Tweet The full Napoleon to be screened in the US at last.....

Secondly some Guy With Rabbit Info (Rabbit not included) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couthon

From the always reliable wiki above

Couthon was guillotined on 10 Thermidor alongside Robespierre, although it took the executioner fifteen minutes (amidst Couthon's screams of pain) to arrange him on the board correctly due to his paralysis

Aiyee, when the executioner goes wrong. Ouch.

Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution by Simon Schama
and
The French Revolution 1788-1792 by Geatano Salvemini.

As far as the political climate in 1927 when the film premiered, I think that is a separate and interesting discussion.

However, I think that we can see, enjoy, hate, and discuss the film both with or without reference(s) to the actual Revolution, Napoleon, or the politics of Europe circa 1927.

Thank you, Eric, for the book recommendations and thanks to Ann Harding for the French perspective. I realized last night (to my great embarrassment) that I've never read a biography of Napoleon, or a history of the Revolution; what I've read about the period and the events has always come from the English or American perspective. I'm now on a quest. Have you read Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life? I downloaded a kindle sample last night and have been very impressed with it so far, not the least for its elegant writing, always a plus.

The same here, my knowledge of the Revolution was very (and still is superficial), but about 3 years I tried to rectify it and overcome my childhood adoration of Napoleon (what boy doesn't like the thrill and adventure of taking on the whole world), I've been working my way through the Revolution, and haven't read the more modern biographies or studies of Napoleon himself, so I'm anxious to look at the book you recommended. There is a great set of novels on Napoleon's era from a bottom up and anti-war perspective in the writings of the 19th century novelists,Erckmann-Chatrian, it was a strange duo, but their books, The Conscript and Waterloo are most interesting.

I read in Carl Davis' online diaries that the sync of the triptych projectors didn't work at rehearsals.

The performance I saw on the 24th looked spot-on. The cuts seemed to happen simultaneously across the screens.


Anyone know how three projectors were synched in 1927?

In stereo projection it's at least possible to physically lock two projectors in the same booth, but three in different booths?

Deudonne isn't that great an actor but for the most part he doesn't have to be.
greta

He's a bit mature, but he's certainly got the build and face for Young Napoleon, he would not be so well suited for Fat Napoleon.

greta

Funny you should mention that, since Deudonne did indeed play the "fat" Napoleon in the 1941 version of MADAME SANS-GENE. Check it out about 1:44 into this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8OJVbWjq60&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Deudonne isn't that great an actor but for the most part he doesn't have to be.
greta

He's a bit mature, but he's certainly got the build and face for Young Napoleon, he would not be so well suited for Fat Napoleon.

greta

Funny you should mention that, since Deudonne did indeed play the "fat" Napoleon in the 1941 version of MADAME SANS-GENE. Check it out about 1:44 into this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8OJVbWjq60&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Well, i'll be darned. Looks rather like he grew into the part. Thanks for the link!

greta

I read in Carl Davis' online diaries that the sync of the triptych projectors didn't work at rehearsals.

The performance I saw on the 24th looked spot-on. The cuts seemed to happen simultaneously across the screens.


Anyone know how three projectors were synched in 1927?

In stereo projection it's at least possible to physically lock two projectors in the same booth, but three in different booths?

From what I read in Brownlow's book, "Napoleon," the 1927 screening was a disaster without even considering the three projector ending. They didn't take the time needed to be certain everything was set and reels were even shown out of sequence before stopping so the wrong reel could be removed so the proper one could be projected.

If you enjoyed seeing the film, I highly recommend this book about both the making and first reconstruction of the film. You can get your answers straight from Kevin Brownlow this way. I got mine at Amazon years ago for pennies.

From the first showing, it was immediately cut to pieces before being shown anywhere else. It's only been because of Kevin Brownlow's tireless efforts to put this back together that we have any idea of what Abel Gance had only attempted to do in 1927.

Since the first exhibition of the film in 1980 (Carl Davis also conducted that one), we are the first generation to actually be able to see the film as it was intended.

The publicity for this event frequently mentioned that "Napoleon" was shown in original form in "only" eight European cities on its original release. I presume that's information from Brownlow.

So none of those had a triptych?

It treats a man who really was a role model for Hitler (all of Europe under French control?) as the saint who purifies Le Republique.

... This romantic view began to sour once Napoleon made himself an overreaching monarch, and Gance, to his credit, intended to darken his portrait and show Napoleon gradually losing his way. I haven't yet seen Gance's other Napoleon film, Austerlitz, but hopefully someone who as can report on whether he is less idolized there.

Nobody's responded to this particular question yet--So, has anybody seen Austerlitz recently? I searched for other posts on it and came up with comments about the Cahiers du Cinema crowd considering it Fascist. So does it take a similarly Napoleon-as-hero approach as the 1927 film or is it more nuanced or critical? Since he loses, it doesn't seem plausible that it would be Napoleon Triumphant.

greta

Nobody's responded to this particular question yet--So, has anybody seen Austerlitz recently? I searched for other posts on it and came up with comments about the Cahiers du Cinema crowd considering it Fascist. So does it take a similarly Napoleon-as-hero approach as the 1927 film or is it more nuanced or critical? Since he loses, it doesn't seem plausible that it would be Napoleon Triumphant.

greta

The real Battle of Austerlitz was actually Napoleon's greatest victory, so the film is pretty much Napoleon Triumphant. Pierre Mondy makes a great Napoleon, IMO, but the film is pretty talky, suffers from a tight budget, and is in no way critical of Napoleon.

The real Battle of Austerlitz was actually Napoleon's greatest victory, so the film is pretty much Napoleon Triumphant. Pierre Mondy makes a great Napoleon, IMO, but the film is pretty talky, suffers from a tight budget, and is in no way critical of Napoleon.

Oops my bad! Well, i guess give the chance Gance was more interested in exploring a victory than in, say, Waterloo. I found a clip of it here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbvqf8 ... shortfilms
Napoleon is only in a short sequence near the beginning, though. I see what you mean about the budget, but Gance seems to be pretty ingenious about making the best of it.

Kind of knowing where Cahiers tends to come from, i wanted to seek out a second opinion.

thanks
greta

Kind of knowing where Cahiers tends to come from, i wanted to seek out a second opinion.

Cahiers du cinéma and other critics of Gance seem to have difficulty distinguishing between nationalism and fascism. I'd say that Gance was a nationalist, but calling him a fascist is a ridiculous smear.

Same with the historical Napoleon. He was a nationalist and a more or less enlightened despot, but calling him a fascist is an ahistorical slur.

Kind of knowing where Cahiers tends to come from, i wanted to seek out a second opinion.

Cahiers du cinéma and other critics of Gance seem to have difficulty distinguishing between nationalism and fascism. I'd say that Gance was a nationalist, but calling him a fascist is a ridiculous smear.

Same with the historical Napoleon. He was a nationalist and a more or less enlightened despot, but calling him a fascist is an ahistorical slur.

I am finding the Englund book I mentioned in an earlier post most enlightening; I wish I'd read it before seeing the film. If Englund is correct--and his scholarship is profound, so I have no reason to doubt him--then Napoleon pretty much invented the idea of "nation," and it was not an accident. Gance's film ends before Napoleon came to that apotheosis and it doesn't really deal with political thought anyway, but I can now see where the film would have more resonance for the French. Doggone. Missed the bateau there.

I read in Carl Davis' online diaries that the sync of the triptych projectors didn't work at rehearsals.

The performance I saw on the 24th looked spot-on. The cuts seemed to happen simultaneously across the screens.


Anyone know how three projectors were synched in 1927?

In stereo projection it's at least possible to physically lock two projectors in the same booth, but three in different booths?

Based on my observation, I would guess that the B panel (the one in the center) stays put, and the projectionists for the A and C panels keep adjusting their framelines so they match B. I assume that's how they did it (or at least tried to) in 1927.

Mike S.

Eric "Dr. Film" Grayson just posted this excellent piece about Gance, Brownlow & NAPOLEON.

http://www.drfilm.net/blog/?p=203

Nobody's responded to this particular question yet--So, has anybody seen Austerlitz recently? I searched for other posts on it and came up with comments about the Cahiers du Cinema crowd considering it Fascist. So does it take a similarly Napoleon-as-hero approach as the 1927 film or is it more nuanced or critical?

Having originally raised this topic, I must sheepishly admit to having rented Austerlitz but not yet watching it. (There's a subtitled 2-VHS set of the film that runs approximately 3 hours which I found it at Le Video, the greatest video rental store in Northern California.) As for why I thought Austerlitz might be a more critical portrait of Napoleon...I remember reading in Brownlow's book that Gance said Napoleon began losing his grip when he started making his family members royalty (or something to that effect). A few days later I was reading Norman King's excellent critical study of Gance, which states that "Austerlitz shows the emergence of jealousies in [Napoleon's] family." King later writes that "Although Napoleon will later be trapped by his family, his ministers, and his enemies into a defense of the bourgeois order (Austerlitz), the young Bonaparte is a man for the people, for the future." Still, I should have realized that film about Napoleon's greatest triumph would hardly be deflationary. Now if only I could get my hands on Gance's script for Waterloo...

Nobody's responded to this particular question yet--So, has anybody seen Austerlitz recently? I searched for other posts on it and came up with comments about the Cahiers du Cinema crowd considering it Fascist. So does it take a similarly Napoleon-as-hero approach as the 1927 film or is it more nuanced or critical?

Having originally raised this topic, I must sheepishly admit to having rented Austerlitz but not yet watching it. (There's a subtitled 2-VHS set of the film that runs approximately 3 hours which I found it at Le Video, the greatest video rental store in Northern California.) As for why I thought Austerlitz might be a more critical portrait of Napoleon...I remember reading in Brownlow's book that Gance said Napoleon began losing his grip when he started making his family members royalty (or something to that effect). A few days later I was reading Norman King's excellent critical study of Gance, which states that "Austerlitz shows the emergence of jealousies in [Napoleon's] family." King later writes that "Although Napoleon will later be trapped by his family, his ministers, and his enemies into a defense of the bourgeois order (Austerlitz), the young Bonaparte is a man for the people, for the future." Still, I should have realized that film about Napoleon's greatest triumph would hardly be deflationary. Now if only I could get my hands on Gance's script for Waterloo...

Well, let us know what you think when you have a chance to see it. Looks like here at the library i can only put my hands on a non-subtitled version, so i may have to wait to check it out myself. Apparently Napoleon at St. Helena survives, though i don't know how much Gance's screenplay may have been altered.

greta

I have seen both Austerlitz and Napoleon auf St. Helena. As for Austerlitz, it shows -alas- that Gance was no longer the innovative director he used to be. The film looks like a parade of famous name, all done with a static camera. I remember laughing at some of the dialogue, especially when Elvire Popesco (as Laetitia B.) says the famous 'Pourvu que ça doure' [Let's hope it lasts]. But, frankly, if you discovered Gance with this film, you would think he was a very average director.
As for Napoleon auf St. Helena, it's the opposite of Gance's picture. It's a chamber piece with the ageing and sick Napoleon living the last days of his life on St. Helena and suffering under the paranoid Hudson Lowe. I wrote something about it here .

I have seen both Austerlitz and Napoleon auf St. Helena. As for Austerlitz, it shows -alas- that Gance was no longer the innovative director he used to be. The film looks like a parade of famous name, all done with a static camera. I remember laughing at some of the dialogue, especially when Elvire Popesco (as Laetitia B.) says the famous 'Pourvu que ça doure' [Let's hope it lasts]. But, frankly, if you discovered Gance with this film, you would think he was a very average director.
As for Napoleon auf St. Helena, it's the opposite of Gance's picture. It's a chamber piece with the ageing and sick Napoleon living the last days of his life on St. Helena and suffering under the paranoid Hudson Lowe. I wrote something about it here .

Thanks, that sounds like an interesting picture. Hope it will turn up in exhibition or video over here.

greta

which I found it at Le Video, the greatest video rental store in Northern California.

Folks still rent video??....

Interesting post-NAPOLEON thought.
After I got back from the screening, a few days later I decided to finally check out that BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN disc that's been sitting on my shelf for years.
I must say, that after Gance, the all famous POTEMKIN editing was a bit, shall we say, underwhelming. It just doesn't have the impact that Gance's did. It's almost like Gance took Eisenstein's theories and ran with them. Or are we now conditioned by the MTV style of editing that we can accept what Gance was doing? (I prefer to call it the Benihana school of editing)

Gance didn't take his ideas in Eisenstein's films. He CREATED that style of editing at the time of La Roue (1921-23) and all the Russian filmmakers adopted it. He was the creator of fast cutting.

I have seen both Austerlitz and Napoleon auf St. Helena. As for Austerlitz, it shows -alas- that Gance was no longer the innovative director he used to be. The film looks like a parade of famous name, all done with a static camera. I remember laughing at some of the dialogue, especially when Elvire Popesco (as Laetitia B.) says the famous 'Pourvu que ça doure' [Let's hope it lasts]. But, frankly, if you discovered Gance with this film, you would think he was a very average director.
As for Napoleon auf St. Helena, it's the opposite of Gance's picture. It's a chamber piece with the ageing and sick Napoleon living the last days of his life on St. Helena and suffering under the paranoid Hudson Lowe. I wrote something about it here .

Thanks, that sounds like an interesting picture. Hope it will turn up in exhibition or video over here.

greta

Someone has uploaded bits and pieces of Gance's Austerlitz to youtube. Text translations are joyously mangled. Napoleon auf St. Helena sounds interesting, not least because I like to play "Spot Albert Basserman" while movie-watching.

For once, Albert Bassermann has a substantial part, unlike some of his later roles in Hollywood. He makes a very good Hudson Lowe.

Folks still rent video??....

I prefer to buy movies, but the VHS of Austerlitz has been out of print since 1983 and sells for up to $200 online. Since Le Video has a comprehensive selection of VHS tapes, it made sense to rent. Plus, supporting a local business is always good.

I read in Carl Davis' online diaries that the sync of the triptych projectors didn't work at rehearsals.

The performance I saw on the 24th looked spot-on. The cuts seemed to happen simultaneously across the screens.


Anyone know how three projectors were synched in 1927?

In stereo projection it's at least possible to physically lock two projectors in the same booth, but three in different booths?

Based on my observation, I would guess that the B panel (the one in the center) stays put, and the projectionists for the A and C panels keep adjusting their framelines so they match B. I assume that's how they did it (or at least tried to) in 1927.

Mike S.

I was really wondering about the framerate, the fps. In the presound age there wasn't any need for the projectors to be exactly anything, so I wonder how they expected to synchronize three of them?

Gance asked the camera manufacturer Debrie to create a 3 projectors system with synchronized motor. This system was used in the cutting room and for the premiere of the film.

Today is the day in history in 1814 when Napoleon abdicated and was sent into exile at Elba.

Today is the day in history in 1814 when Napoleon abdicated and was sent into exile at Elba.

I will observe a moment of silence, or at least play the soundtrack CD, again.

Beautiful, Rollot, thank you for bringing that up.

I, too, will have a good drink and remember. And it tells me I really need to hit the history books again...

For the record, my two centimes are here:
http://strictly-vintage-hollywood.blogspot.com/2012/04/napoleon-vu-par-kevin-brownlow.html