I keep hearing about a rediscovered Technicolor print of this film which was found in a Czech film archive -- not altogether surprising, considering the Technicolor inserts from the 1925 Ben-Hur were also sourced from the Czech Republic -- but I can't seem to find hide nor hair of evidence as to when this rediscovered version might be released to the wider public, either online or on DVD.
Can anybody help me, with this? I'd really appreciate it.
It was run at an Italian festival this past October. If you mean wider than that, i.e. being broadcast on TCM or available for purchase in the Warner Archive, never say never. However, the UCLA has long held roughly 10 minutes of two-color Technicolor footage from Reels 1 and 2 - namely the major goat-glanded talkie scene that occurs from the 4 minute mark to the 14 minute mark - and nothing whatsoever was ever done with that. Although it was from the international sound version and thus has foreign intertitles cut into portions of the picture where the dialogue would normally occur, Warner Bros. has used such elements to do partial color reconstructions of other pictures ('Mammy' and 'Sally' to name two). Your guess is as good as mine why they did not do the same with 'The Mysterious Island'... but of course there is only so much funding to go around. Regardless of whether it is ever made available outside of the festival circuit or not, I am naturally very happy that a complete color print was rediscovered.
Also note that only a reported four-fifths of this picture was originally in Technicolor. Several segments - I believe the underwater and special effects sequences, though someone can correct me if I'm wrong - were filmed in black and white and tinted.
Interesting... sorry for the delay, but thank you for the info. I always thought the whole picture was done in Technicolor, though, and that was why it was so noteworthy?
Also... do we have any concrete evidence as to what Maurice Tourneur and Benjamin Christensen shot on the film as it now stands? I am rather curious, considering the high reputation each man has...
MGM advertised it as all Technicolor though it was not. I looked up the old Variety review from when it opened in NY in December of 1929 and they confirmed the underwater sequences were B&W. The headline also joked "90% color, 5% dialog." Looking at the Technicolor lab footage lengths, 81 minutes were Technicolor out of 94, or about 86% of the film. MGM only ever released two features that were entirely two-color Technicolor and only one of those they produced themselves. The first was "The Viking" (1928) which they merely distributed. The second was the still- predominantly-lost Lionel Barrymore directorial effort, "The Rogue Song" (1930).
When the news was reported of the print turning up, I had my doubts as to what was even found, for the article was so poorly-written it made it sound as if "The Mysterious Island" was a lost film. There was also the case of alternate versions. It could have been the all-silent version. It could have had foreign intertitles. It could have gotten assembled with alternate take "B" negative footage, as foreign export versions commonly were in those days. I had no idea what was found and whether it even matched up to the B&W part-talkie cut that was preserved for television. Because if it wasn't, it would have complicated a restoration. But from what I understand, it's the real deal. I'm sorry I can't answer your second question.
No problem. You've given me more information than I ever expected. Thank you!
shareThis is just a guess, but I'd be surprised if this film weren't eventually released on DVD and Blu-ray. Much like the recent discovery of the original color (hand-painted) version of Georges Méliès's 1902 silent, A Trip to the Moon, it doesn't seem like the sort of film discovery they'd keep under wraps and show only at festivals.
When I first heard about the original color print turning up in 2013 I thought it might be several years before the film received a public showing, due to the expected restoration process. The fact that it was shown in October 2014 is encouraging and I would imagine this would presage a DVD release. But obviously no one can say. In fact, I came back on this board to see if anyone had any information on that possibility!
The reason the ten-minute fragment preserved by UCLA has never been used is that, in my understanding, it's in very delicate condition, and placing a brief color insert into an otherwise b&w print was not worth the time and expense -- or the risk to the reel. It would have had little meaning in the way of "restoration". Besides, this film has never had a legitimate DVD release even in b&w. In any case, this is now a moot point.
Anyway, here's hoping.
I'm sure a very gentle digital scan would be able to read the fragment and keep it preserved for future generations -- especially if it might be an alternate take used for the foreign releases.
shareWell, the UCLA fragment is being preserved, and yes, I'm sure it could be copied if handled delicately.
But its only real use would probably have been as an extra on a DVD, rather than inserting a 10-minute color segment into an otherwise black & white print. Keeping the two separate would seem a surer way of preserving both and esthetically the better, more consistent option.
But again, this now seems to be a moot point as the entire color film has been recovered, and it's obviously safe to copy it. Unfortunately last I checked there was still no word on when the color version would reach home video. I'd expect that the copy found in Prague has Czech intertitles, which since we have the film in English would be no trouble to substitute exactly. But I also wonder how that print handled the sound portions, since dubbing and subtitles hadn't been devised yet, or whether it even has those portions. Whatever the case, there would likely be more problems in making an English-language DVD than merely using the found print. But I wonder how they showed the print in Italy last year -- was it in Czech, English, did it have the sound portions or was it entirely silent, etc. So far I haven't learned any particulars about the film found in Prague, other than that it's in color and complete...but "complete" in what form I don't know.
I wonder if it looks as good as the Technicolor inserts of Ben-Hur similarly pulled from a Czech archive.
Although... was The Mysterious Island sound-on-film, or sound-on-disc?
Good point. I would expect so. The fact that there was a fairly short restoration period between its recovery and its public showing is encouraging in that regard.
I would be really surprised if the color version weren't released on DVD and Blu-ray sooner or later. I think the only question is when -- and that might well be a sticking point.
We'll have to see if TCM/Warners wants to do it -- they've run a black-and-white print before, so it might be something for them if they pick it up for distribution.
shareThe involvement of the George Eastman House may be a factor -- whether one that expedites a release, or complicates or holds one up, remains to be seen.
It was an archivist from GEH who was shown the print in Prague and her organization was supposed to be involved in restoration efforts. So that may affect the distribution question, assuming as we do that the film is owned by Warner (which now controls most of the MGM library) and hasn't fallen into public domain. The absence of the film from the marketplace would indicate that Warner does indeed own The Mysterious Island. But any corporate disputes over rights, restoration costs, marketing or ownership would likely delay a release.
I hope it's nothing too complicated, if distribution rights and restoration costs are indeed behind the delays. Considering it's been this long, it might be a similar situation to what's been going on with the Houdini film The Grim Game -- I keep waiting for it to pop up on TCM, but it hasn't yet.
shareIt only occurred to me tonight, but TCM began showing various color films yesterday as part of its salute to the 100th anniversary of the development of Technicolor. But there's no mention of TMI anywhere. Not that I really expected them to show the film, but it would have been an appropriate one to run given the circumstances. Of course, they didn't show the very first full-length three-strip Technicolor film, Becky Sharp (1935), either. So the absence of The Mysterious Island probably means nothing. They did run some two-strip Technicolor films early on, such as Doctor X (1932) and Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933).
shareI don't think they have the rights to Becky Sharp, though; otherwise, they'd be running the hell out of it. (And due to DVR problems, I had no idea they were doing a Technicolor marathon until long after they'd shown the films I would have wanted to see... )
shareBecky Sharp was made by RKO, and TCM -- thanks to Ted Turner's machinations 35 years ago -- has the rights to most of the RKO library. But of course not every film released by RKO is still owned by its corporate successors (such as the 1935 version of She), so I'm sure you're right, TCM doesn't have it -- otherwise they would be running the hell out of it!
Incidentally, one of the extras in Becky Sharp was a 23-year-old woman with ambitions to become an actress. She even had a few lines in the film but they wound up on the cutting room floor, so she's only visible in long shots in the ballroom scene. Thus, there was no acting career for Thelma Catherine Ryan. But she eventually met and married a small-town California lawyer and, known by her nickname Pat, would become world famous as Mrs. Richard M. Nixon.
(And due to DVR problems, I had no idea they were doing a Technicolor marathon until long after they'd shown the films I would have wanted to see...)
They've got monthly guides available online, but I didn't think to check it. I'd have had to record several unnamed three-hour chunks in order to get them, anyway, so I wouldn't be sure if I'd caught all of it or would have had to have a split in the middle of one of the features. Would've been very frustrating.
By the way, I DID manage to catch the Thanhouser documentary by tuning in to Silent Sunday Nights right as it started while my DVR guide wasn't working; I managed to record it and the three other Thanhouser films after it in one three-hour chunk. Marvelous documentary; did you see it?
No, I missed the Thanhouser documentary -- I think for the second time! I heard it was good. One day.... What did you like best about it?
shareAll the excerpts from the recovered Thanhouser films -- although some were better quality than others; I swear some of them looked like VHS dupes -- and the focus on Edwin Thanhouser, although I do feel it came at the expense of overlooking the Charles J. Hite years (the era of their greatest successes), the large organization, and the larger lives of the actors at Thanhouser (in particular, it completely elides over how exactly Florence La Badie became a part of Thanhouser) -- not to mention completely omitting the directors, as I recall!
shareHmmm...frankly sounds of dubious quality. But I suppose even an imperfect insight into a relatively unknown player in early film making is worth while. I do need to see it sometime. Thanks for the heads-up!
shareIt's quite thorough, otherwise. It's from Thanhouser's grandson, so I don't think you're going to get as good an initial look at the whole company than otherwise. I'm sure other documentaries will come later.
Still no news on The Mysterious Island, though. Pity.
Yes, I'm sure they'll rerun the documentary at some point, though it might be another year.
Speaking of which, TCM was supposed to have one of its rare showings of TMI back in April or May, but the whole day's programming ended up being preempted by a tribute to someone who had died -- I can't remember who now. Of course, I presume it would have been only the b&w version, but now I wonder...although it seems to take a long time for TCM to catch up with the latest versions of films -- whenever a more complete or otherwise restored print has been made available they usually lag behind in showing it.
although it seems to take a long time for TCM to catch up with the latest versions of films -- whenever a more complete or otherwise restored print has been made available they usually lag behind in showing it.
Yes, they just recently upgraded their print of The Thing From Another World, which previously had all the restored footage (the six minutes cut from many prints in the 70s) in ragged, inferior 16mm footage mixed in with good-quality 35mm footage for the rest. The WHV DVD, and even its late 90s VHS, were pristine but TCM persisted for way more than three years (more like 15) in running a very bad print.
They also seem at long last to have stopped showing p.d. prints from that thing called "The National Film Archives" which was a junk outfit with terrible prints (of Sherlock Holmes films, and a few30s and 40s oddities).
But on the evidence I think that stuff about upgrading their films every three years is bull. Certainly they're not complete or consistent in doing so.
It must be about six years ago that TCM publicly promised to cut ties with The National Film Museum when there was an uproar about their print of Vampire Bat. There was footage added to it, enough to make it about ten minutes longer. The footage came from a few other films, including Hitchcock's The Lodger. Video Watchdog did an expose of it and this was where the TCM apology and promise appeared.
Yet as recently as a year and a half ago, I saw two films back-to-back from that outfit "dedicated to preserving our nation's film heritage." Both were European horror films that aired on Halloween, so it appears that they're also "preserving" the heritage of films from other nations. The print of Horror Castle by no means should ever have gotten on the air. Huge segments of it looked like a 3D film when you're not wearing the special glasses.
It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me
I remember they showed a really terrible version of Tilly's Punctured Romance last year -- dreadfully butchered. There are several easily-available version on YouTube that are far better -- and far closer to the feature's original form -- than the version TCM inexplicably chose to show.
shareThat sounds like our TCM. Inconsistent prints, lack of attention to detail, way behind the curve in quality or completeness of prints, and a staff that knows little about their subject and seems to be giving their hosts bad information at an increasingly accelerating rate.
shareOh, really? What sort of bad information?
shareNational Film "Museum", that's right. Oh, but of course it's international in scope: if I recall their logo is two reals of film rolling in front of the UN, or someplace flying flags of different nations on their front lawn. All junk.
Where was the uproar over TCM's use of this substandard crap? I presume on their website or Facebook page, or both.
But you see, once again we're faced with the usual TCM problem: obviously either no one bothers to check what they're getting, or they're too heedless, disinterested or stupid to care, or both. Either way, this is yet further evidence of their employees' incompetence.
I read the uproar going on at Yuku's Classic Horror Film Board, which provided a link to some other video forum's discussion. It all started because people noticed that the film was considerably longer than any previous edition of this public domain title and also longer than any print reference to the running time.
You can see the Yuku exchanges here:
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/reply/30189/THE-VAMPIRE-BAT#reply-30189
Were you watching the time that TCM aired A Star is Born and we get to the scene where we see Fredric March's robe drop to the sand on the beach. Then the film went into rapid rewind and went back into play mode to repeat a full nine minutes. It was an error in the source material, it wasn't as if some TCM tech hit a wrong button. Also the credits for the film were all choppy. You didn't even need to spot check more that the first two minutes to see that this wasn't worthy of being telecast.
It's as if they want to live up to that opening bumper where some kid is running wildly through the streets with a reel of film and he throws it up on the projector and the actual scheduled movie starts. There's no excuse for this and having such things under my supervision while working at WCBS, I can say this with some experience.
If you're not spot checking before airing, you could end up running A Star is Porn by mistake.
It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me
Oh, we've talked about the number of errors and misstatements that abound in many of the on-air introductions Osborne and Mankiewicz, and even some guest hosts, do.
There's a thread on this on the board for the 1960 film The Last Voyage as well as the 1951 film Ace in the Hole, which start out with issues concerning misinformation given about those films but broadened to include similar problems elsewhere. There was also a recent thread touching on this subject on the Classic Film Board, and I'm sure there must be others.
Just to give you a single example: on the Last Voyage board I recounted that Osborne stated that the real ocean liner used in the picture (the Ile de France) was actually sunk for the film. This is not true. It was on its way to be broken up at a shipyard in Japan and was rented by the film company so that it could be used for on-board location scenes. It was partially demolished with controlled explosions and some flooding but the ship was not sunk; after filming it was towed to the breakers and demolished as intended. But according to Osborne and the TCM staff it's lying at the bottom of the Sea of Japan. Not true -- and this is easy information to come by. And this wasn't a one-time lapse: Osborne has been delivering this same false information for years.
On both big things and small, TCM routinely gives inaccurate information: on casts, dates, background of the films, events surrounding them, and so on. This problem is growing worse, not better. I've heard a couple in the last ten days or so. Bad enough that TCM's research staff is obviously so uninformed and inept. What's most annoying is that Osborne and Mankiewicz are supposedly experts who should catch such errors before they tape their segments. But either they don't know as much as they're reputed to, or simply don't bother to read what they're given beforehand or check their staff's work.
...well, that's a pity. I thought Robert Osborne was better than that.
What were the information problems with Ace in the Hole, by the way?