Letty Lynton (32)

Open, general discussion of classic sound-era films, personalities and history.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Michael O'Regan

  • Posts: 2124
  • Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
  • Location: UK

Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Nov 25, 2012 2:42 pm

Is this not available at all today because of that MGM lawsuit thing?
Offline
User avatar

drednm

  • Posts: 7410
  • Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
  • Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Nov 25, 2012 2:58 pm

Yup. Another 80-year-old film tied up by legal issues....

" It’s rights have been tied up in legal issues since the late 1930s. A federal court ruled that the story was too close to the play Dishonored Lady, making the film an unauthorized adaptation, thus keeping it completely out of circulation."
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 3226
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Nov 25, 2012 4:11 pm

I suspect that like quite a few unseen films it would have a hard time living up to the reputation.
Eric Stott
Offline

Michael O'Regan

  • Posts: 2124
  • Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
  • Location: UK

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Nov 25, 2012 4:38 pm

ANYTHING with Crawford in....yes, even BERSERK, even....God help me...TROG...is worth seeing.
:D
Offline
User avatar

drednm

  • Posts: 7410
  • Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
  • Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Nov 25, 2012 4:50 pm

I think it's one of Crawford's best performances in the 1930s.....
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com
Offline
User avatar

CoffeeDan

  • Posts: 937
  • Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:55 pm
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Nov 25, 2012 5:01 pm

The Warner Archive has reported on their Facebook page that their legal team is still working to untangle the issues related to LETTY LYNTON. Since they've recently managed to free NIGHT FLIGHT (on WHV) and THE CONSTANT NYMPH from legal limbo after nearly 60 years, maybe LETTY isn't far behind . . .
Offline
User avatar

missdupont

  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:48 pm
  • Location: California

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Nov 25, 2012 9:40 pm

Here is the post I wrote last year about this case.
http://ladailymirror.com/2011/09/05/mar ... ty-lynton/" target="_blank

This was a federal case, and it won't be easily changed. I hope a lawyer well versed in federal law can speak to this, but MGM appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, which means that the Appeals Court ruling in favor of the playwrights stands. The only way that I know of that cases that are lost at the Supreme Court based on legislation or laws can become legal again is through federal legislation approved by the Senate and House, and signed off by the President. That would mean that they can't just buy their way out of this. Copyright extends at least another decade too, so they can't say it's now in public domain. Federal court opinions are the law of the land.
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5953
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostMon Nov 26, 2012 12:14 am

They could just buy the rights now, couldn't they? Or make a payment of some sort to the heirs for permission-- I mean, what other revenue can be coming in from that play by now?
“I'm in favor of plagiarism. If we are to create a new Renaissance, the government should encourage plagiarism. When convinced that someone is a true plagiarist, we should immediately award them the Legion of Honor.” —Jean Renoir
Offline
User avatar

missdupont

  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:48 pm
  • Location: California

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostMon Nov 26, 2012 2:05 am

I don't think so. MGM did not want to pay the original damages assessed by the Appeals Court, so the playwrights took them back to court and won a permanent injunction against the film on August 3, 1936. Those are usually permanent in federal law. And the playwrights won over 150,000 from MGM, reduced from over 900,000.
Offline
User avatar

stairstars

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:45 pm
  • Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostMon Nov 26, 2012 2:51 am

It would be interesting to find out who does hold the rights. Of the coauthors, he died in 1946 and she in 1967 and her son in 2004. If, it is with a publishing concern why, like Mike queries, would they not welcome payment for a long dormant work? It would seem an injunction is only as good as the side who wishes to enforce it and could voluntarily be lifted.

On the other hand, would potential DVD revenue justify any substantial amount? I think the film's notoriety would almost assure it of good sales in addition to the loyalty of Joan's fans.


rick
Offline
User avatar

CoffeeDan

  • Posts: 937
  • Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:55 pm
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostMon Nov 26, 2012 4:05 am

I think Rick's on to something. Imagine the following scenario:

In an attempt to find the rights holders, Warner Archive (or a Warner-approved assign) sends out a press release saying that it is releasing a special edition of LETTY LYNTON, limited to, say, 2000 copies to be released in Q2 2014, and is now taking pre-orders. Sales are brisk among Joan Crawford fans, and the edition is sold out within a week. In the meantime, the rights holders get wind of the deal and threaten to sue to stop it.

WA says to them, "Wait a minute, is this really what you want to do? This title is popular among fans of Joan Crawford and pre-code cinema, and we now have the sales figures to prove it. This has every sign of being a big-seller now and a steady stream of income for the future. We'd like to discuss terms . . ."

I would bet they would have a deal signed well before that release date. In fact, I'm wondering if the Warner Archive didn't already do something like this when it sent out an ambiguously-worded press release last year mentioning the first-time video release of a rare major Joan Crawford film never before on VHS or DVD. It had a lot of people speculating that it was LETTY LYNTON (indeed, some of that speculation was on this website), when it actually turned out to be UNTAMED, Joan Crawford's first talking film from 1929. A big letdown, to be sure. But maybe the rights holders to LETTY showed up.

If the original play is indeed now held by a publishing concern, as Rick speculates, I don't know of a publishing house anywhere that doesn't want to keep one of its properties from bringing in income. If they knew the income from such a property would be substantial and steady, the walls would come tumbling down faster than you could say Lucille LeSueur. I've seen it happen.

I know this sounds like a lot of woolgathering, but stranger things have happened, and might be happening right now . . .
Last edited by CoffeeDan on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

Harlett O'Dowd

  • Posts: 2092
  • Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostMon Nov 26, 2012 12:35 pm

CoffeeDan wrote:I think Rick's on to something. Imagine the following scenario:

(SNIP)

I know this sounds like a lot of woolgathering, but stranger things have happened, and might be happening right now . . .


Or, Warners could sell LL to Disney. THAT would end the stalemate and get the film (briefly) released from the vault.
Offline

Wm. Charles Morrow

  • Posts: 1150
  • Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:10 pm
  • Location: Westchester County, NY

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostThu Nov 29, 2012 9:35 pm

I happened to see Letty Lynton recently thanks to a friend who has a DVD copy -- a poor quality copy, but unfortunately one can’t be choosy where this film is concerned. During the sequence where Emile (Nils Asther) is killed, I noticed something odd. He tells Letty he expects her to stay the night and locks the door, indicating his intentions. While he’s doing that, she puts the poison in his drink. After he dies, the room service waiter knocks, then opens the door. How did he manage that? The waiter, who doesn’t realize Emile is dead, straightens up the apartment a little, discreetly knocks back some of Emile’s champagne, and leaves. Then Letty goes around the room, removing evidence she was there, unlocks the door, and leaves.

Is it my imagination, or is there a big whopping continuity error in this scene?
-- Charlie Morrow
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 3226
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostFri Nov 30, 2012 3:37 am

Would the room service waiter have a pass key?
Eric Stott
Offline

Wm. Charles Morrow

  • Posts: 1150
  • Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:10 pm
  • Location: Westchester County, NY

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostFri Nov 30, 2012 5:23 am

FrankFay wrote:Would the room service waiter have a pass key?


Presumably, yes. But I watched the scene a couple of times, wondering if I'd missed something, and it appears he simply opens the door and enters, after knocking only once. (The camera stays inside the room.) I guess for the scene to work we have to assume that he lets himself in with a pass key.
-- Charlie Morrow
Offline

Wm. Charles Morrow

  • Posts: 1150
  • Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:10 pm
  • Location: Westchester County, NY

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostFri Nov 30, 2012 8:35 am

Wm. Charles Morrow wrote:
FrankFay wrote:Would the room service waiter have a pass key?


Presumably, yes. But I watched the scene a couple of times, wondering if I'd missed something, and it appears he simply opens the door and enters, after knocking only once. (The camera stays inside the room.) I guess for the scene to work we have to assume that he lets himself in with a pass key.


P.S. Something occurred to me after I posted the note above: when the waiter exits, there's no way he could bolt the door again from the inside, so there would be no need for Letty to unlock it before leaving. I'm going to watch the scene again when I can, but meanwhile it looks like the filmmakers got sloppy with an important plot point.

At any rate, I agree that this was Crawford's best performance of the '30s. The moment when she tells the dying Emile that she's glad it happened, hissing the words, may just be her best scene ever.
-- Charlie Morrow
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 3226
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostFri Nov 30, 2012 9:29 am

I think that studios could fudge things like this because your average viewer didn't have the luxury of rewinding the film to check the details.
Eric Stott
Offline

Michael O'Regan

  • Posts: 2124
  • Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
  • Location: UK

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostFri Nov 30, 2012 1:22 pm

Wm. Charles Morrow wrote:
At any rate, I agree that this was Crawford's best performance of the '30s. The moment when she tells the dying Emile that she's glad it happened, hissing the words, may just be her best scene ever.

Now I HAVE to see it. Is there anyone I can kill for it?
:)
Offline
User avatar

drednm

  • Posts: 7410
  • Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
  • Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostFri Nov 30, 2012 2:27 pm

?
Last edited by drednm on Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com
Offline
User avatar

drednm

  • Posts: 7410
  • Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
  • Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostFri Nov 30, 2012 5:45 pm

?
Last edited by drednm on Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com
Offline
User avatar

stairstars

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:45 pm
  • Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostFri Nov 30, 2012 6:59 pm

Yo, tease...don't you already have a target on your back??? :lol:
Offline
User avatar

drednm

  • Posts: 7410
  • Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
  • Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSat Dec 01, 2012 1:40 pm

OK so what doesn't make sense to me about this copyright infringement case that MGM lost in 1936 is that there was a 1930 play called "Dishonored Lady" and the authors claimed Letty Lynton plagiarized it. But the film was based on a 1931 novel of the same name. The film must have veered wildly from Marie Belloc Lowndes' novel if they won their case. It would seem more likely that the novelist should have been charged with plagiarism if the film followed the novel. The 1936 decision was upheld by a higher court in 1939.

The 1947 Hedy Lamarr film of Dishonored Lady was savaged by censors until it bore little resemblance to the original play which starred Katharine Cornell.

So more than 70 years after the final legal action and 80 years after its initial release, Letty Lynton is still in purgatory

The "Letty Lynton" dress sold more than 500,000 copies!!
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com
Offline
User avatar

missdupont

  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:48 pm
  • Location: California

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Dec 02, 2012 12:50 am

Once again, if you'd read my post, you would have found most of these facts. MGM tried to get the rights to the play twice, and claimed they were then going to base the movie on the book, but instead basically copied the play, which the MGM attorney admitted in court. Case shut, closed, dismissed.
Offline
User avatar

missdupont

  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:48 pm
  • Location: California

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Dec 02, 2012 12:53 am

The Court of Appeals ruled for the playwrights, MGM appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, meaning the playwrights won. Once again, slam dunk. That means it's over, final, de nada. MGM didn't want to pay what they owed, and that is when the playwrights asked for the permanent injunction. MGM has no one to blame in this case but themselves. If they hadn't copied the play or at least attempted to settle and pay in a timely manner, none of this would have happened. They got what they deserved.
Offline
User avatar

drednm

  • Posts: 7410
  • Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
  • Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostSun Dec 02, 2012 7:13 am

Yes I read all that on Wiki... Was Marie Belloc Lowndes involved with the screenplay? Seems odd that John Meehan and Wanda Tuchock, both well know writers, would have been that brazen and stupid.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com
Offline

Michael O'Regan

  • Posts: 2124
  • Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
  • Location: UK

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostWed Jan 02, 2013 4:58 pm

Well, I've tracked down and watched this and I agree - a superb performance by Crawford. It's a crying shame we don't have a decent release.
Offline

WaverBoy

  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:50 am
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostMon Feb 23, 2015 10:49 pm

Looks like this one is still in purgatory...?
Offline

sepiatone

  • Posts: 2372
  • Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:10 pm
  • Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostTue Feb 24, 2015 10:59 am

Mike Gebert wrote:They could just buy the rights now, couldn't they? Or make a payment of some sort to the heirs for permission-- I mean, what other revenue can be coming in from that play by now?


Edward Sheldon and Margaret Ayers Barnes were the main complaintants in the suit against MGM. Barnes has heirs. Sheldon and Barnes authored the play "Dishonored Lady" upon which Letty Lynton is based.
Edward Sheldon had no immediate heirs, ie wife, children. He died a bachelor and in severe handicap. He was friends to nearly every important person involved in the Broadway theatre world. Helen Hayes is one notable. Sheldon's mother may have outlived him if I recall, I'm not sure just off the top of my head.
Offline

Dave Pitts

  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 9:55 am

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostWed Feb 25, 2015 10:08 am

BTW, is Christopher Bean also lost in old litigation? I've never read a clear description of the circumstances, and I'm really impatient to see it -- Dressler's last, of course, and supposedly a great Dressler performance. (I love Marie, as do most buffs -- we should have every foot of film she's in, just like we have all of W. C. Fields.)
I own Letty Lynton -- various 'gray market' dealers have released it, and the dealers at Columbus Cinevent (in May) often have it. Since Nils' death scene was discussed above, I'll add that the kick I get out of that sequence is Crawford's little strangled yelp -- the same one she delivers in Grand Hotel when she sees Barrymore with his head bashed in.
Offline
User avatar

drednm

  • Posts: 7410
  • Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
  • Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: Letty Lynton (32)

PostWed Feb 25, 2015 11:26 am

The rights issues for these old films are often so murky and ludicrous I'm surprised the "rights" have any legal bearing at this point. Letty Lynton at least is knocking around the gray market, but Christopher Bean and Marion Davies' It's a Wise Child are not.

Has anyone compiled a list of 30s films tied up by rights issues? The case is often that the rights were sold by one studio to another for a remake ... even if they never make it. I doubt that's the case with the Dressler or Davies films.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com
Next

Return to Talking About Talkies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests