Topic: The Battle of the Century (1927) - Laurel and Hardy

[NoahYoung]

I have the first restoration that was released around 1984 from Blackhawk Films, in Super 8, with a music track by Gaylord Carter. I also have a VHS version of it. That's the version reviewed in the first post by Metaldams. The boxing match first showed up in LAUREL AND HARDY LAUGHTOONS on TV circa 1979, with no fanfare. It's like the producers of that show didn't know it was considered lost.

I also have just the Pie Fight extract that Blackhawk released in 1978, also in Super 8.

I'm still not clear how the heck part of it is still missing. What was found a few years ago was supposedly the complete reel 2. When they found the boxing match in 1979, that should have been the complete reel 1. It does make me wonder if the cutting continuity did not match the actual film that was released in 1927. Yes we have stills with Eugene Palette, but many stills exist from L&H films of scenes that wound up on the cutting room floor.

Regarding a review of what we now have of the film, I consider it a very average L&H silent film. When Robert Youngson and William K. Everson first viewed it when "auditioning" films for THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, both of them were disappointed in the film until the pie fight started, and even then Youngson felt it needed re-editing to give it more punch. So the 100% complete film did exist as-of the late 50s, and in his book, THE FILMS OF LAUREL AND HARDY, Everson does not even mention that part of the film was lost. I think someone mentioned above Youngson's role in saving some of it, and possibly being responsible for losing most of it (at least for awhile.) If not, I'll check my books and try to summarize. There has been some "false blame" directed at Youngson over the years, I believe.

It is not a bad L&H film by any means, but some of their later silents I find much better. Once the pie fight starts, there is very little typical L&H humour, much of which could have been carried out by any of Mack Sennet's contract players. I must say that L&H do add their "touch" to it on how the pie fight gets started, which does raise it above any pie fight that Sennett ever did. I'd also be remiss to neglect to point out what may not be obvious to the casual fan of silent films -- Sennett never did a pie fight on this scale. Chaplin did, though, in BEHIND THE SCREEN, way back in 1916.

[NoahYoung]

Before I start my review, Metaldams, you mentioned the Robert Youngson compilation film. One funny story 'bout that: Robert found the full copy of the movie, but only picked out the pie fight out of the clips used, and he ended up throwing the rest of the film away. If only he had saved the full movie, we would've had a full movie to review!!
 

Robert Youngson didn't throw any of the film away. When assembling his compilation films, including THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, he of course made copies of the film elements he borrowed. He only obtained the rights to include the clips, not the rights to the complete films, and certainly never owned the original source elements. When he was done copying what he wanted, he naturally was required to return the film elements back to the archives from which he obtained them. No "scissors" were ever applied to those original film elements. They were most likely run through a printer exactly once to make copies, and it was from these copies that Youngson edited his films. The negatives or fine grains returned to the archives were most likely nitrate, so it was the archive's fault that they didn't copy the complete BATTLE OF THE CENTURY to safety film, or do a better job of storing the nitrate in an environment that would have slowed it's presumed decomposition.

Reel 2, which was found a few years ago, was the 16mm print Youngson had made for himself, for his own private viewing. For a theatrical release in 1957, he would have been working strictly with 35mm elements. So logic would dictate that a 35mm negative or print also exists of reel 2.

Everson has stated that for 2-reel comedies, Youngson usually made a copy of the entire short that was a candidate for a compilation film, so he could return to it later and include another clip in a subsequent film. According to Randy Skretvedt, in LAUREL AND HARDY: THE MAGIC BEHIND THE MOVIES (first edition), all Youngson could find was a 35mm negative of reel 2, that was already decomposing. Now we know that he did make a copy of all of reel 1 (but perhaps the few minutes still missing with Eugene Pallette were part of reel 2, and were decomposed too much to work with at all by Youngson, even for his personal 16mm copy.)

I believe when reel 1 was found, it had been in MOMA's archives in NYC.

So given the above evidence, the blame that Youngson was given for years was unfounded -- that he didn't preserve the whole film when he could have. He's now exonerated, since we know that all he was given was reel 2, and he indeed did preserve at least one copy, in 16mm, which is all that has been found to date.

It is curious that the only silent films starring L&H that are still lost are all of HATS OFF, and just a few minutes of BATTLE. (I think they found part of Charley Chase's NOW I'LL TELL ONE, but no scenes with Laurel or Hardy.) The fact that we still have the others, because either they were stored under conditions that slowed or prevented nitrate decompostion, or that they were copied to safety film when the nitrate was still in usable shape, would lead one to wonder why the same thing wasn't done with the HATS OFF. It is particularly puzzling since the L&H silents were issued in 16mm and 8mm for home collectors, on safety film, as early as the 50s. Blackhawk Films was the licensee in the U.S., but of course they never had HATS OFF, and didn't even release the pie fight scene (from the Youngson edit) until 1978. Other fly-by-night companies (e.g. Atlas Films, Carnival Films, etc.) released the L&H silents, usually only in partial form, and I have kept my eyes out for them for at least the last 25 years on eBay to see if HATS OFF somehow was illegally copied long ago and made it's way to a 2 1/2 minute extract for toy projectors, or something like that, but under a different title. But no such luck...so far!

[NoahYoung]

Assuming HATS OFF is really out there, I imagine said person must be holding out for a king's ransom.

Whoever finds HATS OFF, if it ever happens, will not become rich. He can ask all he wants, but I doubt there is anyone out there who would pay big bucks. A crowd-funding would probably be only enough to cover production costs that would start with a physical preservation, followed by scanning, etc., all the way up to a final release on the latest-and-greatest digital/disc.

The naysayers, like Dick Bann, claim that it will never be found on 16mm because a 16mm copy was never made, but how does he know? You can prove that something exists, but it's pretty darn hard to prove that something doesn't exist.

If it is found, it would have to have wound up in the wrong hands, and in that case the person would have had to have the wherewithal to have it copied to safety film, or stored under ideal conditions, or both.

Since most of BATTLE was eventually found, one would have to hold out hope. But, in that case we at least had a trail that led back to circa 1957 when the pie fight scene was released to theaters in THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY. HATS OFF, however, seems to have vanished off the face of the earth after it's initial theatrical run in 1927, which boggles my mind.

If I find it, and that most likely will never happen, partly because my only source for looking is eBay, the first person I'd contact would be Dick Bann. (I once exchanged 1 or 2 emails with him about 20 years ago, when I was put in touch with him by an eBay seller. He tried to sell me his spare copy of BIG BUSINESS in 16mm!) I'd be happy just to get the recognition. I would want to keep the copy I found if it was on safety film (I'd be afraid to purchase nitrate, even for that title.) If for some reason I located a nitrate neg or print, I'd be happy with a copy on 16mm safety film for my efforts. If I was offered a blu-ray, I'd use it as a coaster. 

[Tony Bensley]

Whoever finds HATS OFF, if it ever happens, will not become rich. He can ask all he wants, but I doubt there is anyone out there who would pay big bucks. A crowd-funding would probably be only enough to cover production costs that would start with a physical preservation, followed by scanning, etc., all the way up to a final release on the latest-and-greatest digital/disc.

The naysayers, like Dick Bann, claim that it will never be found on 16mm because a 16mm copy was never made, but how does he know? You can prove that something exists, but it's pretty darn hard to prove that something doesn't exist.

If it is found, it would have to have wound up in the wrong hands, and in that case the person would have had to have the wherewithal to have it copied to safety film, or stored under ideal conditions, or both.

Since most of BATTLE was eventually found, one would have to hold out hope. But, in that case we at least had a trail that led back to circa 1957 when the pie fight scene was released to theaters in THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY. HATS OFF, however, seems to have vanished off the face of the earth after it's initial theatrical run in 1927, which boggles my mind.

If I find it, and that most likely will never happen, partly because my only source for looking is eBay, the first person I'd contact would be Dick Bann. (I once exchanged 1 or 2 emails with him about 20 years ago, when I was put in touch with him by an eBay seller. He tried to sell me his spare copy of BIG BUSINESS in 16mm!) I'd be happy just to get the recognition. I would want to keep the copy I found if it was on safety film (I'd be afraid to purchase nitrate, even for that title.) If for some reason I located a nitrate neg or print, I'd be happy with a copy on 16mm safety film for my efforts. If I was offered a blu-ray, I'd use it as a coaster. 

In regards to HATS OFF! (1927), I recall reading that the last known existing print of it was already badly decomposing when it was returned to MGM in 1945. If true, it wasn't available to be saved by Robert Youngson and/or the burgeoning 1950s/60s Home Movie market, or even TV syndication. What a shame! 

[NoahYoung]

In regards to HATS OFF! (1927), I recall reading that the last known existing print of it was already badly decomposing when it was returned to MGM in 1945. If true, it wasn't available to be saved by Robert Youngson and/or the burgeoning 1950s/60s Home Movie market, or even TV syndication. What a shame! 

Yes, you probably read that here:
www.laurel-and-hardy.com/archive/articles/2011-04-ucla/ucla-2.html

All the while, the merged number of prints and pre-print material just sat there, quietly, inside darkened vaults, subject to indifference and the ravages of time. Some resided on the lot in Culver City. More were stored in depots like Bekins and Bonded back East. And in film labs like Fox, Pathe, M-G-M, Consolidated, Du-Art, Deluxe, Guffanti, Movie-Lab, and Mercury Laboratory in New York (where the 35mm negative for HATS OFF was sent by M-G-M in 1945 before turning to powder, or at least taking a powder). All this, just in the United States alone.

Bann also says:

HATS OFF and BATTLE OF THE CENTURY were handled by M-G-M, not by Pathe. Before Blackhawk Films was really active in home entertainment and library sales in the 1960s (although its first agreement with Roach was in 1952), the M-G-M silents were never licensed in substandard film gauges for non-theatrical exhibition, and therefore were never printed for the 16mm market. No complete, vintage 16mm print of either title will ever surface because they were never printed in 16mm. At least such two-reelers as MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE endured and remain in some form.

We now know that the sentence I highlighted is not entirely true, since a 16mm print of reel 2 of BATTLE was found in 16mm. That very long article by Bann is fascinating to those intrigued by the film preservation of L&H films, but as you can read, the negatives changed hands so many times that it is impossible to say what exactly happened to all the film elements of HATS OFF.  If reel 2 of BATTLE showed up unexpectedly in 16mm, why not HATS OFF? I'm not saying that Youngson had it, or that he ever even saw the film, but one cannot say that someone else from 1927 until, for example, 1945, didn't run off a print for themselves in any film gauge. And BTW, I have Blackhawk prints of a few L&H silents that were printed in the 50s, according to the Kodak date codes printed on the edges of the films themselves.

That all being said, following the principle of Occam's Razor, I would say that the most likely explanation is that all the film elements of HAT'S OFF decomposed, and were disposed of, long ago, and no copies on safety film were ever made. That's the simplest explanation of why we do not have a copy of it in any form today. I would have used the same argument, pre-2015, to explain the absence of a complete reel 2 of BATTLE as well, but we all know how that turned out, much to our benefit!

Copies of L&H silents by all those fly-by-night companies float around eBay every day. Tons of them. I've identified them all by titles and descriptions as not being from HATS OFF. It would be hard to justify that they made a copy of HATS OFF, but for some reason we never see it for sale despite every other title showing up by the dozens every week, and selling for peanuts. Blackhawk was the authorized licensee, and released the films in full-length under the correct titles from prime pre-print material. They never released HATS OFF, obviously, since even Roach did not have the film elements by the 50s when Blackhawk made copies in 8mm and 16mm of the silent shorts for home use.

It may seem like I'm contradicting myself from a few posts above, but what I'm saying is that although the probability is low of finding HATS OFF as late as 2024, it is still not impossible. Therefore, there is no reason to give up.

[NoahYoung]

A few more points...

Buster Keaton's independent films had a much lower probability of surviving than those of Laurel and Hardy, yet it is astounding that not only do we have almost everything (A COUNTRY HERO, with Fatty Arbuckle, is still lost), but every few years better copies crop up, usually from foreign sources. We finally had a proper, comprehensive restoration for home video by Kino in 1995, and there have been several upgrades since then. Long after the films were produced, Raymond Rohauer, love'em or hate'em, was responsible for rescuing what was then thought to be the only surving copies of many of Keaton's films. This didn't happen until the 50s. Keaton had nitrate prints stored in his garage, and supposedly left many prints in his former house, where a subsequent owner, James Mason, discovered them.

Prints of some films like THE GENERAL had been making the rounds in special showings in theaters, and it was at one of these showings that Rohauer met Keaton in the 50s. The "rediscovery" of Keaton, when the general public had the opportunity to see his classics at special showings, happened sometime in the 60s. To the best of my knowledge, none of Keaton's independent silent films ever had theatrical reissues the way the films of Laurel and Hardy had in the pre-TV era.

All this leads to this burning question -- why the heck is there no trace of HATS OFF, and still part of BATTLE missing? It has been stated many times that the original negatives of Laurel and Hardy's films were abused over the years since they were so loved that they were used over and over again for every theatrical re-issue, home-movie issue, and TV syndication. In many cases, the original camera negatives were used to make prints, even for 16mm! (That's why I sing the praises of collecting 16mm prints, because, despite the lower gauge, they look fantastic since they were printed when the negatives were younger, and sometimes are a closer generation to the camera negative that other surviving 35mm elements made for DVD and blu-ray!)  So why was HATS OFF never one of the films whose negative was abused by over-printing? We would at least have some surving prints around today.

I know that a least a few of the L&H silents were re-released to theaters in the 1940s by Film Classics. I know this because my "Lost Films" VHS of LIBERTY has Film Classics titles. THAT'S MY WIFE was also reissued by them. Prints of TWO TARS, BIG BUSINESS, and DOUBLE WHOOPEE were ready to be released, until they discovered these were never issued with a Victor music-track disc. They then dumped them onto the collector's market. Perhaps other silents like HATS OFF would have been issued if they had Victor discs associated with them, but were apparently skipped over while poor talkie shorts like TWICE TWO were re-issued. Funny, though, how the rest of their M-G-M released silents survived. Wasn't HATS OFF stored with them?

Since the boys remade HATS OFF as THE MUSIC BOX in 1932, wouldn't Stan have asked Bert Jordan to print off a fresh copy of HATS OFF to view before embarking on a remake? Logical assumption. But since we don't have a print, maybe it never happened. Or maybe it was decomposing already by 1932? Are we sure HATS OFF was really sent to Mercury Laboratory in New York, as Bann states? Or was it just assumed due to a manifest he found that included lots of other films?

I suppose only having HATS OFF, part of BATTLE, and most of THE ROGUE SONG lost is nothing we should cry too hard about, given what does survive. But given that all those Keaton features survived in nitrate prints stored in a hot garage, you would think HATS OFF would have survived somewhere way past 1945.




 

[GreenCanaries]

Are we sure HATS OFF was really sent to Mercury Laboratory in New York, as Bann states? Or was it just assumed due to a manifest he found that included lots of other films?

On the YEAR ONE Blu-ray, towards the end of the image gallery for THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, there is a copy of a letter dated April 20, 1945, noting the delivery of the negatives for a number of 1927-29 Roach films to the Mercury Laboratory. HATS OFF is indeed listed among the titles, as are BATTLE and many of the missing (or in some cases, maybe just out of circulation) Max Davidson and 1928-29 All Star films.

[NoahYoung]

On the YEAR ONE Blu-ray, towards the end of the image gallery for THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, there is a copy of a letter dated April 20, 1945, noting the delivery of the negatives for a number of 1927-29 Roach films to the Mercury Laboratory. HATS OFF is indeed listed among the titles, as are BATTLE and many of the missing (or in some cases, maybe just out of circulation) Max Davidson and 1928-29 All Star films.

Thanks. Are there other L&H silents listed on that manifest? I was just speculating that just because something like a letter says so, it doesn't necessarily mean the physical film was sent. Why do I think that? Because if it was, then where the heck is a negative or print of HATS OFF? 

Has there been any documentation of someone finding a completely unusable, decomposed copy of HATS OFF that was subsequently disposed of? Curiouser and curiouser.

In LAUREL & HARDY: FROM THE FORTIES FORWARD, by Scott MacGillivray, (first edition), Michael Agee is quoted as saying that he had to throw away the original camera negatives of PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP and BATTLE OF THE CENTURY,  because they were fused together and completely decomposed. He said "etc." after listing those 2 films, but I assume if he had come across HATS OFF that he would have said so.

The cans and reels that held the negative of HATS OFF wouldn't themselves have decomposed, and should have been labeled. If someone had thrown it out, then it should have been recorded that it was thrown out. Unless it was mislabeled...


And in the spirit of , the camera negative of PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP was disposed of, yet we have positive prints that survive in great condition. In fact, my Standard 8mm copy from Blackhawk might fool some into thinking it was 16mm!   (My screen is 5 feet wide!) You can pick one up on eBay for around $20 or even less!

[NoahYoung]

Wait a minute -- who said HATS OFF was lost? It's right here!

 

With over100 L&H films to draw from, the stills that exist from the movie, and the AI technology that exists today, it's not far-fetched to think that a pretty darned-good reconstruction could be made now.

I remember reading maybe 10 to 15 years ago that a news station or something like that was interested in making a news special or documentary on L&H fan's search for HATS OFF. But in their infinite wisdom, they said they would only do it when the film is found! How messed up is that? A doc would have given it more publicity, and the incentive for people who never knew about it to check their attics and basements for Uncle Henry's and Grandpa Jack's old film collection. What a bass-ackward's decision! They just don't "get" it!

[GreenCanaries]

Thanks. Are there other L&H silents listed on that manifest? I was just speculating that just because something like a letter says so, it doesn't necessarily mean the physical film was sent. Why do I think that? Because if it was, then where the heck is a negative or print of HATS OFF? 

The opening paragraph grants a prior request by noting the instruction to a representative "to deliver the negatives of the 122 short-subjects listed below . . . " so this is only a partial list from the relevant first page.

Here's the full list from the page we see:

DAVIDSONS
1927-28
[What] Every Iceman Knows
Call of the Cukoo [sic]
Love Em and Feed Em
Fighting Fathers
Pass the Gravy
Dumb Daddies
Came the Dawn
Blow by Blow
Tell It to [the] Judge
Should Women Drive

ALL STARS
1927-28
Sugar Daddies
Second Hundred [sic] Years
Hats Off
Putting Pants on Philip
[The] Battle of the Century
Leave Em Laughing
The Finishing Touch
From Soup to Nuts
You're Darn Tootin
Their Purple Moment
1928-29
That Night
Do Gentlemen Snore
The Boyfriend [sic]
Feed Em and Weep
Going Ga Ga
[A] Pair of Tights
When Money Comes
Why Is a Plumber
[The] Unkissed Man
Thundering Toupees
1929-30
Hurdy Gurdy
Madame "Q"
Dads [sic] Day

[NoahYoung]

The opening paragraph grants a prior request by noting the instruction to a representative "to deliver the negatives of the 122 short-subjects listed below . . . " so this is only a partial list from the relevant first page.

Here's the full list from the page we see:

DAVIDSONS
1927-28
[What] Every Iceman Knows
Call of the Cukoo [sic]
Love Em and Feed Em
Fighting Fathers
Pass the Gravy
Dumb Daddies
Came the Dawn
Blow by Blow
Tell It to [the] Judge
Should Women Drive

ALL STARS
1927-28
Sugar Daddies
Second Hundred [sic] Years
Hats Off
Putting Pants on Philip
[The] Battle of the Century
Leave Em Laughing
The Finishing Touch
From Soup to Nuts
You're Darn Tootin
Their Purple Moment
1928-29
That Night
Do Gentlemen Snore
The Boyfriend [sic]
Feed Em and Weep
Going Ga Ga
[A] Pair of Tights
When Money Comes
Why Is a Plumber
[The] Unkissed Man
Thundering Toupees
1929-30
Hurdy Gurdy
Madame "Q"
Dads [sic] Day

Thanks for that.

Interesting:
Sugar Daddies
Second Hundred [sic] Years
Hats Off
Putting Pants on Philip
[The] Battle of the Century
Leave Em Laughing
The Finishing Touch
From Soup to Nuts
You're Darn Tootin
Their Purple Moment

Rhetorical: Why did they all survive except BATTLE (100% complete) and HATS OFF?

Here's almost every Blackhawk catalog: https://hmharchive.com/blackhawk-films-catalogs/

Before they sold films, they rented them out. You can see by the late 50s that they were already selling L&H silent shorts. So HATS OFF being fully decomposed shortly after 1945 starts to seem very likely. But remember, that's the original camera negative (OCN) we're talking about. Off-hand, I'm not sure how many OCNs from that list still survive, but we do know that Michael Agee claimed he had to throw some away -- but that wasn't until around the 80s. You will also note that starting around 1982/83. not long before they stopped issuing films, Blackhawk released DUCK SOUP, which was considered lost until 1974, when it was found in a European archive, with French and Dutch titles. So that was 50 years ago. What lost L&H films have been found since then? Answer: Most of BATTLE, clips from THE ROGUE SONG, a promo short that no one knew even existed, parts of NOW I'LL TELL ONE (no one knew they were even in that either), and the Victor disc for UNACCUSTOMED AS WE ARE. I think that's it.

The Pathe-released L&H silents were available for home use via Kodascope in 16mm, much, much earlier. Perhaps as early as the 30s, but not the M-G-Ms. I'm not sure if any of the M-G-Ms were offered for home use before Blackhawk issued them. And as I said, Film Classics ignored the silents without Victor discs for their theatrical re-issues in the 40s.

Just from the list above, we see that HATS OFF wasn't treated as a standalone, but as part of a group. I wonder if anyone knows how many more of that list of 122 films are now lost? My question is that since they were all stored together, in the same archive, under the same conditions, why would some survive and not others? Were they all stored together, in the same archive, under the same conditions, before 1945? If not, maybe HATS OFF was already in bad shape by 1945. Then there's always the possibility, that I've been alluding to, that HATS OFF was not delivered per the letter, even though it is specified. How thoroughly would someone check in 1945, given that silents were already being treated as relics of a bygone age by then?

It might have been mentioned in that long Dick Bann article, but I've read that once L&H were becoming very popular, someone at the studio, perhaps Bert Jordan, made dupe copies of all the L&H negatives for safe-keeping.

I am trying to find out who, if anyone, made prints of the truly silent (no Victor disc) L&H shorts after their initial release, and before Blackhawk started to issue them. What about outside the Western Hemisphere, where the copyrights were held by different entities?

With the burst of popularity of the internet that happened more than 25 years ago (though the internet itself has been around much longer), with each passing year, the probability of finding HATS OFF decreases in my mind, simply because we have been able to have conversations like this very easily, for a very long time, yet nothing has turned up yet.

I'm also not sure how hard HATS OFF is being looked for. I certainly don't have access to all the film archives around the world. I've assumed that people like Dick Bann and Jeff Joseph have done their share of looking, since both of them led the charge of the fairly recent restorations of L&H films for DVD and blu-ray, although not for the silents. Perhaps Serge Bromberg of Lobster Films will uncover it. In some cases they've unearthed better copies of Buster Keaton films, so lets hope they put the same effort into L&H, which I believe they are doing based on their work on the lastest "Year One" release. Also working on the latest silemnt releases are Randy Skretvedt and Richard W. Bann, among others. That's the L&H restoration dream team right there! I'm afraid if they don't find it, then it's truly lost.

Another puzzle: Robert Youngson passed away in 1974. Why didn't he tell anyone he had all of reel 2 of BATTLE? People were already looking for it by then. And why did it take over 40 years to realize his film collection included it? I've heard that people assumed it was just the edited pie fight -- but we all know what happens when you assume!

(I bought a "lot" of 8mm silent films last year on eBay. One box and reel was labeled as a Harry Langdon short (PICKING PEACHES), but when I projected it, it turned out to be an old b&w, silent, XXX-rated cartoon!)
 

[NoahYoung]

www.laurel-and-hardy.com/archive/articles/2011-04-ucla/ucla-1.html

There was, however, one person at Hal Roach Studios who did have the perspicacity to consider the matter of film preservation, even if his time horizon extended only through the life cycle of theatrical reissues. He was Richard Currier, head of the editorial department. On his 88th birthday, he told film historian Randy Skretvedt and me, “When Laurel & Hardy were starting to be popular, I told the guys down at the lab to make two fine grain master positives on every Laurel & Hardy, instead of just one. I figured that if there was anything this studio was going to make that would be printed and re-printed over the years, the Laurel & Hardy pictures would be the ones.”

The studio had suffered some shipping losses in 1926 and Currier decided on a new policy to manufacture and retain in the Culver City vaults a second, domestic 35mm fine grain master (a duplicating positive or “lavender”) as the principal protection element. The studio also routinely kept the work print (the cutting print) on hand in its concrete vaults, and sometimes a screening print as well. But both the domestic and export (or overseas) conformed original camera negatives, plus the first derivative fine grains, were always all shipped to the distributor in order to manufacture duplicate printing negs, and then finally to make the general release prints which went out to regional exchanges all over the world as required to service local movie exhibitors. Currier wisely did not trust the stewardship of outside distributors like Pathe or M-G-M, and took this pro-active step to safeguard his colleagues’ wonderful work product. How many additional Laurel & Hardy films would be lost today if Currier had not acted as he did? }

N.B. what I have put in bold and italics.

Somehow, HATS OFF fell through the cracks. And basically BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, which survives almost complete basically by luck and because of Robert Youngon, who was long accused of not preserving what he had access to for BATTLE. But now we know that he indeed made a copy of what he had access to.

http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/archive/articles/2011-04-ucla/ucla-3.html

From 1957 through 1970 filmmaker Robert Youngson mined the Roach library of silent comedies to produce a succession of wonderful compilation films, including THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY (1957) and WHEN COMEDY WAS KING (1960). By then HATS OFF was already lost, and BATTLE OF THE CENTURY was decomposing. Youngson wasn’t intending to do so, nor was it his responsibility, but by converting, selectively, the deteriorating nitrate he wanted to use onto safety film stock, he preserved it. Youngson only copied, however, what he wished to excerpt for the movie he was making. So he only saved the footage from BATTLE OF THE CENTURY that he included in his anthology feature. He had the opportunity to run a complete fine grain and preserve the entire film, but then so did his licensor, Hal Roach Studios, which did nothing. Not long after Youngson pulled what he needed from reel two, which was an abridgement of the pie fight footage, the balance of the reel decomposed while in the custody of Bonded Storage in New York, was counted out, and then junked.

So we already see contradictions from different sources. We have heard from Randy Skretvedt that Youngson only had access to reel 2 of BATTLE OF THE CENTURY. Here, Bann says Youngson had access to the entire film. So which is correct? (Since they are both now working together, maybe they can compare notes and state which version is correct.) At least Bann clearly states it was not Youngson's responsibility to preserve the film. It really bothers me that across the internet, Youngson is still blamed. That's like saying that in 1983, since I rented a videotape of a film that is now lost, and all the VHS tapes are lost too, it is my fault since I didn't have the foresight to make a dub of the tape.

And was it Mercury Laboratory, or Bonded Storage?

Once I start to see contradictions between sources, I start to question not only which is true, but also whether either is true.

The Skredtvedt source is from 1987, and Bann's article is from 2011. Perhaps the latest facts, from the latest blu-ray, are therefore correct. Does "Year One" set the record straight on what Youngson had access to fro BATTLE, and how reel 1 showed up at MOMA's archives in the 70s? And what happened to the 35mm copy Youngon must have made of reel 2 in order to make edits fro the 35mm release prints of THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY in 1957?

Anyway, I think it is a safe bet that the negative for HATS OFF went missing, or decomposed, sometime between 1945 and 1957. This assume that the data we have been given is accurate.

But what happened to the fine grain positives that Rich Currier ordered as far back as the 20s? Not to mention the release prints, probably numbered in the thousands, that were made for each film in question here? I'd have to research more, but I think they had to be returned to the distributors, who probably band-sawed them.

[NoahYoung]

More from here:
http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/films/nav-films.html

Already outdated since the discovery of reel 2:

The Battle of the Century - Preservation

In the battle to survive, as they exist today, both reels of this subject have fought hard but sustained heavy body blows. For different reasons, both are incomplete. Only part of reel one exists, and only a smaller part of reel two exists.

For reel one we have everything through the boxing match, which was originally released with an amber tint. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the balance of the first reel, issued without any tint, is lost. Was the straight black and white footage more susceptible to nitrate deterioration? Perhaps this element was manufactured separately and never spliced together with the balance of the first reel which then became separated and lost.
According to the cutting continuity (because the actual footage is long gone), reel one ends after the park scene and the insurance transaction, right at the point where the boys are walking through town, bumping into things.

Reel two begins with Stan slipping on the first banana skin. It's another nineteen scenes later -- all lost -- before Charlie Hall crosses the threshold with his tray of pies, which is the scene so well known since it marks the start of Robert Youngson's excerpt. From that point what survives of reel two is only what Youngson copied to use, and exactly as it appears in THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY. Nothing more.

And while what he used covers material spanning the entire rest of the reel through Anita Garvin's magnificent scene, it is all compressed, condensed, full of internal edits. Purists have argued that Youngson wanted only the slapstick highlights, at the cost of characterization and careful buildup. So while the abridgement plays at a brisk pace, the heart and soul may well be lost with the missing footage. The slow, reasoned construction -- the foundation, the personality -- is gone, changing the nature and meaning of the piece entirely. We seem to be left with what amounts to a lot of punctuation marks, at the price of reduced content and understanding.

We are left without the intended motivation for tossing each pie, or the full reaction of being plastered with each pie, or the transitions necessary to involve the audience and carefully build the comedy.

It's the kind of thing Hal Roach always discussed when asked about his theories of comedy construction. It's also one of the reasons why he disliked the Youngson compilations. Timing, pacing, building, he knew how important these concepts were. When someone tampers with these -- cutting material filmed and used for a reason -- the desired impact on an audience can be lost along with the footage discarded.

We know Stan Laurel abhorred the way television stations edited the Laurel & Hardy films for broadcast; it is not known how he regarded this similar exercise practiced, however more carefully, by Youngson. He may well have been grateful for the critical acclaim Youngson's compilations brought Laurel & Hardy; these films were indeed blockbusters. If he disapproved of the abridgements, it is likely he was too much of a gentleman to have voiced an opinion. Of course without the wonderful work contributed by Youngson we might not have any portion of this fragile classic at all.

Reading the cutting continuity reveals how different the more than twice as long original version was from the highly abridged and perhaps degraded cut Youngson made. John McCabe charitably called Youngson's excerpt "tantalizingly brief." It would appear that while Youngson quickened the pace of reel two with what some might term tampering, it can also be argued he blunted the comedy values.

In a 1969 letter, however, Bill Everson did not agree. "By the time the film was available for substandard distribution through Blackhawk Films," Everson wrote, "the decomposition in the negative had progressed to a point where the subject was no longer printable -- and there were no protection prints on the whole subject, since Bob Youngson had only copied the pie sequence as he intended to use it. At Youngson's invitation I did see a very complete version of THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY before serious deterioration set in. The prizefight was rather tedious we both agreed, and when Bob streamlined the pie fight I thought he gave it punch. It is actually a much weaker subject than its condensed form would indicate."

We may never know for sure. Youngson did graduate from the Harvard Business School, but one is inclined to rely instead upon the judgement of the Roach studios braintrust and their presentation. Should there be any doubt, speed is not the basis of film comedy, as BIG BUSINESS proved. Incidentally, pressed to specify when he screened the complete BATTLE OF THE CENTURY with Youngson, Bill Everson could not say, but it must have been sometime between 1950 and 1957, and more likely earlier than later within that range.

Curiously Bill Everson would seem to have contradicted himself in a piece written by Andrew Sarris for the NEW YORK TIMES when he was quoted as saying, "While I appreciate television's role in promoting film scholarship, I think it's dangerous to blithely cut old movies down to current specifications. Even when we are not involved with the sanctity of a work of art, we are involved with the integrity of history."

On the other hand, it is likely that without Bob Youngson's efforts we might not have any portion of the pie fight.

Kent Eastin, founder of Blackhawk Films, Hal Roach Studios' non-theatrical distributor at the time, offered a somewhat different account of the preprint material which was available to Bob Youngson for his GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY. In response to a 1968 inquiry, he wrote, "Youngson told me that when he was preparing THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY in the mid-1950s, the only element available on BATTLE OF THE CENTURY was a negative of reel two that had already started to turn brown indicating an early stage of decomposition. He used about 300-plus feet out of 1,000 feet, although the footage was chosen selectively spanning almost the entire reel.

"Of course when Hal Roach produced BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, the studio was making two to four original camera negatives and duplicate negatives to be used for printing in various parts of the world. Therefore there exists the distinct possibility that one of these negatives survives. So far, Hal Roach Studios has been unable to locate it for us. If and when such preprint material is found, we will propose to issue it since we do have this title under contract."

The public and critical response to BATTLE OF THE CENTURY as excerpted in THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY was overwhelming. Youngson re-edited the pie fight for a second showcase in his LAUREL & HARDY'S LAUGHING 20s in 1965.

Shortly before he died, Youngson told Leonard Maltin in 1968, "My goal is to preserve as much of this great comedy material as possible." While it's true his popular compilations from 1957 to 1970 were perhaps the principal reason for the revival of interest in classic comedies for mass audiences, Youngson was not in the business of restoring and preserving films. Not in the sense people talk about today.

As mentioned, Youngson preserved only what he copied to use. He edited as he converted the nitrate. He could have made a safety fine grain of the entire two reels. He told Chuck McCann he could not afford the added expense.

"He watched every penny," according to David Shepard of Film Preservation Associates. "He would paper off sections and print tab to tab. Youngson was not an archivist in disguise; he simply consumed the material." Whether Youngson realized it or not, he wound up preserving what he used, but only what he copied to use. The rest, the trims, are now lost.

It was not Robert Youngson's responsibility to save the complete BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, but he did have the opportunity.

So until 1975, all anyone could see of BATTLE OF THE CENTURY was Youngson's tightly edited condensation of the pie fight running a little over three minutes. That year Leonard Maltin was hired by the Museum of Modern Art in New York as the guest curator for their bicentennial show, which ran almost nine months, on the history of American comedy. Pursuing this assignment, Leonard Maltin discovered the hiding place of the lost reel one for BATTLE OF THE CENTURY. And where did he travel to find it? Bovania? The high multitudes? Upper Lapland?

No. Reel one was rescued from the deep, dark, lost regions of the Museum of Modern Art right there in New York. Otherwise it might still be there, rotting away as the world's best kept secret.

"Doing this show for MOMA was before the age of computers," Leonard Maltin remembers. "I decided to go through the entire manual card file of every holding in the archive, card by card, to see what was there. It was a revelatory experience. There was a lot of material that I never knew existed at all, let alone in their collection. And there were things that people on the staff didn't remember or realize they had. Some things had been acquired so long ago and never even been screened.

"So you can imagine my excitement at finding a card that read BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, reel one, 35mm nitrate print. I almost flipped! I couldn't believe my eyes. I thought to myself, you mean, people have been killing themselves for years trying to find this thing, and all along it's been sitting right here?

"I thought maybe the card was mistaken, that it was really BARGAIN OF THE CENTURY (1933), with Thelma Todd and Zasu Pitts. Immediately we had the reel pulled for a private screening upstairs at MOMA. Sure enough it was the complete prizefight from reel one. So I scheduled it on a Sunday program, June 27, 1976 to maximize the opportunity for fans to see this rare find.

"Then on the day of the screening, the projectionist felt the print was too fragile, or the splices were weak. He felt that either the condition of the print presented a fire risk, or that we shouldn't jeopardize unique material until first striking a safety preservation copy. So a lot of people showed up that day and were very disappointed."

The various licensees of Hal Roach Studios did make their safety dupe negatives to protect the footage, but MOMA records failed to reflect when, or by whom, the prizefight from reel one had been donated.

Any attempt to reconstitute the film now must necessarily fall back on using a combination of still photos and explanatory text to bridge the continuity. That may seem like a sad, frustrating ending, but considering the fate, to date, of something like HATS OFF, we can be grateful for the elements which do survive.

Meanwhile the fight to locate the missing footage continues, as the battle of the new century.