criterionforum.org

Nope, nobody owns it yet but be aware of Spanish DVDs. Read what I wrote in DVDs released in Spain.

Wellcome to Spain, I mean, be aware.
They are not 100% sony DVDs. It's a Canary Island sub company (impulso) that make the DVDs using SONY licenses. After destroying too much WB and Fox films in cropped, VHS, pan / scan, pixeled prints, DIVX quality, now Impulso works with and for Sony.

Some Impulso DVDs are good (like some Fox if these films are in USA), some are not (WB classics were mostly massacred).

Well, it's worth a try and I already ordered it, it would be hard to release a worse DVD than the best copy of Man's Castle that's floating around. If it's complete rubbish, then it's probably also not the full length version and I'll send it back due to the wrong advertisement. I hope the running time isn't just copied from some database.

I very much doubt you'll get a 80-min uncut version of Man's Castle. I have seen the film many times: in a cinema, at the Cinémathèque, and I also have recordings from recent TV broadcasts (in France and USA). They all showed the 69-min edited version for the good reason that nobody has ever restored the cut scenes. (If ever the cut sequences have been preserved...) As for the image quality, it is always rather grainy, even in the very good recording I did on French TV. The negative has probably been lost (or destroyed) long ago.

From what I recall, Grover Crisp at Sony has stated that they do have elements for the missing scenes and are working to integrate them into the best existing copies of the film to prepare for a restoration and, one imagines, video release. But this may not be very far up the corporate priority list.

Thanks Jonah for the information. I'm glad some elements have survived. Let's hope Sony will do something about it!

My guess is you would first start seeing restored 35mm prints, but that it would take a third-party licensee to release it on video.

jonah.77 wrote:From what I recall, Grover Crisp at Sony has stated that they do have elements for the missing scenes and are working to integrate them into the best existing copies of the film to prepare for a restoration and, one imagines, video release.

That's however not what Mike Schlesinger is saying at http://www.davekehr.com/?p=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, according to him "The version of MAN’S CASTLE that currently exists is the edited post-Code reissue, and Grover is still searching for the cut footage."
Herve Dumont describes the cut scenes and quote extensively dialogue, intriguing that he also mentions that the cut parts seem to be missing from most of the prints. One gets the impression he has seen a full copy.

The Spanish DVD has a slight greenish tingue and is a bit grainy, but also a tad sharper than the best copy floating on the net. It's the short version (66 minutes) though strangely I had to jump to a later timecode in the PAL DVD for a screenshot comparison. I'll run them side by side and report.

I'm surely misremembering -- Crisp probably said that they were actively looking for those scenes, not that they'd found them. Sorry to get anyone's hopes up too high!

We've talked elsewhere on this site about this film. My guess is that the missing footage relates to the subplot with Tracy and Glenda Farrell, which seems severely truncated in the 66-minute version. It would make sense that this subplot in particular would be cut to avoid running afoul of the censors.

Dumont's filmography states that Man's Castle is 79 minutes long - but the extra bits he describes wouldn't amount to more than a minute or so of screen time. As lubitsch says, they're scraps of dialogue (like Tracy reading from the Song of Songs, or references to domestic abuse and abortions) which Dumont couldn't know about without having seen an un-censored print, unless he managed to access the original screenplay... Sadly, although his book is an invaluable resource, it's a bit lax when it comes to details, and does contain a number of inaccuracies, including mis-descriptions of this film and others. And just to ramp up the ingratitude in this post, Jonathan Kaplansky's English translation also seems like a bit of a rush-job (understandably, I guess).

One of Dumont's endnotes quotes from Michael Henry Wilson's article, 'Le Fra Angelico du melodrame' in the 1976 issue of Positif (which I haven't been able to get hold of), which describes an extra scene in which Bragg rails against Wall Street; Dumont comments that the scene 'disappeared during editing or at the time of release', but doesn't say whether this is Wilson's speculation or his own. If anyone can get hold of that article, it might offer more information.

The version I've seen is recorded off TCM, and it doesn't have any of the bits Dumont describes as having been censored. For instance, it has the nude bathing scene, but when Loretta Young says 'I don't have a bathing suit', there's an awkward pause; Dumont claims that in the un-censored version, Tracy responds, 'You've got a bathing suit, the one you were born in. That's the one I'm using.' Later, apparently, Tracy recites from the Song of Songs while Young is preparing dinner - 'Your breasts are like clusters of grapes. How fair, how pleasant thou art, O loveful delights.' This is just before his complaint about how skinny she is. David, do you have a version where he recites this passage to Glenda Farrell while in the clown costume?

Certainly that later scene where he's in Farrell's apartment (sans clown costume) and she tries to persuade him to work for her as a bodyguard feels truncated, but I don't see any need for this sub-plot to extend further - it's just another example of the hero vaguely rebelling against his commitments, and I'm not sure how further scenes with Farrell would add anything. I may be wrong, of course.

There's also supposed to be a bit of dialogue between Young and Marjorie Rambeau later where the former admits to being covered in bruises (inflicted by Tracy); towards the end Young is supposed to discuss the possibility of having an abortion. I'd be very interested to know if anyone has a version of the film that includes any of this material...

Another heads up in New York, A Man's Castle is screening at Film Forum on Wednesday.

FWIW, I'm kind of stunned how many places have screened this film in 35mm in the past year or two. MoMA, University of Wisconsin (for free to boot), the UCLA Film Archive last month, etc., etc. Not bad for a film that's never been issued in the U.S. on DVD.

Just in case anyone here might be interested, I'm working with some friends at reddit's TrueFilm to attempt to make a rare Borzage silent film, 1922's The Pride of Palomar, available on DVD via a Kickstarter campaign.

I really like this idea, but I have a few questions: A complete print of The Pride of Palomar exists in the Library of Congress, and they want funds to pay the LoC to make a SD transfer? Do you know what the quality (and gauge) of the print is?

FWIW I think this sort of info should be in the Kickstarter description. Otherwise it's not entirely clear what the money is going to.

Thanks for the response, I'll help the best I can.

We've arranged to get a 2k scan from the LoC. The only thing I know about the print is the info on their website, which says that it's a 35mm Acetate Master Positive, and that it's complete. I'm really just in the organizational part of this and don't really know what that means, but I hope it's helpful. We are told by our LoC contact that the print is in pretty good shape, too - but I haven't seen it and can't give any more info.

Obviously availability is our top priority, so the kickstarter goal was set for the minimum we'd need for transfer, basic cleanup which includes (as I understand it) making sure that everything plays back at the appropriate speed, stabilization, and dust removal, and manufacturing. We've got several people in film restoration volunteering their time to help us, and they know a lot more about this than I do obviously. I'll see if I can't get one of them to give me more information if you need it. I really want everything as clear and concise as it can be.

Kickstarter for the 'transfer, touch-up, and proper DVD' of Frank Borzage's 1922 'The Pride of Palomar'. $5 for a six-month exclusive stream or $25 for a DVD, plus other options.

It claims to be 'the first in what will hopefully be a series of campaigns to choose one endangered film of aesthetic importance and draw upon our community resources to transfer, touch up, score and release it for the world to see'.

I'm all for more films like that one becoming available again, of course, but a little historical context helps a lot when the film in question isn't just any old silent western but is a Hearst-sponsored "yellow peril" propaganda piece. That year Hearst was attempting a Senate run with a key part of his platform being fearmongering about Japanese immigration in California. While many westerns involve stories of crooked real estate deals, it's a little unusual to say the least to have a ranch being sold to "a rich Japanese who is secretly planning the Japanese colonization of the entire country" (quoting Hervé Dumont's Borzage book). This is one of the most interesting things about the film historically, but the Kickstarter neglects to mention any of this. Sounds like the TrueFilm folks set up this Kickstarter before having any access to the film that will be transferred and scored, so I think there may be a lot of surprised people when it's available in December.

It's worth adding that none of these Redditors (unlike Edward Lorusso / Nitrateville) have any experience at doing this.

Gregory wrote:a Hearst-sponsored "yellow peril" propaganda piece. [...] so I think there may be a lot of surprised people when it's available in December.

I had read about their campaign before this, but I had no idea. I'm assuming that they don't know either. Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to cross-post this to Reddit.

Gregory wrote:I'm all for more films like that one becoming available again, of course, but a little historical context helps a lot when the film in question isn't just any old silent western but is a Hearst-sponsored "yellow peril" propaganda piece. That year Hearst was attempting a Senate run with a key part of his platform being fearmongering about Japanese immigration in California. While many westerns involve stories of crooked real estate deals, it's a little unusual to say the least to have a ranch being sold to "a rich Japanese who is secretly planning the Japanese colonization of the entire country" (quoting Hervé Dumont's Borzage book). This is one of the most interesting things about the film historically, but the Kickstarter neglects to mention any of this. Sounds like the TrueFilm folks set up this Kickstarter before having any access to the film that will be transferred and scored, so I think there may be a lot of surprised people when it's available in December.

This is kind of hilarious in retrospect though-- "Let's rescue a forgotten film!" (five months later) "Oh, that's why." I assume/hope they did their research on the film and are planning to tackle it from a context-heavy perspective if what you're saying is true. At the very least, if they knew in advance, I believe it's irresponsible for the organizers to have not disclosed this aspect to the backers. I think it sounds like a worthy cause and I am curious to see it myself, but I could not possibly blame anyone who felt bamboozled into financially supporting a racist film (again, assuming this is accurate)-- maybe they can offer an "escape" clause for backers who no longer feel comfortable having pledged?

There's certainly a good historical case for restoring dubious propaganda pieces - the BFI was quite right not to censor or suppress the now-notorious 'Cosmopolitan London' entry in the Wonderful London series, or indeed hide the fact that the black cat on the Antarctic expedition chronicled in The Great White Silence had a name that I'd best not spell out here. But you do need to be absolutely upfront about what you're doing, and why.

Hey gang, I'm one of the people on the Pride of Palomar team. I just wanted to thank you for mentioning the project here, and to let you know we've taken what's been said here to heart. We just posted an update explaining that it is, in fact, a propaganda piece. Of course, anyone can adjust their donation levels, or even opt out entirely if they want to. If anyone here is considering this, I would also like to mention that our campaign has gone so well, that we're inquiring about the possibility of transferring another (non-propaganda) Borzage film, and including it in the release. I get that the issue is that it wasn't addressed from day one, so we're doing our best to rectify any concerns people may have. So far, we haven't heard any objections from backers.

Someone mentioned that we have no experience doing this; that's true! We're enthusiasts who want to contribute something tangible to the world of movies, and we have to start somewhere. This isn't our day job, we're not making money off of it, and we're learning as we go. This does not speak to the standards we hold; it just means we're not the CC or MoC, and we can't do a full restoration. If anyone would like to discuss the project, I'd love to talk about it. Thanks.

- Pat

They're playing Man's Castle at MoMA as part of a series on Hollywood and the Depression. (One more screening left.)

The print's in excellent shape, but sadly it's not really an improvement over what I've seen on TCM. The version they broadcast honestly looks like it could have been transferred from the same print, as it has the same contrast issues (the first scene alone looks too lost in the dark). I'm guessing the OCN is currently lost - a shame, but they really should make this available somewhere besides TCM as it's never been issued on a legit DVD, much less a BD.

I just got my Kickstarter copy of the Pride of Palomar in and it's a DVD-R. It says right in the rewards summary that these would be pressed. So glad I literally threw away $25 on a burned DVD-R. I know I'm SOL on this one but I'll be sure to never support TruFilm on any future projects

Ugh. Does it at least look decent?

I'm no expert but while the print looks okay, based on sampling it a bit I'm pretty sure it's playing at the wrong speed (too fast)