Well, if a negative has turned up in a vault, that's great! No one else has heard of this, so perhaps you could enlighten us? Until your message, Al's print was the only one known to have survived. The other was in the collection of Charlie Tarbox in Los Angeles, which was apparently destroyed by a fire in the 1970s. Perhaps you could tell us who has the negative. It would make for an interesting piece of information, and I'd like to interview the owner for an update to the story I did on Al and the film five years ago.
You are wrong about his putting a piece of nitrate in his pipe. He Apparently did it ONCE in order to make a point with someone re: how once the film had oxydized it was not explosively flammable. The incident was reported in an obscure comment that was available on the web. Mr. (or Ms. -- there apparently are two) Carey blew that way out of proportion in his/her comment here and implied that Al made a habit of taking RARE nitrate off of a reel of film and then put it in his pipe. The piece of film he used for the demonstration was from a reel that had already deteriorated.
No one ever claimed that Al was perfect. he wasn't. Did he think that his print was worth much more than it was? Absolutely! Was he eccentric? Yes.
I love the way folks like you like to say that if YOU owned the film, that you would've done all the things that you claim. Perhaps you would've, but we don't know that. Al sumbled upon a one-of-a-kind item and thought (mistakenly) that he had an original piece of rare art in his possession. Well, people value original art more than they do an original movie print. There's a simple way for you to release the film the way you'd like to: make the family an offer for the print and spend your own money to make it happen the way that Al did. Then we can all hail you as a hero and true altruist.
As for your comments re: my being from Wisconsin, or your other comments, I think they speak for themselves and go to your credibility.
reply
share