by Allan Fish
We’ve all read the stories of the ox-car knot at Gordium, the one that Alexander the Great came across in 333BC and, seeing the knotty problem at hand, proceeded to split the knot in two with his sword. Simples, as those confounded Compare the Market meerkats might say. Then again, it was, for back then lawyers didn’t really exist, not in the leech, lowest of the low status we know today.
Other Alexanders came and went, from Hannibal to Julius, from Charlemagne to Genghis Khan, and Napoleon Boneparte. The most egotistical Frenchman to have ever lived, Boneparte was the dictator’s dictator, and the sort of man who has inspired many movies; good, bad and downright indifferent. Kubrick wanted to do it, he gave up. Maybe if he’d been able to see Abel Gance’s version from 1927, he’d never have tried, but that was presumed lost in the early seventies. And it was, except that one Englishman, film director and historian Kevin Brownlow, had been on a mission to resurrect this cinematic phoenix from the ashes since his teens. He was nearing the end of his journey, and doubtless thought he was on to a good thing when enlisting the help of Francis Ford Coppola in promoting his baby to a generation of film fans who were to be blown away by the film. Two versions were prepared; one running just under four hours and speeded up from 20 to 24 fps, would be isued in the US and have a score by Coppola’s dad, Carmine. The other, proper version, running five hours, would be accompanied by a score by Carl Davis, incorporating not only portions of Arthur Honegger’s original score, but snippets of Mozart’s 25th Symphony, Beethoven’s 7th and numerous other classical mainstays. The film was a hit around the world in the early eighties, and Gance himself lived long enough to see his baby reborn again. It’s perhaps thankful that the ugly post-script that has since ensued happened too late to send him destraught to his grave.
Everything seemed OK, two versions, everyone happy. Then Carmine Coppola died and, in the tradition of Roman emperors and all good devoted Italian families, son Francis deified him. His father’s music was all that mattered; screw this classic film, what did that matter, so long as daddy’s beautiful (read synonym for blatantly inferior) music could be heard over it and they could cut an hour out of it. Directors have been protective of work before; Kubrick denied UK audiences the full version of The Shining right up to his death and A Clockwork Orange in any version at all. But it call came to a head when the BFI and Kevin Brownlow, wanting to stage a showing of the full version, were presented with a request from Coppola’s lawyers not to show the film in any form other than that approved by Coppola – ie, with his dad’s music. Now unless he has a Madame Arcati of his own communicating with his old man in olive oil and pizza heaven (or where ever paradise is for the family who gave us The Godfather, though I would imagine that it’s not Berlin’s ‘Always’ that is the cue card but ‘Every Time I Look in Your Eyes’), asking him to provide music for the rest of the film. Imagine him telling his father “that little Limey prick Brownlow has only gone and found more of Napoleon and I need some more music. Can you get special dispensation from the almighty to come back down to Earth just long enough for you to write the missing hour or so – do you think the Lord would go for that, Francis? – sure he will, I’ll tell him Marty’s searching for a previously unseen six hour version of Stevens’ The Greatest Story Ever Told with a scene where Max Von Sydow’s Christ challenges Satan to a game of chess.” He’s a sucker for movies about his son.
In layman’s terms, imagine that Leonardo da Vinci painted two Last Suppers. Imagine that Coppola held the rights to both, but one only survived minus a couple of the apostles but, because his dad worked on its restoration, that was the only one to be seen, the other, worked on by others – and British others at that, mamma mia! – was to be locked up in a darkened pit to make the Black Hole of Calcutta seem like an exploding supernova. Horrendous to think on, isn’t it, but that’s what we’re faced with.
It’s not the first time directors have filled us with a sense of admiration and hurt. We love Griffith’s work as a film-maker, but despise his politics. The same could be said of Walt Disney. Claude Autant-Lara found his entire film career wiped from many film histories because of his later political extremist views. And then Robert Wise, I’m sure a very nice man, betrayed Orson Welles’ trust when agreeing to butcher Welles’s masterpiece The Magnificent Ambersons. Sadly, loyalty doesn’t always cut ice. Remember Erich Von Stroheim tearfully bringing his uncut masterpiece Greed to his closest friend in Hollywood Rex Ingram, to ask him to cut it down to please the studio heads. Ingram did as he wished, and sat down one week with editor collaborator Grant Whytock, but stopped when the film was down to four hours as he considered that even then it was an act of butchery, and told MGM chiefs as much. It probably lost him the job directing Ben Hur, and he was shipped off to an MGM sub-studio in Marseilles before retiring from film altogether to return to painting.
In 2000, following further footage findings courtesy of the Cinématheque Française, Brownlow again showed a new restoration, now running 5½ hours and with the added footage restored and given ned added score by Davis. Coppola threatened to sue. I mean, how dare he? Impudent English guttersnipe. So he spent decades restoring it himself, my dad spent literally hours writing this score in between regaling us with countless rehashes of Nino Rota’s Godfather score that were enough to send even poor Nino to his premature death.So where does that leave Napoleon? In the worst kind of cinematic limbo. As long as there are Coppolas on the earth, it will never be released. I often think what Martin Scorsese would think of his friend Coppola committing an act that goes against evertything he himself feels about film restoration and preservataion. Come on Marty, if anyone can persuade Francis that he’s being a fascist – Kevin Brownlow even said at the last public showing his actions were worthy of Joseph Goebbels, though I think perhaps Il Duce might be more apt, especially considering how Coppola’s not made a film worth a shit since Apocalypse Now. Imagine, however, Francis, that someone stopped you from producing the Redux version of that film because they had the rights, not you. We’d be left with the flawed original.
![snapshot_dvd_01.48.07_[2010.05.06_23.18.13]](http://wondersinthedark.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/snapshot_dvd_01-48-07_2010-05-06_23-18-13.jpg?w=500&h=400)
Did you hear that Coppola's going to butcher this movie? - That's nothing compared to what Charlotte Corday is going to do to you.

![snapshot_dvd_15.49_[2010.05.06_23.20.51]](http://wondersinthedark.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/snapshot_dvd_15-49_2010-05-06_23-20-51.jpg?w=500&h=400)

![snapshot_dvd_00.34.40_[2010.05.06_23.16.26]](http://wondersinthedark.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/snapshot_dvd_00-34-40_2010-05-06_23-16-26.jpg?w=500&h=400)
![snapshot_dvd_01.55.32_[2010.05.06_23.18.24]](http://wondersinthedark.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/snapshot_dvd_01-55-32_2010-05-06_23-18-241.jpg?w=500&h=400)






This is one of the greatest essays you have ever written for this site (and that’s saying something) and I share your passion and anger right down the line, as I have stated on this matter many times. I lost a lot of respect for Coppola after this artistic desecration of the highest order.
Not best, Sam, it was a hurried job on the spur of the moment last night, needed more time than the 90m spent on it. But important, yes, easily the most important.
Here, here! Couldn’t agree more! The audacity that Coppola has taken as his mantra is shameless personal greed and pride. A film like this, restored, should be seen for the people to judge. Would have been a totally different story had the film in question been THE WIZARD OF OZ, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 2001 or THE GODFATHER. Coppola WAS always an egotist with a giant chip on his shoulder (take a look at the footage of him in HEARTS OF DARKNESS-he comes off as a self-centered scumbag). He thinks, since the success of THE GODFATHER, that he is the be all and end all of cinema. If he REALLY were, hed stop wasting time on bottling up NAPOLEON and try getting his ass off the chair and putting the wine and cheese down and try to recapture his own lost glory. Give NAPOLEON back to the people!!!!!
ONE QUESTION ALLAN-If there really is another portal to John Malckovitch’s brain down in the Black Hole of Horror that is Sam’s basement, does that mean ole Schmulee is gonna get jetisoned into the emergency lane beside the New Jersey Turnpike????? LOL. I’d hate to think of what hed do to the side-rails at that speed! LOL! Great Essay Allan! I can hear your anger LOUD and CLEAR!!!!
AND… I’ll give Coppola his due with his fine, if somewhat fractured, interpretation of DRACULA (the visuas are stunning, the narrative just less than solid, the performances great-sans the horribly miscast Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder), its the last good film he made (and the only one after APOCALYPSE worth its salt. But, for the most part, this guy is getting loud on the reputation of five films (THE GODFATHER, THE GODFATHER PART II, THE CONVERSATION, APOCALYPSE NOW and DRACULA). His duds, ar starting to out-number his successes (remember GPDFATHER III, THE COTTEN CLUB, ONE FOR THE HEART, THE OUTSIDERS and YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH?). He should just go about tending his grapes. Maybe he stick an orange in his mouth and end up like Don Marlon?). In any case, his time is past. Pass the baton and just shut up. This kinda thing just infuriates me. I think Francis is INCAPABLE of anymore great films. He’s shot his load and now tries to ride the coat-tails of Gance. Pathetic.
In no world is ‘The Cotton Club’ a ‘dud’, nor is ‘One for the Heart’, ‘Youth Without Youth’, ‘The Outsiders’, or his recent ‘Tetro’. All good, interesting films (I’d take his two recent films, ‘Tetro’ and ‘Youth Without Youth’ over anything Scorsese has done in that time period). Sure they aren’t the classics of his youth, but hell if we are talking about films that don’t equal the 2 ‘Godfathers’, ‘the Conversation’, and ‘Apocalypse Now’ we might run out of room in the grand canyon.
Oh and we haven’t even touched on the often forgotten masterpiece that is ‘Rumble Fish’.
Coppola’s “Dracula” is a masterpiece, probably my all-time favorite love-story (even though it’s nothing of the sort in Bram Stoker’s novel). “One From the Heart” is an acquired taste, but no slouch. I’ve still got to see the uncut version of “The Outsiders”, but even the abridged version packs an interesting S.E. Hinton punch. And hell, even “Godfather Part III” would’ve been great if it hadn’t been for a few key pieces of behind-the-scenes bad luck (Nino Rota’s death, Paramount’s unwillingness to give more time & money, Winona Ryder’s “exhaustion”), and even so is still pretty good.
However– all this bullshit over “Napoleon” only just barely makes any kind of logical or legal sense, and really is rather shameful.
I’d add ‘Peggy Sue Got Married’, a beautifully textured, lyrical a feature length variation on ‘Twlight Zone’ episodes like ‘Walking Distance’, time travel for grown-ups, unlike the plastic ‘Back to the Future’ series. And also, ‘Tucker: The Man and His Machine’, very autobiographical. Both of these had financial and time restraints on Coppola that brought out the best in this decade.
I enjoyed reading this.
Sad really, and there’s nothing to make you feel sorry for the man, to be sure.
Pompous comes to mind. I remember, back in the day, when he made a failed attempt at a magazine in SF. Started out pretty good, then fizzled into a bland, dated magazine, then died.
Tremedous and important essay Allan, I am really shocked by Coppola’s stance. I do like the idea of releasing all three versions for the public to see.
Shame on you Mr. Coppola!
That’s really a great poster. Classic.
Has anyone considered making Coppola an offer he can’t refuse?
Anyway, I’ll give him TUCKER as well as Dracula in his post-apocalyptic filmography, and I’ll give him credit for an honorable failure in Youth Without Youth. I haven’t everything else, but Godfather III was entirely misbegotten and One From the Heart lives down to its terrible reputation.
The solution to the Napoleon problem would seem to be requiring the Carmine-scored version to be attached to any and every release of a longer edition, but I fear that this wouldn’t satisfy Francis unless he was assured that the Carmine version was the first option in any set.
Aye Samuel. Your proposal and observations are dead-on! I am not really a fan of TETRO myself, but it seems most have embraced it among his latter cinematic output.
Thank you for picking up on this story. I posted a something similar over at Arts & Faith back in February, after I came across a blogged “Open Letter to Francis Ford Coppola” by Matthew Gordon Levandowski, that had been linked from IMDb. Mr. Levandowski may not have had all of his facts straight, but his impassioned plea as a lover of film as art was enough for me to carry his torch to another site, and possibly enlighten others about this sad situation. Mr. Levandowski’s letter read in part,
“…Mr. Coppola, my confusion stems from this fact: your career seems to me to be the definition of passion for good story telling, and likewise the telling of good stories. You have either written, produced or directed (all three at times) some of my very favorite films, and evidenced by those films you seem to have a wonderful sense of value for the place that the art of cinema holds in history. But your stubbornness on this issue seems to prove otherwise. Personally, I can’t imagine living in a future world where films like “The Godfather”, “The Conversation”, “Apocalypse Now” or one of your recent efforts “Youth Without Youth” were not available to the public for a silly reason like this. I would consider it a cultural disservice, in fact, and I am sure that you would be against the notion as well.”
I hope more sites like this continue to shed light on this story. Hopefully a day will come when all three versions of Napoleon can be seen, and show the miraculous progression of the reconstruction throughout the past decades.
Well, that’s the idea, John, carry the torch and get the word out.
JAMIE-what is it with you. A constant combat. If I say something’s red you immediatwly combat me with blue. Your DEFINATIVE answering back is becoming tiresome. Do the homework. THE CITTON CLUB got fair to middling reviews upon its release. The film is a narrative mess, the performances feel forced and the seques into musical numbers border on tedious. ONE FROM THE HEART has been described by the director himself as a nice looking mis-fire and THE OUTSIDERS was panned when it came out. I’LL GIVE YOU RUMBLE FISH. YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH??? A monumental bomb from a director that couldn’t shine Scorsese’s jock now. I’d hate to know what you think of favorites of mine like THE WIZARD OF OZ and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. As to the world which films like THE COTTON CLUB are NOT duds I have to ask: would that be Mars? I can see it now; I’m in for another MIGRAINE this weekend.
I think it’s interesting that amidst all his recent misfires and duds, nobody’s mentioned the two big ones– “Peggy Sue Got Married” and fuckin’ “Jack”. Those movies are both rather awful, and have very little in the way of redeeming values. But “One From the Heart”? “The Outsiders”? “The Cotton Club”? Sure, none of them are as great as his best work, but they’re certainly not bad, all things considered. Though we’re all enjoying this occasion to target Coppola for his unforgivable cinematic hoarding, let’s not forget that at the end of the day, he’s a director whose misfires still tend to stand taller and stronger than the finest hours of lesser filmmakers.
Bob: Excellent point, but I humbly disagree with you on PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED, which I have always regarded as a wistful and charming time-travel movie that I feel was justly popular on its release by audiences and (largely positive) critics. Still, it does as always come down to taste, and I know for some the sacharine here may have been too flavorful.
I second you Sam. ‘Peggy Sue Got Married’ is one of the few intelligent and superbly realised fantasies. In my view, only ‘The Terminator’ and ‘Somewhere in Time’ do justice to the concept, and all of them were made within a 5 year span from each other.
“Twelve Monkeys” is actually a great time-travel movie, and one that actually makes near-perfect sense without creating any major temporal paradoxes. The “Back to the Future” are a little iffy there with paradoxes aplenty, but they’re still solid entertainment. “Somewhere in Time” is part of that “just pretend hard enough and you’ll wake up in the past” sub-genre which I find just plain ridiculous– only Chris Marker pulls it off decently in “La Jetee”, and even there you need the movie’s singular style to keep its half-baked premise afloat.
Cameron’s “Terminator” movies kinda work temporally speaking, though it’s obvious he doesn’t devote that much thought to them. There’s been some great time-travel stuff in the past couple seasons of “Lost”, especially in that standout Desmond episode “The Constant”. Time travel’s one of the harder sci-fi subgenres to pull off without screwing things up too badly, which is odd considering it’s only a conceptual science at this point, really. I don’t quite care for the more fantasy/I-got-knocked-on-the-head variations like “Peggy Sue”, where everything’s more in the realm of fantasy and magic (logic need not apply). At the same time, I must admit that I dig the “Bill & Ted” movies for not even trying to make any goddamn sense of their time-travel antics.
Bobby, I am very happy to hear your positive response there to PEGGY SUE, and I also completely agree with you on SOMEWHERE IN TIME!!!
Well, Bob, I agree with you on ’12 Monkeys’, but my choices for time travel also include science-fantasy, fantasy and SF. Getting knocked on the head so that you can travel into the past is boring and cheats (though I’ve not read the Mark Twain novel), but there is also a noble and beautiful sub-genre of time travel fantasies, that not only include ‘Peggy Sue Got Married’, ‘Somewhere in Time’, ‘Berkely Square’, ect but ‘The Twilight Zone’ classics: ‘Walking Distance’ and ‘A Hundred Yards Over the Rim’ and are found in the enchanting but sometimes dark fantasies of Jack Finney, Ray Bradbury and other master fantastists. What they do after they’ve travelled into the past is what matters, for me at least.
Maybe it’s because I love ‘Walking Distance’ so much, or that I’m much more open differences in theme. I completely agree with the ‘Time Out’ review of ‘Peggy Sue Got Married’:
“More relaxed – sloppy, even – than any of Coppola’s usual busy films, this explores that universal fantasy of getting a second chance at your youth: a 40-year-old Turner faints at her high school reunion, and wakes 20 years earlier in 1960 during her last schooldays. The crux of her return is to sort out what later became a less-than-successful marriage to her feckless husband (Cage in endearingly dopey form). The movie is unfortunately bound to be compared with the much slicker Back to the Future. Ignore the ridiculous happy ending of this film, and you have a much more fatalistic exercise in which Coppola eschews easy laughs in favour of the exposure of feeling and the fact that these people’s lives, however empty, matter to them. Turner is in the Oscar class. CPea.”
They could also have mentioned John Barry’s painfully elegiac, almost mournful score, the shimmering photography, it’s playfulness with the concept of going back as well; There’s this one scene where Peggy sue discovers that her grandma is still alive and it shocks her, she’d not even thought about it, and all the love she ever felt is almost palpable, as if a large jigsaw piece of her life has been rendered back, just so that she can show appreciation. It touches on rememberances of things once lost, as with Martin Sloan tenderly stroking a baseball glove that he had as a child, or Charles Foster Kane, getting sloshed by a puddle, having just reminisced over his mother’s belongings and a life long lost to him.
I would wager even money Dennis, that Jamie likes THE WIZARD OF OZ and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Just a hunch.
Not my favorite films Sam, but I do like them, and they are one’s I respect immensely.
God I would have lost my shirt Jamie!!!
LOL!!!!!!
Oh Sam I do like them… but my taste generally goes for more personal philosophical films. To clearly show this for example for Lean I’d reach for ‘Brief Encounter’ before ‘Lawrence’, but they are both 5 star masterpieces.
While I guess I’d reach for Lawrence of Arabia first – it is in contention for my favorite film of all time – I’d hate to do without Brief Encounter as well. The two complement each other quite nicely and without either, the director’s oeuvre would be less rich.
Dennis, because I sometimes disagree with you doesn’t mean I am in ‘constant combat’, jeez in a thread were Allan’s post is about authoritative fascist handling of films your handling of a differing opinion is ironic to say the least (I’m mean the idea of someone liking ‘Cotton Club’ is akin to being on Mars?). I’ll let my more then a year record of posting here as a record of my civility in this regard.
Hey below Sam said he likes ‘Peggy Sue Got Married’ where’s the accusation of ‘constant combat’ and ‘I say something’s red you immediatwly combat me with blue. Your DEFINATIVE answering back is becoming tiresome.’? Nothing in my post hints at anything even approaching ‘definitive’ I’m just stating that I like some of his lesser received films, your attitude that this is unacceptable or ‘bordering on tedious’ is I’d think, quite ludicrous.
If someone offering a different opinion then you wrecks your weekend and gives you a migraine, then I must say I’m jealous of your life… I wish my immediate problems were that minor.
A great article. I saw Carmine Coppola conducting the orchestra in front of Abel Gance’s NAPOLEON back in its early 80s rerelease. I must have been fourteen, and the performance blew my gourd. One of the five finest moviegoing experiences of all time, for me. But this gives F. Coppola no purvey over Gance’s landmark work, C. Coppola score or not. This goes beyond outrageous. I’ve always wondered where NAPOLEON was; I know it was released on VHS, right? But for years, I’ve gone without seeing it a second time. Now I know its fate, I’m rather angry, to put it lightly. I think the Criterion 3 version idea seems fair all around; How could Coppola say no to THIS idea and still look at himself in the morning?
By the way, I still think TUCKER: THE MAN AND HIS DREAM is somewhat of a populist masterpiece. And, yeah, RUMBLEFISH and THE OUTSIDERS are greatness with great flaws. But I believe the man obviously just wants to make wine now.
Thanks for that terrific anecdote Dean, and in behalf of Allan who of course penned this monumental essay, (one I agree with consumately) I thank you for your kind words. And I like that wine quip too!
You are sorely missed on the blogger front, as I’ve stated at your place. Hope all is well with you.
Listen, I’m all for personal opinions and I respect each and everyone’s here. Its just, in the stratosphere with his big five masterworks, the resyt of Coppola’s films look like shit. For me his top five films are such masterpieces that he can hardly be forgiven for misfires like COTTEN CLUB etc. Jamie likes em, he’s entitled to that. Some might find some value in them as well. But, generally, on this planet, these films outside of the five are considered duds and not in keeping with a director of such high bar raising. I like certain films others hate. Guess we can’t have it all the way around all the time. The worlds not perfect.
What I like so much about this review is what isn’t said by Allan but assumed… he seems to not mind artists re-imagining other art (which I wholeheartedly agree with) so long as that said original art still exists in it’s original state (and is accessible to the public). Coppola’s handling here is very strange and I can’t say that I understand it at all.
I have seen both versions (thanks to an angel passing on the real 300 minute version–um, thanks btw–, which I never thought I’d see until it received a proper release) and they both merit release (I guess Coppola’s does), so Allan’s idea of 3 releases is dead on.
Speaking of re-imagining film(s) any Craig Baldwin fans out there? Any film fan would love his new ‘Mock Up on Mu’ me thinks. Especially fans of more out there, cutting edge stuff.
As long as the artist is the one tinkering with their own work, I don’t really care if the “original” is kept intact. I never need to see the non-Redux version of “Apocalypse Now” ever again. I have no interest in the preservation of the various editions of “Blade Runner” prior to Ridley Scott’s now-standard “Final Cut”. And it goes without saying that I find all the “Han Shot First” nonsense to be utter bullshit. If a director wants to change their own work and throw away the originals, go ahead and let them. It’s when somebody gets possessive of somebody else’s work that things really get ugly. Director’s Cuts are always okay, and Coppola’s version of “Napoleon” is not that.
Right, that’s what I’m sort of getting at. Coppola’s NAPOLEON doesn’t really do anything to better or comment on the original (hence why I commented on the Baldwin, he transforms old works to something incredibly new and interesting), that’s why all I can really say is it’s ‘strange’. Strange that someone would claim some sort of ownership over something they don’t own or had anything to do with at all.
As we are on the subject of great French cinema here, I’d like to mention that Ed Howard has a great post today on the passing of one of the greatest contemporary cinematographers, William Lubtchansky, who lensed masterpieces from Rivette and Godard. His screen cap display is truly spectacular. Check it out:
http://seul-le-cinema.blogspot.com/2010/05/william-lubtchansky-1937-2010.html
There has been some very nice an appreciated responses on here, I just wish a thread about Napoleon hadn’t also been turned into a Coppola discussion abotu the merits or not of his later work,. Something that, frankly, this has nothing to do with. I genuinely believe that all his post AN stuff don’t add up to one of those masterworks of the 70s, but th way it has degenerated into a Rumble Fish and Dracula comparison, my Coppola’s better than your Coppola, is a bit disheartening.
Look at it this way– everyone agrees that Coppola is a douche when it comes to “Napoleon”. There’s no argument, no debate– the motion is seconded and carried by unanimous vote. Therefore it’s not really all that surprising that the conversation has turned to the area where there’s still some room for differences of opinion.
I did post twice… one about Coppola and one about this specific essay. I see that you chose to comment about the topic that you see no value in….
It wasn’t aimed at you or individuals, Jamie, just that it becoming a place for debating Coppola is like letting Coppola hijack a piece that was about Napoleon, much as he has hijacked the film. Again, I believe the term is ironic.
True, but again– this place thrives on debate, not concordance. If there was somebody screwy to play devil’s advocate and support Coppola’s treatment of “Napoleon”, then the talk would stay on track. Otherwise, the conversation has nowhere to go but wherever it can find disagreement and controversy. It’s like a fire feeding itself on oxygen– you can’t very well blame the flame that refuses to light itself in a vacuum.
I completely agree with Bob Clark here. The NAPOLEON debacle is irrefutable, and no one in their right mind would support Coppola, whereas the quality of his work later on is debatable, making this segue most logical.
I wish that Kevin Brownlow would approach BBC4, the one and only bastion for an intelligent programming in the UK left. They may finance him, and they’ve financed Paul Merton’s six silent documentaries and his new one. Mind you, he is a celebrity and that makes a difference in our Brave New World of broadcasting.
Exactly. Hence it won’t happen. Or maybe KB has had probs with the Beeb before, Remember how they undermined Cinema Europe by not illustrating it with a single silent film showing.
I don’t have to much to add to the argument proper, but the timing is ironic as I just borrowed the lavishly-illustrated Silent Movies coffee table book from the library, and was delighted by Kevin Brownlow’s evocative introduction – even jotting down several passages in a notebook, I was so taken with them. Hope the man gets his just desserts.
Joel, that is a wonderful book, methinks!
Must just say that I loved Bobby’s comments on ‘Peggy Sue Got Married’, which is one of my favourites by Coppola – absolutely spot on.
Crossing my fingers that WitD alerts somebody to new posts in old threads. There may still be time to plan a trip to this event
From in70mm.com – July 14, 2011…
“The San Francisco Silent Film Festival announces today (July 14, 2011—Bastille Day) that it will present the U.S. premiere of Abel Gance’s legendary “Napoleon” in its complete restoration by Academy Award®-winning historian, documentarian and archivist Kevin Brownlow, in four special screenings at Oakland’s Paramount Theatre on March 24, 25, 31 and April 1, 2012.
The SFSFF screenings also mark the U.S. premiere of the renowned orchestral score, written over 30 years ago (and twice expanded since), by Carl Davis, who will conduct the Oakland East Bay Symphony.”
More details at in70mm.com – info also at ticketmaster.com