ever had full scores written for them can probably be counted on one hand. I much prefer some of the selections that were later suggested. There are some standard Photoplay pieces that fit the film quite nicely.

Anyway, I'm on the standard of agreeing with what the studio suggests when it works, and when it doesn't, using my best judgement to figure it out. I hope that video companies in the future decide to do the same.

And to answer Bill's question: I both project and score silent films

 

[Bill Burns]

Well, it's midnight now on the East Coast, which means it's Tuesday, which means ... one week until this phenomenal release is out there for the viewing pleasure of all. E-tailer links can be found in an earlier post for anyone who doesn't have their pre-orders in yet.

 

[Jack Theakston]

I'm all revved up myself.
Actually, one thing that I'm rather excited about is not the Vitaphone disks being synced up so much, but the Trailer for the 1929 release being newly synced up. I've never seen it before and early sound trailers are quite rare (and generally are a 5 minute condensation of the movie, so perhaps we'll get some new scenes in there).

UCLA still has a restoration going on of the 1925 version, which may be what Kino is releasing later this year.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I'm looking forward to this DVD more than just about any other new release. Are there any online reviews available?

 

[Bill Burns]

I haven't found any on-line reviews yet, but today is the day, silent fans -- the unmasking is upon us! Throw down your torches and pick up your remotes!

It may be a couple of weeks before I have my copy (that remains to be seen), but today, September 9th, the Phantom unfurls his clenched fist to reveal ....

 

[Eric Peterson]

Any chance that major B&Ms will be stocking this title?

I completely forgot to pre-order it even though I had it on my calendar.

Best Buy still lists the title as coming out on 8/12 and says not available in stores. I'll probably call Borders later today and see if they have it.