[Once A Villain]

This DVD isn't exactly new, in fact it was released in April of 2005 in the UK, and even earlier in France. I didn't find out about it until recently though. Shame on me! Anyway, it isn't available in America, and would require American buyers to own a region free DVD player capable of playing PAL discs.

The film itself is Buster Keaton's masterpiece, The General (one of my personal Top 35 favorite films). Any lover of superb comedy set pieces, inspired action sequences, old fashioned trains, and historical authenticity (Civil War) can't go wrong with this picture. The General is proof alone that silent films were a splendid art form, and one that unfortunately no longer exists. You've heard the phrase, "They just don't make movies like this anymore." That applies to The General ten times over.

So, why am I excited about this DVD when there are three versions of The General on DVD in the U.S.? It's quite simple:

1) This version has a brand new score by Joe Hisaishi, the famous composer of Hayao Miyazaki's films (Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle, Princess Mononoke, Castle in the Sky, etc.) and many Takeshi Kitano films. I'm interested to see how this score stacks up against the one that I'm used to by Robert Israel (also featured on the disc as an option).

2) This version is restored and significantly sharper than any U.S. version.

3) This version isn't tinted, it is pure black & white.

4) This version isn't cropped on the right side (notice what I mean in the pictures below).

5) This version is a two disc set containing the following cool extras:

Introduction by David Robinson, an 8 min clip about the recording of the new score and a 2 min restoration comparison, THE RAILROADER and BUSTER KEATON RIDES AGAIN, a 1 minute 'Making of The General' clip, a 7 min extract from the tinted version, an 11 min Keaton filmography with pictures, an 11 minute Orson Welles introduction (made for TV), an 11 min 1962 film RETURN OF THE GENERAL, the trailer for THE GREAT LOCOMOTIVE CHASE, THE IRON MULE (Al St John 1925, 13 min), a Disney Alice comedy ALICE'S TIN PONY, and a 20 page booklet.


Anyway, here's a sample pic of the BBC version VS the Kino version in the U.S.:

BBC -



KINO -



And for an example of the cropping on the Kino and other U.S. discs, look at the right side (specifically the word "GENERAL"):

BBC version VS KINO version

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Awww! Buster was genius! Congrats.

[Melanie68]

Why are black and white movies tinted like that? Were they originally pure black and white (and obviously grays in between). The B&W gives you much better resolution.

[Once A Villain]

In the silent era, it was common practice to tint films to give the audience a better understanding of what was happening or how they should feel. I personally think that's quite ridiculous, and prefer the black & white. But here is something I dug up on the internet to explain:


Were any silents made in colour?
Yes. When you look at listings of VHS and DVD versions of silent films for sale and see that some of them are listed as being in colour, don't panic: Ted Turner isn't doing anything that the original artists didn't want. Many silent filmmakers used tinting, toning, and even early Technicolor to create moods and enhance the narrative. Blue film stock indicated night scenes; orange indicated heat. Some filmmakers even hired artists to paint each frame of each print by hand.

Here is some information from Bob Birchard:

Tinting colors the film stock, giving the overall image a color tint.

Toning replaces the silver image with a color dye.

It is possible to both tint and tone an image--a common combination in the silent era that I've seen in several original prints is a blue or purple tone combined with a pink tint. One can achieve a similar effect on a scanned B&W photo in Photoshop by shifting the color balance in the shadows only to the blue, and then shifting the color balance in the highlights only to the pink. The effect can be quite striking.

The Chaney Phantom scene [...] was accomplished with the Handschiegel (sp?) process, which was a stencil color process. This was used to color the coins in Greed, add color to the fire by the Red Sea in The Ten Commandments and to color the runaway canoe down the rapids in the forest fire scene in The Michigan Kid.

There were a wide range of colors available in the silent era, and mostly the work was done in the laboratory--adding color to B&W prints by dipping them in chemical solutions--rather than in the pre-tinted stock (although there were some pre-tinted stocks available).

Sound brought an end to hand dipping--because the variations in dyes wreaked havoc on sound reproduction. Kodak did develop about a half dozen pre-tinted print stocks in the early 1930's, but they didn't see wide use.

Several studios (notably M-G-M and 20th-Fox) resumed toning in the late 1930's for many of their "A" pictures. These were usually sepia tone effects.

[Melanie68]

Cool. Thanks!

[tabacco]

Interesting. I'd always assumed it was just degradation of celluloid stock over time.

[nikoniko]

I'm not sure I understand why the BBC removed the tinting if the film was deliberately tinted. If the creators of the film had thought it would look better in pure silver tone, they would have made it that way. I will probably buy the BBC version for the better image clarity and borders, but I'd much rather they'd done something like this, out of respect for the artistic decisions of Buster and his associates. I know the tint here is somewhat out of whack... my Photoshop color profile got corrupted, so the color conversion on the JPG was off. But even so, it's at least a step truer to the original than stripping the tint completely. The pure black and white version just looks too... cold. And I say that even though I love black and white photography and do quite a bit of it myself.

[Once A Villain]

doroposo I respect your opinion entirely, and I'm such a believer in "the director's vision" that I could almost agree based on that. But here's some good news anyway...


"TECHNICAL NOTES: Some original prints of The General were tinted sepia, with blue toning for the nighttime scenes. Other original release prints were straight black and white. It is probably unknown which version Keaton preferred."

[nikoniko]

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that. In that case, I'd say either way is fine. I've only ever seen tinted versions of his movies, so I didn't even realize there were any others. It makes sense that there would be, though, since tinting adds extra work, time and expense, so some prints probably would have been done black and white just to get them out there.

[tabacco]

Man, I wish DVD was sophisticated enough to be able to apply tints on the fly at playback.

[Lucien21]

This thread reminds me of one of my favourite Calvin&Hobbes panels.

Calvin is talking to his dad.
Calvin: Dad, how come old photographs are always black and white? Didn't they have color film back then?
Dad: Sure they did. In fact, those old photographs are in color. It's just the world was black and white then.
Calvin: Really?
Dad: Yep. The world didn't turn color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was pretty grainy color for a while, too.
Calvin: That's really weird.
Dad: Well, truth is stranger than fiction.
Calvin: But then why are old paintings in color?! If the world was black and white, wouldn't artists have painted it that way?
Dad: Not necessarily, a lot of great artists were insane.
Calvin: But... but how could they have painted in color anyway? Wouldn't their paints have been shades of gray back then?
Dad: Of course. But they turned colors, like everything else did in the '30s.
Calvin: So why didn't old black and white photos turn color too?
Dad: Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?

(Later, Calvin is alone with Hobbes in a tree)

Calvin: The world is a complicated place, Hobbes.
Hobbes: Whenever it seems that way, I take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

In the silent era, it was common practice to tint films to give the audience a better understanding of what was happening or how they should feel. I personally think that's quite ridiculous, and prefer the black & white.

I don't mind. It's not like applying coloured filters for artistic effect is unknown today. Traffic is a straight descendant of Intolerance in that regard, for example.

PS. Our Hospitality > The General

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

I don't mind. It's not like applying coloured filters for artistic effect is unknown today. Traffic is a straight descendant of Intolerance in that regard, for example.

True, but that tinting feels so much more subtle, and looks a lot better. For black & white stuff I just prefer black & white over colored stock or chemical changes, except when it's little stuff. I love the tinting of the gold in Erich von Stroheim's Greed. Touches like that are powerful I think.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

PS. Our Hospitality > The General

HELL NO! It isn't even close. Ugh... Our Hospitality is overrated. Even Harold Lloyd's average stuff can compete with Our Hospitality. The only Keaton that can really give The General a run for its money in terms of overall perfection and balance between humor, story, action, etc. would be Sherlock Jr. I challenge anyone to name a more entertaining 45 minute film than Sherlock Jr. Heh. Anyway, back to the war between the longer Keaton films, I'd rather watch Steamboat Bill Jr. or The Navigator over Our Hospitality I think.

Oh well, you're entitled to your opinion but that is an opinion that I've despised long before you ever revealed that it was yours. I just can't stand Our Hospitality being mentioned in the same breath as The General. SURELY anyone with that opinion has seen The General once, at most... It has nary a flaw for a silent film comedy/adventure. The General is 75 minutes of brilliance that holds up much better than Our Hospitality.

[stuboy]

OK, please don't shoot me down, I'm not a silent film buff, but is the slightly better picture actually going to make it any funnier or more enjoyable?

[stuboy]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

This thread reminds me of one of my favourite Calvin&Hobbes panels.

Calvin is talking to his dad.
Calvin: Dad, how come old photographs are always black and white? Didn't they have color film back then?
Dad: Sure they did. In fact, those old photographs are in color. It's just the world was black and white then.
Calvin: Really?
Dad: Yep. The world didn't turn color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was pretty grainy color for a while, too.
Calvin: That's really weird.
Dad: Well, truth is stranger than fiction.
Calvin: But then why are old paintings in color?! If the world was black and white, wouldn't artists have painted it that way?
Dad: Not necessarily, a lot of great artists were insane.
Calvin: But... but how could they have painted in color anyway? Wouldn't their paints have been shades of gray back then?
Dad: Of course. But they turned colors, like everything else did in the '30s.
Calvin: So why didn't old black and white photos turn color too?
Dad: Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?

(Later, Calvin is alone with Hobbes in a tree)

Calvin: The world is a complicated place, Hobbes.
Hobbes: Whenever it seems that way, I take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner

When I was very little, I used to think the world used to be black and white too!

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by stuboy

OK, please don't shoot me down, I'm not a silent film buff, but is the slightly better picture actually going to make it any funnier or more enjoyable?

Well, yes actually. I've just watched the film on the new DVD and I could see things that were never visible before. The details of the production are even more impressive now. Also, the improved clarity of the images gives the background and foreground a crisp, clear quality that enhances the stunning effect of motion that The General achieves so well. All of the train sequences (and thus, well over half of the film) are significantly more brilliant than I've ever seen them.

So...funnier? No. More enjoyable? Without a doubt.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

HELL NO! It isn't even close. Ugh... Our Hospitality is overrated. Even Harold Lloyd's average stuff can compete with Our Hospitality. The only Keaton that can really give The General a run for its money in terms of overall perfection and balance between humor, story, action, etc. would be Sherlock Jr. I challenge anyone to name a more entertaining 45 minute film than Sherlock Jr. Heh. Anyway, back to the war between the longer Keaton films, I'd rather watch Steamboat Bill Jr. or The Navigator over Our Hospitality I think.

Oh well, you're entitled to your opinion but that is an opinion that I've despised long before you ever revealed that it was yours. I just can't stand Our Hospitality being mentioned in the same breath as The General. SURELY anyone with that opinion has seen The General once, at most... It has nary a flaw for a silent film comedy/adventure. The General is 75 minutes of brilliance that holds up much better than Our Hospitality.

OH is overrated? The General is, by far, THE Keaton film which gets mentioned on all critics favourites lists, makes it to IMDB Top 250, gets an enhanced DVD release etc. If any of us is jumping on the locomotive bandwagon here, it is you, Mister.

Our Hospitality is a tighter, more streamlined, comedy. The scene where the main character tries everything to stay at his nemesis' home is a pinnacle of the movie, and a classic example how farce and physical comedy should be done. The General made me chuckle many times, but the action bits, while breathtaking in their own right (at least taking time of the release into consideration), make it seem disjointed. I don't want to see Buster as some kind of superhero who saves the day, unless he does it by chance. And here, despite the burlesque spin on things, I felt they tried to force him into an archetype of the Brave American Soldier (yes, I know he was actually an engineer) a bit too hard. Then again, maybe it's my bias against war movies showing, chasing me even here.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

OH is overrated? The General is, by far, THE Keaton film which gets mentioned on all critics favourites lists, makes it to IMDB Top 250, gets an enhanced DVD release etc. If any of us is jumping on the locomotive bandwagon here, it is you, Mister.

Our Hospitality is a tighter, more streamlined, comedy. The scene where the main character tries everything to stay at his nemesis' home is a pinnacle of the movie, and a classic example how farce and physical comedy should be done. The General made me chuckle many times, but the action bits, while breathtaking in their own right (at least taking time of the release into consideration), make it seem disjointed. I don't want to see Buster as some kind of superhero who saves the day, unless he does it by chance. And here, despite the burlesque spin on things, I felt they tried to force him into an archetype of the Brave American Soldier (yes, I know he was actually an engineer) a bit too hard. Then again, maybe it's my bias against war movies showing, chasing me even here.

If you have a bias against any type of film then a serious debate cannot be had with you. Just kidding...

Our Hospitality is tighter and more streamlined? I don't agree. I would admit that The General isn't Buster's funniest film, but I think the critic who said, "It's not Buster at his funniest, but it's Buster at his most inspired," is right on the money. I also agree with Orson Welles and everyone else who says it's the Civil War movie in terms of period detail and accuracy. "A hundred times more stunning visually than Gone With the Wind," according to Welles.

Anyway, I say Our Hospitality is overrated not because it has a greater reputation than The General (it doesn't, as you said), but rather because it is considered by many people to be Keaton's second or third best picture, which is too close to a masterpiece like The General for me to stomach. Sherlock Jr., on the other hand, I can see not only being called Keaton's best short film, but also his best or second best film, period. I simply can't see that with Our Hospitality. Too many of the characters look and act absurd. The climax is great stuff, and there are other classic bits, but as a whole the film can't match the energy and flow (almost like music in my view) of The General.

Also, the action sequences in The General are brilliant even without taking the time of release into consideration. You just don't see stuff like this anymore. Today it would all be done with quick cuts and other effects to try and create excitement from nothing. Buster did it all for real, with a camera on another train running alongside so you get the full effect of the motion and action in long takes. I've never seen better, more thrilling train sequences in any film.

Plus, I don't see Keaton's Johnny Gray as being a "Brave American Soldier" at all. He's trying to impress the girl he loves, how timeless is that motive? It's endearing really. He doesn't have the means to stop these enemy soldiers, but he keeps chasing them to save both his loves (the girl and the General) regardless. It's almost all by chance that he succeeds too, did we watch the same film?

Spoiler:

What about the canon that he accidentally ends up aiming at his own train? He was done for until the track curved and the canon ended up firing at the other train. Also, he's portrayed as the most inept swordsman ever, but he kills an enemy soldier by sheer luck when he raises his arm and the blade comes loose, flying through the air. And what about the canon at the end? He fires it straight upward by accident and as he's running for his life, the canon ball happens to land on the dam, flooding the opposing army. It is all by chance...

I can't name a significant flaw in this film...

EDIT: I should add that I've realized how important the musical score for a silent film can be! It's crazy, really. The difference between a great bit and a mediocre bit can be the music, it's true. I found that out today because Hisaishi's new score, though quite good, doesn't capture the pace and humor of The General. It's good music, but it's not good music for The General. AFGNCAAP do you recall which score you viewed The General with? There are four that I know of. The Carl Davis score, the Robert Israel score, the Alloy Orchestra score, and now the Joe Hisaishi score. I've heard that the Alloy Orchestra score is terrible. I myself like the Robert Israel accompaniment. I've never heard the Carl Davis score, but I've heard nice things about it.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

If you have a bias against any type of film then a serious debate cannot be had with you. Just kidding...

It's not a close-your-eyes-and-pretend-it's-not-there kind of bias, mind you. I'd go and watch any war-themed film that I think I may like, but more often than not the subject matter has a negative impact on my impression of it. It goes to show that the ones I end up liking (or loving, as is the case with Bridge on the River Kwai) usually show war in a very stylized way or use it only as a background setting for a much more universal story.

But in General, war is in no way dominant genre anyway; so, yeah, I have been very much kidding, too.

Our Hospitality is tighter and more streamlined? I don't agree.

As a comedy, it is. IMO.

Plus, I don't see Keaton's Johnny Gray as being a "Brave American Soldier" at all. He's trying to impress the girl he loves, how timeless is that motive? It's endearing really. He doesn't have the means to stop these enemy soldiers, but he keeps chasing them to save both his loves (the girl and the General) regardless. It's almost all by chance that he succeeds too, did we watch the same film?

Spoiler:

What about the canon that he accidentally ends up aiming at his own train? He was done for until the track curved and the canon ended up firing at the other train. Also, he's portrayed as the most inept swordsman ever, but he kills an enemy soldier by sheer luck when he raises his arm and the blade comes loose, flying through the air. And what about the canon at the end? He fires it straight upward by accident and as he's running for his life, the canon ball happens to land on the dam, flooding the opposing army. It is all by chance...

Gotta rewatch it, evidently. I do know that I felt Johnny is too active compared to a typical Keaton's character.

I can't name a significant flaw in this film...

And I don't want to prove that it's flawed, because I don't think so (apart from those little things, apparently caused by my personal quirkiness ). It's great! But - I found Our Hospitality to be Buster's best. Keep in mind that I've seen only four his movies in total, though, so I'm a relative noob, really.

AFGNCAAP do you recall which score you viewed The General with? There are four that I know of. The Carl Davis score, the Robert Israel score, the Alloy Orchestra score, and now the Joe Hisaishi score.

It was the live-improvisation-by-the-pianist score*.

*Is there a separate word for the pianist who used to accompany silent movies in English? It's "taper" in Polish...

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

As a comedy, it is. IMO.

Eh, maybe, but the overall form of The General is perfection I think, for what it is. Remember, it's not supposed to be as filled with crazy gags and stuff as other Keaton films. In fact, when Keaton first began discussing the production of the film, other people were trying to come up with crazy Keaton antics and jokes to pull off and Keaton shook his head and said, "This has to be so real it hurts."

This was his epic. His personal favorite of his movies and he was striking a delicate balance. His other pictures are far more obvious comedies. This one is a balance of comedy and realism. A farce set against a Civil War backdrop so convincing that it looks like the photographs of Matthew Brady come to life. The challenge was the balancing act, and Keaton pulled it off. It just floors me, that's all I can say.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Keep in mind that I've seen only four his movies in total, though, so I'm a relative noob, really.

Wow, please see Sherlock Jr. if you haven't yet. It's absolutely fantastic. To me it's one of the best ways to spend 45 minutes. Phenomenal special effects, all done in-camera, and terrific stunts.