dx23

http://www.lasersedge.com/item_detai...87747&tMedia=1

obscurelabel

There has been a lot of discussion of this at HTF. The print is a complete 16mm "play-at-home" (the 1920's version of DVD - film copies buyers could watch with home projectors) copy of exceptional quality. Apparently, no 35mm copies of the movie exist ... lots of Universal silents were destroyed in vault files over the years.

Giles

how bout

'The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Ugly As Sin Edition'

just kidding

well that sounds fascinating!

MoviePage

Great news. A definite buy.

jmj713

The cover, while getting the thumbs up for the vintage look, could use a redo. Looks off.

Carcosa

Hopefully something will turn up in the future. It took years for folks to assemble PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and the Milestone/Brownlow edition looks terrific with a few scenes of rough footage inserted here and there, apparently the best that could be found. And the Kino restoration of THE MAN WHO LAUGHS looks pretty amazing, although it would have been even better with new title cards and some digital enhancment.

Must be somthing out there somewhere hiding in a vault.

Carcosa

Hey, is this a David Sheperd DVD production?

pro-bassoonist

I would also like to have a new print of Tony Quinn's Hunchy.......I so hoped that after he passed away Miramax would come up with a SE...

Pro-B

nateman

I don't own this great movie on DVD yet so this is a most Def. buy for me.

marty888

A definite buy for me! Thanks for the heads up.

Alfred Bergman

A 35mm print surfaced in the 90's. The film was thought to survived only in 16mm until the 90's

http://dy.yesho.com/title/tt0014142/trivias

THIS NEMW DVD PROBABLY USES THAT 35MM FOOTAGE.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...notre_dame.htm

I REMAMBER THAT THE PHOTOPLAY DOCUMENTARY "UNIVERSAL HORROR" USED A PRINT THAT LOOKED SO MUCH LIKE THAT, THAN I IMAGINE IT'S THE SAME PRINT.

Carcosa

I picked this up earlier this week and checked it out...

I would say it is definitely light years beyond ANY other print I have seen. It could use a digital overhall in my opinion as a lot of the existing flaws could be eliminated but its doubtful the budget was there for this. There are some who don't like this "tampering" with silents but I'm all for doing whatever can be done to make them as look as they did when they were released. All in all, considering what we had prior to this I'm grateful we have something that shows us what a glorious film it really was.

The very informative liner notes both on the back cover and the insert are the exact same ones to be found on the previous IMAGE DVD release, which in turn originated with the IMAGE laserdisc. There is NO mention of the origin of the source print, unlike the previous DVD. This edition also has a scaled down replica of the original program book along with 3D glasses to view the 3D stills on the disc.

A nifty package all the way around.

Jack Theakston

The source print used was an original Show-At-Home 16mm print from 1926. You'll note that the original title is intact compared to earlier editions that were sourced from post-1928 prints, when the film was reissued and given a new opening title card.

The website listed above is incorrect, I'm sorry to say. During pre-production on this title, there was some extensive research put into tracking down any possible 35mm footage, and a search at most major archives turned up no material other than 16mm.

baracine

I rented this last night, so I can't tell you about the packaging. I was disappointed by the commentary which could have been a little more informative about the changes made to Hugo's original story and a little less about what the stagehands had for lunch. (The only truly "faithful" version is the French film of 1956, which is only available in a dismal transfer ... in English only ). The speed was 18 fps and "natural". The print and detail were the best they could be. The print was tinted and really could pass for 35 mm - in spots - despite its scratchy condition. (Couldn't they do a wet transfer?)

The image was windowboxed, which is a very big plus in my book, when you consider that this film has been badly cropped in past incarnations and has "suffered enough". The unstable luminosity is part of the "charm" of this rare surviving print and couldn't have been corrected without an expensive digital restoration. The music went from acceptable to rousing. The image was mechanically semi-stabilized for a film that age. The transfer was interlaced but I saw no discernable ghosting, which makes it far superior to the latest "Phantom".
The 3D production stills were cute and work in giving a sense of scale to the sets. The film itself was a major disappointment for me - even though I had struggled through it before in worse conditions - for its staginess - already old-fashioned for 1923, hoary melodramatic effects and its multiple instances of puritan bowdlerizing and obvious religious censorship. The "happy ending" and the "modified love story" (Phoebus is really in love with Esmeralda and he survives his assassination) are particularly objectionable to me, but maybe not as bad, in their own naive way, as the 1940 version. (I won't even mention the Disney version).

I have seen this film before projected at 24 fps and in a way the speeded-up version is less of a total minf*ck in that it makes the whole spectacle into a jerky, almost funny, over-the-top, rather empty spectacle, with an even more rousing, operatic and surprising finale. In other words: It doesn't give you time to think...

The film is important for Chaney's performance, for its blockbuster status (the number of extras, the monumental sets), the pioneering use of cinema trickery, the very fact that Hollywood would "attempt" a classic of French literature that would attract the hicks in the sticks, but not much else.

Carcosa

I disagree on about all points…what a surprise.

The commentary is informative; I do want a background on the making of the film, what the film crew folks ate for lunch, etc. etc, not some pseudo intellectual blather about the novel. I don’t believe for a minute that films have to treat adaptations of these novels like scripture. I have no problem with filmmakers tinkering and changing. What may make good fiction doesn’t necessarily equate with a good film so I don’t hung up on that kind of nonsense. I’ve sat through the Anthony Quinn version you mentioned and it’s a dog. You can champion it if you like, it’s the worst studio film version I’ve seen. I’ll take the Charles Laughton version with its Hollywood-ized sentimentality any day….faithful to Hugo or not, it’s a better film by far.

Your dismissive assessment of the 1923 film version is silly. It pretty much rings of hollow intellectual snobbery.

Carcosa

Yes, I did notice the difference in the main title up to the cast credits, which were the same on both. Why did Universal see fit to make this change at the time?

Is there any truth to the rumour that a 35mm print was turned up in recent years? People have commented that the clips in the Photoplay Chaney documantary look to be from a 35mm source...probably speculation on their part? I haven't seen it so I can't say...

baracine

It's pretty much a given that you will never agree with me on anything but please try to be factual. I didn't say the 1956 version was the better film. I said it was the only one that followed the story actually contained in Victor Hugo's novel (one of the best-selling novels of all time, last time I checked). There is a difference. It matters to some people - like the French and the literate - and not just to snobs. And the 1956 version is not a "studio film". It was an independent Franco-Italian production. And as long as everything you say is so predictable, please do not mire yourself in clichés more than you need to in your earnest desire to insult. What is the opposite of "hollow intellectual snobbery", for instance? "Solid intellectual snobbery"?

Carcosa

Well, if that isn't a pretty blatant example of a smug, intellectual snob statement I really don't know what else to say. Maybe you don't see it as such but it sure comes across that way.

Thanks for the corrections...yes, I DID read into your post that you were lauding the 1956 film...you did not say that. I apologize.

What do you think is the best version?

The Valeyard

Did this release come with a slipcover? I haven't seen it in stores.

baracine

With you around, I will not venture an opinion. I will just stick to facts, if you don't mind.

This affirmation of mine was meant to convey the maximum information in as few words as possible. The hicks and the sticks reference was a nod to entertainment journal Variety's most famous headline of all time: "Sticks Nix Hick Pix" (1935), where "sticks" was understood, in showbiz parlance, to mean "rural America", one of the greatest sources of revenue for Hollywood in the early days, and a "hicks pic" to be a film about farmers. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_Nix_Hick_Pix for context). I think I was being fairly neutral in stating the recognized fact, alluded to in the film's commentary, that in 1923, Hollywood was taking a chance by introducing what could be termed high literature (even though the novel "Notre Dame de Paris" had been read by more people of all languages at the time, around the world, than any other) and a costumed (historical) epic, to boot, to a mostly rural, mostly relatively unsophisticated American public. This financial risk, more than any conscious attempt on the part of the filmmakers to make the story more dramatic or cinematic, explains why the story of the novel was so considerably "dumbed down", de-sexed*, romanticized, de-politicized and made properly syrupy in its happy ending so as not to offend the religious, moral and cultural susceptibilities of its intended public at the time.

Is this more acceptable for your own cultural sensibilities?

*Although it was considered perfectly OK to present poets and aristocrats as effeminate homosexuals. That always made them laugh long and hardy in Peoria.

Carcosa

Mine didn't have a slipcover...

Panda Phil

I'll wait for it this to come out on Blu-Ray.

The Valeyard

Thanks.

The Valeyard

Well, it is a commentary about the movie and, hopefully, everything that went into the making of it including what was for lunch. If you're looking for something more annotated, there's always Wikipedia.

When I tune into a commentary, I wanna hear what went on during the shoot. Some pre-production horror stories. Maybe a little about why they changed things from a novel. And for a movie like this, it's history after it was released. I don't really tune in to hear a lecture on what wasn't adapted properly. I can read the book if I want the "real" story.

baracine

Well, you'll just love this one. It actually has a potato salad recipe that was used on the set. Essential stuff!