Original prints of THE CIRCUS

Feuillade · External Since: Jun 04, 2007 Posts: 18

On Jul 27, 5:45 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:56 pm, Feuillade <Feuill....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 6:01 pm, Candace <ulys....RemoveThis@mscomm.com> wrote:> I'm sorry I wasn't around 10 years ago on this group and was unaware
> > > that this subject has been beaten to death in the past.
>
> > That's okay. Al the posts are there. It's not hard for anyone to
> > catch up, if they really wanted to.
>
> > > I agree with George on this one. The live music enhances the film to a
> > > tremendous degree. I understand the reservations some may have about
> > > The Gold Rush, in particular and I share those feelings. But come on,
> > > does anyone really want to see The Kid with some canned organ music
> > > instead of Charlie's later score? The music makes the film all the
> > > greater! I would resent it if some Bozo from Tin Pan Alley wrote the
> > > music for the Kid or The Adventurer, but CC himself wrote it.
>
> > > I see nothing negative with City Lights since the orchestra is playing
> > > the exact score as is presented in the original movie, right down to
> > > the kazoo "voice" effects. I can't believe some purist would prefer to
> > > sit through City Lights without the live orchestra, since they're
> > > simply playing the exact music from the soundtrack, only a million
> > > times better.
>
> > How about watching it colorized? That would be the original film,
> > only in color.
>
> > Would that make it "a million times better"?
>
> If the 'colorizers' worked to match the pallette Chaplin (and crew)
> intended to present as closely as those who perform the original score
> do, then maybe not a million times better, but better nonetheless.
>
No, David. I don't think you even believe that.
>
> Do you think it is inappropriate for film restoration efforts to
> utilize contrast or grey scale adjustment technologies in their B&W
> work? Is it inappropriate to mechanically adjust/enhance optical
> tracks in sound film restorations?
>
These are complicated questions, but I'll make it simple.

There are lines you don't cross.

And I would assert that most people know (or at least should know)
where those lines are.

If it's possible to bring down the hiss on a 1931 soundtrack to hear
the score better, you do it. Carefully, but you do it.

You do not replace the track with a live accompaniment -- no matter
how faithful the musicians are or try to be to Chaplin's intentions.

Tom Moran

constance.kuriyama · External Since: Jun 01, 2007 Posts: 17

On Jul 26, 5:01 pm, Candace <ulys....DeleteThis@mscomm.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry I wasn't around 10 years ago on this group and was unaware
> that this subject has been beaten to death in the past.
>
> I agree with George on this one. The live music enhances the film to a
> tremendous degree. I understand the reservations some may have about
> The Gold Rush, in particular and I share those feelings. But come on,
> does anyone really want to see The Kid with some canned organ music
> instead of Charlie's later score? The music makes the film all the
> greater! I would resent it if some Bozo from Tin Pan Alley wrote the
> music for the Kid or The Adventurer, but CC himself wrote it.
>
> I see nothing negative with City Lights since the orchestra is playing
> the exact score as is presented in the original movie, right down to
> the kazoo "voice" effects.

I believe the sound effects are left on the prints of the films used
for
live music screenings. As for _Modern Times_, no one can replicate
Chapiin's singing, so the part filmed sound-on must be left intact, or
so I assume.

In the screening of the '25 _Gold Rush_ with Chaplin's '42 score
adapted
and played live, there were of course no sound effects on the print,
and
percussion missed a cue or two in supplying the sound effects.

If you get slightly out of sync with the music you can fake it and
readjust, but that won't work with FXS.

Connie K.

> I can't believe some purist would prefer to
> sit through City Lights without the live orchestra, since they're
> simply playing the exact music from the soundtrack, only a million
> times better.

z

bachusio · External Since: May 31, 2007 Posts: 6

On Jul 26, 5:01 pm, Candace <ulys....TakeThisOut@mscomm.com> wrote
> I agree with George on this one. The live music enhances the film to a
> tremendous degree.
> I see nothing negative with City Lights since the orchestra is playing
> the exact score as is presented in the original movie, right down to
> the kazoo "voice" effects.

Chaplin made the 'kazoo voice effects' himself, and it's an integral
part
of the comedy.

Does the anonymous kazoo player of the orchestra have
the comic genius of Chaplin? Is he/she able to replicate the timing
and
the shift as the kazoo voice shifts from the the male dignitary to the
female?

And the 'whistle' sequence, completely dependent on sound - does the
orchestra tackle that with Chaplin's skill for timing?

City Lights and Modern Times are, as Tom pointed out, sound films.

In the latter, what does the orchestra do during the vocal
exhortations of the
factory boss, or the lengthy sound explanation of the feeding machine?

What about the stomach gurgling sequence, so completely dependent on
sound?
Not to mention the more obvious example of the gibberish song?

Again, these were envisioned and created as sound films - pieces in
which
the original soundtrack is indeed integral to the artists' intention.

If re-creating sound films as silent ones is so important to people, I
might
be open to the idea of a 'silent' A King in New York.

David Totheroh · External Since: Jun 03, 2007 Posts: 44

On Jul 28, 5:40 pm, bachu....TakeThisOut@rogers.com wrote:
> On Jul 26, 5:01 pm, Candace <ulys....TakeThisOut@mscomm.com> wrote
>
> > I agree with George on this one. The live music enhances the film to a
> > tremendous degree.
> > I see nothing negative with City Lights since the orchestra is playing
> > the exact score as is presented in the original movie, right down to
> > the kazoo "voice" effects.
>
> Chaplin made the 'kazoo voice effects' himself, and it's an integral
> part
> of the comedy.
>
> Does the anonymous kazoo player of the orchestra have
> the comic genius of Chaplin? Is he/she able to replicate the timing
> and
> the shift as the kazoo voice shifts from the the male dignitary to the
> female?
>
> And the 'whistle' sequence, completely dependent on sound - does the
> orchestra tackle that with Chaplin's skill for timing?
>
> City Lights and Modern Times are, as Tom pointed out, sound films.
>
> In the latter, what does the orchestra do during the vocal
> exhortations of the
> factory boss, or the lengthy sound explanation of the feeding machine?
>
> What about the stomach gurgling sequence, so completely dependent on
> sound?
> Not to mention the more obvious example of the gibberish song?
>
> Again, these were envisioned and created as sound films - pieces in
> which
> the original soundtrack is indeed integral to the artists' intention.
>
> If re-creating sound films as silent ones is so important to people, I
> might
> be open to the idea of a 'silent' A King in New York.

I'm not altogether sure that it is true that Chaplin performed the
"kazoo" parts of CL himself. I've heard that story as well, but I'm
not sure of its source. I do remember Grandpop describing that it was
actually done not with a kazoo, but with a sax mouthpiece. I don't
remember him saying anything about Chaplin himself performing it for
the recording session. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it would
surprise me that if it DID happen that way, Grandpop wouldn't have
mentioned it.

For the live accompaniment presentations of both CL and MT, the estate
has produced prints (which are visually great) that include the FX
which were electronically isolated and extracted from the original
optical tracks then married back on to those special prints.

Certainly for the gibberish song in MT (and perhaps other segments in
both films which I can't recall off hand) the original track is played
with the live orchestra mute.

David Totheroh · External Since: Jun 03, 2007 Posts: 44

On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Feuillade <Feuill....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 5:45 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 1:56 pm, Feuillade <Feuill....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 26, 6:01 pm, Candace <ulys....TakeThisOut@mscomm.com> wrote:> I'm sorry I wasn't around 10 years ago on this group and was unaware
> > > > that this subject has been beaten to death in the past.
>
> > > That's okay. Al the posts are there. It's not hard for anyone to
> > > catch up, if they really wanted to.
>
> > > > I agree with George on this one. The live music enhances the film to a
> > > > tremendous degree. I understand the reservations some may have about
> > > > The Gold Rush, in particular and I share those feelings. But come on,
> > > > does anyone really want to see The Kid with some canned organ music
> > > > instead of Charlie's later score? The music makes the film all the
> > > > greater! I would resent it if some Bozo from Tin Pan Alley wrote the
> > > > music for the Kid or The Adventurer, but CC himself wrote it.
>
> > > > I see nothing negative with City Lights since the orchestra is playing
> > > > the exact score as is presented in the original movie, right down to
> > > > the kazoo "voice" effects. I can't believe some purist would prefer to
> > > > sit through City Lights without the live orchestra, since they're
> > > > simply playing the exact music from the soundtrack, only a million
> > > > times better.
>
> > > How about watching it colorized? That would be the original film,
> > > only in color.
>
> > > Would that make it "a million times better"?
>
> > If the 'colorizers' worked to match the pallette Chaplin (and crew)
> > intended to present as closely as those who perform the original score
> > do, then maybe not a million times better, but better nonetheless.
>
> No, David. I don't think you even believe that.

Actually Tom, I DO believe that. You may notice that I put the word
'colorizers' in single quotes. If a film restorer works to enhance
surviving materials to match the greyscale pallette that Chaplin (and
crew) intended for original presentations as closely as possible, I'm
all for it, no matter what (non-destructive) techniques are utilized
to accomplish that goal.

>
> > Do you think it is inappropriate for film restoration efforts to
> > utilize contrast or grey scale adjustment technologies in their B&W
> > work? Is it inappropriate to mechanically adjust/enhance optical
> > tracks in sound film restorations?
>
> These are complicated questions, but I'll make it simple.
>
> There are lines you don't cross.
>
> And I would assert that most people know (or at least should know)
> where those lines are.
>
> If it's possible to bring down the hiss on a 1931 soundtrack to hear
> the score better, you do it. Carefully, but you do it.

Yep, the lines, and where they are placed, are analog, not digital. If
it's possible to "bring down the hiss" AND enhance the fidelity by
electronically analyzing the frequency response limits of a 1931
optical track and compensate for that limitation in a rerecording, I
say go for it. Carefully, but you go for it.

And for special presentations, that do nothing to destroy the original
film artifact, you go for enhancing the emotional impact of the
original score by performing it live.

>
> You do not replace the track with a live accompaniment -- no matter
> how faithful the musicians are or try to be to Chaplin's intentions.

You're right. But it's not a replacement, it's a special performance.

Derek Gee · External Since: Apr 02, 2007 Posts: 16

David Totheroh wrote:
> But *which* original track? It has recently come to my attention that
> a set of disks *does* exists for City Lights. However the owner, who
> has contacted me directly, is unwilling to play them for fear of
> damaging them. He has heard that there is a laser process that could
> 'read' them, but has no access to that resourse. (So much for
> "rhetorical" and "hypothetical.")

The owner should definitely not try to play these without the correct
playback equipment. Perhaps someone at the Vitaphone Project could help
identify what equipment to use for playback. Laser turntable processes
exist, but they are expensive and from what I have read don't work
terribly well. Playback with the correct type of stylus would generally
sound better and not cause any additional damage. Here's some info for
the curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_turntable

Derek

Candace · External Since: Jul 03, 2007 Posts: 10

I've not yet seen Modern Times with a live orchestra, but I have
received emails from people who have. They say that during the Titine
gibberish scene, the orchestra stands down and allows the original
music and CC's voice to be heard.

I have seen City Lights live. The sound effects are left intact except
(I have to confess) the kazoo scene. I believe they left the original
kazoo sound and a person in the orchestra stood up and added a kazoo
as an "enhancement." I hadn't actually considered whether the kazoo
player was a comedic genius like Charlie, this is a perspective new to
me (and one I'm not criticizing the notion).

But if you were in the audience and know every nuance of the kazoo,
it's indistinguishable from watching or hearing or the kazoo at home
on your DVD. The live kazoo is not intrusive. The stomach gurgling
scene the orchestra stands down. Similarly, in The Circus, when C
sings Swing Little Girl over the credits, the orchestra remains
silent.

Now that Tom has explained in some detail his opposition to live
screenings, I do understand the philosophy behind it. For an absolute,
dyed-in-the-wool Chaplin purist I respect their opinion and see some
merit in it. I went through the archives and read many similar posts
on this topic which made for some lively reading.

Nothing will change my mind that seeing these films with a live
orchestra is the apex of Chaplin experiences. I've seen The Kid on a
live screen with a silent film organist playing ragtime and other
period pieces and it made a sublime film scarcely watchable. I've seen
The Kid with the original music and it was magnificent.

I