THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925/1929) - Kino Classics - October 13, 2015

[happydood]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

WOW. Can’t wait to hear what the Nitratevillains have to say about this extremely interesting development!

I just followed your train over to Nitrateville because I too was unable to find anything re: the color ending. So I get that what I saw is a combination of the '25 and '29, but do we know if the ending was in color on the extant 16 mm materials? I'm still confused- and while I don't know if any of those inter titles were original they worked in context. I'm intimately familiar with the 29 version, but not so much the '25, so I guess I was duped, but the presentation was still a lot of fun...

[ClassicCraig]

I watched the '25 version on the Image BD set last night and was surprised at how well it held my attention despite the pace and length. I had several interruptions and I kept coming back to the movie. I think it helps to have seen it before so I knew where it was going.
I didn't know until recently that the "1929" version on the BD (the Eastman print) is mostly alternate angles and takes from the 1925 version, with a few talkie scenes from 1929. A reel from the 1929 version was found relatively recently, but I don't think it's been integrated into any of the videos.
I love the quality of the Eastman print with the color scenes added, but I prefer the 1925. I'd consider getting a copy of the BFI release, but the upgrade isn't a high priority for me.
Happydood: The 16mm sources are all B&W. The B&W ball scene is not just a B&W copy of the color version. You can tell because the scenery is different in the Technicolor shoot. I assume this is because the Technicolor people demanded changes. Unless the color scenes were filmed for the 1929/30 release ...

[Monterey Jack]

Which version should I watch next month, and which framerate? This is for a first-time viewer.

[fred25_Ca]

I've seen the movie but it's been a few years now and I was wondering which score is the best? I saw the movie a few years ago with a live orchestra playing the Gabriel Thibaudeau score and it was wonderful. But i've learned since then that Carl Davis (my favorite silent film composer) did a score for the movie too and that it's on the BFI edition (I own the Kino). I've been hesitating in buying the BFI edition just for that but I was wondering which scores you guys prefer? Thanks.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Which version should I watch next month, and which framerate? This is for a first-time viewer.

You'll mostly get the '29 version recommended because that is by a huge margin the best image quality. But as to which framerate, that's not a simple answer. The '29 cut is a mix of 20 and 24 frames footage, being a hybrid between the '25 release and the lost sound reissue with new scenes. So either way, some of it will play at the wrong speed whichever you choose.

Hope you enjoy it by the way! It's a very rewarding film to look into if you like it, because of all this stuff I've merely scratched the surface of.

Originally Posted by fred25_Ca

I've seen the movie but it's been a few years now and I was wondering which score is the best? I saw the movie a few years ago with a live orchestra playing the Gabriel Thibaudeau score and it was wonderful. But i've learned since then that Carl Davis (my favorite silent film composer) did a score for the movie too and that it's on the BFI edition (I own the Kino). I've been hesitating in buying the BFI edition just for that but I was wondering which scores you guys prefer? Thanks.

In this instance, I can't say I have any particular preference. Neither are bad! Saying that proudly owning the Kino and BFI releases (and formally the Park Circus which was a UK port of the older Image BD which the Kino essentially replaces).

Originally Posted by ClassicCraig

A reel from the 1929 version was found relatively recently, but I don't think it's been integrated into any of the videos.

It has - the BFI have this reel in isolation as an extra, the Kino edition add this reel in the (admittedly variable, nevertheless fascinating) reconstruction of the talkie reissue.

[happydood]

Honestly, I can recommend all of the scores. The last time I watched the disc I listened to the Alloy Orchestra score and loved it. Suitably creepy.

[Wes_k089]

I just watched the 24 fps version with the Alloy score and it was phenomenal!

[Ned Brainard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HoMzh5jhY&feature=emb_title

The Eye Film Museum has recently uncovered a 35mm fragment of POTO that includes two complete Technicolor sequences. The Bal Masque scene we have before of course, but the ballet sequence is new.

I watched the 1925 cut a few nights ago after not having seen it for about 15 years. While it does have the better plot development, I still find myself preferring the 1929 version for its better pacing and emphasis on Chaney rather than Philbin (granted, the 1925 film does make a somewhat successful attempt at explaining Philbin's initial naivete whereas the 1929 cut just asks us to accept it). The Frederick Hodges piano score gave good support to the film.

Universal actually still has the negative for at least some of the Technicolor sequences. Whether it is only for the Bal Masque sequence or all of the color scenes has not really been made clear. A restoration of POTO would be an intriguing project for Universal's recent initiative of silent film restorations. Under normal circumstances, I would have recommended that Universal put its time and resources working on other films since POTO has been well taken care of and presented over the years. However, the Technicolor material could potentially give us something new and distinctive. Since Universal is reportedly working on The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I would be surprised if POTO hasn't at least been considered.

[Pro Grain]

Which is the better version, the BFI or Kino one? I know the BFI has the 1925 version in HD, but is the 1929 version roughly similar in quality?

[All Darc]

I was wondering about a restoration (reconstruction) of the 1925 version as close as possible using the 1929 edition (made from outakes and alternate camera angle) and the Hampton 16mm prints. Some people said Universal maybe have a bit better 16mm footage than the Hamptom 16mm prints (used for some sceness in the Photoplay's restoration and the best 16mm source to come to video).
This 16mm prints from Universal (from Sensation Seekers 1927 and A Chapter in Her Life 1923), with some few simple sharpening filter, give a idea of what they may have and would look in HD:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film9/blu-r...fe_blu-ray.htm

But there is more that could be done, if money could be available, if we think about the best image detail enhancement. Look what Peter Jackson did for They Shall not Grow Old, enhancing WWI footage generations aways from camera negative, very soft and very grainy look, enhancing details much more than what a simple sharpening filter can do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn6H...ature=youtu.be

Set to 1080p, full screen, and look at 0:42, 1:03 and 1:45. In 1:45 the example of the plant jar in the table it's amazing. Look at the table wood edge, how the wood pattern "reborn".
Of course we need consider that the youtube encoding/compression deals better with stable grainless image than with the grainy unstable images, but even so, it's a great technology to help in film restoration.

Probably it's the Lowry Process, which analyze grain and image details from one frame to another, and extracts more image information, since in film the grain in sucession of frames holds more details than in a single frame.
One may say it's too grainless, but they could enhance detail, and after remove the uggly coarse uggly grain and enhance details it's simple to add a fine and nice grain pattern, like from a 1920's camera negative grain pattern, to make it look like film.

This technology could allow a reconstruction of the 1925 version without relevant anoying image quality changes (from the 35mm to 16mm).

[oddbox83]

I don't think you can just merrily stitch the two together to improve quality as you would be creating yet another version rather than restoring the original release cut. It wouldn't be the same 1925 version anymore, because the 35mm material comes from a different negative to what is used in the surviving 1925 versions. This isn't out of the ordinary - many silents would shoot 2 negatives at the same time, a prime one and a secondary one, with resulting different angles usually to make an export negative.

I think the best way to restore the surviving 1925 version is to use the best elements of the surving 16mm prints (There are a few I believe, some of which may have bits and pieces better than others) and stitch that together and restore for best quality. Then restore all the surviving colour sequences and redo Handschiegl and missing technicolour strips digitally.

[All Darc]

I was aware of all that, camera angles, different takes, outakes...

But the Lowry process it's pricy and use it to the entire 16mm from 1925 vrsion will cost a lot. That's why I propose use it to restore the 1925 scenes not present in the 1929 35mm version.

Originally Posted by oddbox83

I don't think you can just merrily stitch the two together to improve quality as you would be creating yet another version rather than restoring the original release cut. It wouldn't be the same 1925 version anymore, because the 35mm material comes from a different negative to what is used in the surviving 1925 versions. This isn't out of the ordinary - many silents would shoot 2 negatives at the same time, a prime one and a secondary one, with resulting different angles usually to make an export negative.

I think the best way to restore the surviving 1925 version is to use the best elements of the surving 16mm prints (There are a few I believe, some of which may have bits and pieces better than others) and stitch that together and restore for best quality. Then restore all the surviving colour sequences and redo Handschiegl and missing technicolour strips digitally.

[Shane Rollins]

I heard rumors that Universal was planning on taking on this project, and that they wanted to release it at least to Blu-ray for the 100th anniversary. Considering they really have gotten their shit together with their Blu-ray and 4K releases, I have hope that a Blu-ray and/or 4K of their silent films and possibly their Monster films will be amazing.

[All Darc]

The sad is that they probably will do standart 4K scan, stabilization, dust busting, flicker correction, fix splices, tears, conceal scratchs, but not perform the advanced image detail enhancement like Peter Jackson did for They Shall Not Grow Old (2018).

Chaney's The Phantom of The Opera and Hunchback of Notre Dame, both in 16mm (closer tot the original verions), deserves the best.

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

I heard rumors that Universal was planning on taking on this project, and that they wanted to release it at least to Blu-ray for the 100th anniversary. Considering they really have gotten their shit together with their Blu-ray and 4K releases, I have hope that a Blu-ray and/or 4K of their silent films and possibly their Monster films will be amazing.

[All Darc]

Look that (set timecode to 18:21 and sellect 1080p):

https://vimeo.com/450208976

Not the Phantom of The Opera, but a 16mm print (restoration not finished yet) of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), which survived only in 16mm show at home.
Not high end image detail enhancement like Lowry Digital/Peter Jackson's The Shall not Grow Old.
Image stabilization helped to enjoy the image better, but there are still some warping and some diagonal isntability. The texture remains with that damaged look, despite dust spots and marks had gone. I believe no one today have technology to fix that texture of damage, a similar case to the Lang's Metropolis lost scenes found in 16mm.

Lowry's process was expensive becase it used 1000 computers to process data. But itwas 16 years ago. Today the same computer's power are much more affordable, processing data costs a lot less. Why such image detail enhancement technology it's not more accessible today??? It would do wonders for a lot of classic films which survived in non ideal prints.

[sneakyRay]

I'm really unsure what Blu-Ray to get for this movie. It seems very divisive. dvdcompare is also a draw. The Kino release or the BFI release?

[Vanguard]

Originally Posted by sneakyRay

I'm really unsure what Blu-Ray to get for this movie. It seems very divisive. dvdcompare is also a draw. The Kino release or the BFI release?

For the original 1925 version, get the BFI release, as it is in HD(though, very rough looking) It is a region free Blu-ray, but the included DVDs are PAL.

I have not seen the 1929 version, so I cannot offer an opinion on it.

[sneakyRay]

Originally Posted by Vanguard

For the original 1925 version, get the BFI release, as it is in HD(though, very rough looking) It is a region free Blu-ray, but the included DVDs are PAL.

I have not seen the 1929 version, so I cannot offer an opinion on it.

So the Kino 24 and 20 frame versions are the 1929 version?

I don't really know the difference between all of these.
Also do the frames make a big difference in the watching experience?

[Vanguard]

Originally Posted by sneakyRay

So the Kino 24 and 20 frame versions are the 1929 version?

I don't really know the difference between all of these.
Also do the frames make a big difference in the watching experience?

Correct, the 1929 version comes in two FPS flavors.

The 1929 version on the BFI Blu-ray is 24FPS only. Whereas the Kino release has it in 24 and 20fps.

Films from back then had variable frame rates, due to hand cracked cameras. 20 fps is closer to what the film was actually captured at. It was not until the late 20s with the advent of sound that 23.97/24 FPS became the standard. This slower shooting speed, when sped up to 24FPS rate makes everything on screen look like its running super fast.

The 20 fps version on the Kino Blu-ray attempts to be faithful to that old frame rate, but at the cost of image quality. The 24 FPS version, according to reviews, looks much better.

The 1925 version is only in 24FPS across all releases.

If you are just interested in the 1929 version, the Kino 24FPS would probably be best version to watch.

Edit: I think the BFI 1929 version is identical to the Kino 24fps 1929 version, so its a tossup then between extras.

[sneakyRay]

Originally Posted by Vanguard

[Show spoiler]Correct, the 1929 version comes in two FPS flavors.

The 1929 version on the BFI Blu-ray is 24FPS only. Whereas the Kino release has it in 24 and 20fps.

Films from back then had variable frame rates, due to hand cracked cameras. 20 fps is closer to what the film was actually captured at. It was not until the late 20s with the advent of sound that 23.97/24 FPS became the standard. This slower shooting speed, when sped up to 24FPS rate makes everything on screen look like its running super fast.

The 20 fps version on the Kino Blu-ray attempts to be faithful to that old frame rate, but at the cost of image quality. The 24 FPS version, according to reviews, looks much better.

The 1925 version is only in 24FPS across all releases.

If you are just interested in the 1929 version, the Kino 24FPS would probably be best version to watch.

Awesome! Thanks for the clarification

I am definitely also interested in the 1925 version, so I am going with the BFI set.