Moronika
Film & Shorts Discussions => Laurel and Hardy => Topic started by: metaldams on March 08, 2015, 06:26:28 PM
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017664/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
http://www.lordheath.com/index.php?p=1_156_The-Battle-Of-The-Century
http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/battle.html
(https://threestooges.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F6%2F6f%2FL%2526H_Battle_of_the_Century_1928.jpg&hash=7709e5fa70749845b0d0f2c0723f3b92a69a057d)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SkN7sptS5m4
What an unfulfilling experience reviewing this one is. Only half of this film still exists, so there's really only two scenes to discuss, and as such I won't even rate this. For years, the famous pie fight scene towards the end was the only thing that existed, in edited form, because of a Robert Youngson compilation film. The pie footage was included in. The first reel, which involves the boxing match, was not discovered until 1979.
The pie fight may be more famous, but the opening boxing sequence is quite funny. As far as character development goes, this scene is the more satisfying, as the pie fight is pure comic destruction. Stan Laurel does absolutely nothing here, and it works brilliantly. He's in a situation where his opponent is much bigger and more menacing than he is, but there is a part where his oponnent's glove needs to be adjusted, giving Stan more than enough time to clobber his way to victory. However, Stan is so used to losing, he has no idea what to do, so he just wanders around aimlessly as poor Ollie is in the corner urging Stan to use his left. Then Stan sticks his arm out, his opponent, glove now adjusted, charges Stan and runs into the outstretched arm, being completely knocked out. Stan is too stupid to go into a neutral corner for the ref to count, his opponent gets saved by the bell and eventually knocks Stan out. Again, Stan basically does very little in this scene, but the results are hilarious. When people say Stan Laurel's character had some Harry Langdon influence, this is the kind of scene they were talking about. The idea of doing nothing when a situation calls for something. Minimalist comedy at its best.
The pie fight is anything but minimalist. It's basically just an excuse to make a gooey mess out of a bunch of people and a city street, and it is a pleasure for the eyes. My favorite bit is a subtler piece. There's a mailman you expect to get a pie in the kisser. Instead the pie lands in the mail he's about to deliver, unbeknownst to him, and he ends up picking up the messy mail. Other funny bits are the homely man in the barber's chair, the flapper girl slipping on the pie and having it land on her backside underneath her skirt, and any long shot of the city street. OK, I like the mayor getting hit as well.
Really, what exists from this thing is very funny, but it feels like an incomplete viewing experience because well...it is!
N/A / 10
PS: Anybody care to take a guess who the extra is below pictured in the crowd during the boxing match?
-
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!!
Noah Young.. I used to get freaked out by his menacing appearance in this movie. He's almost too menacing.. I mean, Jesus! All those close-up shots of Noah coming at the camera are scary! I used to think that it was a horror movie as a kid! His appearance totally detracts from all the wonderful comedy we could've gotten in this movie.
Stan vs. Noah.. You know who's going to win: Noah. Guess what? Stan actually beats Noah, except Stan messes up which kinda sucks, so then Noah wins, which allows it to be a Hal Roach comedy. In Hal Roach comedies, there sometimes aren't happy stuff, as with actual reality. Except, I was expecting Laurel to win! Come on, Hal!
Oliver Hardy does a great job as Laurel's manager. Something looks off about him, however.. I think he has a bit too much makeup on. BTW, Stan and Ollie seriously have great chemistry in this movie. You would've never guessed that they've only been working for a short amount of time.
Laurel and Hardy's great mannerisms are put to great use in the boxing sequence, especially Laurel: He takes so much time warming up comedically for the boxing match that overall, about half of the footage that is shown in a boxing stadium is actually the match.
Now, for some reason the pies completely take me away from the boxing footage and almost make the movie. Almost 3,000 pies were used, thus making it the biggest pie fight in silent film history.
Among the weirdest of the pie shots is the one where the man gets a pie to the face and falls into a garbage can, and then goes around jumping like a chimp. It honestly makes no sense to me, and I don't understand it. Also, when Ollie takes Stan out of the fight along with himself, Stan has less pies on his face than in the next shot.
Among the best pie shots is the one with Anita Garvin. Her pure embarrassment is just enough to make one laugh. It's a pretty funny shot, which I would easily call one of the best moments of Anita Garvin in a L&H movie.
Also, this pie battle would not have worked in sound because there is hardly any title cards used in the pie sequence. Also, because of the reactions. Certain pie fights would have been better suited to sound because they don't have weird reactions. When I think of silent pie fights, I think of weird reactions. This one has weird reactions, so it's better for a silent movie.
I think I read somewhere that one of the people that gets hit by a pie says h-e- double hockey sticks. However, I think I got that on IMDB and that it probably is not correct.. Oh, who cares?
So, my overall thoughts: A great film, that has a fantastic pie fight and a menacing villain that takes away from a bit of the comedy in the first half of the movie. Although this movie is partly lost, from what I've saw, this movie deserves a perfect score.
10/10
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017664/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
(https://threestooges.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F6%2F6f%2FL%2526H_Battle_of_the_Century_1928.jpg&hash=7709e5fa70749845b0d0f2c0723f3b92a69a057d)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SkN7sptS5m4
What an unfulfilling experience reviewing this one is. Only half of this film still exists, so there's really only two scenes to discuss, and as such I won't even rate this. For years, the famous pie fight scene towards the end was the only thing that existed, in edited form, because of a Robert Youngson compilation film. The pie footage was included in. The first reel, which involves the boxing match, was not discovered until 1979.
The pie fight may be more famous, but the opening boxing sequence is quite funny. As far as character development goes, this scene is the more satisfying, as the pie fight is pure comic destruction. Stan Laurel does absolutely nothing here, and it works brilliantly. He's in a situation where his opponent is much bigger and more menacing than he is, but there is a part where his oponnent's glove needs to be adjusted, giving Stan more than enough time to clobber his way to victory. However, Stan is so used to losing, he has no idea what to do, so he just wanders around aimlessly as poor Ollie is in the corner urging Stan to use his left. Then Stan sticks his arm out, his opponent, glove now adjusted, charges Stan and runs into the outstretched arm, being completely knocked out. Stan is too stupid to go into a neutral corner for the ref to count, his opponent gets saved by the bell and eventually knocks Stan out. Again, Stan basically does very little in this scene, but the results are hilarious. When people say Stan Laurel's character had some Harry Langdon influence, this is the kind of scene they were talking about. The idea of doing nothing when a situation calls for something. Minimalist comedy at its best.
The pie fight is anything but minimalist. It's basically just an excuse to make a gooey mess out of a bunch of people and a city street, and it is a pleasure for the eyes. My favorite bit is a subtler piece. There's a mailman you expect to get a pie in the kisser. Instead the pie lands in the mail he's about to deliver, unbeknownst to him, and he ends up picking up the messy mail. Other funny bits are the homely man in the barber's chair, the flapper girl slipping on the pie and having it land on her backside underneath her skirt, and any long shot of the city street. OK, I like the mayor getting hit as well.
Really, what exists from this thing is very funny, but it feels like an incomplete viewing experience because well...it is!
N/A / 10
PS: Anybody care to take a guess who the extra is below pictured in the crowd during the boxing match?
By the way, it's Lou Costello!! Yes, THE Lou Costello! In fact, he was so broke after appearing as an extra in the movie that he had to hitchhike his way home, from what I've heard. That would've been cool if he took a pie to the face! [pie]
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017664/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
For providing links to complement your L&H discussions, I highly recommend Dave Lord Heath's website, Another Nice Mess (http://www.lordheath.com/)...
THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (1928) (http://www.lordheath.com/index.php?p=1_156_The-Battle-Of-The-Century)
-
For providing links to complement your L&H discussions, I highly recommend Dave Lord Heath's website, Another Nice Mess (http://www.lordheath.com/)...
THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (1928) (http://www.lordheath.com/index.php?p=1_156_The-Battle-Of-The-Century)
Oh, yes. That website is a great L&H resource and I once spent hours digging through it.
-
By the way, it's Lou Costello!! Yes, THE Lou Costello! In fact, he was so broke after appearing as an extra in the movie that he had to hitchhike his way home, from what I've heard. That would've been cool if he took a pie to the face! [pie]
He spent about a year in L.A., doubling and stunting primarily at MGM. Notably, he doubled/stunted for Dolores del Rio in THE TRAIL OF '98 (1928).
His hitchhiking only got him as far as St. Louis, where dead broke, he cold-called a burlesque theatre ad for a Dutch comic. Spent most of 1929 learning burlesque comedy. By the time he finally returned to Paterson NJ in 1930, his talent got him work in the better burly theatres in New York. He earned himself respectable billings with various straightmen over the next 6 years. before teaming with Bud in 1936.
-
He spent about a year in L.A., doubling and stunting primarily at MGM. Notably, he doubled/stunted for Dolores del Rio in THE TRAIL OF '98 (1928).
His hitchhiking only got him as far as St. Louis, where dead broke, he cold-called a burlesque theatre ad for a Dutch comic. Spent most of 1929 learning burlesque comedy. By the time he finally returned to Paterson NJ in 1930, his talent got him work in the better burly theatres in New York. He earned himself respectable billings with various straightmen over the next 6 years. before teaming with Bud in 1936.
Oh, yes! I knew he stunt doubled for a bit at MGM before going over to burlesque, but, however, I didn't know he was in burlesque for 6 YEARS before teaming up with Bud Abbott.
-
Oh, yes. That website is a great L&H resource and I once spent hours digging through it.
Agreed, great resource, not just for Laurel and Hardy, but Hal Roach in general. Good idea, Brent. While I'm at it, I probably should probably throw in laurelandhardycentral.com as well.
-
By the way, it's Lou Costello!! Yes, THE Lou Costello! In fact, he was so broke after appearing as an extra in the movie that he had to hitchhike his way home, from what I've heard. That would've been cool if he took a pie to the face! [pie]
Correct, it's Lou Costello.
-
Agreed, great resource, not just for Laurel and Hardy, but Hal Roach in general. Good idea, Brent. While I'm at it, I probably should probably throw in laurelandhardycentral.com as well. Not as academic as the site you mentioned, but has the feel of watching Stan and Ollie with a couple of normal guys drinking a beer.
In fact, I was about to mention that website, Metal, but you beat me to it! While it's definitely not as informative and has me yearning for more commentary, but we sadly don't get any. But, still, both great websites.
-
Noah Young.. I used to get freaked out by his menacing appearance in this movie. He's almost too menacing.. I mean, Jesus! All those close-up shots of Noah coming at the camera are scary! I used to think that it was a horror movie as a kid! His appearance totally detracts from all the wonderful comedy we could've gotten in this movie.
I think you said the same thing about Noah Young in DO DETECTIVES THINK? He must be the boogeyman to you or something. It's almost strange seeing him appear in these early Laurel and Hardy shorts because to me, I associate him so much with Harold Lloyd.
-
I think you said the same thing about Noah Young in DO DETECTIVES THINK? He must be the boogeyman to you or something. It's almost strange seeing him appear in these early Laurel and Hardy shorts because to me, I associate him so much with Harold Lloyd.
Oh, I don't know much about Harold Lloyd, except for Safety Last! and that he was associated with Hal Roach and that he was in an Our Gang comedy in 1923. I should really look him up. He seems like a good comedian to research.
-
I think you said the same thing about Noah Young in DO DETECTIVES THINK? He must be the boogeyman to you or something.9.msg47382#
When I was 6, yes, yes he was. Anytime I saw him on the screen at that age, I would immediately fast forward. Now? Not so much. Now, I can easily stand a L&H comedy with Noah Young in it. Sometimes, he just overplays his roles and becomes too much of a villain, to where it detracts to the comedy.
-
News making the rounds today, confirmed with an announcement at an LoC event in Culpeper VA this weekend...
A print of the lost 2nd reel has been found.
Dave Lord Heath posted some details on FB earlier, quoting a reliable [but requested to remain anonymous] source...
It is however a 16mm printdown but one of exceptional quality. It was in Robert Youngson's collection that was obtained by another collector after Youngson's death. The collector did not know it was in the collection. This collector died a couple of years ago and another private collector took over his collection and found it a couple of months ago. We were shown frame grabs so this is no hoax. It has been scanned and is likely to appear on a European DVD soon.
-
News making the rounds today, confirmed with an announcement at an LoC event in Culpeper VA this weekend...
A print of the lost 2nd reel has been found.
Dave Lord Heath posted some details on FB earlier, quoting a reliable [but requested to remain anonymous] source...
Awesome news! This totally made my day.
-
According to a post on Facebook made earlier this morning by Dave Lord Heath, the latest buzz is that the recently restored "Battle Of The Century" has had a "secret" public screening, and that "negotiations" are ongoing for a DVD release but is unlikely for the American market.
In short, we North Americans who want to view this will potentially have to work around the Region Coding issue, and pay extra shipping fees, etc.
For me, there aren't many titles that I'm willing to jump through hoops for these days, but a much more complete BOTC is one of them!
CHEERS! :)
-
According to a post on Facebook made earlier this morning by Dave Lord Heath, the latest buzz is that the recently restored "Battle Of The Century" has had a "secret" public screening, and that "negotiations" are ongoing for a DVD release but is unlikely for the American market.
In short, we North Americans who want to view this will potentially have to work around the Region Coding issue, and pay extra shipping fees, etc.
For me, there aren't many titles that I'm willing to jump through hoops for these days, but a much more complete BOTC is one of them!
CHEERS! :)
About ten years ago, I remember a lost Arbuckle/Keaton film was discovered called THE COOK. They slapped on another Arbuckle and a Harold Lloyd short and made a release. Something similar here would be nice for North America.
Maybe it will show up on YouTube? But yeah, count me in as someone who would love to see this.
-
According to the following posting on Leonard Maltin's Indie Wire Blog, the park scene with Eugene Palette which follows the Fight scene, is still missing: http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/alfred-hitchcock-laurel-hardy-and-cutting-edge-cinema-20150909
At least all of Reel 2 is now intact!
CHEERS! :)
-
Didn't know if this would be of note to any of you forum members, but I am going to be seeing a screening of The Battle of The Century today at a Sons of the Desert fan club meeting. I don't know if Reel Two will be in the film when I go to see it, but I am going to be bringing my camera so that I can take videos for you guys and upload them so that you guys can see it. I'm hoping that Reel Two is in the version of The Battle of the Century that they're playing tonight.
-
Didn't know if this would be of note to any of you forum members, but I am going to be seeing a screening of The Battle of The Century today at a Sons of the Desert fan club meeting. I don't know if Reel Two will be in the film when I go to see it, but I am going to be bringing my camera so that I can take videos for you guys and upload them so that you guys can see it. I'm hoping that Reel Two is in the version of The Battle of the Century that they're playing tonight.
That would be cool, thanks! Would like to see this newly discovered footage.
-
Didn't know if this would be of note to any of you forum members, but I am going to be seeing a screening of The Battle of The Century today at a Sons of the Desert fan club meeting. I don't know if Reel Two will be in the film when I go to see it, but I am going to be bringing my camera so that I can take videos for you guys and upload them so that you guys can see it. I'm hoping that Reel Two is in the version of The Battle of the Century that they're playing tonight.
The "new" footage should start following the Boxing Match and the single still insert of Stan & Babe (With the latter's face covered in ink splatter!) with Eugene Palette. I really wish the release rights issues could get sorted out so that fans could actually buy this now nearly complete short! I'm afraid the prospects of that don't look at all good, at the present! The are postings relating to this on Dave Lord Heath's "Another Nice Forum" page, which can be accessed via his amazing "Another Nice Mess" (www.lordheath.com) website! By the way, today is also his Lordship's Birthday, so one could also post Birthday Greetings, if they wish to do so!
Anyway, Best of luck in your video capturing endeavors, and happy viewing!
CHEERS! [pie]
-
That would be cool, thanks! Would like to see this newly discovered footage.
I would also like to see the newly discovered footage. Debating filming Reel One or just filming Reel Two. I'll probably end up filming Reel One if it doesn't take up all of the space on my camera.The "new" footage should start following the Boxing Match and the single still insert of Stan & Babe (With the latter's face covered in ink splatter!) with Eugene Palette. I really wish the release rights issues could get sorted out so that fans could actually buy this now nearly complete short! I'm afraid the prospects of that don't look at all good, at the present! The are postings relating to this on Dave Lord Heath's "Another Nice Forum" page, which can be accessed via his amazing "Another Nice Mess" (www.lordheath.com) website! By the way, today is also his Lordship's Birthday, so one could also post Birthday Greetings, if they wish to do so!
Anyway, Best of luck in your video capturing endeavors, and happy viewing!
CHEERS! [pie]
Thanks for the good luck! I'll probably end up needing it, considering I'm not the best videographer. And you talked about release rights issues. As of now, is the film and Reel Two in the public domain? I'm afraid if I post my footage on YouTube, the video will get taken down due to copyright strikes.
(Oh, and tell Lord Heath I said happy birthday. His website is awesome!)
-
I would also like to see the newly discovered footage. Debating filming Reel One or just filming Reel Two. I'll probably end up filming Reel One if it doesn't take up all of the space on my camera.Thanks for the good luck! I'll probably end up needing it, considering I'm not the best videographer. And you talked about release rights issues. As of now, is the film and Reel Two in the public domain? I'm afraid if I post my footage on YouTube, the video will get taken down due to copyright strikes.
(Oh, and tell Lord Heath I said happy birthday. His website is awesome!)
THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (1927) definitely isn't Public Domain. My focus would be on Reel Two, although if you have plenty of room and your camera has plenty of charge, starting from the beginning might be better, as one could get sufficiently caught up in the onscreen goings off to forget about activating the video recording altogether!
Again, if you see this before the Sons Of The Desert presentation, best of luck! I greatly look forward to your report, whatever the results!
I did extend Dave Lord Heath your Birthday Greetings!
CHEERS! [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie] [pie]
-
Sad to say this, but here goes nothing... I went into this Battle of the Century presentation expecting to find Reel Two. I sat through four movies to watch The Battle of the Century. The reel was not in the best quality, and it took about 20 seconds for the quality of the print to get better. I asked the projectionist if this was the complete copy of The Battle of the Century. The projectionist informed me with sad news that Reel Two hasn't been made into a 16mm print yet, so this was a version made in the 80's or 90's splicing together pre-existing footage. It was kind of disappointing, but in the grand scheme of things we're all going to get to see this film at some point.
-
Sad to say this, but here goes nothing... I went into this Battle of the Century presentation expecting to find Reel Two. I sat through four movies to watch The Battle of the Century. The reel was not in the best quality, and it took about 20 seconds for the quality of the print to get better. I asked the projectionist if this was the complete copy of The Battle of the Century. The projectionist informed me with sad news that Reel Two hasn't been made into a 16mm print yet, so this was a version made in the 80's or 90's splicing together pre-existing footage. It was kind of disappointing, but in the grand scheme of things we're all going to get to see this film at some point.
Hi CurlyFan1934!
Frankly, I'm surprised that nobody connected with the Sons Of The Desert have had this done, as it's my understanding the 16mm option is far more doable rights wise. The only possibility I can readily think of is the asking price may be too high, but who knows?
In any event, I'm sorry to hear about your disappointment, along with anyone other attendees who may have had high hopes of viewing the complete Reel 2. At this stage, there should be no good reason this shouldn't be accessible to Sons of The Desert meetings, yet sadly, this seems to be the case! Furthermore, based on what I've read regarding ownership of the Film itself vs who has the Home Video release rights, I'm even less optimistic this will see DVD / Blu-ray / Digital Download release any time soon, if ever, such is the sad state of getting never before released versions of Hal Roach Films to Home Video today! Just check out Dave Lord Heath's Another Nice Forum page under my heading for The Battle Of The Century quagmire, and you'll get a better idea of the extremely frustrating ridiculousness of the situation! It's no wonder Richard W. Bann doesn't deal with this crap anymore! After everything he had to deal with in getting LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION titles released in the U.S, I think he simply decided he had enough, at least that's the impression I got! Believe me, I would LOVE to be WRONG about all of this!
Sorry to unload like this, but this is my current take regarding the above. Your views might differ.
Kind Regards,
Tony
-
Hi CurlyFan1934!
Frankly, I'm surprised that nobody connected with the Sons Of The Desert have had this done, as it's my understanding the 16mm option is far more doable rights wise. The only possibility I can readily think of is the asking price may be too high, but who knows?
In any event, I'm sorry to hear about your disappointment, along with anyone other attendees who may have had high hopes of viewing the complete Reel 2. At this stage, there should be no good reason this shouldn't be accessible to Sons of The Desert meetings, yet sadly, this seems to be the case! Furthermore, based on what I've read regarding ownership of the Film itself vs who has the Home Video release rights, I'm even less optimistic this will see DVD / Blu-ray / Digital Download release any time soon, if ever, such is the sad state of getting never before released versions of Hal Roach Films to Home Video today! Just check out Dave Lord Heath's Another Nice Forum page under my heading for The Battle Of The Century quagmire, and you'll get a better idea of the extremely frustrating ridiculousness of the situation! It's no wonder Richard W. Bann doesn't deal with this crap anymore! After everything he had to deal with in getting LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION titles released in the U.S, I think he simply decided he had enough, at least that's the impression I got! Believe me, I would LOVE to be WRONG about all of this!
Sorry to unload like this, but this is my current take regarding the above. Your views might differ.
Kind Regards,
Tony
To my understanding, I think other Sons of the Desert tents have been able to view The Battle of the Century, namely the Hollywood Party tent in California. They had a "Battle of the Century" night where they celebrated. It's strange that the Night Owls tent can't access the print as they could. But then again the asking price may have been high and maybe California could've been able to pay for it, while the good ol' Night Owls tent couldn't? I don't know. It's confusing me.
Isn't there still a Hal Roach Studios somewhere out there? Like, isn't there a Hal Roach Studios that sells DVDs? Because if there was, this whole legal rights thing would be put to a end because Hal Roach Studios would probably have to be the sole owner of the film itself because after all they did make it. Unless Hal Roach Studios made some sort of business acquisition with a company that I'm not aware of, they still exist.
At this point, I'll settle for a VHS of Reel 2 of Century. Just slap on Big Business or Two Tars or You're Darn' Tooting or whichever L&H silent makes people happy, and boom, you've got an instant DVD release. About your comment on Bann, he shouldn't deal with this crap. He worked way too hard to get the Essential Collection released here in the U.S., and that collection is freaking awesome. I don't care what anybody says.
Now, listen, at the end of the day, this is 5 minutes of footage. That may sound strange to non L&H fans that we are so upset over 5 minutes of footage. But, it's not just 5 minutes of footage. It's 5 minutes of cinematic gold. The guy that found the footage should just upload the reel on YouTube, for crying out loud. Of course, it'll get taken down after a few days, but, hey, that's better than nothing!
-
Tony, I hear ya!
All this talk makes me think how lucky Stooge fans are. No major footage lost, all the films beautifully restored and easily available, always have been. The Stooge fan in me is fortunately spoiled, and the few crumbs hard to come by are likely cameo footnotes.
Laurel and Hardy? Prints have varying quality, a major early film like HATS OFF is lost (imagine not having MEN IN BLACK), this whole fiasco with the BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, and it took years for the films to be properly released.
Buster Keaton has missing footage in THE FROZEN NORTH and I've always wondered if I'll ever see a version of THE BOAT where some of the frames aren't literally deteriorating.
If any Stooge fan is reading this who is not into many other older comedians we are talking about, realize you are truly blessed.
-
Tony, I hear ya!
All this talk makes me think how lucky Stooge fans are. No major footage lost, all the films beautifully restored and easily available, always have been. The Stooge fan in me is fortunately spoiled, and the few crumbs hard to come by are likely cameo footnotes.
Laurel and Hardy? Prints have varying quality, a major early film like HATS OFF is lost (imagine not having MEN IN BLACK), this whole fiasco with the BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, and it took years for the films to be properly released.
Buster Keaton has missing footage in THE FROZEN NORTH and I've always wondered if I'll ever see a version of THE BOAT where some of the frames aren't literally deteriorating.
If any Stooge fan is reading this who is not into many other older comedians we are talking about, realize you are truly blessed.
I for one, am glad all of the Stooges Starring / Co-starring vehicles are extant!
if only every newly found Film, such as HELLO POP! (1933), was released in a reasonably timely fashion (IE. Under 12 months!), instead of the real life lunacy surrounding Laurel & Hardy / Hal Roach found footage! No matter how justified, the seemingly continuous tug of war between "X company (Who has the Home Video rights!) try to claim actual Film ownership" vs "But I OWN the Film (Who can only release on non Home Video viable 16mm Film Stock!) and you can't have it!" type nonsense just leaves me cold! Can't these people EVER get their $#!? together and release this new found footage in a reasonably timely fashion?
It's been 15 months and counting, and apparently STILL not even a 16mm print struck of THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (1927) Complete Reel 2, let alone ANY kind of Home Video release on the Horizon ANYWHERE!
Oh, and regarding the status of certain "lost" Hal Roach Films, don't take that to the bank, either! There's at least ONE out there, and that's from a source I consider most reliable! Unfortunately, to get this title, he's had to agree to keeping the utmost secrecy! No screenshots, no reviews, NOTHING!
Let me make myself clear in stating that if a Film is rightly considered lost, it's lost. However, what I can't stand are people who knowingly hold prints of Films that otherwise don't "exist" and either refuse to release them, or hold them at such a high ransom, NOBODY can afford to buy them! What really bothers me though, is when these people pass on, their "Rare Treasures" are liable to disappear forever, for real! :(
-
I for one, am glad all of the Stooges Starring / Co-starring vehicles are extant!
if only every newly found Film, such as HELLO POP! (1933), was released in a reasonably timely fashion (IE. Under 12 months!), instead of the real life lunacy surrounding Laurel & Hardy / Hal Roach found footage! No matter how justified, the seemingly continuous tug of war between "X company (Who has the Home Video rights!) try to claim actual Film ownership" vs "But I OWN the Film (Who can only release on non Home Video viable 16mm Film Stock!) and you can't have it!" type nonsense just leaves me cold! Can't these people EVER get their $#!? together and release this new found footage in a reasonably timely fashion?
It's been 15 months and counting, and apparently STILL not even a 16mm print struck of THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (1927) Complete Reel 2, let alone ANY kind of Home Video release on the Horizon ANYWHERE!
Oh, and regarding the status of certain "lost" Hal Roach Films, don't take that to the bank, either! There's at least ONE out there, and that's from a source I consider most reliable! Unfortunately, to get this title, he's had to agree to keeping the utmost secrecy! No screenshots, no reviews, NOTHING!
Let me make myself clear in stating that if a Film is rightly considered lost, it's lost. However, what I can't stand are people who knowingly hold prints of Films that otherwise don't "exist" and either refuse to release them, or hold them at such a high ransom, NOBODY can afford to buy them! What really bothers me though, is when these people pass on, their "Rare Treasures" are liable to disappear forever, for real! :(
I think I know you're talking about Lord Heath when you say that. He says that it is a film for 1927 made by Hal Roach but not an Our Gang short. It can't be Hats Off, can it be?
-
I think I know you're talking about Lord Heath when you say that. He says that it is a film for 1927 made by Hal Roach but not an Our Gang short. It can't be Hats Off, can it be?
Dave Lord Heath literally can't say it (Which I completely understand and respect!), but I sure as heck can suspect it!
What it boils down to is what other Hal Roach Non 'Our Gang' Films from 1927 are still officially considered lost? Understand, it IS considered ENTIRELY lost, which eliminates any Films in which one or more fragments are known to survive!
The last time I checked, HATS OFF (1927) qualifies on ALL counts!
Just for fun, I'm thinking it may be time to consult Lord Heath's newly assembled Hal Roach Film Catalogue listing for the 1927 titles, eliminating the 'Our Gang' comedies first, of course!
CHEERS! [pie]
-
Assuming HATS OFF is really out there, I imagine said person must be holding out for a king's ransom. I wonder if this alleged person would respond to a crowd funding effort from fans to get this film off his/her hands. I know of a certain guy who reviews Stooge films and even Laurel and Hardy and Marx Brothers films and is known as someone who likes loud music who'd contribute a nice sum, if not the entire ransom, of money to said effort if he truly believed this film existed and was salvageable. I can't say who this alleged person is, but you can guess, of course. [pie]
-
Dave Lord Heath literally can't say it (Which I completely understand and respect!), but I sure as heck can suspect it!
What it boils down to is what other Hal Roach Non 'Our Gang' Films from 1927 are still officially considered lost? Understand, it IS considered ENTIRELY lost, which eliminates any Films in which one or more fragments are known to survive!
The last time I checked, HATS OFF (1927) qualifies on ALL counts!
Just for fun, I'm thinking it may be time to consult Lord Heath's newly assembled Hal Roach Film Catalogue listing for the 1927 titles, eliminating the 'Our Gang' comedies first, of course!
CHEERS! [pie]
I may try that, but not sure looking through 1,200 Hal Roach comedies is very efficient. [pie]
-
Assuming HATS OFF is really out there, I imagine said person must be holding out for a king's ransom. I wonder if this alleged person would respond to a crowd funding effort from fans to get this film off his/her hands. I know of a certain guy who reviews Stooge films and even Laurel and Hardy and Marx Brothers films and is known as someone who likes loud music who'd contribute a nice sum, if not the entire ransom, of money to said effort if he truly believed this film existed and was salvageable. I can't say who this alleged person is, but you can guess, of course. [pie]
Of course, assuming that Dave Lord Heath has HATS OFF is certainly a far-fetched theory but hey it could be possible. I can't seem to find many Hal Roach films from 1927, let alone ones that are lost, so Hats Off may be a possibility.
-
I'm 100% serious with my post, by the way, concerning a crowd funding effort, and yes, I'd contribute, nicely, if I truly believed this film could be saved. I'd need proof, of course.
-
There was a huge show at MOMA in NYC a couple of months ago whose centerpiece was the completely restored Battle Of The Century. I have some friends who played in the orchestra. This was a very big deal. Now, what print, prints, stills, whatever, did they use for that?
-
Well, seeing as how the full short is still not available, I'm going to have to review the incomplete print. Regarding the boxing match, it is really well done. What I love about it is just how angry the referee gets with Laurel. Laurel's inability to stand in a neutral corner results in them basically fighting it out themselves, and when Laurel gets knocked out, the referee begins counting by 2's. A similar gag would appear in Abbott and Costello's BUCK PRIVATES, although I'll admit I prefer the referee's response in that ("I don't like those numbers; they're odd").
From what I can see of the pie fight, it looks like it was also great as well. This is harder to judge, considering that it's more fragmented, but it seems to build up very well and I enjoy what is available to watch. If the rest of the short is as good as what I have seen so far, then I cannot wait for the day that they (hopefully) make the entire short available.
Judging from what exists, I'd give it a 10 out of 10
-
So, it has been quite a while since The Battle of the Century's second reel was announced...2 1/2 years, to be exact. Has anybody else on the forum seen this movie yet or heard anything about a release or any updates at all? Myself, I have been wanting to get my hands on the second reel for quite some time and nothing yet. Also, any word on this mystery man who seems to have Hats Off (or any other lost Hal Roach 1927 movie) in their possession?
-
So, it has been quite a while since The Battle of the Century's second reel was announced...2 1/2 years, to be exact. Has anybody else on the forum seen this movie yet or heard anything about a release or any updates at all? Myself, I have been wanting to get my hands on the second reel for quite some time and nothing yet. Also, any word on this mystery man who seems to have Hats Off (or any other lost Hal Roach 1927 movie) in their possession?
Regarding BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, I heard that they showed it at some film festivals, but beyond that I haven't heard anything.
-
This German upload, which includes all of Reel 2, is still up on YouTube. This is from a January 2019, European TV Broadcast (Titled Dick & Doof, Die Schlacht Des Jahrhunderts, 1927):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iCl3r-7c25A
STILL no legitimate home video release in the offing, as yet, far as I'm aware. Just periodic "Stay tuned" Facebook posts by Richard Bann that haven't yet lead to anything concrete, and a recently scheduled release that had to be cancelled due to lack of proper release rights issues. Sigh!
-
This German upload, which includes all of Reel 2, is still up on YouTube. This is from a January 2019, European TV Broadcast (Titled Dick & Doof, Die Schlacht Des Jahrhunderts, 1927):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iCl3r-7c25A
STILL no legitimate home video release in the offing, as yet, far as I'm aware. Just periodic "Stay tuned" Facebook posts by Richard Bann that haven't yet lead to anything concrete, and a recently scheduled release that had to be cancelled due to lack of proper release rights issues. Sigh!
Thanks so much for sharing this, it completely made my day. The new footage is fantastic, though I gotta wonder how much knowing the talking voices contributes. I know darn well what Charlie Hall sounds like berating Ollie and Stan crying after that bump on the head as well - which I got a great laugh out of.
That footage is priceless and I'm glad it was found.
-
Thanks so much for sharing this, it completely made my day. The new footage is fantastic, though I gotta wonder how much knowing the talking voices contributes. I know darn well what Charlie Hall sounds like berating Ollie and Stan crying after that bump on the head as well - which I got a great laugh out of.
That footage is priceless and I'm glad it was found.
It really does flesh out the pie fight. Now, if the remaining Reel One footage could be found! That bump on Stan's head is an interesting unearthed gag that was never repeated on him, as Ollie eventually became the almost exclusive recipient of such physical (comic) brutality.
CHEERS! [pie]
-
Covering the still missing BOTC filmic gags, at least we have an end visual of the sprayed ink in Oliver Hardy's face, a gag which they repeated in later films. I believe his subsequent tripping over the Victrola was probably similar to a gag that involved Jimmy Finlayson in a later Laurel and Hardy silent, although just which one it is oddly eludes my memory at the moment!
CHEERS! [pie]
EDIT: The missing Victrola gag is repeated in LIBERTY (1929) a bit past the 6:30 mark: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KmlBqIp_Kxo
-
Laurel and Hardy's "The Battle of the Century" (1927) remains a classic short for its spectacular pie fight — finally available on DVD/Blu-ray in its entirety. Thanks to the efforts of silent-film preservationist Robert Youngson and archivist Jon Mirsalis, this legendary two-reeler has survived mostly intact. A must-see for anyone who appreciates movie comedy.
10/10
-
The restored Battle of the Century is part of the new L & H Blu-ray (and DVD) set, Laurel & Hardy: The Definitive Restorations. I had never seen the film before seeing it in this set. The pie fight scene is something to see, even after viewing the pie fights in Stooges films. The L & H Blu-ray consists of two feature films (Sons of the Desert and Way Out West) along with 17 shorts including The Music Box, Brats, Helpmates, The Midnight Patrol, and much more. It also has eight hours of special features, including publicity and scene still photographs, posters from around the world advertising the movies in the set, contracts, scripts, and a lot more. If we ever get a Blu-ray collection of Three Stooges films, hopefully it would be similar to this release.
I have written a review/article on the new Laurel & Hardy: The Definitive Restorations Blu-ray set, which was published online a few days ago. Here's a link to the review/article:
https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Laurel-Hardy-The-Definite-Restorations-Blu-ray-Review (https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Laurel-Hardy-The-Definite-Restorations-Blu-ray-Review)
Marshall
-
This is a film that I view as having three parts: the boxing match, the bit where Ollie tries to injure Stan for insurance, and the epic pie battle.
The boxing match is excellent and it is funny seeing Stan almost winning accidently, knocking down his victim only to break the rules by not standing in his corner. Boxing is great for comedy, and I think watching scripted boxing for entertainment is much more exciting than actual boxing. (Of course, that is why I'm a big fan of professional wrestling). Stan still ends up losing the fight, leaving Stan and Ollie needing money. Which leads to...
The insurance part. I think this scene is entertaining and funny on its own, with Ollie trying to injure Stan only for the efforts to fail. but it does seem cruel for Ollie. I know this is still early on their career where their characters aren't as well defined, but it seems more like something Moe would do to Curly, or Bud to Lou. Speaking of Lou Costello, he makes an appearance in the audience during the boxing match.
Then we get to the climatic pie fight. The Three Stooges had several pie fights in their career, but nothing reaching this peak. There are pies everywhere, with everybody from innocent bystanders like Anita Garvin to the cops getting in on the action. A lot of Laurel and Hardy's early films have a chaotic free-for-all ending that is often unrelated to the beginning. My theory is that they came up with an epic finish first, and then thought of the rest of the plot as a way to end up there. I wonder how long it took for them to make those pies and clean them up?
-
This is a film that I view as having three parts: the boxing match, the bit where Ollie tries to injure Stan for insurance, and the epic pie battle.
The boxing match is excellent and it is funny seeing Stan almost winning accidently, knocking down his victim only to break the rules by not standing in his corner. Boxing is great for comedy, and I think watching scripted boxing for entertainment is much more exciting than actual boxing. (Of course, that is why I'm a big fan of professional wrestling). Stan still ends up losing the fight, leaving Stan and Ollie needing money. Which leads to...
The insurance part. I think this scene is entertaining and funny on its own, with Ollie trying to injure Stan only for the efforts to fail. but it does seem cruel for Ollie. I know this is still early on their career where their characters aren't as well defined, but it seems more like something Moe would do to Curly, or Bud to Lou. Speaking of Lou Costello, he makes an appearance in the audience during the boxing match.
Then we get to the climatic pie fight. The Three Stooges had several pie fights in their career, but nothing reaching this peak. There are pies everywhere, with everybody from innocent bystanders like Anita Garvin to the cops getting in on the action. A lot of Laurel and Hardy's early films have a chaotic free-for-all ending that is often unrelated to the beginning. My theory is that they came up with an epic finish first, and then thought of the rest of the plot as a way to end up there. I wonder how long it took for them to make those pies and clean them up?
Your analysis about the film is spot on, HomokHarcos. Also, being a wrestling fan, you must like the Stooges short, Grips, Grunts, and Groans. I've always enjoyed that movie. :)
Marshall
-
Your analysis about the film is spot on, HomokHarcos. Also, being a wrestling fan, you must like the Stooges short, Grips, Grunts, and Groans. I've always enjoyed that movie. :)
Marshall
Yes, I definitely liked Grips, Grunts and Groans. I like seeing pro wrestling references in mainstream media, especially from that time period where this not as much footage for pro wrestling. Contrary to popular belief, wrestling was already known to not be actual competition at this point. Here's a clip from Nothing Sacred featuring Frederic March and Carole Lombard (also from 1937) where it is discussed (and that wrestling match they are seeing happens to be pretty entertaining).
-
Yes, I definitely liked Grips, Grunts and Groans. I like seeing pro wrestling references in mainstream media, especially from that time period where this not as much footage for pro wrestling. Contrary to popular belief, wrestling was already known to not be actual competition at this point. Here's a clip from Nothing Sacred featuring Frederic March and Carole Lombard (also from 1937) where it is discussed (and that wrestling match they are seeing happens to be pretty entertaining).
I’m long overdue to watch NOTHING SACRED again, it’s been years. Another example of wrestling admitted to being fixed, this time in 1950, second paragraph.
https://moronika.com/forums/index.php/topic,6633.0.html
-
I’m long overdue to watch NOTHING SACRED again, it’s been years. Another example of wrestling admitted to being fixed, this time in 1950, second paragraph.
https://moronika.com/forums/index.php/topic,6633.0.html
Thanks! I think once I finish the Laurel and Hardy posts I'll move on to the Marx Brothers and Abbott and Costello.
-
Something I dumb-lucked across today. As always, there is no charge. 😉
-
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.
-
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!
-
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. [pie]
-
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. [pie]
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! :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? [deadhorse]
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...
[cool]
And in the spirit of [deadhorse], 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!
-
Wait a minute -- who said HATS OFF was lost? It's right here!
:o
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!
-
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? [deadhorse]
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
-
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!)
:police:
-
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.
-
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.