Stephan55

MovieMadness stated: But I think we have hit a dead end on this one, lol. darkblue concurred: You're not kidding. Sadly, I am inclined to agree with you gentlemen. I was able to get my hands on a commercial VHS copy of NEVADA SMITH (1966). The label on the tape clearly said 135 min, and it had a copyright date of 1965, so I believe that this is the same tape referred to by MovieMadness, earlier. Edit: Deleted image to recover upload space This was a used tape that has seen much better days, and I played it on a used VHS player that had also seen better days (the heads were in dire need of a cleaning as they attempted to "eat" the tape on rewind). Never-the-less, I was allowed one run through, and I carefully noted the start time (after the standard warnings) and the end time of the video, and the tape. This is what I found out: 1) The video ran exactly 130 min and 32 seconds (NOT the 135 min on the label, and perhaps a few seconds shorter than the TCM version ran). The end of the tape (after the end of the movie) was at 132.8 min, so in no way could this video recording have been 135 min. 2) Aside from some slight caption differences in the opening, the film matched, scene for scene, the TCM broadcast version. 3) When the key scenes showed up, "dress" was uttered, NOT "breast." And the second "edited" scene in question, was the same, word for word, as both the TCM version and the clip that MovieMadness had previously linked to that was removed from YouTube. Whether this VHS tape is representative of the LaserDisc version, and/or ALL VHS videos of NEVADA SMITH, I can not know, but at this point of research, I am inclined to think that it likely may be... So my broad, generalized, deductions, based on the above, is that perhaps there are no 135 min versions of this film. Likely no 139 min versions either. Does this mean that those "edits" (that I have stated were not present in the original film that I viewed in 1966) never occurred... ??? Not necessarily... The first edit was a voice over, and the second "cut" would likely not have been more than a few seconds, likely too short to be reflected in the 131 min run-time of the TCM broadcast version, nor on this VHS tape. These videos could all be the "Final edit Cut" that occurred later, after I first saw this movie in the summer of 1966. However, if there are no different, or longer versions out there, and without at least a few others stepping up to corroborate my memories, then it is seriously looking like I have no "hard" evidence to back up my claim that those edits actually occurred. So, either my memories of this film are faulty, and I have confabulated what I "saw" and "heard," which I still don't think happened, or there really was a different version (perhaps selectively released in Southern California), that has since been so "thoroughly" purged that it never made it to VHS tape, nor DVD media, and possibly not even to LaserDisc (which was a media available at the time the movie was produced). But, if I am truly confabulating all this, then I would not be aware of it. I would be an innocent victim of my own faulty memories. Is that how early alzheimers begins???

MovieMadness said: a lot of the content on youtube is paid back to copyright holders as a license. Youtube has an automatic system that can match most copyrighted material that has been uploaded by the audio track. These clips were apparently not long enough to matter for years until I linked to them. ... Thanks, MovieMadness for the clarfication. So YouTube pays a license fee to allow hosting some of their copyrighted video content, and for short clips, most copyright holders don't seem to bother, or care, and may even encourage uploading as another form of promotion for their products... But evidently NOT in this particular case. The wild card is the 135 minute VHS or LaserDisc versions, although without seeing one I cannot guess if they are really 135 minutes.... Well, who owns a LaserDisc player (and the LaserDisc) these days, to find out? They were super expensive when they first came out in the late 1950s, and never gained a huge following. Sort of like big shiny LPs for video. I've seen a few of them in action. The discs did have interactive capability, but after the VHS vs Betamax war, the huge variety of relatively inexpensive to rent and own VHS tapes controlled the video market until the advent , standardization, and popularity of DVDs took over. Now there is the Blu ray revolution, but already we're hearing more and more about 2k and even 4K ultra high definition capabilities, so the days of todays DVDs and even current Blu ray may be numbered, at least as the most popular formats for video (though their ubiquitousness and ability for storing huge amounts of data, as well as their long archival storeage potential, means the media will likely not be disappearing for a very long time) However, VHS is still with us, and one can, for a while yet still gain access to VHS recorder/players so the potential for gaining one of those 135 min VHS tapes is still a possibility. And though I would like to know, for sure. Can I justify the investment of time & expense for such a limited application. I would be willing to rent the tape & a player for a day, but from where these days? To bad we don't know someone who actually owns the tape (or the LaserDisc) and just ask them to verify the run time, and the dialogue in at least those two particular scenes? Those scenes were pretty shocking for their day, but mostly for their implication and what they stirred in the mind of the viewer. I don't remember anything being too horrifically, visually graphic in the film (for me anyway), it was mostly the power of the dialogue, and the mental image I conjured. By todays "standards" (or lack there of) they probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

MovieMadness reported: The clip of Nevada Smith that showed the edited out breast dialog I posted below was pulled. Amazing. Maybe Paramount doesn't want the real version to be seen. When I click on the now blank link the following message comes on: "This video is no longer available because the uploader has closed their YouTube account" Does this mean that the uploader of the video deleted his uploaded videos when he closed his YouTube account? Or, does YouTube automatically pull all videos uploaded by people when they close their account with YouTube? I thought that YouTube was like FaceBook in that anything posted, including images, videos, etc. automatically become the "property" of FaceBook, that they can use as they please? (in that persons surrendered their personal rights to such when they agreed to post them upon FaceBook? ) Then again, those NEVADA SMITH clips were copyrighted by, and really belonged to Paramount, so maybe there is a different set of rules and regulations when a third party has legal control the uploaded content? But we do see an awful lot of media uploaded that is not in the public domain, so I have no idea how this works with YouTube, or FaceBook, for that matter. I'm not a member of either. Though I am an occassional fan of some YouTube video clips. Who do you think prompted or mandated the removal of the clips? Was it the uploader? YouTube? or Paramount? If the latter, why, after all these years, would Paramount NOT want the original version of NEVADA SMITH to be seen? Especially if it still exists in the form of those older 135 min &/or 139 min VHS and LaserDisc medias. Why doesn't Paramount make available a fresh DVD &/or Blu ray transfer of those more complete versions for public consumption? Is it that they think the demand would be so low that they couldn't make a profit on the reissue of an original release that hasn't been seen since 1966, and even then by a limited viewing audience? In any event, that is bad timing for the topic of this thread as that one particular YouTube clip was a bit of "hard-evidence" that anybody could examine without having access to an actual copy of the movie itself.

RayFaiola posted: I made up new prints of the original 1930 trailer. The print I found was double-sprocket (no track) so I built a new soundtrack. Unfortunately, I had to dub in Beryl Mercer's voice over Zasu Pitts' appearance. Haaa! I love this trailer! Excellent dubbing! But when Zasu showed up, I couldn't help but laugh, a little, just knowing what I know, and of her very distinctive, often parodied voice. Her lips move but yep, there's Beryl Mercer living inside. It's almost like she's possessed! Very good, Very classic!, and ... even a little funny, inspite of the heavy subject matter. I can only imagine what it must have sounded like during that test screening. No wonder director Lewis Milestone had her replaced. .... Sorry Zasu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front_(1930_film) Noted comedienne Zasu Pitts was originally cast as Paul's mother and completed the film but preview audiences, used to seeing her in comic roles, laughed when she appeared onscreen so Milestone re-shot her scenes with Beryl Mercer before the film was released. The preview audience remains the only one who saw Pitts in the role, although she does appear for about 30 seconds in the film's original preview trailer. FredCDobbs said: Remove the dialogue from the film and there is no award winning film. Oh Fred, I'm beginning to think you're turning into a cantankerous Ol' party-pooper!

JonasEB reported: Silents in the twenties, and particularly the late twenties, would generally have been projected in the 20-24 range, often 22 fps. Silent films with optical or disc soundtracks, like Sunrise or this version of All Quiet, would be shown at 24 fps like any sound film. That 16 fps was the projection speed for even the older silents is largely a myth, some were but it was always variable. And sometimes bumping the framerate of a silent to 24 fps isn't a bad idea; Chaplin did this with the originally 22 fps The Gold Rush for the forties reissue and the current restored silent version uses that same frame rate (Warner should have done the same with their recent release of The Big Parade - instead, they did a repeat frame job that produces a jerky rhythm.) It's not always true that the sound version of a film is the primary or superior version. Kevin Brownlow demonstrates in his Hollywood documentary how superior the silent versions of certain films in the early sound era were to their stodgy, flaccid sound versions. Great input Jonas, thank-you. FredCDobbs said: Showing a sound film in the silent mode is like showing a Technicolor film in the black and white mode. My house didn't have a color TV at all while I was growing up, just a big B&W console sitting in the corner, facing the sofa and chairs. So for a long time I thought ALL those old technicolor films were made in B&W. It wasn't until the late 1960's that a neighbor purchased a color TV. A bunch of us would visit and sit around that marvelous thing while someone fiddled with the color settings, which were anything but life-like. Then we'd watch some old film that I would be seeing in color for the first time. We'd hear my friends mother exclaim, "Isn't it just so beautiful!" And, as off-kilter as it was, we'd all sincerely agree....

Hibi Posted Today, 02:25 PM LornaHansonForbes, on 30 Jan 2015 - 1:08 PM, said: FYI- the very first Best Actor winner ever: Emil Jannings later became an avowed Nazi, so it's entirely possible his films were destroyed in America...and I doubt there's much interest in showing the ones that still exist. Oh, I'm sure there is interest (politics aside) He was a great actor.......... Emil Jannings' films (or rather films with Emil Jannings in them) have shown up on TCM from time to time (albeit rarely), and are notable for a variety of reasons (politics aside). The German language version of THE BLUE ANGEL (DER BLAUE ENGEL) 1930, was aired back in April 2010. And THE LAST COMMAND (1928) was recently shown 11/17/2014. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH (1928) is considered a "lost" film, but I'm interested in seeing THE PATRIOT (1928), and some of the earlier F.W. Murnau films (i.e. OTHELLO (1922), THE LAST LAUGH (1924), HERR TARTUFF (1925), and FAUST (1926). I can't recall TCM ever showing any of them yet, and if TCM won't broadcast them, who will?

Oh Damn! Both good films, but TCM has shown McCabe & Mrs Miller (1971) at least once before on 10/28/2013, But I can't remember TCM ever showing DELIVERANCE (1972) I guess I'll have to delete that from my schedule.

slaytonf said: I did not record the presentation last night. .... I don't know if last night's version was the LoC restored version. All I know is the recording I have from 2011 is. Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were initially refering to last nights broadcast. Yes, it was from the 1998 LoC "restoration." And, so was yours, so it seems like they should be the same 133 min presentations, except, the 2011 broadcast you recorded has all that marvelous commentary. My February 2012 schedules shows it aired on the 7th. And again on the 6th of February 2013. Were those silent showings? Who knows. Not sure about the 2/7/2012 showing, but I recorded the 2/6/2013 & 2/15/2014 showings, both hosted by Robert Osborne, I also watched the WW1 anniversary tribute 7/11/2014, hosted by retired General Wesley Clark, and another showing later in 2014, and ALL of those were the 133 min LoC "restored" Talking versions. So it appears that September 28, 2011, was a TCM premier broadcast , and you remember "maybe" one more silent broadcast a few mos later? And last nights showing . If no others then a total of two confirmed and maybe a third silent screening in three plus years. I'd say that still qualifies as rare to infrequent, esp. when compared to the frequency of the sound showings during that same time frame. Still, it bothers me that we have no idea which version TCM is going to show until it plays... I don't see how it could possibly have been taken with two cameras side-by-side. And when you think of it, it seems counterintuitive that there would be two cameras taking shots of the same action. Why not just use one camera--the sound one--for both versions? Apparently the technology of the day either necessitated, or made it more cost effective to have two camera set-ups with two sets of negatives. One intended for English speaking audiences, and the second for an international audience which was in essence a synchronized soundtract "silent hybrid" version that could have foreign language dubbed in later, or be released as a more traditional "silent" with synchronized soundtrack and caption cards in any language (including English, for American theatres not yet wired for sound). The cameras, though close were far enough apart so that when they captured the same scene, they did so at slightly different viewing angles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front_(1930_film) The film was shot with two cameras side by side, with one negative edited as a sound film and the other edited as an "International Sound Version" for distribution in non-English speaking areas. Apparently it was this international sound "silent" hybrid version with synchronized sound track that debuted in L.A. and N.Y.C. in April 1930. The following article explains it better : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sound_Version International Sound Version is a term for a film in which all dialogue is replaced with music and foreign inter-titles. It was a method used by movie studios during the early talkie period (1928-1931) to make sound films for foreign markets. This method was much cheaper than the alternative, the "Foreign Language Version", in which the entire film was re-shot with a cast that was fluent in the appropriate language (e.g. Spanish version of Drácula 1931, Laurel & Hardy shorts in Spanish, French and German). To make an international version, the studio would simply insert (on the soundtrack) music over any dialogue in the film and splice in intertitles (which would be replaced with the appropriate language of the country). Singing sequences were left intact as well as any sound sequences that did not involve speaking. International versions were sound versions of films which the producing company did not feel were worth the expense of re-shooting in a foreign language. They were meant to cash in on the talkie craze; by 1930 anything with sound did well at the box-office while silent films were largely ignored by the public. These "international sound versions" were basically part-talkies and were largely silent except for musical sequences. Since the film included a synchronized music and a sound effect track, it could be advertised as a sound picture and could therefore capitalize on the talkie craze in foreign markets (instead of the more expensive method of actually re-filming talking sequences in foreign languages). Warner Bros. was the first to begin issuing these "International Sound Versions." In 1928, they began to release their part-talkies and all-talkies in this format. They would always leave musical interludes and non-dialogue sound sequences intact. On occasion, they would dub the theme song into Spanish, French or German in order to further popularize the music. Starting in 1931, studios began to subtitle films and directly dub them into foreign language, both methods that continue to be used today and both "International Sound Versions" and "Foreign Language Versions" quietly disappeared, although the latter method continued to be employed until the mid-1930s for special productions. Such films as "My Man" 1928, "**** Tonk" 1929, and "Is Everybody Happy?" 1929 were seen throughout the world in "International Sound Versions". In the "International Sound Version" of "Paris" 1929, which was especially prepared for French markets, the Warner Bros. had Irene Bordoni sing several of her songs in French. Surviving examples of "International Sound Versions" include "Song O' My Heart" 1930, "Phantom Of The Opera" 1929, "Men Without Women" 1930, "All Quiet On The Western Front" 1930, Rain or Shine 1930, etc. Anyway, if anyone, including yourself, that recorded the September 28, 2011, TCM Silent premier of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, with all of the intro and end commentary intact, to a DVD, would be willing to share a copy with me, I would be very grateful. I will return it to you and cover postage both ways. Or, we could make a swap, If I have a TCM copy of something you are looking for, I'd be happy to send it in exchange, and still return your original DVD back to you, if you want. Just PM me and include a list of any titles you are seeking , along with the release date, and I'll check and see if I have any of them. Anybody willing to help me out?

DUPLICATE POST

Great research guys! Back in the day, I too, have ordered VHS tapes that were not only false advertized , but once received were also mislabeled with the same incorrect run times. Very disappointed to discover that the actual run times were usually several minutes short from what was on the box. Meaning that the version was not the one that I had been seeking, though advertized and labeled as if it were. So I am well aware of labeling errors. However there most definitely appears to be something fishy with all these reported run time differences. Which makes me wonder just how long was the version I originally saw in 1966? I know what I noticed that's now missing, but what did I miss that I didn't notice??? 135 min vs 131 min leaves room for a longer version of the score, or a missing short scene or two. I can't see any other obvious edits from the 131 min. TCM version, so there must be something or some things completely cut for a 4 minute run time difference. Even more if a 139 min original run time is legit? It's making me curious'er and curious'er

slaytonf reported: I recorded a TCM broadcast of the silent All Quiet on September 28, 2011. The introduction featured Leonard Maltin and Patrick Loughney, Director of the Library of Congress, discussing the movie, its restorations, and the silent version. Mr. Loughney mentions in his discussion of the releases of the various versions of the film that there was originally a road show edition that was three hours long. Also, different versions were created to fit the countries (France, Germany, etc.) they were shown in. This showing was the Library of Congress' restored version. From the date, I imagine it was a DVD release, not Blu-Ray. Okay, that explains why I missed the original TCM premier broadcast . I was in a remote part of Alaska September 28, 2011, and had no access to TCM. It sounds like you have seen and maybe recorded both presentations? You confirm that last nights showing was the Library of Congress' restored version and think it was from a DVD release? Aside from the excellent commentary that accompanied the 2011 broadcast, are you aware of any differences in the actual film presentations? in example: Did they have the same run times? Did you notice any change in film speed (ie 24 vs 16 fpm)? Different scenes, or noticeable film angles? Were they of the same quality? Would you say one was superior to the other? I sure would like to see a copy of both presentations if they are differ? But based on what you have said about the commentary from 2011, I would especially like to see that one, if both features were otherwise the same. To your knowledge, has TCM shown silent version/s of AQOTWF on only these two occassions?

TomJH said: I recorded a silent version of All Quiet off TCM a couple of years ago. Whether or not it the same blu ray version shown this week, I have no idea. However, if there is only one silent version of the film available, then this was definitely not a channel premiere. Having said that, I agree that it's exasperating that TCM would not have made some kind of announcement to let its viewers know that this was not going to be the same talkie version broadcast so many times in the past. I wish that TCM would make a point of mentioning restorations of films (particularly if they're premieres of same) on their website. midnight08 said: I know that TCM did show the silent version of "All Quiet On The Western Front" a few years ago as I have it recorded (although I don't know if it was the 2012 restoration). I'll have to look at it again but if I remember correctly there were some differences between the silent and sound versions which Robert O. pointed out in his intro. I'll have to look at it again to see if I'm correct. mockingbird66 said: I did dvr this movie because I never saw either version. I have not viewed it yet. I was expecting the talkie one. Thank you gentlemen, for your replies (I apologize if I have mistated gender, but I generally think in the masculine sense, unless otherwise informed). Well, this information is is both reassuring and disconcerting... In our time, the only "official" Universal silent version of this film would have been released by Universal for generally distribution via Blu ray in 2012. So it appears that TCM was granted broadcast rights to it sometime in 2012. Since they showed it again, last night, after a two + year hiatus, then there is a good probability that they will show it again.... sometime... So last night was not an "accident," which is good news. However, I am a pretty avid TCM viewer, and AQOTWF is a favorite of mine that I usually watch whenever TCM has aired it, so.... Since I obviously missed that 2012 TCM premier I wonder "where the hell was I when they showed it in 2012? " For those of you who saw it, and recorded it then... Did TCM "advertise" that silent screening as a TCM premiere, or that it was a rare silent screening? I must have somehow missed all of that. Since TCM sprang this last, possibly second silent showing with no specific warning, or heads-up that we were in for a repeat treat of this rarely shown version, then in all likelihood, they will not let us know when they plan to show this version again, the next time. ... Whenever that may be??? So, the only way I'll be able to be sure to get a copy of it to view again and study, is by either: 1) Have my DVR set to record whenever I see AQOTWF listed to play, and eventually catch the silent version.... or 2) purchase a Blu ray player and the Blu ray copy.... or 3) Find somebody willing to share their recorded DVD copy of the silent version with me???? I like the last option best, if I can find a willing partner? So if any of you gentlemen are willing, please PM me. I promise that I will handle your copy with kid gloves, and return it to you intact. Also, if you just want to trade DVDs, maybe I have a TCM recording that you are looking for? Just PM me a few titles along with their release year, and I'll check for you. I try to record the intros & end commentary whenever available. Also, mockingbird66, if you want I will send you one of my recorded copies of the sound version of AQOTWF so you will have both to enjoy and compare. Just PM me with your address and I will send it to you.

FredCDobbs (wittily) said: ...and people wanting to pretend their TVs aren't wired for sound yet can just turn their sound all the way off and watch it as a "silent" film. They can make up some 4 x 6 dialogue cards that they can hold up and read when guys are talking in the film, to further pretend they are watching a "silent" film, and they can put some old violin music on the victrola and pretend there is a live orchestra present. Fred! I had no idea that you were opposed to silent movies???? Actually, I think I get your drift, that a film should be watched in the format it was originally intended... be that sound or silent... However, in this case, from everything I've thus researched on this particular film. Director Lewis Milestone, originally produced this film for both silent and talking formats, using separate equipment to record each scene at the same time. So, although the scenes are the same, the shot angles are slightly different. So it is NOT the same as converting a talkie into a silent film. To produce both film formats at the same time made perfect marketing sense for 1930, as there were a few holdouts that still believed that "sound" was a fad, that would pass, and many theatres, as well as some foreign markets were not tooled up for sound. This was not an altogether unique practice for that day, and studios that could afford to make both did so. This was at the beginning of the "Great" depression, and Universal had a lot riding on the success of this film, so they obviously hedged their bets and went with both formats from the get-go. The original April 1930 broadcast premiers in both Los Angeles, and New York were reported to have been silent versions with synchronized sound, for whatever reason. Though this film was not intended to be a strictly silent version, so that raises a question for me, as to why the premiers should have been silent.??? Since, according to the record, the film was "restored" from the best existing prints in 1998 to 133 min, with all of the longer cut film reported as "lost," then the 2012 Universal transfer was likely made from those same resources as was availble in the 1998 restoration. I'm guessing that because reported camera angles on the silent version differ somewhat from the sound version that, for the most part, Universal had access to and used the best silent footage when they "reconstructed" this silent version for Blu ray in 2012. So it "sounds" like though both films are are the same, they are slightly different, and its not like simply turning off the sound, and holding up caption cards to the sound version that we have become familiar.

rosebette asked: I'm curious-- did Zasu Pitts appear as Paul's mother in the silent version? Or is this just urban legend? Not 100% urban legend. She was originally cast in both talking & silent versions, later cut & recast by Beryl Mercer, but remained in some preview clips. According to the IMDb trivia page http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv Zasu Pitts was originally cast as Mrs. Bäumer (mother of Lew Ayres' character Paul Bäumer), but she was replaced by Beryl Mercer. Contrary to long-standing rumor, she did not appear in the silent version of this film simultaneously produced for theaters not yet wired for sound. However, she DOES appear briefly in the original 1930 trailer for the silent version, a scene of her in bed. Because up to this point in her career, Zasu Pitts was associated with comedic roles, it was hard for audiences to take her seriously in a dramatic role. According to the reminiscences of director Lewis Milestone, audiences laughed when Zasu Pitts appeared as the mother in the original cut (sound version), and that is why he recast the role with Beryl Mercer. FredCDobbs asked: Why would anyone want to watch a silent version of a sound film? Because it is a classic Fred, and has a significant part in film history. As I understand, in 1930, there were still many theatres that were not set-up for sound. So at that time it made good marketing sense, especially on such a hefty production, to cover your bases and film in both sound and silent versions so your production could take advantage of the broadest possible distribution. As TopBilled reported earlier: Quite a few films had silent and talking (talkie?) versions. Another point is that in AQOTWF both silent and talking versions were filmed at the same time, simultaneously, but with seperate equipment and cameras. So, although the film is the same, scene for scene, the bulky camera angles are slightly different in the silent versus the sound version. A student of film may appreciate the somewhat different perspectives offered in either version. Also, and I found this out first hand last night, in some ways it is like watching a very "different " picture. By virture of it being "silent" many of the captions do not capture all of the dialogue of the sound version, leaving much more room for audience interpretation, which can be quite different from the sound version. Though I have seen the sound version many times, and knew what to anticipate, after a while I tried to divorce myself from what I knew and immerse myself into the experience, as if I were watching the film for the first time. The absence of verbal dialogue allowed me to interpret some things differently than before. So I imagine two different audiences who had only seen either the talking or sound versions would walk away from their respective theatres with many different interpretive viewpoints. This would allow an even deeper discussion of this great and historically controversial film than what has already been voiced, and, thrust viewers back to a day when the only films that they could see were silent ones. Did anyone notice if the "silent" version TCM aired was filmed at 24 frames per second or 16 frames per second? Since this 2012 Universal transfer was made from the 1998 "restorations" and intended for todays media and devices I would imagine that it was at 24 fps, as I didn't notice any unusual "silent" speed-up. were all the scenes the same as all the scenes in the sound version? If it was really shot originally as a silent film, then the camera setups would have been different than the camera shots used in the standard sound version. As said, all the scenes were the same, but my research indicates that it was originally filmed in BOTH talking and silent format, to overcome the 1930 limitations of many theatres not yet adapted for sound, and allow the broadest available marketing. And as said, because both formats were filmed simultaneously and the equipment was quite bulky, the angle of the shots does differ slightly between the silent and sound versions. when will we get to see the TCM silent version of GONE WITH THE WIND? That would be really news worthy... I had no idea there was a "silent" version of GWTW. But I think you may have asked that question a bit facetiously, as in 1939 the same theatre limitations likely did not exist as in 1930. Outside of Chaplin and a few foreign markets, sound had become an accepted standard for film by the mid 1930s, so I would guess that GWTW was never intended for a "silent" film market. NOW, I have a couple of questions... When I discovered that last night was a "special" set of broadcasts, I regretting NOT recording them (2012 restoration of WINGS (1927) with the re-orchestrated J.S. Zamecnik score; AND the Universal 2012 Blu ray transfer of the 1930 silent version of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT.) I try to review the online schedule to see if there is anything that I should be recording, and there was no mention either there, or on anything that TCM broadcast, that gave me any inkling that they were going to show something that they hadn't shown before. Regarding the 2012 Blu ray transfer of the 1930 SILENT version of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT To my knowledge this was not only a TCM premier, but a U.S. televised premier, as well. Yet, as far as I am aware, TCM provided us this very special treat without any pomp and ceremony, fanfare, or prior notice of any kind? I can't imagine that such a special event wouldn't have been reported somewhere,... unless, 1) it was a program mistake, and someone sent TCM the wrong version. So TCM had no idea until it was shown what a special movie they would be showing??? Both of the transfers (silent & talkie) are from the same 1998, 133 min restoration, so the run time would have been the same for either. OR, 2) TCM knew what they had, but perhaps part of the agreement they had with Universal was they couldn't advertise that fact for fear that a slew of folks would be recording something that they are selling from their 2012, 100th Anniversary Blu ray promotion....??? Somehow I'm thinking that the First possibilty is the most likely one, which means TCM will not likely air the silent version again, or at least not for many, many more years. In either event, DID ANYBODY on these boards, viewing this thread, RECORD the SILENT version of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT last night (ideally on a single dvd disk with Robert Osbornes intro and end commentary)??? if so, could you please send me a PM.... I have a question to ask of you....

MovieMadness reported: So it looks like TCM runs the 128 minute version which is not the original length. I went on Ebay to see what is being sold and saw a few different running times, one was 125 minutes, one was 128 minutes, but one is 135 minutes. It is a VHS cassette tape that clearly says 135 MIN on it. Thank you again for your research, MovieMadness But the version TCM broadcast was 131 min, and included end credits with Alfred Newman's great theme score playing in the background. Still missing something though, perhaps even more than I remembered with a 135 min VHS version. The edited scene cut is likely only a few seconds, I doubt it would have increased the run time longer than a minute. I'm wondering if that VHS version not only includes the intact scenes, but also has additional music, in the beginning and/or the end of the film?... Either that or there may be an entire scene missing that I didn't catch? Can't think of which one? I will have to watch the movie again to see if something else stands out. I no longer have a VHS player, but I sure want to see that VHS version.

Mr666 said May had filmed an extended coda in which Grodin and Shepherd sail off on their own honeymoon, only for Grodin to start becoming irritated by his new wife's habits all over again, but for some reason this sequence was discarded. Well that confirms what I had long suspected. First saw this film at the theatre in 1972. Found it entertaining then, and still do! Not exactly sure why,... Charles Grodin plays such an unlikable, self-interested character But, I suppose, inspite of myself, I related to him... Have you ever thought you wanted something so badly, that you obsessively devoted a lot of time and energy to get it? Then, after you finally have your prize in hand, it somehow no longer seems worth the energy you spent in acquiring it? The grass often appears to be greener in somebody elses back yard, but we sometimes don't stop to consider that a lot of time, sweat, and dirty work, may have been required to get it to appear that way. Lenny Cantrow is a singleminded, self-absorbed, obessive character, who hasn't yet grown up. He thinks he wants Lila, and unthinkingly will even marry her to have her. But without any forethought, and not really knowing her, her habits begin to repulse him once she is his wife. Then, he sees Kelly, who also behaves like a selfish child. But she is a WASP, and beautiful, and plays with him. She appears to be everything he never thought he could have, and he thinks she is seriously interested in him. So, like a child, he drops the "toy" in his hands, and reaches out to grab her. Again, only thinking in the present, without any forethought beyond having her. Like a horse with blinders on he remains focused only on his goal, "He must have Kelly," at any cost. In a way, his dogged tenacity is admirable. And Kelly, at least, becomes impressed by it. After-all, she is the object of his desire, and I'm sure it kind of thrilled her a bit to think that she could break-up a "marriage" with her feminine wiles. And, Lenny begins to remind her of her father with his doggedness and overwhelming self-confidence. Being a "daddy's girl" this attracts her to him all the more, as her naïveté reveals itself, and she even begins to win over her mother. The only character with any real sense is Kelly's father, a successful banker, who sees right through Lenny. But it becomes obvious on Kelly's wedding day, that he was eventually wore down by his daughter and wife. This brings us back to the opening scene. Another wedding, same groom, different bride. We can tell by the shallow conversations Lenny is having with the successful wedding guests, that he is window shopping, but has no real idea what he wants to buy, career wise. He has never stopped to consider beyond this moment. And now, that the adrenaline rush of the "chase" is subsiding, we can again see an air of discontentment in his shallow eyes. It is an open ending... Will Lenny stay with Kelly? Or will the same thing happen all over again.... ??? Secretly, most males in the audience (especially young males) want to be Lenny. We want to sleep with Kelly (Cybill Shepherd). Back in the day when I used to let my "little head" do most of my "thinking," I was no different. But that is the child in us that we hopefully outgrow one day. That lives only for the self-satisfaction of the moment, with no consideration of the consequences for tomorrow. Today, watching THE HEARTBREAK KID again after all these years, I am reminded of that selfish inner child that once use to command me. But That kind of goal oriented, obsessive behavior can have a positive side. By allowing individuals to take risks, go places and do some seemingly "impossible" things that at one time were only dreamt about. That energy, properly channeled, can sometimes lead to great accomplishment. When we leave Lenny, sitting alone on the couch, musing to himself as the camera fades back, there is this thought in the back of my mind. His actions have brought him to another crossroad in his life. Will he continue down the same path that brought him to this place, and repeat himself again? Or, will he choose a path that leads him to become a successful bankers son-in-law, and forever after enjoy the wedded bliss of sleeping with Kelly, his hard won prize? Now, at long last, I can finally rest in peace. I no longer have to wonder, finally knowing what answer the director had in mind.

Based on what I've been seeing (and reading) so far, the film appears to be matching the sound version scene for scene. However, I am noticing that a lot of the dialogue that was spoken in the talking version is not placed on the screen to read. The action of course speaks louder than any words, and the sound is discriptive. But without captions, or the ability to read lips, It's difficult sometimes to figure out what they are saying, Thankfully, this is one of my favorite films that I almost always watch, so I can anticipate each scene and the missing dialogue. But lacking that, when Lew Ayres is in the foxhole with the French soldier, and menacingly holds his bayonet to his neck, and the caption reads: "I'm only trying to help you." The sparse written verbage doesn't quite match the action I'm seeing. Also, missing much of the pathos intoned in the voice 's of the sound version. This version definitely leaves a lot to "read" between the lines.... But still very powerful, and for me a unique experience in a film that I've seen numerous times before! Of course I notice that the French girls are having no problem speaking out loud... go figure.

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930) SILENT VERSION News to Me as well. TCM has always shown a "restored" 133 min sound (talking) version. HOWEVER, after a quick bit of research and I discovered that the film had originally been released in BOTH silent & "talking" versions http://nypost.com/2012/02/12/all-quiet-even-quieter/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/ The original U.S. version ran 152 min, was silent, with synchronized sound. A sound version was filmed simultaneously with the silent version. A 147 min version was released in Britain, then was cut down to 145 min by British censors, a 138 min edited version was released later in the U.S., and a 136 min censored edit in Germany, with various additional edits & cuts dropping it down to 101 min for some U.S. television broadcasts. In 1998 it was finally "restored" to 133 min in the U.S. , which is the version that TCM has shown in the past. (it was reported that all the former "CUT" footage was lost.) Evidently in 2012, in honor of their 100th anniversary, Universal released a new Blu ray transfer of the 133 min restored version of the film, but also included a "silent" transfer as well! The best I can figure from an advertised 2 discs with a combined run time of 266 min is that they are both transfers of the 1998 133 min "restored version." So, for the first time, tonight, without any prior fan fare, TCM is showing the silent Blu ray version of this film. If I had known I'd have recorded this puppy, now I suppose I'll have to invest in a Blu ray player and order this if I want to see it again. (which may have been the intent of not informing us that this special would be showing all along???) That is, unless TCM decides to broadcast it again, with a little prior notice of which version they will be showing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front_(1930_film) Releases First version of the film, a 152 minute silent version with synchronised sound,[1] was first shown in Los Angeles on April 21, 1930 and premiered in New York on April 25, 1930.[8] A 147 minute version was submitted to the British censors, which was cut to 145 minutes[9] before the film premiered in London June 14, 1930.[8] The film went on general release in the US on August 24, 1930.[1] In 1939, it was re-released as a proper sound version, which was cut down to ten reels.[1] Later re-releases were substantially cut and the film's ending scored with new music against the wishes of director Lewis Milestone.[10] Before his death in 1980, Milestone requested that Universal fully restore the film with the removal of the end music cue. Two decades later, Milestone's wishes were finally granted when the United States Library of Congress undertook an exhaustive restoration of the film, which is vastly superior in sound and picture quality to most other extant prints, but because all existing complete prints of the film were lost and no longer exist, the final "complete" version now available is only 133 minutes long.[9] The film received tremendous praise in the United States, but controversy would attend the film's subject matter elsewhere, including Europe. http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Western-Front-Blu-ray-Digital/dp/B006FE83T0 Digitally Remastered and Fully Restored from High Resolution 35MM Original Film Elements to Get the Most from Your HDTV Digital Copy of All Quiet on the Western Front (Subject to expiration. Go to NBCUCodes.com for details.) Introduction by Turner Classic Movies Host and Film Historian Robert Osborne Rarely Seen Silent Version of All Quiet on the Western Front 100 Years of Universal: Restoring the Classics 100 Years of Universal: Academy Award® Winners Theatrical Trailer BD-Live – Internet-connected features My Scenes – Bookmark your favorite scenes Pocket BLU App – App for smartphones and tablets. Take content on the go! D-BOX

Swithin said: there is a question whether the Lucifer of Isaiah is a devil at all, Well he is still being referred to as the "son of the morning." I've seen the name Lucifer used without any negative, or devilish connotation, whereas Satan always seems to imply a fallen, adversarial state. I don't recall any mention of Lucifer in the book of Ezekiel, In Ezekial, no. In the KJB v of Isaiah, yes. Lucifer, Satan, Serpent, Dragon, The devil, etc. are all names used to represent the same entity. and a lot of it is down to the translation. Most definitely. Regarding Salome, I don't think the daughter of Herodias who danced in the Bible is named as Salome; She is not. She is referred to as "the daughter of Herodias." Flavius Josephus wrote in his Jewish Antiquities, that "Salome" (AD 14 – AD 62 or 71) was the daughter of Herod II and Herodias. We know her name as Salome because a reputable Jewish historian from the period mentions it. nor do I think that seven veils are mentioned They aren't. But it is stated that "On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother." Salome is obviously the same girl (corraborated by Josephus) that performed the infamous dance for Herod that resulted in John's execution. It didn't elaborate how she danced, or what she was wearing, it just said that Herod was so pleased with her performance that he promised her anything in front of witnesses. I suppose he had no idea that she would ask for such a grusome gift as John's head on a platter. I think Oscar Wilde was familiar with both the New Testament and the writings of Josephus and just filled in the blanks for artistic effect. . my point was that many people actually think that a woman named Salome did the dance of the seven veils in the Bible, when in fact that story comes from Mr. Wilde. Well it appears that Salome did do the dance, but we can credit Wilde for the popular name of the dance and its description. So -- I wasn't saying that Milton and Wilde were not inspired by the Bible, just that it's the more embellished versions and the imagery of Milton and WIlde that have captured people's imagination and that we tend to remember more vividly. For those that are familiar with "Paradise Lost," and the plays of Wilde, (including their screen adaptations) I most definitely agree. But I think that those numbers are dwindling.

Thanks Movie Madness, for finding that timed clip of the second edited instance that I referred to in my first post. And thanks, darkblue for your IMDb, link about the tobacco pouch. First, I do stand by my memory of what I heard numerous times in the summer of 1966, when I saw NEVADA SMITH, with friends again, and again, where it played for several weeks that summer. Per what I remember in the first scene in question, Fitch said breast, NOT dress. In the second scene, which is now posted (thanks to MovieMadness), there was a deletion of dialogue where Fitch briefly elaborated on the origin of the tobacco pouch, before being cut off by Smith. The original logical conjecture on my part was that there were at least two versions of this movie in extent: the one I saw, and a "cut" one that TCM aired. I did not and DO NOT believe that TCM deliberately edits any of the films that they show. However, TCM has shown alternate versions of existing film prints (i.e. THE SAND PEBBLES (1966) which was recently shown is the shortest of three versions of that film that are presently available). Perhaps these are the only prints that are available for TCM to show because of distribution rights, or what-have-you, I am not privy to that information. BUT, there are more complete versions of some films that TCM has NOT shown. FACT. Regarding NEVADA SMITH, it first made sense to me that an edited version was likely made for television by altering one word with a voice over in the first scene, and removing part of the second scene (The latter is a practice that AMC employs all the time these days). HOWEVER, it is now obvious, based on what darkblue saw and heard, and other posters elsewhere, that the TCM version of this film was also released that same year. Perhaps soon after, or possibly even at the same time as, the unedited version I saw at the Lamarr theater in 1966. This would not surprize me as the practice of making studio edits immediately after an initial release, was not an uncommon practice. Even releasing slightly different versions at that same time to different areas is not uncommon. So it is now my belief that at least two versions of NEVADA SMITH were circulating in 1966. No one refutes that the more explicit dialogue was present in the Harold Robbins 1961 novel THE CARPETBAGGERS from which the Max Sand/Nevada Smith character originated. However, in my case, I saw NEVADA SMITH before I saw THE CARPETBAGGERS (1964) movie, and years before I even picked up the novel. I had numerous memorable conversations and reenactments with my friends on the NEVADA SMITH movie (including those scenes in question) long before that occurred, so I was NOT unduly influenced by reading the novel. However my searches have thus far failed to yield another version of NEVADA SMITH. There are NO Blu ray versions of the film at all, and I have yet been able to discover any DVD version with extra features that would hopefully include alternate or deleted scenes. Nor have my web forum searches yet yielded positive collaboration specifically addressing persons seeing the same version that I saw. The few possibilities that mention the "Breast " reference could be referring to the novel and not the movie. So what does that mean to me ? So far, I can only deduce the probability that the version I saw may have been a limited release, possibly only screened in Southern California, then possibly pulled from circulation, for whatever reason, leaving only the edited version for mass distribution. At this point the most solid evidence that two versions once co-existed is the existing print of NEVADA SMITH itself. Barring the "dress" for "breast" dialogue exchange (which would require presentation of that alternate scene to conclusively prove), we do have a skillfully edited, yet still pretty obvious, deletion of a few seconds from that posted scene that causes a slight, but noticeable incongruence. There was an edit at that point in the film. The remaining supposition is what did they edit out? and why? Since the original intact scene was obviously NOT filmed the way it is now presented, but is evidence of a subtle, but still obviously CUT. I say the reason why that edit exists is because of what I remember.... Fitch further elaborated to Smith (in more than just a single easily recorded over word) that the tobacco pouch was made of the skin cut from the breast of Max Sands mother. Fitch said this trying to get a rise out of Smith, so that he would reveal that he was in fact Max Sand. It was a very powerful and memorable scene in the movie that I first saw, so much so that I have never forgotten it. When the current scene quickly jumps with the pouch disappearing from Smith's left hand and suddenly reappearing back at the center of the table, with Max changing the subject to divert Fitch away from the subject of the pouch, the scenes impact is noticeably weakened from the screenings that I saw several times that summer. I can only guess, that possibly after a trial screening in a few areas, somebody at Paramount with editing clout decided that scene was just to potent for general audiences to handle at that time, and had the film yanked. Again, that would not have been the first time that such things have occurred. For anyone who did not see the version of NEVADA SMITH that I saw (or maybe only saw it once and have since forgotten it), they would likely not catch such subtle edits, because the power of what is missing does not stand out for them. I know that I am not the only person left alive who saw that "other" version of NEVADA SMITH and can remember it. There may even be members of the TCM board that were in an area in Southern Cal and saw the same thing I saw, perhaps they just haven't yet checked out this thread for collaborative comment. But for anyone who watches this movie and picks up on that second edit, I can tell you what was CUT. FACT: an obvious edit was made. conjecture: Did the unedited scene have the dialogue in it that I have stated, or not??? At this point it appears that I may be the only one who knows for sure. In conclusion, when darkblue says that what TCM aired, and what he first saw, is the final theatrical version (the final cut) of the film, I concede. Because the version I saw had NO such edits, making it an earlier version. Hopefully someone can yet add something solid to this thread (ideally because they have access to some hard printed or posted information, i.e. a copy of the original script, or they were an usher or manager from the Lamarr, or a similar participating theatre, from that time, etc.). Barring that advent this topic has likely reached its useful, if inconclusive, end.

Swithin said: The arts have always had an impact on what we believe. A few examples: The story of Lucifer being cast out of heaven comes from Milton's Paradise Lost, not the Bible, but many people think it's in the Bible. Salome's "Dance of the Seven Veils" comes from Oscar Wilde's play, Salome, and was later used in the R. Strauss opera. It's not in the Bible, though many people think it is there. No denying what you have said about the arts impacting beliefs. However, I do think you may have placed the cart before the horse in these two particular examples. I certainly do NOT want to turn this thread into a theology debate nor a religious discussion, and I am certainly NOT a religious scholar. But I will very breifly take issue: It is recorded that by 367 AD the theologian Athanasius of Alexandria had provided a listing of the 66 books belonging to the present Biblical canon. Meaning that the writings that compose the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were already were known well before John Milton (9 December 1608 – 8 November 1674) and Oscar Wilde (16 October 1854 – 30 November 1900) were ever conceived. 1) regarding The story of Lucifer being cast out of heaven comes from Milton's Paradise Lost, not the Bible, but many people think it's in the Bible. There are several Biblical references to Lucifer being "cast out of heaven" in both the old and Christian New Testament. Wording may differ depending upon the translation being used: In Ezekiel 28: he is addressed as he was before a "fallen" state and afterward. NIV 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; Isaiah 14: KJB 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! NIV 12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” 15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. In both of these "chapters" the author is using parallelism to address both earthly Kings as well as the spiritual power influencing them, Satan. In Ezekiel the inferences are to both lament the king of Tyre, and the "anointed guardian cherub," Satan's role in the Garden of Eden. In Isaiah the earthly monarch is the king of Babylon, and Satan is referred to in the KJB as "Lucifer, son of the morning," who has been cut down due to his aspirations to supplant "The Most High." . Revelation 12 NIV 7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Based on the above writings alone, it is clear that John Milton, who had access to the King James version of the Bible was strongly influenced by the Fall of Lucifer/Satan when he wrote Paradise Lost. 1) regarding Salome's "Dance of the Seven Veils" comes from Oscar Wilde's play, Salome, and was later used in the R. Strauss opera. It's not in the Bible, though many people think it is there. Whereas the "Dance of the Seven Veils" per se, is possibly an invention of Oscar Wilde, it is written in Matthew that before the beheading of John the Baptist, Salome did dance before her step-father Herod Antipas (son of Herod the Great and half-brother to Herod Philip II & Herod Archelaus). Although the name of Salome is not given in Matthew, the Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus wrote in his Jewish Antiquities, that Salome (AD 14 – between 62 and 71) was the daughter of Herod II and Herodias, Matthew 14 NIV 3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet. 6 On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much 7 that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. 8 Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” 9 The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted 10 and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. Whether Salome used any or seven veils during her dance is not stated, however it is clearly recorded that she did perform an infamous dance that resulted in the beheading of John the Baptiste. Perhaps incorporating the Seven Veils was Oscar Wilde's contrivance to spice up the action a bit. In any event, Wilde was very much aware and influenced by the Biblical story when he adapted it for his play.

MovieMadness posted: I know many here may not be fans of Doctor Zhivago, but that is a fairly accurate portrayal of Russia.... Big fan of DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965) and director David Lean. Though a work of fiction, it has a historical context. I think that David Lean did an outstanding job bringing the plot of the novel to screen. Yet epic as the film was, I still believe that it should be contrasted with the much greater life and times of its Nobel Prize-winning author, Boris Leonidovich Pasternak. His book apparently was a work in progress from 1910, until it's completion in 1956, and that is a lot of influential background history, the majority of it under Stalin's regime. As you say, the Government did not appreciate it.

LornaHansonForbes said: It's ironic since the one thing I recall about Rasputin and the Empress is how awful Ethel is in it- as mannered and morose as Helen Hayes at her worst. She's acting for the THEATUH the whole time and it shows. Not to make excuses for Ms Barrymore, but it was her first "talkie" and the technology was only 5 years old in 1932. Still pretty crude and cumbersome. And though she had made several silent films before, she was still primarily a theatre actress. So she likely was somewhat "taken a back," and uncomfortable with the process, and that may have made her acting "stiff" and her reactions come off as rudeness. Then again she may have just been a "superior" behaving person, as you say? Don't really know, wasn't there. But it sounds as though Ethel's demeanor could be particularly awesome, perhaps not in the marvelous sense....??? I was most entertained by the interactions & reactions of Lionel & John, to each other. It was almost as if they were having their own private gig in the midst of this elaborate production. I confess I haven't seen this film in years, so I am looking forward to it in April. Too bad it will air too early to have an intro/outro by either Robert or Ben. I think it would have been a good film for Robert & Drew to have hosted at least once during her three year essentials stint, but didn't happen. Maybe board members like Fred and TomJH, and others, can post a little more enlightenment, about the family & film, before April 15th, to help enhance our viewing pleasure?

TomJH Thank you for your insightful and informative (as usual) addition to the topic of this thread. I always learn something new from you. I read about Mickey's (Gala) Premiere and would sure like to see it. I wonder if there is any chance that TCM may show it for us, since they now have an affiliation with Disney and some of the treasures in their Vault?

SansFin said: It may be that I have more interest in historical accuracy of the region and period as my great-grandmother met Tsaritsa Alexandra and knew Grand Duchess Anastasia. My family were not noble but were well-respected and visted Winter Palace often. How wonderful for you to have such first-hand family contact. Were you able to know your great grandmother? Sadly for me, when I met persons of familial or historical interest when a child (even as young "adult"), I was too immature to fully appreciate them. Today, I derive great plasure in listening to what experiential lucid seniors have to say. But, I would love to go back, if I could, and "pick" the brains of those no longer with us. I believe that any person who expects movies to be historically correct may be delusional in other aspects. I agree. I know few documentaries which have great claim to accuracy. It is difficult. Generally, the best researched, least biased, documentaries that I enjoy are PBS and BBC distributions. Movies are for entertainment. I feel that capturing essential sense of characters is far more important than adherence to events. Agreed.