Commenters email addresses are never displayed. Please do not insert HTML code.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (without http://) and it will be active.
|
Although I would argue (as the LAM article writer seems to believe) that the Holy Grail for cineastes is the missing footage from GREED, I wouldn’t get too excited about this “discovery”. If it were genuine, film preservationists such as Kevin Brownlow and David Shepard would be all over it and there would be headlines as big as those for the METROPOLIS missing footage. It is more than likely another red herring along the lines of the “recently rediscovered” Murnau 4 DEVILS. I would love to be proven wrong but I don’t think I will be. Excellent point about the atmospherics in Browning’s films. He was truly a product of the silent era and a first rate visual stylist in the way his films were composed as opposed to how they were shot but, as you pointed out, the look of his films are probably too subtle for today’s viewers assuming they would have the patience for them in the first place. Browning always complained that the final release version of DRACULA was altered from his original concept with more emphasis placed on the stage play since that’s what Laemmle paid for. Years later he refused to watch it on TV calling it a travesty. Still there’s that marvelous first half and the demonic close-up of Lugosi’s face in the second half. I’ve always wondered if the staking off camera was added after the picture was wrapped because of censorship issues even though it’s a pre-Code film. |
Aug 03, 2008 |
|
Although I would argue (as the LAM article writer seems to believe) that the Holy Grail for cineastes is the missing footage from GREED It might be a little genre specific, but there’s one real difference in London After Midnight<i>‘s favor for me—I actually want to see it. I could be pretty content never seeing <i>Greed again in any form, but that’s just me. I wouldn’t get too excited about this “discovery”. If it were genuine, film preservationists such as Kevin Brownlow and David Shepard would be all over it and there would be headlines as big as those for the METROPOLIS missing footage. The catch here—assuming there is one—is that it’s only kinda found. Large parts of the guy’s story don’t make a lot of sense. The only thing that makes me a little hopeful is that I know the guy who backs up part of the story, and I don’t see him being in on a scam. I could, however, imagine him being wrong. I do, however, enjoy the user comments on Ain’t It Cool News. They so clearly represent horror film fandom as I know it (and it ain’t pretty). Browning always complained that the final release version of DRACULA was altered from his original concept with more emphasis placed on the stage play since that’s what Laemmle paid for. There’s so much contradictory evidence where Dracula is concerned that I long ago gave up trying to unravel it. I know that a lot of what happened to the film was in pre-production when Laemmle slashed the budget. That much is record. After that, speculation sets in—including a rumor that Browning was rarely on the set, but that surfaced very late in the day when David Manners was very old and has always sounded a little specious. You usually hear it repeated by folks who don’t like Browning, though it’s a little odd to find them damning him for making a “bad” movie, while simultaneously claiming he didn’t really direct it. Funny thing is that while the film does get stagier in its later portions, there’s really not a lot of the play in there. In some cases, it might have been better if there had been. |
Aug 04, 2008 |
|
This is good news. Hopefully the METROPOLIS footage will pan out as well. Maybe a Welles cut of MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS? |
Aug 06, 2008 at |
|
This is good news. Hopefully the METROPOLIS footage will pan out as well. Maybe a Welles cut of MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS? I think the Metropolis footage is definite. This is much more iffy—to the point of fairly improbable. It’ll be interesting to see what the Metropolis footage does to the film. This may be one of those cases where a longer version actually seems shorter, simply because it makes sense. Ever watch the beat-up 1925 version of Phantom of the Opera that comes with the restored 1929 cut? The battered complete version still mayn’t be a very good movie (director Rupert Julian saw to that), but it moves better because the story’s coherent. |
Aug 06, 2008 |