First National sources

Well, I received a battered 16mm print (missing the first few minutes) of 'Shoulder Arms' today, and so I'm able to answer my own question of a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Shepard was absolutely right. EVERY shot in this film is different - and superior - to the ones used in the Image laserdisc / DVD (which come from the 1940's 'restoration'. What we're seeing there *is*, indeed, a 3 reel film reconstructed from alternate or second best takes. It's a completely bizarre - but fascinating - experience to compare the two. On the DVD you can see where, in each shot, Chaplin *almost* got things right - but in the real film he DID.

I believe someone mentioned that this original version of 'Shoulder Arms' was available on videotape somewhere - would anyone have a source for that?

And, of course, I'll ask again - if anyone has seen any of the other original First Nationals - were they ALSO modified to this extent? It's almost unthinkable to me that the rescue scene in 'The Kid,' for example, could be the 'second best' take, and I had a dupe of 'The Idle Class' at one time, but didn't notice any difference except one shot in the 16mm that wasn't in the other film - certainly nothing to the extent of 'Shoulder Arms.'

And I'll say again, it's an aesthetic CRIME to do this to Charlie's films, and even worse to pass this off as the real film. What's on the DVD is NOT 'Shoulder Arms' - it's a simulation of it constructed out of sub-standard material.

This abhorrent act is compounded by the Chaplin Estate's moronic declaration that they fully intend to stick to the 'replicant' films because 'that's the way Charlie wanted it.' Well, seeing as that he was cogent enough to realize that he could improve the 'second best' takes in the first place, I do not believe for a SECOND that he would have approved of his films being altered this way - no matter how much the visual quality of the film might be improved due to damage to the original.

David, I wish you'd return and weigh in on this.

I meant Totheroh, that is - not Shepard... not that I'd mind David Shepard weighing in EITHER... oh... never mind...

Doug, the openminded attitude expressed above makes the invite mighty appealing. Can I bring my sock puppet?

P.S. (Thank you, Chris)

Excuse me - but where exactly does open-minded come into play when faced with this kind of desecration of Chaplin's work?

Or perhaps I simply touched a nerve because your Grandfather seems to be the imbecile responsible for mutilating Charlie's films in the first place.

And, no, please leave your sock puppet at home. One post per lifetime is enough from her.

I'd like to learn more about this. Please don't let this subject turn into another pie fight.

Is the following statement, by Doug Sulpy, true? What do the knowledgeable people on this list say?

Well, I received a battered 16mm print (missing the first few minutes) : >> of 'Shoulder Arms' today, and so I'm able to answer my own question of : >> a couple of weeks ago. : >> : >> Mr. Shepard was absolutely right. EVERY shot in this film is different : >> - and superior - to the ones used in the Image laserdisc / DVD (which : >> come from the 1940's 'restoration'. What we're seeing there *is*, : >> indeed, a 3 reel film reconstructed from alternate or second best : >> takes. It's a completely bizarre - but fascinating - experience to : >> compare the two. On the DVD you can see where, in each shot, Chaplin : >> *almost* got things right - but in the real film he DID.

Hakan

: >> And, of course, I'll ask again - if anyone has seen any of the other : >> original First Nationals - were they ALSO modified to this extent? : >> It's almost unthinkable to me that the rescue scene in 'The Kid,' for : >> example, could be the 'second best' take, and I had a dupe of 'The : >> Idle Class' at one time, but didn't notice any difference except one : >> shot in the 16mm that wasn't in the other film - certainly nothing to : >> the extent of 'Shoulder Arms.' : >> : >> And I'll say again, it's an aesthetic CRIME to do this to Charlie's : >> films, and even worse to pass this off as the real film. What's on the : >> DVD is NOT 'Shoulder Arms' - it's a simulation of it constructed out : >> of sub-standard material. : >> : >> This abhorrent act is compounded by the Chaplin Estate's moronic : >> declaration that they fully intend to stick to the 'replicant' films : >> because 'that's the way Charlie wanted it.' Well, seeing as that he : >> was cogent enough to realize that he could improve the 'second best' : >> takes in the first place, I do not believe for a SECOND that he would : >> have approved of his films being altered this way - no matter how much : >> the visual quality of the film might be improved due to damage to the : >> original. : >> : >> David, I wish you'd return and weigh in on this. : > : >Doug, the openminded attitude expressed above makes the invite mighty : >appealing. Can I bring my sock puppet? : > : > : >P.S. (Thank you, Chris) : : Excuse me - but where exactly does open-minded come into play when : faced with this kind of desecration of Chaplin's work? : : Or perhaps I simply touched a nerve because your Grandfather seems to : be the imbecile responsible for mutilating Charlie's films in the : first place. : : And, no, please leave your sock puppet at home. One post per lifetime : is enough from her. : : Doug : : :

I have heard this before concerning an old original print of The Kid. I may be mistaken, but I think that post was by David Shepherd.

<snip>

You are the only one talking about 'desecration'. Chaplin's high artistic reputation today stems from his films as they *are* at present on home video and in 16 and 35mm rental prints

Nonsense. Chaplin's high artistic reputation stems from the original, brilliant films he issued and the mass popularity he achieved 70 years ago.

Let me put it this way, so perhaps you can understand.

(A friend of mine e-mailed me this comparison, it's not mine - but it'll do.)

Let's say Capitol records thought the master tapes for The Beatles singles were getting too worn, and decided that forevermore they would only issue the second best takes of all the songs, because the tapes were in better shape.

Same thing.

Desecration.

Please reread what I wrote. CC's reinvigorated reputation *today* stem from the films *today*. But of course we're *not* seeing the second best takes of all CC's films. Only damaged parts of the negatives were replaced. It's the same thing CC did when he reissued THE GOLD RUSH in 1942.

Richard Carnahan

I'm not sure Chaplin HAS a reinvigorated reputation today - but this is a subject for another thread.

I never said that we're seeing the second best takes in *all* of CC's films. In the case of 'Shoulder Arms,' however, we *are*. This seems acceptable to you, and I'm simply trying to understand why.

And what *I* wanna know is when are you gonna make some copies of your print and share the wealth?

Pretty please?

CC41689

'I like to drink and I like to f**k.'