Buster Keaton on DVD

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#26 Post by Scharphedin2 » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:45 pm

Malcolm, if you are region free, then this set is the one to go with Coffret Intégrale Buster Keation. It has all the features up until 1928. All the really famous ones. And, like the Chaplin set, it has a number of featurettes, a few of Keton's shorts, and some other curios from Keaton's career. With the low dollar, I am not sure that it is actually much cheaper than the Kino set, but you can keep an eye out for a better price. I think I managed to get it somewhat cheaper than this, although I can't remember.

Or, start out with the Complete Short Films from MoC. Then, at least you have that part of Keaton's career covered in the best and most complete edition I imagine we will see for a very, very long time. That set also includes select commentaries, and one of the most informative and exhaustive books of any DVD release, ever!!

User avatar
malcolm1980
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:37 am
Location: Manila, Philippines
Contact:

#27 Post by malcolm1980 » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:58 pm

I actually have a region-free DVD player so it's no problem. Are the featurettes in French?

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#28 Post by Scharphedin2 » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:21 pm

It is definitely predominantly english-friendly (most of the featuretes are originally in English), but let me check tonight, and I will post something in the way of on an inventory tomorrow.

*****

Overview of supplements on mk2's Keaton Silent Features Box (non-English-friendly features in bold)

The Three Ages
English menu option
Intro by David Robinson (4 min)
Frame by Frame featurette - analysing police chase sequence (3 min)
Option to view the three narrative threads of the film as separate shorts
Excerpt from "The Triumph of Lester Snapwell" (1963, 8 min)
Excerpt from D.W. Griffith's Intolerance (1916, 6 min)
"Why They Love Cavemen" animated short by Herbert M. Dawley (1921, 5 min)

Our Hospitality
Intro by David Robinson
"The Electric House" short (1922, 22 min) - French Intertitles only

Sherlock Junior
Intro by David Robinson
"The 'High Sign'" short (1921, 21 min)
"Visite au cinéma" featurette (16 min)

The Navigator
Intro by David Robinson
"The Boat" short (1920, 27 min)

Seven Chances
Intro by David Robinson
Prologue in color (2 min)
Frame by Frame featurette - analysing final chase sequence (7 min)
"Neighbors" short (1920, 22 min)

Go West
Intro by David Robinson
"The Paleface" short (1922, 23 min) - French intertitles only
"L'homme et l'animal" featurette (15 min)

Battling Butler
Intro by David Robinson
"Cops" short (1922, 18 min)
Excerpt of Charlie Chaplin boxing scene (1 min)

The General
Disc 1:
English menu option
Intro by David Robinson (5 min)
Recording of the 2004 score featurette (7 min)
Restoration featurette (2 min)
Disc 2:
English menu option
"The Railrodder" short (25 min)
Buster Keaton Rides Again documentary (55 min)
Filming The General - on location footage (1 min)
Excerpts from tinted version of the film (6 min)
Orson Welles talks about The General (10 min)
Filmography (highlights from all of Keaton's features in the set) (11 min)
"The Return of the General" doco-short (11 min)
Trailer for The Great Locomotive Chase (4 min)
"The Iron Mule" short by Grover Jones (1925, 13 min)
"Alice's Tin Pony" cartoon/live action short (1925, 6 min)

College
English menu option
Intro by David Robinson (5 min)
The Buster Keaton Show (1949, 27 min)
Candid Camera excerpt (1959, 5 min)
"Run, Girl, Run" short with Carole Lombard (1928, 17 min)
"Ball Park" cartoon by Paul Terry (1929, 5 min)
"Sport Champions" cartoon by I. Freleng (1941, 7 min)

Steamboat Bill, Jr.
English menu option
Intro by David Robinson (5 min)
Frame by Frame featurette - analysing the hurricane sequence (7 min)
Excerpt from "Back Stage" short (2 min)
Excerpt from "One Week" short (6 min)
"The River" doco-short by Pere Lorentz (1938, 30 min)
The Mississippi River Floods of 1927 - newsreel footage (11 min)
"Down South" Toby cartoon (1931, 6 min)

The accompanying book is in French only.

Hope this helps. The set is great. Those few extras that are not translated are not sustantial. It is a shame with the shorts that only have French intertitles, but then I own the Shorts Collection from MoC.

Forgotten Goldfish
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:25 pm

#29 Post by Forgotten Goldfish » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:51 pm

The concept of a "definitive" Keaton has occupied my thoughts too.

I'd say that Keaton, like many actor-filmmakers (e.g. Welles), worked in two broadly different kinds of films: (a) those over which he had a significant measure of creative control, and (b) those in which he was employed primarily as an actor.

I'd draw the distinction VERY approximately as follows:

(a) Films over which Keaton had significant creative control (though -- as in the case of Welles -- this control was seldom if ever total): all the post-Arbuckle silent shorts and features; the Educational shorts; Paradise for Buster; The Home Owner; and The Railrodder.

(b) Films in which Keaton was primarily an actor (though no doubt -- like Welles -- he sometimes advised on other matters while he was on the set): The Saphead; most of the Arbuckle shorts; all the English-language talkie features (from the early 1930s MGMs to the final beach party films); the Columbia shorts; and Samuel Beckett's Film.

(c) Intermediate cases: a few of the Arbuckle shorts; Le Roi des Champs-Elysees; The Triumph of Lester Snapwell; The Scribe. In most of these instances, Keaton obviously had no control over the basic concept & structure, but he appears to have had a lot of control over the details.

The distinction is one of character, not necessarily quality (again Welles is a close parallel). The films in group (a) no doubt vary in standard, but they all have the distinctive character we know as "Keatonesque". The films in group (b) are not so "Keatonesque", but some of them are impressive films if you're prepared to accept their genre, and Keaton's acting is often one of the things that makes them impressive (I'm thinking, e.g., of The Saphead, San Diego I Love You, In the Good Old Summertime, Film...).

For group (a), my personal suggestions would be just about the same as Scharphedin's: the MK2 Silent Features box; the MoC Complete Short Films; and the TCM Keaton (the only legal source for the last two silent features -- I thoroughly agree that The Cameraman is an essential purchase). This would give you good-quality transfers of all the group (a) silent shorts and features plus The Railrodder. For anyone wishing to go a little further, The Home Owner is in the Industrial Strength Keaton set (though much of the other material in that is inferior), and the new Looserthanloose box might possibly be the option of choice for the Educationals. (It's doubtful whether we're ever going to have really good-quality transfers of those, or even whether good-quality source material exists.) Of the group (a) films, only Paradise for Buster remains unavailable on DVD. (Unfortunately, it's an extremely important and totally Keatonesque film.)

Of course a totally complete Keaton would have to include not only everything I've mentioned above, but also the various 1930s-40s films which contain moments of "pure Keaton" because he gave backstage advice, even though he never appears in front of the camera. The exact limits would be impossible to define. Thus e.g. I'm positive that Keaton worked as an advisor on Henry Koster's MGM Two Sisters from Boston. I've never heard any mention of the fact, but I'm sure it is a fact. One faint in that movie by June Allyson, and one fall from a ladder by Peter Lawford, couldn't possibly have been achieved unless Keaton had rehearsed them: I know that as certainly as if I'd seen him do it. (Lawford also does a form of Keaton's picking-up-an-unconscious-woman routine, but I don't regard that as so conclusive, because it might conceivably have been learnt from observation of Keaton's films.) When the world eventually issues The Complete Works of Buster Keaton alongside The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Two Sisters from Boston will have to go into it!

User avatar
BenCheshire
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:19 am
Contact:

#30 Post by BenCheshire » Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:08 am

Thanks for those specs. I will put that in my "MAYBE" list. I wonder why they just don't release them regularly like they did the Chaplin movies.
Forgotten Goldfish wrote:On their home page, looserthanloose are advertising a complete 6-DVD-R set of Keaton's Educational Pictures shorts. ... I'm afraid I'll have to buy this set, and will report back when I've seen how its transfer quality compares with Reelclassicdvd's.

Love to know what you thought of this set, Goldfish... How does it compare to, say, the Columbia shorts release, in terms of enjoyment?

Forgotten Goldfish
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:25 pm

#31 Post by Forgotten Goldfish » Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:50 pm

BenCheshire wrote:Love to know what you thought of this set, Goldfish... How does it compare to, say, the Columbia shorts release, in terms of enjoyment?
Sorry about the delay replying (computer problems). For the same reason, I've only just ordered the Looser Than Loose release. I expect it will be several weeks before I've checked everything in it. But in the meantime, I can describe the films themselves.

Questions about the relative merits of Keaton's films (even in the silent period) elicit bewilderingly different responses -- even from sympathetic, careful professional critics. College is "the least successful of the silent features" -- Daniel Moews; "possibly the greatest of the features" -- David Shipman. Ditto is "embarrassingly bad" -- Leonard Maltin; "a minor masterpiece" -- Jim Kline.

So, as far as possible, I'll try simply to describe the characteristics of these films, leaving it to individual readers to judge for themselves whether they'd be likely to enjoy them.

Educational Pictures was a very low-budget company, and Keaton's Educationals all have a cheap, underrehearsed look. Pacing feels erratic, and the virtual absence of incidental music doesn't help (one line or gag, then an awkward silence, then the next). Picture quality would probably look undistinguished even if we could see pristine negatives -- which we can't, because the company went out of business early and nobody bothered to care for its assets. Truly complete prints of some Keaton Educationals may no longer survive. In some cases, I'm not even sure whether 35mm material survives. Nevertheless, in the available 16mm prints, the action (including facial expressions) is always clear and the dialogue always intelligible. Some of Keaton's silent classics survive in much worse shape.

But at such a minor company, Keaton was by far the biggest “starâ€

User avatar
BenCheshire
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:19 am
Contact:

#32 Post by BenCheshire » Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:39 pm

Forgotten Goldfish wrote: I've only just ordered the Looser Than Loose release.
Damn.
Forgotten Goldfish wrote: College is "embarrassingly bad" -- Leonard Maltin
He didn't!
Forgotten Goldfish wrote: Nevertheless, in the available 16mm prints, the action (including facial expressions) is always clear and the dialogue always intelligible. Some of Keaton's silent classics survive in much worse shape.
That's what's important to me. I just got The Great Stone Face, an Australian release of the Mk2 restorations of College, Three Ages, Steamboat and General, and they're fabulous. Absolutley stunning, as the DVDBeaver comparisons show. I can see Buster's face so much better now.
Forgotten Goldfish wrote: He contributed largely to the scripts and direction, and he chose many of the actors. The Educational casts include many ex-colleagues, friends, family members -- experienced professionals familiar with his style and capable of fitting in with it. Result: the Educationals give us a rare opportunity to see Keaton working after 1929 not just as an actor, but as a true creator of films -- an auteur, if you like.
Is Tom Dardis ("Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down") wrong on this point? I heard there were technical innacuracies, being as he was the first researcher getting his information mainly not from the horse's mouth... But Dardis claims that Grand Slam Opera is the only Educational which Keaton did more than star in. I'd love to hear this was wrong, where did you hear your information, or are you just inferring from comparing the films to the silents?
Forgotten Goldfish wrote: If you're looking for “Keatonesqueâ€

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#33 Post by tryavna » Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:39 am

BenCheshire wrote:
Forgotten Goldfish wrote: College is "embarrassingly bad" -- Leonard Maltin
He didn't!
He didn't. Goldfish said that that Maltin quotation applies to Ditto (that's an actual title). In fact, Maltin gives College 3 stars, calling it "awfully funny" -- for what that's worth.

Personally, I think College has just about the best ending of any comedy ever made, but that's the cynic in me talking.

User avatar
BenCheshire
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:19 am
Contact:

#34 Post by BenCheshire » Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:25 pm

Oh, I see, I apologise, I paraphrased goldfish wrongly there, I thought ditto was just goldfish talking, had no idea it was a movie...

Forgotten Goldfish
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:25 pm

#35 Post by Forgotten Goldfish » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:04 pm

BenCheshire wrote:
Forgotten Goldfish wrote: He contributed largely to the scripts and direction, and he chose many of the actors. The Educational casts include many ex-colleagues, friends, family members -- experienced professionals familiar with his style and capable of fitting in with it. Result: the Educationals give us a rare opportunity to see Keaton working after 1929 not just as an actor, but as a true creator of films -- an auteur, if you like.
Is Tom Dardis ("Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down") wrong on this point? I heard there were technical innacuracies, being as he was the first researcher getting his information mainly not from the horse's mouth... But Dardis claims that Grand Slam Opera is the only Educational which Keaton did more than star in. I'd love to hear this was wrong, where did you hear your information, or are you just inferring from comparing the films to the silents?
I don't have Dardis to hand at the moment, but there may not be any conflict on this point. Dardis was probably referring to credits; I was referring to contributions. If I remember correctly, Grand Slam Opera is indeed the only Educational on which Keaton takes screen credit for the script. But at all stages of his career (including the silents) Keaton contributed to many things for which he took no credit. Charles Lamont, the credited writer & director of most of the Educationals, says that Keaton contributed largely to them. In fact, Lamont's description tallies with what, in the documentary Buster Keaton Rides Again, we can actually see Keaton doing on the set of The Railrodder. As for choice of actors, the list speaks for itself: the Educational casts include Dorothy Sebastian, Al St. John, Keaton's father, mother, sister, brother, the acrobats from Neighbors, etc. Nobody but Keaton would have hired most of those. I don't imagine Dardis would disagree with these points.

Of course the crucial issue is not who made the films, but what they are. A "Rembrandt" painting may drop dramatically in market value if someone discovers that it was actually painted by someone else. But the painting itself -- and the quality of the painting -- remain the same regardless of who painted it. Likewise with films. If we discovered tomorrow that Laughton was sick while Night of the Hunter was filmed, and that it was actually directed by Ed Wood, the movie itself wouldn't alter.

User avatar
BenCheshire
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:19 am
Contact:

#36 Post by BenCheshire » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:53 pm

Forgotten Goldfish wrote: I don't have Dardis to hand at the moment, but there may not be any conflict on this point. Dardis was probably referring to credits; I was referring to contributions.
You've convinced me... But I secretly don't think Dardis even watched any of the Educationals before writing his book, and just based his research on the screen credits, because the language he uses here assumes the credits relate to what actually happened on set, which, as we all know, is often wrong. Not just Buster, but a lot of people in Hollywood did script work they didn't get screen-credit for.

Dardis p244 "One sign of his better health can be seen in his next Educational film Grand Slam Opera, for which he received the co-writing credit, the only one of these films for which he did anything but act."

If Dardis was suspicious of the crediting system he would have phrased it "the only one of these films for which he was credited with anything but acting." If Dardis had that quote from Lamont about Buster contributing a lot he would have used it, instead he paints Buster in the previous chapter as dead to the world drunk and depressed just going through the motions in this period.
Forgotten Goldfish wrote:A "Rembrandt" painting may drop dramatically in market value if someone discovers that it was actually painted by someone else. But the painting itself -- and the quality of the painting -- remain the same regardless of who painted it. Likewise with films. If we discovered tomorrow that Laughton was sick while Night of the Hunter was filmed, and that it was actually directed by Ed Wood, the movie itself wouldn't alter.
Just to run with your hypothetical, I think Laughton's position in film history would change completely, at least for us scholars and buffs, if that was found out. The movie would stay the same, but I think we care about the character of the people who made the movies. I think we want movies to be more like paintings, I think auteur theory is often taken as read... All these directors' box sets... I've never yet seen a Sven Nykvyst box set, an Edith Head box set. I think a lot of the mystique and interest in Night of the Hunter is because it was directed by Laughton and his only directorial effort, but you're right it wouldn't have the attention it does unless it was a special picture.

Forgotten Goldfish
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:25 pm

#37 Post by Forgotten Goldfish » Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:19 pm

BenCheshire wrote:Dardis p244 "One sign of his better health can be seen in his next Educational film Grand Slam Opera, for which he received the co-writing credit, the only one of these films for which he did anything but act."
I see what you mean. Ah well, I guess if you're writing a groundbreaking book on a vast subject, you can't research every aspect with equal thoroughness -- or write up every aspect with equal precision. I'm not much of an author myself, but I suffer agonies whenever I look back over any book I've had published -- they all contain sentences just as careless as "the only one of these films for which he did anything but act."

The sentence does make the valuable point that different Educationals were filmed under very different circumstances. This was true not only in terms of Keaton's health (and the amount of blood that managed to get into his alcohol stream), but in other important respects too -- some were done in NY, some in Hollywood, etc. No doubt the conditions of filming (and the extent, and value, of Keaton's contributions) varied considerably.
BenCheshire wrote:I think Laughton's position in film history would change completely, at least for us scholars and buffs, if that was found out. The movie would stay the same, but I think we care about the character of the people who made the movies.
Absolutely. What we "see" is never just the movie on the screen -- it's a whole mix of associations & connections. And even if the movie itself stays the same, it inevitably looks different every time we see it -- because the associations & connections are different.

User avatar
BenCheshire
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:19 am
Contact:

#38 Post by BenCheshire » Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:50 pm

Forgotten Goldfish wrote:Absolutely. What we "see" is never just the movie on the screen -- it's a whole mix of associations & connections. And even if the movie itself stays the same, it inevitably looks different every time we see it -- because the associations & connections are different.
In fact, in the periods when I've been not so into film, when I'd see movies I wouldn't think about who made them as much, I'd just say "damn you, entertain me." But there's periods where I feel different... I'm in one now. I start seeking out movies based on who directed them. I think the director is the best we have.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#39 Post by tryavna » Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:45 am

BenCheshire wrote:
Forgotten Goldfish wrote:A "Rembrandt" painting may drop dramatically in market value if someone discovers that it was actually painted by someone else. But the painting itself -- and the quality of the painting -- remain the same regardless of who painted it. Likewise with films. If we discovered tomorrow that Laughton was sick while Night of the Hunter was filmed, and that it was actually directed by Ed Wood, the movie itself wouldn't alter.
Just to run with your hypothetical, I think Laughton's position in film history would change completely, at least for us scholars and buffs, if that was found out. The movie would stay the same, but I think we care about the character of the people who made the movies. I think we want movies to be more like paintings, I think auteur theory is often taken as read... All these directors' box sets... I've never yet seen a Sven Nykvyst box set, an Edith Head box set. I think a lot of the mystique and interest in Night of the Hunter is because it was directed by Laughton and his only directorial effort, but you're right it wouldn't have the attention it does unless it was a special picture.
Your exchange here reminds me of an essay Stanley Fish once wrote about the major changes a seemingly insignificant discovery can cause in our "understanding" of an author and his work. He goes on to describe a scenario in which some researcher discovers a long-lost letter of Faulkner's that shows that Faulkner believed himself to be an Eskimo foundling and how that belief on Faulkner's part (regardless of whether or not it were true) would be enought to transform Faulkner studies forever.

Personally, I prefer Goldfish's Ed Wood scenario. Damn it, for all his suffering, Wood deserves to have directed a masterpiece!

User avatar
kaujot
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Austin
Contact:

#40 Post by kaujot » Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:05 pm

Has a print of Beckett and Keaton's "Film" ever been put out on a DVD?

User avatar
Kinsayder
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: UK

#41 Post by Kinsayder » Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:39 pm

Yes, there's a French mk2 edition, as mentioned on page 1 of this thread, but it's crazy expensive for a 20-minute film.

User avatar
BenCheshire
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:19 am
Contact:

#42 Post by BenCheshire » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:38 am

I think I saw it for free on youtube or google video or something, and I wouldn't watch it again, even though I like both artists in their separate domains. Its just too long watching the back of a guy's head. If I want to feel alientated, I go to the source: Antonioni.

User avatar
BenCheshire
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:19 am
Contact:

#43 Post by BenCheshire » Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:49 pm

A month later, have your Keaton Educationals at least arrived yet, Goldfish? Can you give me a teaser of your first impressions of the package?

Ben

User avatar
malcolm1980
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:37 am
Location: Manila, Philippines
Contact:

#44 Post by malcolm1980 » Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:23 pm

I just saw Sherlock Jr. on-line.

Man, that was a really great movie. I want an affordable Keaton box-set, stat.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#45 Post by Scharphedin2 » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:08 am

This is not really relating to Keaton on DVD, but is an advertisement for a Keaton Convention taking place next month in Michigan, promising two Keaton films not seen since their initial release. The way the advertisement is worded makes it sound more like alternate versions of two of Keaton's films, rather than any entirely new discoveries. Does anyone know anything about this?

Jonathan S
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England

#46 Post by Jonathan S » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:52 am

The title of the alternate version of the Keaton silent feature is a closely guarded secret that only a few people know (I'm not one of them). There's been a great deal of drumbeating and speculation about it on the silent forums for months, and the discovery is said to be of such magnitude that it will make national or even international news (similar to Metropolis, I guess). It could be any of his features between The Three Ages and Steamboat Bill Jr. - I recall that The Saphead and the MGM features have been ruled out by those in the know.

The last I heard there were no immediate plans to release it on DVD - though I imagine this will happen eventually if the differences are as major as is suggested.

Tolmides
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:42 pm

#47 Post by Tolmides » Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:19 am

Forgotten Goldfish wrote:For group (a), my personal suggestions would be just about the same as Scharphedin's: the MK2 Silent Features box; the MoC Complete Short Films; and the TCM Keaton (the only legal source for the last two silent features
Checking amazon.fr it seems that the MK2 collection is now at almost 200 euros...for that price one may as well buy the Kino set. So I was wondering if anybody owns the Buster Keaton Chronicles R2 set. Are the transfers about the same as Kino? Sadly it seems the score for Sherlock Jr is the oft-criticised one. :(

Jonathan S
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England

#48 Post by Jonathan S » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:26 pm

Forgotten Goldfish wrote:So I was wondering if anybody owns the Buster Keaton Chronicles R2 set. Are the transfers about the same as Kino?
Although Network's Buster Keaton Chronicles set can be picked up very cheaply, I'm afraid you get what you pay for. About half the films are the same transfers as Kino's but they look considerably softer. Most of the rest are terrible Raymond Rohauer prints with re-made intertitles and generally poor image quality (far inferior to the Rohauer prints that used to be shown on British TV). Worst of all is Steamboat Bill Jr which, if I recall correctly (I quickly sold this set!), is both cropped to widescreen and squeezed. One or two of the shorts are missing. The feature-length "documentary" is a waste of space (mainly just long clips of films also in the set).

The set does have Our Hospitality and The General in the Photoplay editions with Carl Davis scores but Kino is re-releasing the latter film, with the Davis score as one of the options, in November. The image quality will no doubt be much better - and there are already visually superior editions, albeit with other scores. Our Hospitality looks very soft - softer, in fact, than my off-air VHS of the same Photoplay version!

Tolmides
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:42 pm

#49 Post by Tolmides » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:47 am

Oh dear. Thanks for the warning Jon. I guess I'll wait a while to see if any better sets come out. If it takes too long, I may end up buying the mammoth Kino set. It's a fair wad of cash though. :(

Jonathan S
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England

#50 Post by Jonathan S » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:28 am

Scharphedin2 wrote:This is not really relating to Keaton on DVD, but is an advertisement for a Keaton Convention taking place next month in Michigan, promising two Keaton films not seen since their initial release. The way the advertisement is worded makes it sound more like alternate versions of two of Keaton's films, rather than any entirely new discoveries. Does anyone know anything about this?
According to one initial report on the Keaton Yahoo group, the silent feature discovery sounds like a disappointment after the months of teasing and speculation:
It was a 46-minute rough cut of "Our Hospitality," called "Hospitality," Buster's original (and, we suspect, preferred title). It wasn't a preview print, but a rough cut that seemed designed as a story outline, perhaps so Buster could see how his first feature-length narrative ran as a story, with less emphasis on gags. There is no new footage, but there are some notable difference in editing, both structure-wise and scene-wise. I'm sure some of the folks who have spent more time with the print will chime in later.

Cheers,

Jeremy (Mathews)
This is hard to reconcile with the Convention organisers' claim (prior to the event):
This film includes additional footage not seen publicly since it was originally shown more than 80 years ago

Post Reply