goldensilents

It's nice that 25 minutes of Treasure Island is apparently found but if it's not the full movie it will be of limited commercial value by itself. They can perhaps add it as a special or extra in a second Lon Chaney box set. The world is going through a deep recession right now (and likely to get far worse as governments print more and more trillions of dollars and borrow from China) and funds for luxury things like film restorations are going to be hard to come by. The DVD market is over saturated with titles and people have limited funds for entertainment when their first priority is keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table. So in some ways I can understand some reticence in spending money on old films, even if they are valued by a small portion of film fans like us. If you are in business to make a profit (and God help the business who isn't) you have to select your projects carefully with an eye to making money right now, not spending it.

Or the missing reels of Greed.

My copy of Yankee Clipper comes from the Critic's Choice video of years ago. It was from an old 1960's broadcast on tv with narration telling us what was happening in the scenes -- as if the audience were dummies and couldn't figure it out for themselves. I'm sure it will be far better from Flicker Alley! lol However I vastly prefer The Volga Boatman with Elinor and William. I think it's romantic he was proposing to her in real life as they played out the execution scene before the firing squad. The stars were just as romantic in those days as the movies they played in.

That's odd, it's not showing up yet on Amazon.com for pre-order. Their release of The Yankee Clipper and other seafaring films is, however. That can be pre-ordered. Any additional word on when or if TCM will air either or both films?

I don't have the foggiest idea why TCM hasn't linked to the Warner's site. Ask them. Yes, most American movies 1923 and later are still under copyright, unless the copyright owners did not renew the copyright in its 28th year. I am sure Don Juan is still under copyright.

It is a fun one. There's only one thing about the film that bothers me. It makes me uncomfortable to see the way-too-tight tights on little Philippe De Lacy. And the way he was told to move, it's always been a bit creepy to me. See if you can see what I mean when you watch it again. I've mentioned this to others and they agree with me once they see it. You see I'm a mother of five and I can tell you I'd never let any of my sons wear that kind of attire in a school play or a film or what have you. It's too revealing.

May seems like a great month all around, this premiere plus The White Sister premiere and if you look at the month's schedule quite a few good precodes scheduled as well. Then the rest of the year we go back into the TCM desert.

11:56pm Short Film: From The Vaults: John Barrymore (1962) BW-3 mins 12:00am Don Juan (1926) In this silent film, the legendary lover fights to survive intrigue in the court of the Borgias. Cast: John Barrymore, Mary Astor, Willard Louis, Estelle Taylor Dir: Alan Crosland BW-112 mins, TV-G

A nice young man on my message board posted 3 videos of Kevin Brownlow being interviewed at the Killruddery Silent Film Festival. I thought people here might enjoy listening to him. http://goldensilents.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=10295&page=1

Whichever corporation owns *The Trial of Mary Dugan* would stand to benefit financially from putting it out on DVD, if they owned the copyright outright. The original author might have contested something. I have the original novel of this story and the story is a bit different from the film. Maybe the situation was something like *The Constant Nymph* , where the author objected to the film because too many things were changed about plots / characters. So if the author wins their case against the studio and their work was published 1923 or later it is still under copyright, more than likely, and the author's estate could sue the film company, even at this late date, if they broadcast it or tried to make money from it. They (or their relatives / estate) gain because they have the satisfaction that few can see the resulting film the author objected to all those years ago. I know, it stinks. The attorneys who have fought to protect the public domain have tried to push forward ideas to circumvent Sonny Bono, to little success. For instance they tried to put in place a system where if a copyright owner doesn't pay 1 dollar per year to keep their old copyrights current that the works would fall into the public domain before the year 2018. Many old copyrights would fall into the PD under that system because original artists would be dead and not send the 1 dollar. But so far this idea has been nixed by the courts.

He's transferred quite a few LDs for me too. Both silents and sounds I've sent him. He's sweet that way, doing it for nothing (though I tell him to keep the LDs, not to send them back, so he might have re-sold a few to make a profit for himself). His company hired him back so he's working again. He's probably too busy these days to do transfers. More power to him! The recession is hurting a lot of people.

If I were to hazard to guess, the print is probably the same as the laser disc transfer Kyle did and shared with people. I am in no rush to get the DVD with the same old score. I do like *Love* better than the later talkie version with Garbo and March though. And of course the silent has the beautiful boy Philippe De Lacy in it. Greta had much better chemistry with him than with Freddie B. in the talkie. In fact I read she thought Freddie B. terrible to work with, he'd have tantrums on the set. Philippe was a dream to work with.

I can confirm the score hasn't been replaced for *Love*. Someone from my board already got hers in the mail and told us it's the same boring score with the laughter. I tried to warn her it was probably the same otherwise we would have heard something about an updated score, but I guess curiousity got the better of her.

Maybe the devil destroyed it! (doo doo doo doo doo doo doo! Twilight Zone music playing in the background) Here's a vintage still from *Love* that I bought a few years ago on eBay and scanned. Smooch! Smooch! Smooch! (or in the words of another movie, "suck face").

I never thought she was a great beauty (although she came closest in some shots in *Male and Female*, mostly on the island) but she was a great actress and always intriguing to watch.

>The "revolution," by the way, lasted several years. Most revolutions do.

I think you got it Tracey. She sure looks like Eleanor Boardman though, how freaky.

I agree with you. These cases are utterly ridiculous. When copyrights were first instituted in this country they lasted 14 years and another 14 years if you renewed. That was in the early 1800's. Slowly the terms were increased and increased and increased so that it is now way beyond reasonable; in America you can conceivably get 150 - 170 years of "protection". The US Constitution actually states copyrights should be for "limited terms". Several generations are not "limited terms". The government has been stepping on the US Constitution and making it of none effect for years and years. If copyright terms were still reasonable, even if there were issues between studios and original authors like with The Constant Nymph, those issues would no longer hold legal sway because the shorter copyright terms would put the original works into the public domain much earlier, where they rightfully belong. If Clinton had not signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention law in 1997 EVERY SINGLE WORK FROM THE 1920's, books, films, art, etc. would ALL be in the public domain right now and you would see an EXPLOSION of restorations of old works. A healthy public domain is good for the people; too long extended copyrights are good for corporations. It's pretty obvious which entity Washington D.C. favors.

I never wrote it's just a rights issue.

But at least you kinda remember it. I don't think I'll ever make it to Chicago for anything. Has anyone ever read her book How Women Can Make Money In The Stock Market?

Your top photo looks a bit like the gal in profile. Eleanor had a slightly slanted forehead, which you see in the photo in question. She looks more like Eleanor to me than Leatrice. http://www.goldensilents.com/stars/leatricejoy.html

Has anyone here actually seen Colleen's beautiful dollhouse for real, and not just pictures? I've always wanted to see it at the actual museum it resides in. Maybe someday. http://www.msichicago.org/whats-here/exhibits/fairycastle/

Midnight08, often times the issue goes back to the author's estate and not the studio's existing copyrights, if any. If the relatives of the author still remain on top of the issue and don't want to bend then the studios have little choice if the original judgment fell to the author in a contested case, even if it was 60,70,80 years ago. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension law signed by Clinton in 1997 pretty much guaranteed that no old works (except for a few historical documents) will enter the public domain until 2018. For instance, it's not a precode, but the Joan Fontaine, Charles Boyer version of The Constant Nymph is held up from being screened or broadcast or put on DVD because the original author of the novel did not like the way the studio changed her story, she sued and won the case. So since that time few have legally tried to screen The Constant Nymph. Last time I looked it was illegally on YouTube but then 90% of YouTube videos are probably illegal and breaking copyright and few copyright holders seem to care enough to put in a complaint. YouTube is one thing but if TCM tried to broadcast The Constant Nymph the author's estate might sue them.

That's pretty short sighted of them though to just concentrate on the women. There were many outstanding actors working in precodes at that time, Richard was just one of them. I agree Bette stole Cabin in the Cotton from Richard but he had his excellent moments in that film too such as the scene in the woods, and the ending. Bette's character was shallow and Richard's character tried to do the right thing. Overall I think the audience by the end of the picture cares more about where Richard's character's life will take him and not Bette's character.