Hugo - Will It Become a Classic?

Well, I saw my very first 3D movie last weekend...at least since The Three Stooges released a few in the 1950s to be viewed with red/blue glasses.  We saw Hugo (2011) at a Regal Cinema, and we enjoyed the movie very much.  But not everything about it.

The best part was that we went on a Sunday evening, with Monday being a school day.  There were, maybe, ten people in the theater.  No one was talking, no one was texting.  And there were also no employees anywhere to be seen.  We got tickets at the box office (one person), bought popcorn (two people), and saw no others working.  There was no one to take our tickets as we walked down the looooong corridor to theater #6 (of 24).  I guess you can skip buying a ticket on Sunday nights, but you didn't hear that from me.

The first disappointment was the insane number of ads and previews.  The movie was listed as starting at 7:25 p.m., but the titles did not roll until 7:45.  The 2D ads ended at 7:25 and the 3D previews started then.  After the previews there was an announcement to come even earlier to see more previews, but we won't rush to the theater next time.

Hugo is a wonderful story that takes place around 1930, and it includes a history lesson on early cinema that will make it a favorite of film buffs.  Georges Melies (1861 - 1938) figures prominently in the film, played by Ben Kingsley (b. 1943).  Much has been written about Hugo already, so I won't bore you with details or give away the plot.  These are just a few thoughts about the experience.

The story hinges on an automaton that is being repaired by a young, orphaned boy.  As a young boy, I used to frequent The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, where they have an automaton (probably built before 1800) very similar to the one in Hugo.  In fact, the one at the F.I. was part of the inspiration for Brian Selznick's book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, on which the movie is based.

Franklin Institute Automaton

In the movie, after the machine started working again, it wrote down the name of it's creator, which was previously unknown.  When the F.I. received theirs in 1928, it had been damaged in a fire and also had to be repaired.  The automaton at the F.I. was mis-identified as being built by a French inventor named Maelzel.  After its repair, it also wrote the name of its creator, Henri Maillardet, and the mystery of who built it was solved.

As far as the movie, I loved the story and I loved the acting.  Everyone was perfectly cast and did their job well.  So what was wrong?

The effects were over the top.  This seems to be the way things are going.  As with Spooks and Pardon My Backfire, both from 1953 with The Three Stooges, the 3D effects are sometimes used just because they can.  The opening scene has us flying through the train station, between people and things and through clocks, and it sets you up right from the start.  There is no reason to have so many overhead shots with the camera pointing straight down.

If you stay for the credits (and I usually do) you will find 436 names under the heading Visual Effects Artists.  That includes matte painters, computer graphics people, animators, plus all of their coordinators, supervisors and managers.  I know its a big job, but that's a bit much.  I wonder how much of the $170,000,000 budget went to them.

Also, the use of hand held cameras to add instability to some scenes is not appreciated (by me).  I had vertigo last winter after a fall on the ice, and it was not pleasant.  Why has that become a standard in every new film with some action scene?  Is Steadicam so expensive to use?

All that being said, I will buy Hugo for my film library.  The story is simply that good.  Go to the theater and see it in 3D if you haven't already.  It is an experience.  Will it become a "Classic Movie?"  Who knows.  That's not up to me.  I didn't like The Polar Express (2004), but that is being shown every Christmas.

Below is a link to an article written by Richard Bann for the Laurel and Hardy web site.  He speaks about Hugo and Georges Melies in answer to someone's question about Stan Laurel embracing magic in his films.  I always enjoy reading items by Dick Bann, who has written several books on classic movies.

The link is not easy to navigate.  Go to http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/ and click on 'Did You Know' on the left side of the page.  Then, click on 'Ask Lois' at the top.  There is no way to give you a direct link...sorry.  Lois Laurel-Hawes is Stan's daughter.  Next, scroll down the page to the question from John Raynor, which is not too far down.  If you can find it, I hope you enjoy it.  And spend some time on that web site.  It is also worth the trouble.

Laurel and Hardy New Release!

Last month a new collection of sound Laurel and Hardy films was released by Vivendi Entertainment.  Laurel & Hardy The Essential Collection includes all of the boys talkie shorts and many of the Hal Roach feature films.  Missing are silent films and the later 20th Century Fox films.

I bumped into a great write up by one of my heroes, Leonard Maltin on the MovieFanFare blog, which is part of Movies Unlimited.  I would be lost without Maltin's Movie Guide.

I have written several times about The Boys, and also about Richard Bann, who was instrumental in bringing the collection out.  Dick Bann was also heavily involved with the restoration of these films through the efforts of UCLA Film Preservation.  Since Dick is one of the most knowledgeable film historians in this area, he was able to guide the restoration of all of these films to include the original logos and titles. 

Many original 35mm prints were recovered, and the quality of these films (which I have not yet seen) is supposed to be incredible. 

My love of Laurel and Hardy goes back to my youth, watching them at The Keswick Theatre in Glenside, PA on Saturday afternoons.  I also watched them on our old RCA 12" black and white television in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Then, in the later 1970s, I joined The Sons of the Desert, the international Laurel and Hardy appreciation society.  Now I could watch the films at meetings in 16mm prints on a large screen.  Many of those prints were rather poor dupes, though, so the quality was hit or miss.  The movies were always great!  One meeting was held at the Keswick, and we were able to rent a 35mm print.  That was a treat, especially because I was in the projection booth that night.

Some of the films started being released on video tape and then on DVD.  But these were usually made from the old television prints, and again, quality suffered, as well as content.  The television versions were not the same as the theatrical releases, but that's all that was available.

Dick and others have also recorded commentary tracks for some of the films, and there are also quite a few special features included to make this collection a must-have.

I suggest that you first read Dick Bann's article on the official Laurel and Hardy web site, and also check out the UCLA Film Preservation site.  Just click on my links.  Make a donation to UCLA, then write down the "Laurel & Hardy The Essential Collection" on  your holiday wish list.  Santa may be kind to you.  I am hoping he is to me!

More Film Restoration and Richard W. Bann

I received a comment from film historian and writer, Richard W. Bann, about my last post requesting everyone to donate lots of money to film restoration.  Here is what he has to say:

"Richard W. Bann commented on your link.

"My comment:

"All of us want to believe we are doing something useful with our lives, something that matters, something that leaves lasting marks. Something that speaks to future generations, to show we were here, and made a difference.

"Time travel is an important component of my attraction to old films. Did all that talent realize they were communicating with millions of people not yet born at that time? Those of us who receive that communication today...how can we respond? We want to let these artists and technicians know they didn't do all that work for nothing. That we enjoy and honor the entertainment value, and that we treasure the living history they have unwittingly given us. And one meaningful thing we can do and one way we can respond is to support film preservation efforts. It is important to do so.


"Yes my essay will make some fans cringe. The story is painful; in fact it is worse than you know. I softened and concealed some of the worst incidents. And yes it is easy for us to look back and criticize the careless custodians of these treasures. We have some responsibility here too, however, because we have an opportunity now to be part of the film preservation effort at UCLA. If these films mean something to you, please get involved."


Pretty good thoughts, don't you think?  It shows his insight, as well as his love of movies.

I would like to add a few words about Dick Bann.  I had the pleasure of meeting him a few years ago at a Sons of the Desert meeting.  Dick is incredibly knowledgeable in all things film, and probably has one of the best jobs in the world. 

A quick search at Google Books for his name returns well over 800 hits.  He didn't write that many books, but his writing is easy to find.  He is also well known for his contribution to movie documentaries and other books about the film industry.

I have an autographed copy of his 1984 book, Our Gang: The Life and Times of The Little Rascals, which was co-authored by Leonard Maltin.  There is an updated version of that book, released in 1992, called The Little Rascals: The Life and Times of Our Gang.  Buy either one...they are very informative, including a section on where they are now.  (The Rascals...not Bann and Maltin.)

Bann has also co-authored several other books.  Here is a very short list -

• Laurel & Hardy, with text by John McCabe, compiled by Al Kilgore, and filmography by Richard W. Bann.  I have had the pleasure of meeting McCabe and Kilgore as well, but sadly, they are both gone.
• Lone Pine in the Movies, Celebrating Republic's 75th Anniversary, with Ed Hulse, Chris Langley, and Sam Sherman.  (I don't know them!)
• W. C. Fields: A Life on Film, with W. C.'s grandson, Ronald Fields.  (I met him, too.)

As you can see, his interest in movies reflects that of many classic film buffs by covering some of the top people and studios in all of classic filmdom.

Dick Bann is also tapped as a source of reliable information for other authors and filmmakers.  He has helped on many documentaries, and you can find him quoted on many web sites as well.

Courtesy Richard W. Bann

According to IMDb, Dick has appeared as himself in two documentaries, a video short about Hal Roach's Rascals, and on the Playboy TV series, "Kendra."  (Dick is also a regular at the Playboy Mansion.)  He will soon appear in a documentary about Bettie Page (1923 - 2008) sometime this year, and is currently making one about Laurel and Hardy.

It is interesting to search for his name on the 'net, and then follow the links to read his various interviews, references and stories.  Many of these can be found at http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/ the official web site for The Boys, or on other L&H devoted web sites.

In addition to the UCLA film restoration project, there are other institutions that do their part.  The Library of Congress is one of the biggest, although with limited money at the present due to the economic dilemma in the USA.  You can search the Internet for Film Preservation or go to the Wikipedia site for that topic for more info and other organizations.

I am thankful as well, to have Dick answer my e-mail questions.  I have limited resources and time to write my little blog, and getting the full poop from him has been very helpful.  I am sure he can now be included in the (more or less) exclusive club called - Bit Actors.

Classic Film Restoration

Think about how many movies have been made since 1896 and the first public exhibition of motion pictures in New York City.  It must be hundreds of millions, at least.  Well, maybe not quite that many, but it would be impossible to screen everything ever filmed, for more than one reason.  Time constraint is a concern, but sadly, the great majority of movies have been lost.

It has been said that at least 80% of all the silent films ever made are gone forever.  That is a thought that makes any movie buff angry at the way these important negatives were treated by their creators.  But most of them were making a simple business decision.  Even Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton were responsible.

Movies in the silent era were made, shown, and discarded.  The studio heads didn't think they would ever be needed again, once everyone had seen them.  The film stock was nitrate based, so it was flammable (Very flammable.  It would even burn underwater.), and it would deteriorate after a few years, turning into powder.  Because it was dangerous to keep in storage, requiring fire-proof buildings, it was much cheaper to get rid of it all.  One famous incident included using the old negatives as fuel for a new film that required a big fire scene.

Many films were lost in warehouse fires.  A fire destroyed most of the negatives of the Lubin Studios in 1914, the same year that Lubin had saved Samuel Goldwyn, Jesse Lasky and Cecil B. DeMille from technical problems they had with the film The Squaw Man (1914).  MGM and Warner Brothers may never have been created if it were not for the technical advances of Lubin Manufacturing.  By 1917 Siegmund Lubin had to dissolve his business, party due to the fire, and also to World War I. 

In 1927, Talkies started coming out.  The change took several years because theaters had to invest in more equipment, as did the studios, but everyone could see that from The Jazz Singer on, movies would talk.  Again, the studios that still had negatives in storage for their silent films could see no reason to retain them.  Surely, nobody would ever want to see a silent film again.  Wrong!

Film restoration efforts began after television started to become popular.  But that was a full 50 years after those first motion pictures flickered in small theaters.  Much had already been lost forever.  Early restoration attempts were spotty at best, with new titles added to many films, complete with mistakes made in the transformation.  Much of this was for television screening, and the network heads couldn't see any reason for doing the restoration job right.  All they needed was a 16mm print made from the 35mm negative.  It would be expensive to do more, and it would probably never be needed after the first showing.  Wrong again!

In a similar mindset, the movie studios that sold their work to television saw this as a last chance to make a few dollars on old films.  Surely this would be the end of the need to keep these old negatives.  No attempt was made to properly store them...it would be too expensive.  What wasn't duped for TV was left to turn to dust.  Not only wrong, but a tragedy as well.

I recently read an incredibly detailed account by Richard W. Bann about the restoration of the films of Hal Roach Studios.  Hal Roach made the films of Charley Chase, The Little Rascals, Laurel and Hardy, Thelma Todd, and many others.  Bann is a film historian and writer, and was personally involved with the process.  You can find him on Facebook. 

The article is not for the faint of heart.  It is long and somewhat technical.  But it is important to give it a shot if you love old movies.  If you get through all four pages, you will learn some new terminology, and I am sure the article will bring back some memories.  Plus, it has some great pictures.

You can find a link to the article on the home page of the official Laurel and Hardy web site. 
http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/

The web site is also a font of information about the best comedy team to ever grace the big screen.  The Sons of the Desert are championing the restoration of these films at UCLA Film & Television Archive.
http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/support/laurel-and-hardy

If you love classic movies as much as I, please take a look at these links.  Spend some time there.  Donate some money if you can.  It is important to save these films for future generations, and as Dick Bann puts it, it is comforting to know that Laurel and Hardy will be around forever.  Our government is having some moderate to heavy financial trouble these days, so whatever we can do privately will help the project move along.  Thanks!

Pups is Pups

What a fun evening we had last night.  During the Hal Roach marathon on Turner Classic Movies, I had stuck Pups is Pups (1930) on my DVR.  I thought that an Our Gang short about puppies would appeal to my wife who is a dog lover, and perhaps to our dog, Sadie, who sometimes glances at the TV.  I was right!!!  A friend was over, who is also a dog lover, and the three of us (four, including Sadie) laughed so much that we had to roll the movie back several times to catch some dialog.  Well, Sadie didn't laugh much.

This two-reeler was released in 1930 and was the first of that season.  It starred Bobby 'Wheezer' Huchins (1925 - 1945), Allen 'Farina' Hoskins (1920 - 1980), Jackie Cooper (b. 1922), Norman 'Chubby' Chaney (1914 - 1936), Dorothy ' Little Echo' DeBorba (1925 - 2010), and others.  As soon as I saw the first scene, I remembered the movie, even though it has been years since I had seen it last.

As the story starts, the gang is playing in their makeshift playground, which was probably a work area on the Roach Studio lot.  Five year old Dorothy comes out in a clean dress with her hair in lovely curls and heads straight for the mud puddle to jump in.  This was a running joke in a 20 minute film that was much more complex than you would think possible in such a short amount of time.  When I met Dorothy many years later at a Sons of the Desert banquet, she recanted her recollection of that movie for us!  Sadly we lost Dorothy in June last year at 85 years old.

There are two stories at work in Pups is Pups.  Wheezer has five puppies that he trained to come at the sound of a bell.  The rest of the gang are readying their pets to take them to a fancy dog and pet show in the city, where Farina has secured a job as a page (including a uniform with brass buttons).

We follow Wheezer who has let his puppies get away.  They are attracted to every bell they hear...an ambulance, an ice cream cart, a train crossing, whatever...and Wheezer can't keep up.  Meanwhile, the gang arrives at the pet show where they are not allowed in.  They sneak in anyway and wreak havoc, as you can imagine.

Wheezer is eventually reunited with his puppies in a scene that actually brought tears to my eyes!  He looks like he was genuinely attached to those little guys.  Of course he was only about five years old so that is not beyond a reasonable assumption.  And the gang is back at their play area, as Dorothy takes a final plunge in the puddle.

I decided to look up Pups is Pups in one of my books.  I bought Our Gang, The Life and Times of the Little Rascals many years ago.  It was written by Leonard Maltin and Richard Bann in 1977.  Even my books are getting old!

I had the pleasure of meeting Dick Bann in the 1980s, and he autographed my book.  It is interesting to note that this book, a paperback edition, has the price of $5.95 on the back.  You can't buy a paperback of this quality and content for anywhere near that as of this writing!  The 1984 printing of the book (with the red cover) is still available, and the newest version from 1992 is called The Little Rascals, The Life and Times of Our Gang.  If you love Hal Roach's Rascals as I do, it should be in your collection.  The film descriptions and biographies, as well as the well researched insight by the authors, make this a 'must have' book.

In the book, it is mentioned that Pups is Pups was the first Our Gang comedy to have a full musical score.  The music of Leroy Shield and Marvin Hatley has become synonymous with many Hal Roach comedies, including Laurel and Hardy and Charley Chase films, and is instantly recognizable.

There is even mention in the book of something that struck me as quite progressive for the early depression years.  In the Our Gang comedies, we see children of several races, all playing together with total disregard for the color of their skin.  Maltin and Bann go into some detail in the book about this, including comments from Farina Hoskins to back them up.

Pups is Pups appears to be available on some Our Gang DVD collections, and it is usually better to have a collection than just one film from a series.  A word of warning, shy away from any colorized versions.  Adding color does absolutely nothing for these movies.  It should be against the law, actually.

Sunday, February 20, 2011 update:  I received the comment below from Richard Bann on Facebook yesterday.  Thanks again, Dick, for your knowledge and willingness to share.

If you are a member of Facebook, check out Dick's 'Notes' page for a very interesting piece on The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948), as mentioned below.  (And buy his books!!!)

Richard W. Bann -

"Very nice, Allen, thanks.  Vivendi is now re-releasing the Our Gang DVDs, a few at a time, until they are all for sale as individual DVDs.  Not a boxed set this time.  They are re-mastering the titles where they mistakenly worked from 16mm Blackhawk release prints....Whenever I drive to Paramount, I go right by the church where they filmed the closing scenes for PUPS IS PUPS...If you read the program notes for TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE which I posted on FB yesterday (written for that other Hefner) there is a pretty good story about Bad-Brained Bobby Blake, still making all the wrong kind of news."