Tweet Viennese Nights (1930)

What is the deal with this film? It is so great and nobody hasn't released it on dvd. Do people not like this film as much as I do?

The deal is this: we've got the special-interest laws & corrupt legislature big-business lobbyists' money has bought & paid for, because this is yet another 80+ yr old picture hogtied by "rights" conflicts, according to Wikipedia. Everyone connected with making it moulders in their graves, yet parasites still seek to feed on it (thanks to collusion by a rapaciously venal Congress), rather than undertaking creative work of their own.

I'd never heard of it, I'm ashamed to say, but reading the Wikipedia entry on it just now makes me see bloody red, because not only do I know I'd love it, but by some incredible miracle of good luck, it has survived substantially intact, unlike so many of the other great musicals made at the same time, the Crash. God bless the bootlegger who finds some way to put this into circulation.

The deal is this: we've got the special-interest laws & corrupt legislature big-business lobbyists' money has bought & paid for, because this is yet another 80+ yr old picture hogtied by "rights" conflicts, according to Wikipedia. Everyone connected with making it moulders in their graves, yet parasites still seek to feed on it (thanks to collusion by a rapaciously venal Congress), rather than undertaking creative work of their own.

I'd never heard of it, I'm ashamed to say, but reading the Wikipedia entry on it just now makes me see bloody red, because not only do I know I'd love it, but by some incredible miracle of good luck, it has survived substantially intact, unlike so many of the other great musicals made at the same time, the Crash. God bless the bootlegger who finds some way to put this into circulation.

If you read the IMDB reviews, some bootlegger has. That or someone's a liar.

If you read the IMDB reviews, some bootlegger has.

Too bad the reviewer didn't give credit where credit is due. But knowing that (or assuming it), I'll commence my own search.

The deal is this: we've got the special-interest laws & corrupt legislature big-business lobbyists' money has bought & paid for, because this is yet another 80+ yr old picture hogtied by "rights" conflicts, according to Wikipedia. Everyone connected with making it moulders in their graves, yet parasites still seek to feed on it (thanks to collusion by a rapaciously venal Congress), rather than undertaking creative work of their own.

I'd never heard of it, I'm ashamed to say, but reading the Wikipedia entry on it just now makes me see bloody red, because not only do I know I'd love it, but by some incredible miracle of good luck, it has survived substantially intact, unlike so many of the other great musicals made at the same time, the Crash. God bless the bootlegger who finds some way to put this into circulation.

It's on youtube, even though the quality leaves a lot to be desired.

Never cease to marvel at the "unavailable" pictures that make, somehow, an appearance on YT. For example, snatches of Bebe Daniels singing various numbers from Love Comes Along are all over YT, but not one of my three contacts in the DVD underworld, each with an inventory of hundreds of pictures, has been able, though I've asked repeatedly, to lay hands on a copy!

Another one impossible, thus far, to obtain is Diana Winyard's Reunion in Vienna.

The copy of Viennese Nights that is floating around in missing the opening credits and some of the film.... Same for the Youtube version.

The copy of Viennese Nights that is floating around in missing the opening credits and some of the film.... Same for the Youtube version.

The only footage missing is the intermission which runs for only a minute. There is a short pre-credit sequence.

Never cease to marvel at the "unavailable" pictures that make, somehow, an appearance on YT. For example, snatches of Bebe Daniels singing various numbers from Love Comes Along are all over YT, but not one of my three contacts in the DVD underworld, each with an inventory of hundreds of pictures, has been able, though I've asked repeatedly, to lay hands on a copy!

Another one impossible, thus far, to obtain is Diana Winyard's Reunion in Vienna.

Curious about WHEN LOVE COMES ALONG being so elusive. It ran on AMC (when it really was American Movie Classics) years ago. In fact I'm quite certain I taped it. I'll have to check my VHS archive to see if I still have it.

Perhaps when "The King of Jazz" is released after being "restorated" - it may encourage others holding on to rights of the early colour pictures to release them so those of us who are ever so eager to see these gems may at last be able to watch them!

Curious about WHEN LOVE COMES ALONG being so elusive. It ran on AMC (when it really was American Movie Classics) years ago. In fact I'm quite certain I taped it. I'll have to check my VHS archive to see if I still have it.

Was unaware of the AMC presentation, but perhaps that's the ultimate source for the various YT posters; but it's still surprising the dealers didn't do likewise, & copy to DVD.

Getting back to VIENNESE NIGHTS, I don't know exactly what the rights issues are but if I had to venture a guess it would be music rights and possible conflict with the Sigmund Romberg estate. It's been rumored that music rights involving the estates of DeSylva, Brown & Henderson are responsible for the unavailability of FOLLOW THRU. I tend to think the music rights issue is possibly assumed rather than confirmed. Jerry Beck wanted to include the cartoon sequence from KING OF JAZZ in the Woody Woodpecker sets he oversaw for Universal but was advised not to for possible music rights complications. The studio doesn't want to be bothered or take the time and expense to simply find out. Much easier to throw a veil over it rather than be bothered with an 80+ year old movie.

Getting back to VIENNESE NIGHTS, I don't know exactly what the rights issues are but if I had to venture a guess it would be music rights and possible conflict with the Sigmund Romberg estate. It's been rumored that music rights involving the estates of DeSylva, Brown & Henderson are responsible for the unavailability of FOLLOW THRU. I tend to think the music rights issue is possibly assumed rather than confirmed. Jerry Beck wanted to include the cartoon sequence from KING OF JAZZ in the Woody Woodpecker sets he oversaw for Universal but was advised not to for possible music rights complications. The studio doesn't want to be bothered or take the time and expense to simply find out. Much easier to throw a veil over it rather than be bothered with an 80+ year old movie.

Haven't Sigmund Romburg and Oscar Hammerstein been dead for over 50 years? I don't know if America is different but here in Oz copyright expires after that time.

It seems to me quite odd that a film that is 82 years old is still the subject of rights issues. Someone, somewhere is being very greedy at our expense.

Haven't Sigmund Romburg and Oscar Hammerstein been dead for over 50 years? I don't know if America is different but here in Oz copyright expires after that time.

It seems to me quite odd that a film that is 82 years old is still the subject of rights issues. Someone, somewhere is being very greedy at our expense.

Not odd...rather, fantastic...surreal. Would appear the corrupting influence of Walt Disney Corp., & other studios, publishers, other big business interests, does not extend to Oz.

It's their heirs that that keep these things going indefinitely. Look at Astaire's widow or Joe DeRita's heirs that now (amazingly) own the rights to the Three Stooges.

Jerry Beck wanted to include the cartoon sequence from KING OF JAZZ in the Woody Woodpecker sets he oversaw for Universal but was advised not to for possible music rights complications. The studio doesn't want to be bothered or take the time and expense to simply find out.

Are you saying, thus, that it has to be left out of The King of Jazz restoration?

The Desert Song in two versions not available.

The 1930 The Vagabond King in color restored along with Follow Thru.

I suppose some one will have information that all those "lost" Depression musical films would have had no rights issues of any kind but will never be found. It would be Murphy's Law again.



Australian copyright rules were different but there have been recent years changes. But I think we still have the right to copy a film from a DVD to another medium like MP4 and so on but not to another DVD. Titles made before 1967 were in the Public Domain but no-one really seemed to exploit this angle. There are plenty of Asians, mostly Chinese, who go to major shopping malls(occasionally strips) who set up a card table open a case and sell pirated DVDs to who ever is interested. Many older movies that have not even been issued on DVD in Australia or USA. They also go to markets and rip on demand from their catalog lists, get caught, have their homes raided, equipment and stocks taken away along with their camper-style autos and start again next week waiting for the court case, fines and destruction of all seized items. What a game these people play with the authorities. I don't buy them but I have had people I know ask me to get certain titles from Amazon and then cancel when they pick up these pirates and leave me holding the bag. Not anymore. I won't order for these guys now.

Ultimately, these heirs get nothing (most often) for holding onto rights to films they had nothing to do with. Who's going to pay them off to restore Follow Thru or Viennese Nights, which have practically no market value when you include the costs of restoration and marketing? So they get a big fat percentage of NOTHING.

It's their heirs that that keep these things going indefinitely. Look at Astaire's widow or Joe DeRita's heirs that now (amazingly) own the rights to the Three Stooges.

Yes, of course, but don't blame the heirs for being merely human...they bear no responsibility to the public, & who wouldn't accept unearned royalties authorized by Act of Congress. Entirely upon the latter devolves the infamy of this sorry situation.

Are you saying, thus, that it has to be left out of The King of Jazz restoration?

With all the press and buzz over KOJ's restoration, I feel certain Universal will do what's necessary to market it. Universal wasn't quibbling over just the cartoon sequence but the film in general.

Australian copyright rules were different but there have been recent years changes.

I suppose corporations out to make a buck have lobbied for the change?

To me it always seemed fair that the originator of the copyright - i.e., the individual who made the original work would be able to collect royalties throughout his/her natural life and his/her estate for a term of 50 years following. I suppose it is difficult to ascertain original ownership when it is construed that the original owner was a corporation, but I think (and of course I may be completely wrong) that the copyright extended for the 50 years after the last person connected with actually producing the work had died.

It would seem a good idea to me that applying the above rules should be extended so that after the end of the 50 year period, the "owners" of said works would be - in the case of motion pictures - the relative national archive of the country in which the work originated. In that way something might be actually done that is beneficial to the product instead of enriching the coffers of assorted legal entities.

I for one would love to see the 1940's version of "The Desert Song" and probably countless other goodies that haven't seen the light of day since the year dot.

Australian copyright rules were different but there have been recent years changes.

I suppose corporations out to make a buck have lobbied for the change?

To me it always seemed fair that the originator of the copyright - i.e., the individual who made the original work would be able to collect royalties throughout his/her natural life and his/her estate for a term of 50 years following.

As to 50 years following death, WHY?!?! It's not a damned legacy. I still think 28+28 was generous. I'd have it be just 40 and no bellyaching. If you can't profit in that time, it's likely that it wasn't good anyway.

[/quote]As to 50 years following death, WHY?!?! I.[/quote]


That's just the way the original legislation was drawn up. I suppose 50 years after the death gives sufficient time for everything to be neatly tied up?

As to 50 years following death, WHY?!?! I.[/quote]


That's just the way the original legislation was drawn up. I suppose 50 years after the death gives sufficient time for everything to be neatly tied up?[/quote]

Oh, Australia. I think I was going past you there. If it was that originally you're quite welcome to it, just keep it to your continent.

I look at other protections like design patents and wonder why copyright was allowed to be so long once it was enforced. Americans seem to ignore the fact that at one time we were pretty much as China is now in respecting copyrights. In fact, once dissemination of art and entertainment became faster due to industrialization and technology, it should have gotten progressively shorter.

As to 50 years following death, WHY?!?!

The answer can't be found in the ostensible purpose, importance to the public, social significance, of copyright or any other legislation, only in an analysis of who stands to gain, or loose, & most critically, how much pay-off money those parties have at their disposal. If there was an "old-movie lovers" lobby with deeper pockets than the motion-picture & publishers conglomerate, Congress would in short order find good reasons for revising the present law.

I can see the widow or the children maintaining rights. But grandchildren? That seems absurd...

As to 50 years following death, WHY?!?!

The answer can't be found in the ostensible purpose, importance to the public, social significance, of copyright or any other legislation, only in an analysis of who stands to gain, or loose, & most critically, how much pay-off money those parties have at their disposal. If there was an "old-movie lovers" lobby with deeper pockets than the motion-picture & publishers conglomerate, Congress would in short order find good reasons for revising the present law.

Congress would revise the law for a Subway sandwich and vague promises of campaign funds. They're cheap tricks. I'm not interested in that aspect of it, but in what the law ought to be to balance private and public interests.

Copyright in many ways is fighting a losing battle as it is a 19th Century concept trying to hold sway in the 21st Century. The 50 year rule which was applicable in the United Kingdom and throughout the British Empire (with the exception of Canada which teamed up with the U.S. System) was I think a reasonably fair system - and one which Australia inherited.

I am not all that au fait with the American system, but I believe it can be held by Corporations and renewed ad infinitum.

In other countries too there seem to be ludicrous provisions. I read the other day that the Free State of Bavaria in Germany is to re-publish Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for if they don't they will lose copyright.

If we applied the 50 year rule to "Viennese Nights" - would there by any one connected with the production of the film still alive in the last 50 years? I don't think so.

People of course don't put up with stupid systems and provisions - hence the pirating and bootleg copies of items that should now be in the public domain - or as I said in an earlier post, held by an archive who could do more to put these items out there.

Another way of providing distribution of royalties would be to include a surcharge on the purchase of blank CD's, DVD's and Blue-Ray Discs.

I doubt that anything sensible will come about to resolve the situation as lawyers and politicians are involved.

And I stand corrected. There may be a smidge missing from the opening beer garden scene, but it precedes the opening title credits....

Great film, by the way

Looking at IMDb, you see that Vivienne Segal, Alexander Gray and Bernice Claire all followed the same career path for a while, with all three working for the Ziegfield Follies in the 20s, then working in Hollywood as movie stars between 1929 and 1930 for Warner Bros. All three were supposed to become musical screen stars and all three returned to New York City as live performers to restart their careers. Imagine how it must have felt for a person to star in a Technicolor musical and then to next have a role in short.

I read the movie review of "Viennese Nights" by New York Times' movie critic Mordaunt Hall. Hall couldn't lower himself to say whether he liked the movie, instead analyzing the movie piece meal. Warner Bros., looking at the production costs for their 1930 Technicolor movie musicals and at their box office receipts, did not need less than glowing movie reviews by the likes of a pretentious Mordaunt Hall to decide to stop making expensive Technicolor musicals. Now, 82 years later, the surviving Warner Technicolor musicals from 1929 and 1930 are a record of Ziegfield Follies stars performing in their prime. That "Golden Dawn" was a box office disaster may have been the final push for Warner Bros. to pull out of making movie musicals until "42nd Street."

My suggestion is that Warner Bros. take the UCLA Technicolor print of "Viennese Nights," run it through a 4K scanner and clean up and improve the image and sound. Then release the spruced up film on Blu-ray. Warner Bros. won't make any profit on the restoration of "Viennese Nights," but the studio will get a lot of good publicity.

Imagine how it must have felt for a person to star in a Technicolor musical and then to next have a role in short.

Crushing, no doubt, yet ex-film stars who could return to Broadway were probably envied by the many top-billed players who, as their popularity waned, had nowhere to go but Mascot, PRC, & the like.

Good PR is not to be despised...but it won't pay for your next Rolls.