talemyn

Personally, I think it sounds like a really interesting idea. It's not something that I would dedicate that much time to, but I think it's great that you are into it enough that you will. It certainly seems like there's enough support behind your assertion that it's worth looking into. Hope it turns out well in the end . . . I'd be interested to see the end result.

Gerry P.

There were companies in the '80s that released videotapes of silent classics that were "speed corrected." The results were invariably and notoriously ponderous.
There were plenty of silent filmmakers who lived into the 1980s. Find me a quote by just one of these guys that supports your point of view.

If Fritz Lang wanted Metropolis altered, he probably would have said so.

djtoell

Sadly, it was also done for theatrical exhibitions at the time, as well. As Kevin Brownlow writes (emphasis mine):

"One can only have sympathy for those who programme silent films. But sympathy evaporates as soon as one has to endure slow projection. It's bad enough to be deprived of the sound of the symphony orchestra (which accompanied all first-run films in the big theatres), but to be forced to watch the films in dead silence at an equally deadly pace is too much to ask of anyone. William Wellman's spectacular war film Wings (1927) moves at an exhilarating pace when projected at the speed at which it was shown originally- 24 fps- but it drags miserably when shown at 16. At one of its last major showings in Britain, a few years ago, the audience emerged complaining of its slowness. Their complaints were not aimed at the projectionist, for they thought it was an inherent fault of all silent films. Yet it had been shown at 16 fps- and had lasted nearly an hour longer than in 1927. That attitude shows no respect towards the films of the past. It does them a grave disservice."

DJ

caligulathegod

My point about Mel Blanc is that slowing it down to the way it was shot might be an interesting exercise in seeing how the film was made, but if all the evidence seems to point to the film being correct the way it is, then all you're doing is pulling the curtain aside to see the trick. There's nothing wrong with that. What is being questioned is the idea that you are "correcting" it. It was never exhibited that way when it was in release and even the cue sheets indicate that it wasn't supposed to be that way. By all means, have fun. I'd be curious to see it. I might even pop my copy in my computer and slow it down to see it.

marknyc

As I said in an earlier post, the film is not running much longer since I'm replacing subtitles with intertitles, and doing some slight editing of long static scenes.

As for those of you who express such certainty that you "know" how these films were projected, from what I've read there is still debate over that. I saw Keaton's "The General" projected at silent speed with a live piano accompaniment, and it was fantastic - all the gags and reactions played better. When I recently saw it on TV at sound speed all the humor from his takes and slow burns was lost.

Let's not pretend that any of us have the final answer to this - none of us were there at the time! So far I love my new Metropolis. I just finished the scene of Freder being trapped by Rotwang, and it's much more intense now that he runs at actual speed. Anyone who wants to see my finished version, send me an email!

djtoell

I assume you mean you're replacing intertitles with subtitles. Hey, it must have been a theatre manager conspiracy that Metropolis has some gorgeous intertitles. Lop 'em off! And you're deciding on your own to shorten long scenes? Wow, I'm sure Lang would've loved all of that.

Why not keep making it even easier for modern audiences? Add in some CGI of new action sequences. Maybe some hardcore porn inserts will keep the modern audiences entertained, too.

That doesn't mean there's no evidence to be found that can give us some hints. And there are zero pieces of historical evidence that I have come across that indicate that Metropolis should run anywhere nearly as slow as 16fps. Everything indicates that the film should be run in the neighborhood of 24 to 28fps. Lang commissioned animation designed for 25fps playback. Lang commissioned a score to be performed with 28fps exhibitions. The list goes on.

By covering up your eyes and saying "no one knows!", you're only kidding yourself. Your solipsistic willful ignorance, thankfully, isn't contagious to those who make an effort to inform themselves.

Hey, have fun. Slow it down to 1/2 fps or speed it up to 150 fps for all I care. But spare us your act of playing pretend that your project is even remotely historically meaningful.

DJ

marknyc

I wasn't talking only about Metropolis - I was talking about silent film in general. There is still debate as to whether silent films were shown as filmed, or if they were sped up. I'm just saying that since we aren't completely certain, it's acceptable to show them at the speed at which they were filmed.

Yes, I did mean that I'm replacing intertitles with subtitles. But I have kept all of the animated intertitles (which I agree are quite nice), and have kept all intertitles that are not dialogue (such as the Tower of Babel story sequence, and explanatory notes).

In terms of shortening static scenes, they end up running as long as they do in the sped-up version. For example, a static shot of Rotwang's house may run 8 seconds at 24fps and 12 seconds at 16fps. I'm trimming it back to run 8 seconds at 16fps - so I hardly think Lang is turning over in his grave.

Of course this is not historically accurate - when did I ever say it was? I just think that this film may have been shown originally at slower speeds and wanted to see what it looked like. Since the music was recorded to fit the sped-up version, I've had to make decisions to make things fit. Sure, I'd prefer to re-record the score to match the slower speed, but I'm afraid I that's not an option.

So I'll end up with a version of Metropolis at 16fps that fits quite closely with the Huppertz score, with only minor concessions made to keep things in synch. All in all, a pretty close approximation of what this film might've looked like if I'm right that it was originally projected at a slower speed.

djtoell

To who? You? As I quoted earlier, Brownlow put it best when he said, "That attitude shows no respect towards the films of the past. It does them a grave disservice."

Gee, what's the matter? Did you realize that things run too slowly at 16fps? What a shock.

Gosh, I don't know. Maybe when you said it was the "proper speed." Maybe when you said that there was no way Lang would want the film to run faster than 16fps "unless he was forced." Maybe when, in the very next sentence of this post, you said it "may have been shown originally at slower speeds."

And you think this why? Because the sky was a certain shade of blue one day this summer? Because tea in China is selling at a good price these days?

You say you're not striving for historical accuracy, and then you say that you're doing it because you think it's historically accurate. You say you're undoing what Lang was forced to do, and then you remove intertitles and put in subtitles. You say you want the "original" speed of the film, and then you decide to shorten parts of the film, anyway.

Give Sybil my regards.

DJ

talemyn

DJ, why do you care so much? It's not like he's forcing it on the world as the one and only movie release of Metropolis. It's simply an expirement to check out his hypothosis. You're being a tad testy about it.

djtoell

But he is pretending that what he's doing is "proper." He is expressing an opinion. I am expressing mine. It also just so happens that my opinion is based on historical research, while his is based on nothing in particular.

This also isn't the first time that marknyc has tried to sell this forum his "let's slow the projection speed" bill of goods for Metropolis (although before it was 20fps that he wanted). Last time, he peddled outrageous nonsense such as the claim that "Silent films varied in speed from 16 to 20 fps - but nothing near 24 fps." He also completely misrepresented that statements of restorer Martin Koerber by claiming Koerber had said that 28fps was "the only rate he knew of" for the Berlin premiere (which is flat-out untrue). This time, he has used similarly discredited historical claims.

After a while, one begins to question just how one person can continuously peddle so many flat-out inaccuracies about a single subject. Is it possible to innocently be that wrong that often? Or perhaps there's another purpose?

Awww. If dealing with others' opinions is too difficult, maybe people shouldn't start threads that are purposely designed to "raise people's eyebrows," as marknyc said he was. He can raise my eyebrows, but I can't open my mouth?

I am testy about it because I care about films and I dislike "modern audiences" wanting to make things "easier". Do you complain that pro-OAR people are being "testy" when they lambaste black-bar-haters?

DJ

marknyc

Why so much vitriol? Perhaps you're taking this a little too seriously.

As to your question "acceptable to who?" How about to Martin Koerber, who supervised the recent restoration? Here is what he wrote me:

"Natural movement" occurs at 20fps (except for the last reel, which still looks
fast even at 20 fps), that is the speed we have chosen when running the film
silent or with a pianist, it was also the speed chosen for the music by Bernd
Schultheis, which was composed for the 2001 presentation at the Berlin Film
Festival."

So I'm not alone in my opinion that 24fps is too fast. (To my eye, the movement looks natural at 16fps, but that's a matter of opinion.) He's also asked to see my version when I'm done, so clearly he thinks this is a valid exercise.

Once again, I never said that I was going to make an historically accurate version, since the only music available was recorded for the sped-up version. I'm attempting to approximate what a 16fps version would have looked like, with the materials I have. (And no, I don't feel the film runs too slow at 16fps - I'm only shortening static scenes to make the music fit).

My project seems to be quite upsetting to you - perhaps it's best if you just ignore what I'm doing. Enjoy the KINO DVD with sped-up movement, and I'll enjoy my version with natural movement. I doubt Fritz is upset, wherever he is!

Breakfast with Girls

Exactly. Djtoell, it's fine to disagree, but you're just being obnoxious.

TomOpus

He's spinning in his grave... at 24fps



kiddin'!

rennervision

That was great!

Marknyc - I'm curious. Would you be able to explain the process you use (software and such) to slow down the film and synchronize it with the soundtrack? I salute you, as this sounds like a fantastic project.

MichaelO

I have to agree with Marknyc - the latest Kino edition of Metropolis is great quality, but there is no doubt that the speed of the film changes the rhythm of this classic German silent film. It is way too fast. It would be like running Seven Samurai at 36fps. For someone who owns a dvd of the original, UFA printed, fully tinted Australian release of the film from 1928, run at 16fps, I know that I would rather show this latter version then the Kino one. Metropolis was shot at 16fps. In speeding it up to synch with the Hupperitz score a lot of the rhythm of Lang's film is lost, and in some ways the film becomes an embarrasment. I have watched the Kino version of Lang's epic Nibelungen and it is run at a slow, natural speed (c.18fps). The fact that Lang's original 4189m long film (which would have run for 3 hrs 48 mins at 16fps) was sped up and cut so Paramount could release a 90 minute version in the US is a fact of life. It help's to explain Lang's comment that "Metropolis no longer exists", for the film he made was obviously never released in the form he wanted, due to studio pressures. The advent of high quality dvd, the discovery of a partial original negative and of good quality original first generation tinted prints in Australia and New Zealand, means that we, in 2005, have the opportunity to see the film in a form which is close to the director's original vision. It is a shame that some 20 percent of the film remains lost. MichaelO Australia

marknyc

Thanks for the support, guys - I was beginning to feel like I was an outlaw or something!

Here's what I'm doing: I've ripped the VOB files off the KINO DVD and converted them to MPEGs using MPEG Video Wizard. It makes beautiful MPEGs very quickly. Then I strip the audio off the MPEG using VirtualDub - also very fast.

I'm using Pinnacle Studio 9 for the editing and time conversion. It allows you to vary the speed from scene to scene, using a percentage of the original. I had initially put in .75 to make the film run at 18fps, but scenes still seemed fast, so I am using .66, or 16fps, for most of the film.

One drawback to Pinnacle is that fast motion gets somewhat blurry when it is slowed down, so running motion is not as crisp as I'd like. Slower movement looks fine, though.

Pinnacle has great titling options - I've chosen a nice machine-like deco font for the subtitles, and Pinnacle allows me to add a slight drop-shadow to make sure they're readable.

For the sound, I take the .wav files generated by VirtualDub and cut them into the individual movements written for each sequence. I can then time-stretch or edit the music as needed to fit the film. Of course, I can't get the music to synch up exactly with the slower film, but I'm able to make each movement fit with the appropriate scene, and have been able to make many of they major music cues synch up.

I'll begin Maria's nightclub dance sequence tonight - can't wait to see how she actually danced!

Gerry P.

For the soundtrack, you should just throw on some Pat Benatar and Billy Squier.

marknyc

Thanks - I'll leave that to Mr. Moroder. The Huppertz score is working quite nicely so far.

djtoell

Why, did Seven Samurai run at 36fps at its premiere?

How does that "fact" explain why everyone back in Germany was doing work in the 24-28fps range for the film? UFA didn't run the film at 24fps at the premiere because Paramount wanted to cut it and speed it up later on in a different country.

Unless, of course, he was being quite literal: parts of the film were no longer in existence. Do you have any actualy evidence of there having been pressure from UFA for Lang to run his 16fps film at 24fps?

So 16fps is close to Lang's original vision? Great. Now prove it. Don't tell me you think it's true because you think it looks good and therefore Lang must have wanted it that way; actually prove it.

Let's take a look at the available evidence.

On one side, there's quite a lot in favor of the film being made for 24-28fps exhibition. The city animation was done for 25fps playback. Hupperitz's score was composed for performance with 28fps exhibition. The Berlin premiere was done at 24fps (or maybe even 26fps, as Koerber has apparently put it in the past). Also, generally speaking, it was completely commonplace for a silent film to have been shot at 16fps and exhibited at 24fps. For example, James Card could not find one silent film, out of thousands, with a cue sheet from the producers indicating 16fps projection.

And what have we got on the other side, in favor of the film being shown slower at 20fps or even 16fps? A bunch of people who, over three-quarters of a century later, think it looks good. Wow.

To any serious student of film history, interested in historically accurate restorations, there's simply nothing that I've seen to support exhibition slower than 24fps. If you've got something, please feel free to share; after all these years, though, I'm not holding my breath. And, of course, telling me that the live action was shot at 16fps doesn't mean anything, as 16fps productions were regularly intended for faster projection.

So what can we honestly say about Lang's original vision? As David Shepard has put it, him obviously being no silent film slouch:

"[A] lot of the action does look awfully hopped-up even at 24 fps and I certainly can understand being guided by the eye to a speed of 20 -- and having to go to new music as one of the consequences of such a choice.

But the existence of the Huppertz music score leaves small doubt as to the original intention."

And he ain't talking about 16fps.

DJ

rennervision

Djotell - did marknyc borrow your copy of Metropolis and forget to return it or something? It's called a "fan edit." Some people like to do this with their own DVDs in the privacy of their own home.

djtoell

Yeah, sorry for sticking up for the integrity of films. Let's see how far someone would get on this forum if they posted updates about their plans to do a home edit colorization of Citizen Kane. I wonder how many "Awesome idea!" and "Don't rain on this guy's parade!" posts that thread would get. If people could refrain from laughing long enough to even type out any replies, that is.

Like I've been saying, I could care less what marknyc does. It's his attempted context and reasoning for it that I disagree with. If he's going to open himself up by making such claims, he should have skin thick enough to deal with those who disagree. Further, marknyc has a history of spouting misinformation on this forum about silent films. No matter how much offense some people take to me trying to bring information and reality to the discussion, I'd rather that people whine at me while at least a handful of others actually take the effort to research and inform themselves on these issues as a result of my posts. If, indeed, no one cares enough about silent cinema to inform themselves, then so be it. At least I gave it a shot.

Have fun with your colorized Citi...er, I mean, slowed-down Metropolis, folks.

DJ

marknyc

I have a "history of spouting misinformation on this forum about silent films"? The only silent film I've written about is Metropolis, and the only thing I've said is that I think it looks better at a slower speed, and that there is debate as to what speed is was shown at.

Can't people disagree on an issue like this without such anger? It feels like anyone who offers an opinion other than yours is subject to harassment. The fact that the man who did the restoration of Metropolis we're discussing has screened it at 20fps shows that even the experts have different views on this.

I feel my attempt to make a slower version of Metropolis is not without merit, and certainly not in the same category as colorizing, since no matter how often you repeat your evidence, we cannot be absolutely certain what speed this film was shown at, or if the speed varied at different screenings. We can be certain that B&W films were originally shown in B&W.

I think people aren't concerned that you disagree with me - it's the level of your animosity that is surprising. It's perhaps best to accept that not everyone will take your viewpoint as gospel, and move on. Makes life easier in general.

Cameron

i think dktoell is just showing passion for the film...and I think he has made his case for the original presentation speed. As I had stated previously, this has been debated to death for well over 25 years. Still no one has come up with any resources from lang himself, or for that matter any other directors working on several continents at the same time.

I mean no ill will towards you or your project. However I think the thread title is beyone bold, "proper speed" is not relative to what any one person thinks looks good. I think the cue sheets alone tie up that mystery.

For all the papers, lectures, screenings, and message board rantings. No one has ever produced hard evidence that this film was ever shown at 16fps.

I don't think DJtoell has been anything but a raving cinephile. I think this is fun debate, and if there is a place to "care so much" then a message board about movies is a good place to do so.

MichaelO, I think the seven samurai comparison is way out in left field. However, It seems you have some history with metropolis. You picked a hell of place for a first post. I hope your a legit new member, and not an old face with a new title pandering. Either way welcome to the forum.

djtoell

Not quite. You've also said, for example: "Silent films varied in speed from 16 to 20 fps - but nothing near 24 fps." There are similar examples in the same thread.

DJ

talemyn

Well, if he was talking about shooting speeds (I didn't look back to see the context), there seems to be some support for that. A quick web search finds reference to the same sentiment:

Regardless of whether or not it is accurate (not sure we'll ever know), creating a version that plays at 16fps certainly doesn't seem like so crazy of an idea and could add some interesting material to add to the debate.