Tweet LAT Review of NAPOLEON

As long as I eventually get my Blu-ray of the super-mega-deluxe-ultimate restoration, I'll be happy.

Keep waiting.....................................

I believe I said >eventually<, and until then, there are other unpurchased desirable titles to drain my DVD/BD budget.

As long as I eventually get my Blu-ray of the super-mega-deluxe-ultimate restoration, I'll be happy.

Keep waiting.....................................

I believe I said >eventually<, and until then, there are other unpurchased desirable titles to drain my DVD/BD budget.

Yeah, I got an Australian copy if you want to buy it, but you need 3 TV's for the triptych scenes.

Spoken by another habitual provocateur, Dickie.

Nope Wavey, just someone who speaks his mind, tells the truth, and has a hell of a lot of experience and knowledge to back it up. If you folk have hissy-fits when you hear it, it ain't my problem.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

This is the first time the public can see the complete Napoleon because in 1981 it was a cut version. In addition the 1981 version was shown at too fast a speed. Brownlow could not control that event I think at that point he wanted the movie shown. Alot of the footage in 1981 was second rate & 3rd rate copies which got replaced over time with original material. It is projected at its proper speed & has a score to match the speed & new longer length. What you saw in 1981 is an inferior version of Napoleon. Brownlow has said this. the movie he showed in 1981 had scenes that were not in their proper order. It is a long & difficult movie to put together from scratch. Sure some people fall asleep because a silent movie makes greater demands on your attention than some people can give. People fall asleep on modern movies too. Its not a way to judge a movie. I saw the 1981 version live & I thought it ran too fast & the Coppola music was overly bombastic. It was bad music for the movie. Unfortunately it took 30 years until now to use better music.

Sorry, I completely disagree about the Coppolla score. I think it is outstanding. I even used the word "Fantastic" before. Anything but Bombastic. In-fact the Carl Davis score isn't really so much superior as it is just different. It comes from a much different perspective. Just as the vintage Axt-Mendoza score to a WOMAN OF AFFAIRS and Davis version come from a different perspective. Ditto for SHOW PEOPLE.

With respect, I think you have an automatic basis toward Carl Davis because, well, He's Carl Davis. That being said, I can't imagine any other score for OLD HEIDELBERG than the Davis one. And I fear of the scores for THE BIG PARADE, THE CROWD, and THE WEDDING MARCH, among others being replaced when these films finally make it to DVD or Blu-ray. I would be extremely disheartened. His magnificent score to WINGS will likely never be heard again. So in a way I think the same way that you do.

This is the first time the public can see the complete Napoleon because in 1981 it was a cut version. In addition the 1981 version was shown at too fast a speed. Brownlow could not control that event I think at that point he wanted the movie shown. Alot of the footage in 1981 was second rate & 3rd rate copies which got replaced over time with original material. It is projected at its proper speed & has a score to match the speed & new longer length. What you saw in 1981 is an inferior version of Napoleon. Brownlow has said this. the movie he showed in 1981 had scenes that were not in their proper order. It is a long & difficult movie to put together from scratch. Sure some people fall asleep because a silent movie makes greater demands on your attention than some people can give. People fall asleep on modern movies too. Its not a way to judge a movie. I saw the 1981 version live & I thought it ran too fast & the Coppola music was overly bombastic. It was bad music for the movie. Unfortunately it took 30 years until now to use better music.

No, what was then the complete version of the movie was shown in the road show version with the live orchestra, certainly what was shown at Filmex was longer than the general release version that Universal released with the recorded score. All of the things Claus H. listed as seeming new to him were in the version I saw in Los Angeles. The biggest difference between that version is the slower projection speed and some upgrades of print quality on some scenes that were already known to exist. And as for the speed, there are very few if actually any late 20's silents that were meant by their creators to be run at 20fps. Running NAPOLEON at that speed is incorrect. Period.

And you can count me as another one who didn't think particularly ill of the Carmine Coppola score. I like the Davis one as well, but Coppola's certainly works for the film too.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard,

Yeah? well, most if not all of NAPOLEON was shot with hand-cranked camera's. Save for maybe the Pollyvision sequences. So I disagree about the projection speed. NAPOLEON started filming in 1925. This is early enough that Motor Driven camera's had not yet become the norm. Maybe some people were already using them, but they were far from the industry standard at this point.

Just where are all the other reviews? This is the only one I have seen?

Richard,

Yeah? well, most if not all of NAPOLEON was shot with hand-cranked camera's. Save for maybe the Polyvision sequences. So I disagree about the projection speed. NAPOLEON started filming in 1925. This is early enough that Motor Driven camera's had not yet become the norm. Maybe some people were already using them, but they were far from the industry standard at this point.

Cameras being hand or motor-driven doesn't have squat to do with anything. Go back through the Nitrateville archives and find the discussion where we gave all the proof that most films were being shown at 24 fps or faster by the early-mid 20's. I have much better things to do than rehash that one today.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

20 fps is well-documented as the running speed of NAPOLEON for the original showings supervised by Abel Gance. Of course I know that Mr. Roberts trashes everyone who disagrees with his self-declared vast experience and knowledge, but I saw it three times in Oakland (dress rehearsal and two performances) and it looked perfect to me, even perhaps as if Abel Gance and Kevin Brownlow knew what they were doing. Mick La Salle's eloquent rave from the S. F. Chronicle may be easily found online. Mr. Roberts would also probably trash the thunderous audience response but I think the vote would be 6000 to 1 that they had seen a masterpiece, properly presented.

David Shepard

20 fps is well-documented as the running speed of NAPOLEON for the original showings supervised by Abel Gance.

Show us the proof David.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

"The length of the version définitive was almost unimaginable 12,878 metres, 42 reels - the same length as the original version of Greed. It took nine hours to show - four and a half hours on each day. But even though this version was shown elsewhere, it must be regarded as a rough cut. Gance, like Griffith, continued working on the editing of his films, even while they were in release. The Apollo version was immediately shortened. A manuscript page for Prisme (typed in 1927) refers to the film being 11,000 metres (36,300 ft): 'I would need eight hours to show it to you.' It would take almost eight hours at the correct speed of 20 fps, around which Napoleon was photographed. Gance told me that the correct length for the full version was six hours..."

- from Napoleon: Abel Gance's Classic Film by Kevin Brownlow.
(page 299 in the Knopf '83 printing)

"The length of the version définitive was almost unimaginable 12,878 metres, 42 reels - the same length as the original version of Greed. It took nine hours to show - four and a half hours on each day. But even though this version was shown elsewhere, it must be regarded as a rough cut. Gance, like Griffith, continued working on the editing of his films, even while they were in release. The Apollo version was immediately shortened. A manuscript page for Prisme (typed in 1927) refers to the film being 11,000 metres (36,300 ft): 'I would need eight hours to show it to you.' It would take almost eight hours at the correct speed of 20 fps, around which Napoleon was photographed. Gance told me that the correct length for the full version was six hours..."

- from Napoleon: Abel Gance's Classic Film by Kevin Brownlow.
(page 299 in the Knopf '83 printing)

Well, no, this is Kevin's opinion that the correct speed is 20 fps, and Gance's quote appears to be indicating a two hour shorter running time, which indicates that Gance wants it run at a speed faster than 20 fps.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Well you are all wrong. I got the facts from Gance' s tea lady (Madame Pompepou) who told me unequivocally
that "Napoleon" was shot on 9.5mm negative stock for 24 hours a day for six months and that the final length
of the edited film was 107 reels.

In order for the picture to fit in with continuous performances at cinemas, it was projected at 78 r.p.m.

Originally prints were tinted black with the final scenes photographed in Cinerama.

The musical score relied heavily on demi-semi quavers, with orchestra players being replaced every 15
minutes due to exhaustion.

A large gong was placed at the rear of the auditoriums and sounded every half hour in order to wake up
patrons who may have dozed off.

Madame Pompepou said that she found bits of the missing film pieces when she was going through her
shoeboxes looking for the diamente stillettos she last wore in 1927.

Mick La Salle's eloquent rave from the S. F. Chronicle may be easily found online.

Here is a link to Mick La Salle's review: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1NPQTM.DTL" target="_blank" target="_blank

Is it just possible that Napoleon was still a work in progress up until the point it was hacked to ribbons. I believe Mr. Brownlow has taken on the Herculean task of reconstructing a work in progress. We may be seeing scenes in the current restoration that were in the 8 hour version, but not the original 6 hour version. To a certain extent, it is a pastiche and has to be. I doubt Gance could remember decades later exactly what was in what version. Even at five and a half hours, there seemed to be some holes. Who knows? The film refuses to give up all of its secrets and will always remain a brilliant enigma. As far as projection speed, I will leave that for greater minds than mine. It certainly looked proper in Oakland.

The difference in the speeds enables you to grasp the entire images in the time the mind needs to process it. Running it too fast causes your eyes to tire out trying to keep up. its obvious except for some "people"...

Mubi's Notebook has an excellent roundup of all the laudatory press the screenings have received:
http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/the-return-of-abel-gances-napoleon

"The length of the version définitive was almost unimaginable 12,878 metres, 42 reels - the same length as the original version of Greed. It took nine hours to show - four and a half hours on each day. But even though this version was shown elsewhere, it must be regarded as a rough cut. Gance, like Griffith, continued working on the editing of his films, even while they were in release. The Apollo version was immediately shortened. A manuscript page for Prisme (typed in 1927) refers to the film being 11,000 metres (36,300 ft): 'I would need eight hours to show it to you.' It would take almost eight hours at the correct speed of 20 fps, around which Napoleon was photographed. Gance told me that the correct length for the full version was six hours..."

- from Napoleon: Abel Gance's Classic Film by Kevin Brownlow.
(page 299 in the Knopf '83 printing)

If the 12,878 metres version ran 9 hours, that's a frame rate of 21 fps. The "correct" rate for the 11,000 metres version depends on whether Gance meant 6 or 8 hours for the running time. If it was 8 hours, then 20 fps was intended. If it was 6, as Gance verbally told Brownlow, then the rate would be almost 27 fps. Does Brownlow give a printed source for this 'I would need eight hours to show it to you' quote in his book?

Derek

Just went to the last showing last night.

The program indicates that the snowball fight is shown at 18fps due to being shot by a different cameraman and general complaints that it goes too fast otherwise.

The film looked good to me. There were parts that lagged, but not due to frame rate. Rather, the whole Violine story was a dull pain in the ass. I'd never seen it before, and now that I've seen it, I don't need to see it again. The rest of the film was fantastic, as always.

I really can't imagine this film being shown at a faster rate. Some of it just races by so quickly that to increase the speed - well, it doesn't make sense.

The biggest difference between that version is the slower projection speed and some upgrades of print quality on some scenes that were already known to exist.
RICHARD M ROBERTS

Not to mention a slew of material covering the Corsican episodes, discovered by Bambi Ballard - in Corsica - IIRC between the 2000 and 2004 screenings in London, but certainly a long time after the last US screenings.

The biggest difference between that version is the slower projection speed and some upgrades of print quality on some scenes that were already known to exist.
RICHARD M ROBERTS

Not to mention a slew of material covering the Corsican episodes, discovered by Bambi Ballard - in Corsica - IIRC between the 2000 and 2004 screenings in London, but certainly a long time after the last US screenings.

Also new were the scenes showing what a superb canasta player he was. (I keed, I keed.)

As for the cost: A couple of years ago, I paid $150 for a ticket to David Mamet's new Broadway play RACE. For that money, I got an 85" drama with one set and four actors. Compared to that, NAPOLEON is the bargain of the decade.

Mike S.