| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 10:59:28
Originally posted by Se�n
Four Your Consideration - Treasure Hunt
Se�n Says: Don't breathe too deeply lest you catch the lurgy
 Put any five reviews you like in your F.Y.C. list.
 Do not use reviews from the previous round - you must change them every round.
 Post here to declare that you've done it. Sooner is better than later.
 Provide a spoiler warning in your post when appropriate.
 You must read the F.Y.C.s of all participants.
 The next round starts on Monday or Thursday at 6:00 a.m. FWFR time, whichever comes next.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 11:39:53
Well, that was a disappointing round. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 07:59:45
vv
|
| demonic |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 06:11:18
Turned into a bit of a mission, but finally managed to vote via my phone and the old website... phew. Plenty of 4s. :) |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 21:14:18
quote:
Originally posted by clay
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
A tribute to the best and a few tens.
I'd already voted for 4 of them--so: 1/5. 
Cheers chap.
VVed |
| randall |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 20:50:21
V&V |
| [matt] |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 18:19:10
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Liked [matt]'s "Lug of the Irish" best.
Cheers, Larry. That's grand.
|
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 17:30:13
Yep. |
| Larry |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 17:23:24
Viewted. Liked [matt]'s "Lug of the Irish" best.
|
| [matt] |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 17:09:24
VV |
| randall |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 21:22:32
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Didja know - this 1908 version of Merchant of Venice is widely accepted a the very first colored film -- every frame given the hand treatment. Wow!
What about A TRIP TO THE MOON (1902)? Didja see HUGO? And it wasn't the only hand-colored Melies, either. Was this a common treatment at the turn of the century?
Hi
Forgive my not not-so-prompt reply ... have been laid up in bed with a high fever. I guess the first thing to say is that my review works whatever the explanation since it just states an indisputable fact. If you visit this page you'll see stills from the film.
Anyway - yes, there's lots of confusion about which was the first color technique. Hugo, which has become one of my favorite films of all time certainly pays tribute to Melies, but is not a bio-pic. Scorsese has conflated several unsung heroes of pre-1920s cinema.
Both Blackton and Melies had up and down fortunes in the industry, which in America was controlled to a great extent by Edison. His stanglehold on most of the related patents resulted in the formation in 1908 of the Motion Picture Patents Company MPPC which eventually forced the NY/NJ based film studio entrepreneurs to flee to California. Not for the weather - a bonus when they arrived - but because Edison had hired the Pinkerton Officers to threaten and harass any film producers not in Edison's employ, and to smash or confiscate their equipment.
Edison, along with Carl Laemmele et al also indulged in a spot of film piracy - which was responsible for Melies moving to America to keep an eye on his prodigious productions. Less known is that Melies himself had swashed his buckle, pilfering from his rivals the Lumiere Brothers.
Both Blackton and Melies were theatrical showmen, both with a penchant for magic, and both fascinated by the possibilities of film illusion. It is true that Melies sold both black and white and color verions of a Trip to the Moon, but what isn't clear is how soon after the film was completed was the hand-tinting applied.
There were no actual credits on the film and it wasn't until earlier this century that a full copy of the tinted film was discovered - I believe somewhere in rural England.
What's clear is that the early color experiments weren't that much of a draw to either the nickolodeon or theatrical audiences, because neither Melies nor Blackton made a habit of transforming their black and white films.
Anyway - perhaps those who credit Blackton with being the first to tint mean the first in America. But, as I say, none of this invalidates my review.
But thanks for the opportunity to distract me from my febrile state to address one of my favorite subjects.
Please don't take my comment as an attack on your review, which, frankly, I haven't even read yet! [I tend to vote on the last day.] And I wasn't trying to pick a fight, either! I was just saying, 1908 is pretty darn late a date to claim the first hand-tinted film, as your explanation seemed to have done; you didn't make an exception for "America". It is a fact that A TRIP TO THE MOON was hand-tinted [as opposed to later "Technicolor" lab work, a la the 1925 PHANTOM OF THE OPERA], by its creators.
Similarly, David Denby made a mistake in his current New Yorker piece on silent acting. He said that Abel Gance's NAPOLEON hasn't been shown in America since the famous 1981 Radio City Music Hall engagement with a full orchestra. He's wrong. I saw it in the early 90s, at that very venue, with Carmine Coppola on the baton. That doesn't invalidate Denby's beautiful piece. It just means he got that one fact wrong.
I have a shelf full of cinema references too. I just thought that since you'd seen HUGO recently, you might agree that hand-coloring pre-dated 1908. BTW, I don't think Scorsese conflated pre-1920s filmmakers: I think he stuck to Melies pretty solidly. |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 19:47:30
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
This IMDb entry suggests that a 1896 film was hand coloured:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205490/
And so it may be, but as you well know those synopses are written by imdb users. And that listing has absolutely no reference. If you can find any corroborative evidence, do please let us know. It's in none of my hefty shelf of film history books and I can find nothing online.
The main point, of course, is that my review still stands. So all you are quibbling about is my explanation. Which may or may not be accurate, but is after all irrelevant.
So I'm not quite sure what your point is. Not that Wikipedia is gospel, but in their extensive article on American Mutascope, neither the film nor color is mentioned. Nor does noted film historian Paul Rotha identify any specific film as being the first tinted offering.
And so again I say, the main point, of course, is that my review still stands. Is anyone challenging that?
Sorry, I detect no quibbling here and this has never been about your review (perfectly fine regardless of what was the 'first' colour film) but rather your note on it. We are all at the mercy of hard to verify 'history' here.
My post was not meant create an argument but to merely point out a reference to a very early 'colour' film. I don't know how reliable the IMDb reference is but I do know that the FWFR site tends to use IMDb as a 'site of record'.
Now, let's get on to the angels on the pinhead. |
| clay |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 18:26:12
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
A tribute to the best and a few tens.
I'd already voted for 4 of them--so: 1/5.
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 18:06:52
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
This IMDb entry suggests that a 1896 film was hand coloured:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205490/
And so it may be, but as you well know those synopses are written by imdb users. And that listing has absolutely no reference. If you can find any corroborative evidence, do please let us know. It's in none of my hefty shelf of film history books and I can find nothing online.
The main point, of course, is that my review still stands. So all you are quibbling about is my explanation. Which may or may not be accurate, but is after all irrelevant.
So I'm not quite sure what your point is. Not that Wikipedia is gospel, but in their extensive article on American Mutascope, neither the film nor color is mentioned. Nor does noted film historian Paul Rotha identify any specific film as being the first tinted offering.
And so again I say, the main point, of course, is that my review still stands. Is anyone challenging that?
|
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 17:04:53
This IMDb entry suggests that a 1896 film was hand coloured:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205490/ |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 11:13:26
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Didja know - this 1908 version of Merchant of Venice is widely accepted a the very first colored film -- every frame given the hand treatment. Wow!
What about A TRIP TO THE MOON (1902)? Didja see HUGO? And it wasn't the only hand-colored Melies, either. Was this a common treatment at the turn of the century?
Hi
Forgive my not not-so-prompt reply ... have been laid up in bed with a high fever. I guess the first thing to say is that my review works whatever the explanation since it just states an indisputable fact. If you visit this page you'll see stills from the film.
Anyway - yes, there's lots of confusion about which was the first color technique. Hugo, which has become one of my favorite films of all time certainly pays tribute to Melies, but is not a bio-pic. Scorsese has conflated several unsung heroes of pre-1920s cinema.
Both Blackton and Melies had up and down fortunes in the industry, which in America was controlled to a great extent by Edison. His stanglehold on most of the related patents resulted in the formation in 1908 of the Motion Picture Patents Company MPPC which eventually forced the NY/NJ based film studio entrepreneurs to flee to California. Not for the weather - a bonus when they arrived - but because Edison had hired the Pinkerton Officers to threaten and harass any film producers not in Edison's employ, and to smash or confiscate their equipment.
Edison, along with Carl Laemmele et al also indulged in a spot of film piracy - which was responsible for Melies moving to America to keep an eye on his prodigious productions. Less known is that Melies himself had swashed his buckle, pilfering from his rivals the Lumiere Brothers.
Both Blackton and Melies were theatrical showmen, both with a penchant for magic, and both fascinated by the possibilities of film illusion. It is true that Melies sold both black and white and color verions of a Trip to the Moon, but what isn't clear is how soon after the film was completed was the hand-tinting applied.
There were no actual credits on the film and it wasn't until earlier this century that a full copy of the tinted film was discovered - I believe somewhere in rural England.
What's clear is that the early color experiments weren't that much of a draw to either the nickolodeon or theatrical audiences, because neither Melies nor Blackton made a habit of transforming their black and white films.
Anyway - perhaps those who credit Blackton with being the first to tint mean the first in America. But, as I say, none of this invalidates my review.
But thanks for the opportunity to distract me from my febrile state to address one of my favorite subjects.
|
|
|
