Page 2 of 2

Re: Is this movie from 1927 or is it a modern phony?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:53 pm
by Brooksie
Everything in this discussion beyond the extensive evidence of the film's provenance is immaterial, because there are two possible scenarios: one, that someone went to the trouble of sourcing authentic vintage 35mm film, a cast and several locations to make a fake film that was somehow able to hoodwink several experts in the field; or two, that it's a genuine vintage film.

Setting aside the subject matter of the film itself, there's always value in questioning our assumptions, but Ockham's Razor must be applied at some point, Option 1 is flimsier than some of the outfits in this film. QED.

Re: Is this movie from 1927 or is it a modern phony?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:08 pm
by Spiny Norman
Brooksie wrote:Everything in this discussion beyond the extensive evidence of the film's provenance is immaterial, because there are two possible scenarios: one, that someone went to the trouble of sourcing authentic vintage 35mm film, a cast and several locations to make a fake film that was somehow able to hoodwink several experts in the field; or two, that it's a genuine vintage film.

Setting aside the subject matter of the film itself, there's always value in questioning our assumptions, but Ockham's Razor must be applied at some point, Option 1 is flimsier than some of the outfits in this film. QED.
Shaving jokes aside, do you know what ockham's razor and "QED" are supposed to mean? Because I'm not sure you're using those terms properly here.

Neither would it be necessarily so very difficult to fake a silent film as you make it seem. People do forge stuff, although usually they choose less pointless things.

I'm not insisting that it is fake; I'm merely pointing out that these specific arguments seem a bit flimsy too. Given that it's been around for some time, I find it less likely that it would be a fake.

Re: Is this movie from 1927 or is it a modern phony?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:09 pm
by Mike Gebert
I think Brooksie is right. In short, I could fake a film today, but I can't fake that someone else has had that movie for 20 years.

And if the film contains evidence of a practice existing as long ago as when it was convincingly made, well, that's evidence of a practice existing as long ago as when it was convincingly made, no?

I think we're done debating that question here. Thread locked.