8mm Forum: A Chump At Oxford

This is topic A Chump At Oxford - Streamlined in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004655

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on July 02, 2009, 10:34 PM:

I've always wondered why Blackhawk offered a 40-minute version of this title and what exactly is missing. Does it really affect the continuity of the film or did they just take out the "filler"? As if there could be much to edit out of a 6-reel comedy.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 02, 2009, 11:45 PM:

Brad,

Blackhawk released both the forty two minute and
63 minute versions of Oxford.

Oxford was originally filmed by June of '39, and the added
sequence was penned and filmed in Sept. '39.
Both versions were released simultaneously on each continent.

After the original part was filmed, the boys went to RKO to make
The Flying Deuces, but during their absence Roach
decided to flesh out the film to 63 minutes for the
European market - due to higher regard overseas and for top
attraction billing. Thus they returned three months later
and essentially filmed a two reeler that was added on to the feature.
This portion involves the boys going to a employment agency
to find work. This sequence is an updated re-working and based upon the
silent two reeler: From Soup to Nuts.

Interestingly, there are alternate takes and edits in the main
story that differ between the short and longer release versions.

Eventually both programs are noted to have played
in the USA.

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on July 05, 2009, 11:40 AM:

Thanks, Michael. Does anyone feel the extra "2-reeler" worth of footage adds any value or is it better as a featurette (the way Roach originally intended?

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 05, 2009, 08:13 PM:

Some L&H buffs, own
both versions.

I have the 63 minute release on 16mm.
I recommend it because it's fun and very compatible
with the original body of the story.

I traded up to 16mm, because the super 8 prints were soft in appearance. In fact I had two prints and one was slightly better than the other.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on July 06, 2009, 07:11 PM:

I'm with Michael -- if you're an L&H buff (like I am), you HAVE to have both versions!
[Smile]

I have both versions in Super 8, and ALTER EGO in 16mm. The latter is a 30 minute cut-down of the last 45 minutes of the full-length version -- if that makes any sense -- meant to be shown on TV. They frustratingly cut out some of the Lord Paddington footage in favor of the maze scene (which I don't like.)

Regarding the softness of the Super 8 Blackhawk prints, I find most of the boys' sound films to be that way. The silents are MUCH better. That's why I've been slowly upgrading my L&Hs to 16mm. Once you see a really good 16mm L&H print, you can't watch the Super 8's anymore.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on July 06, 2009, 09:05 PM:

Totally agree, Tony -- even though I collect primarily Super 8, I find that usually Super 8 can't hold a candle to a 16mm print in terms of sharpness. What passes for "pin sharp" on some Super 8 prints amazes me -- all I can see is "soft focus"!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 06, 2009, 10:46 PM:

We were just talking about this in the review of "Way Out West".

It is strange that the silent shorts look much better than the sound shorts or features.

My guess is that Blackhawk had access to original negatives not too far removed from the original "masters" for the silents, but they went elsewhere for the master materials for the features and sound prints.

Further, it really is the features that seem to suffer. Even the sound shorts tend to be really good, but it's just the Blackhawk laurel and Hardy features that appear to be soft in focus.

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on July 07, 2009, 09:18 AM:

I agree. I have all the features save for "Chumps" and they all have okay sound, but terrible sharpness. Mine are all from the early to mid 70s (I believe anything in the red boxes was 70s - in the late 70s/early 80s they changed to green and finally generic grey), but all my prints are the same - just fair.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on July 07, 2009, 08:30 PM:

I don't see much difference between the L&H BH sound shorts and features in terms of picture quality. I've had different printings of some of the features, and in some cases the quality differed. For example, my WAY OUT WEST on '74 stock had better picture density and sharpness than a later '77 printing. The sound on the latter was better though. BH supposedly switched labs when they became a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises, and the quality suffered for a while. When they went to the silver boxes in the late '70's early '80s, the quality supposedly improved, mostly because of better negatives. I don't have any L&H from that period, but I do have a few Our Gangs, where the quality is stunning, but I believe in general that the Our Gangs looked better than the L&H's, even in early '70s printings. Some of the early 30's shorts look better than the late 30's ones (Alfalfa and Spanky one-reelers.) The worst-looking BH Our Gang that I have is OUR GANG FOLLIES OF 1938. One of the best is DOGS IS DOGS from 1931 -- silver box -- not sure how the earlier printings were.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on July 08, 2009, 01:00 PM:

I must have been singularly fortunate, in that the L&H features are quite nice that I have in pink, green and silver boxes - Shorts too - I suppose when one patiently and slowly searches in many outlets, therby comes the gain - Shorty

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 08, 2009, 06:05 PM:

My "Our Gang Follies of 1938" was quite poor as well.

I think the worst image quality on a Laurel and Hardy sound short was "Dirty Work". "Brats" is another BH print that REALLY varied. I have a silver box version, but even that one is subpar on the focus. The ironic thing about that specific title, is that I have a silent print of that title and the focus is much better. It is of note that it is a much earlier print of it, (denoted by that black line that soaks a good way over into the sprocket area.

This reminds me of a question I have had concerning early BH prints ... Was that black line that runs into the sprocket area on the film to cause less spillover of light on the projection?

It's just a thought.

The rest of them are pretty darned good, especially "Towed in the Hole" and "Busy Bodies".

By the way, one thing that I could never fault BH for is contrast. Excellent grey tones throughout every print. I have personally never ran into a washed out print.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on July 08, 2009, 06:18 PM:

I have an absolutely gorgeous BH print of BRATS in 16mm on Agfa '80s era stock. Must have been from an original M-G-M negative. That replaced my Super 8 BH which was so-so. The latter had all BH titles -- the former has BH "L&H" in followed by the re-issue titles.

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on July 11, 2009, 10:31 PM:

My BRATS print is soooo dark, I can barely see it. Also, I have a copy of PARDON US where the sync is slightly off (which doesn't help in the scenes where Laurel does raspberries because of his loose tooth - it completely ruins it for me), but I'm leary of buying a 2nd print fearing the worst.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 12, 2009, 12:53 AM:

Brad,

Sorry to hear about trouble with Brats and Pardon Us.

The Brats title seems to be an answer print.

I have a Super 8 Pardon Us, and it is in-sync. - just have not watched it
in over 15 years.

Knowing that that the film is properly threaded,
it does seem to be a problem with the recording.

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on July 13, 2009, 09:26 AM:

What is an "answer" print?

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 13, 2009, 12:31 PM:

Answer Prints are the final prints according to the instruction
that approve the film release, and it usually takes more
than one print to make that stage.

It appears that your film was not fully inspected
from the original negative after production, and
did not meet the full final requirements of approval.

Chemistry changes the appearance and to find a flawless
print takes involvement and supervision.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2