Tillies Punctured Romance DVD Question

Hey all,

I finally got around to watching this all the way through. The quality was very nice for the most part. However, I noticed a few scenes were missing from the DVD that are actually on a crappy old VHS copy I have (Goodtimes Video circa 1985). Particularly a scene where Charlie and Tillie are sitting on a fence, as well as the scene where Charlie offers to take Tillie away to the city. There are also a couple spots on the DVD where scenes are repeated, most notably the scene right before the bit where Chaplin hides inside a vase.

Is there a more complete version of this film available currently?

Hmm. How about two minutes missing from the film that's in common circulation in 16mm?

Clearly the 35mm edit you spoke of (Blackhawk's old source print) was the same source print on both the laser and DVD. Some material WAS upgraded from the laser, though - most specifically the theater sequence. I was very happy to see that.

I'm glad. I would just like to see the people who are making money putting out this product do as good a job as I would do. I presume David Shepard was aware of the repeated sequences on the laser for both Tillie and Orphans, because I complained about them myself years ago - and I was disappointed to see these flaws retained on the DVDs.

I am, however, genuinely glad the poor editing on 'Tillie' doesn't bother you.

For those of you who haven't seen the fence scene, here's a still from it:
http://www.concentric.net/~Dsulpy/fence.gif

And, while I'm at is, here's some data on the scene which is still kicking around my hard drive from a couple of years ago. The descriptions for laserdisc (LD) match the currently available DVD.

Without access to what must be your own relatively vast body of publicly available restoration work, it's tough to know that they haven't already far surpassed your efforts. Talk's cheap.

Common circulation? I don't think so. And the quality is awful (witness the frame blow up at your site). As David Shepard wrote back in 1999: ***** The version I prepared for Kino/Image in 1992 includes several dozen little bits missing from the excellent Blackhawk negative which was my base. The DVD version soon to be released upgrades this previous video version with much improved picture quality on many of those bits. However, it is still missing the prologue in which Marie Dressler enters theater-style from behind a curtain and bows before the action starts.

IMO it is generally quite a good print. *****

The only 'poor editing' originates from the film itself. Shepard did a splendid job of integrating the replacement footage with the original 35 mm print.

Richard Carnahan

I guess, if we follow your reasoning then, we cannot criticise Chaplin's work at all, until we have each made and edited our own comedies

The fact is if I, a poor simple fellow out of New Jersey, can compile a version of 'Tillie' which is more complete and better edited than Image's DVD - it doesn't speak of any exceptional talent on my part, but a lack of talent on theirs.

I was talking about the 16mm. You're right - the Good Times tape could never have been used as a source - it's atrocious. My copy barely played, and the heads were cut off.

Nowhere does he say that he upgraded the source, either. In fact, I very much doubt they would have gone back to Blackhawk's original 35mm source. In fact - if it even still exists - I bet that would look *worse* than Blackhawk's negative because of 25 or more years of nitrate disintegration. Besides, don't forget that 'Tillie' is only reputed to have sold a couple of hundred copies on laserdisc - and I can't see FPA going to the expense of going back to the nitrate for another transfer. Perhaps what you're seeing is a better transfer from their master video, or perhaps just the difference in quality between DVD and laserdisc.

Okay, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, then. The supplementary material looks obviously better, but personally I don't see any difference in the 35mm material.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.