Missing footage really add anything? - Lost Horizon (1937) Discussion

[–] danielj_old999 18 years ago

THE BIG SLEEP (1945)

reply

[–] mam13143 18 years ago

I agree. I have the original taped from AMC when they were like TCM today. The stills and garbled soundtracks do detract from the film if you compare the remastered one with the original released in theaters. And the additional material truly doesn't add to the storyline. As with today's films, some people think "directors cut" films are better; even ones which won Oscars in the "cut" version. The film was great without the stills and extra language - they should leave it alone. Todays's generation will never know what the real Oscar winning film really was.

reply

[–] julianoeastwood 18 years ago

the still is distracting , but is that the original release was the director's cut who was lost, some years later the film was re-released but deleted scenes which have similary with controversy themes, but the original release was lost, nobody found more any prints, just sound and stills , so they reconstruced

in the case of apocalypse now, the 2 versions are director's cut, "redux" is just extented so why it's say redux instead of director's cut

reply

[–] trevorwomble 18 years ago

Yeah, i thought the stills were a distraction too. I love this film to bits but if the footage hasn't survived then trying to 'cheat' the viewer by using stills isn't really on. They should have put that into the deleted scenes. The man responsible for the restored version does state why he reinserted that scene back in, and although i can see his argument, it just doesnt feel right.

Still, at least Columbia dvd have made an effort to salvage what they can of this lovely film and preserve it.

reply

[–] Equinox23 18 years ago

I believe the restored version is just fine even be it that the quality of the "added" footage is minor and the stills might be distracting.One suggestion for the stills just try to close your eyes and only listen to it!
Yes-the missing footage adds a lot to the movie,e.g. during the flight when Robert Conway outlines his political views and one perceives that he is not at all satisfied with saving the white people only.And it is something eminent still today-only this summer all western people were evacuated from the Lebanon.What about the local people then? Conway is on the verge of becoming bitter and sarcastic about it all. The primary conflict between the two Conway brothers is also introduced there. This surely adds dimension to this movie!

There are also real deleted scenes on the dvd where the sound is missing. I just loved when Bob Gitt with his broad American accent dubs them. Hilarious!!Hi, this is Bob Gitt!! He should be very proud of himself for all the things he has done to preserve this great movie.Thanks a lot!

I'm only sorry that the footage destroyed by Capra himself will never be restored because I believe the ending with the struggle back only narrated is awkward.There is a director's cut for you.

Daniela

reply

[–] allan-broadfield 18 years ago

I'm sure I saw the film complete many years ago when shown on uk tv in the fifties. It seems hard to imagine that the missing footage can't be restored when there must have been many copies circulated in both 35mm and also 16mm for non theatrical showings.

reply

[–] Equinox23 18 years ago

If you bother to buy or lend the restored DVD, you will find out that according to Bob Gitt the cutting and changing of this movie started soon after its theatrical release,e.g. because of politics-China was viewed more critical at the time. And apparently restoring the movie to the length it displays today has begun somewhere in the seventies,so this is the fruit of decades of work.Another problem is the decay of copies if they are not preserved in the right surroundings.You will find that some of the restored scenes are sorry enough of minor quality.The best quality is taken from some original negatives of cut scenes that survived.Please check it because it is very interesting.

"If a man isn't inspired by his own death, he's beyond inspiration."

reply

[–] muswellmovies 14 years ago

As I have mentioned in another thread concerning this post my Mother complained that the original opening supposedly removed by Capra was missing as she had seen it on its original release in Glasgow.
So it may exist somewhere.
Even if Capra had burnt the first two reels of the preview print as his autobiography claims the original neg fine grains dupe negs and answer prints would have survived.If they are missing it's because of a much later clear out at the studio.

reply

[–] cwoliver-1 18 years ago

In my opinion, yes, the previously cut scenes were worth recovering. As noted by another poster, the scene with Conway considering the morality of taking whites only was important. Likewise when Chang was trying to comfort the newly arrived and ailing Gloria. This is our first hint that there might be something magical about Shang-Ri-La.

As I understood the explanation at the beginning of the movie (as shown on TCM) the restoration was to return the film to its original theatrical release. They were able to cover copies of the complete sound track but lacked 7 minutes (or so) of the video and therefore still pictures were used to fill-in. Thus this represented not the "director's cut" but the actual theatrical release of a movie that had been cut down over the years to fit a TV time format.

I hadn't seen this movie in years and was happy to see it again. An earlier poster noted the under-tones of communism (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs). I also found it funny that the westerners ("whites") were still in charge. (Chang was a servant to the High Lama, a westerner, and would have been to his western replacement.)

Did you also note the anti-war commentary? [High Lama] "I saw all the nations strengthening, not in wisdom, but in the vulgar passions and the will to destroy." And then later when he talks about standing there unarmed when the enemy arrives, the enemy will see this and throw down his arms too. (paraphrased) It was only two years later that Poland had the opportunity to try this out. I don't think it was a viable strategy then . . . or now.

Great movie; good to see it restored.

reply

[–] drunkdaddyo69 18 years ago

people are so stupid

reply

[–] ahall-3 16 years ago

I read a comparison of the pacifism mentioned in the above posting to the "appeasement" policy of Neville Chamberlain's ministry during the Munich Crisis. The appeasers truckled to Adolf Hitler in Austria and then again in Czechoslovakia, dismembering the Sudentenland and delivering it's inhabitants to the tender mercies of the SS and the Gestapo. They were incredibly naif. Wm. Manchester in his biography of W. Churchill "The Last Lion: Alone" Volume II analyzes the perfidy of both the appeasers and Hitler which only staved off the inevitable and gave Hitler time to hone his Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. He quoted the above but changed the venue of Conway from China's soil to English soil. And suggests if Hitler had stumbled onto Shangri-la the Tibetans would be clearly treated as non-Aryans. Macabre.

reply

[–] circus_mort 18 years ago

I would agree with you. The stills were distracting and the additional material slowed down the pace of the film. The cut of the 1940s re-release is actually superior to Capra's cut of the film.

“Ian Paisley is one of the best agents the I.R.A. ever had..”

reply

[–] drunkdaddyo69 18 years ago

it wasnt added footage !!!!
they were restoring the original. the films found were in such bad shape they couldnt fully restore, but they found a complete recording of the audio.
they didnt have original material(visual) so they showed stills during that time. there is NO ADDED FOOTAGE !!!!
life is short. Play.

reply

[–] mam13143 17 years ago

Good grief, either you mis-spoke or you are so mistaken. The original release did not have still pictures in it. I have a VHS of the original as do many other folks and there are no stills in it. What we hear is the edited cuts from the original (un-cut) movie, with stills to supplant the actual visuals. But the "original" movie was not made with stills.

The real shame is that today you can't get the original film release anymore (at least I haven't found it.)

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cee_64 16 years ago

No they didn't. You just aren't reading it correctly. We all know that they didn't use stills in the original. Some of the video from the original release has deteriorated to such a degree that they substituted still frames for it in the restored version to go along with the original audio tracks.

And the VHS release just left these scenes out due to their condition. That's why you don't see them in the VHS release.

What is so difficult to understand about that.

reply

[–] J. Spurlin 17 years ago

I could have done without the reconstruction of the scene with Thomas Mitchell and Edward Everett Horton: the one that is just a series of stills. That scene is confusing and doesn't add much to the story or the themes.

The other scenes that are made up of stills were worth watching. One hopes the original footage will turn up somewhere.

... Justin

reply

[–] FinnurE 17 years ago

I also hated the way the missing scenes were included with stills. It's very annoying in the middle of the film, and should have been used as added value material on the DVD instead. The scenes are also mostly unnecessary to the plot.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5184666

reply

[–] jquirk-1 17 years ago

Is there a way to see this movie without the stills? Every time I saw it, it was the restored version. I'm interested in seeing it without the stills. I agree with the one who initiated this thread. It is distracting. If the full lost sequences were available, that would be great. But the scenes are lost. The restored dialogue coupled with stills should be an optional way of viewing the film.

Put it this way — if all that existed of the lost spider sequence in "King Kong" was dialogue/sound effects, I would hate to see somebody try to incorporate it into the film with still images, unless it was a DVD option to watch it like that. Of course, none of the famous spider scene exists.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bjnevin 17 years ago

I wish it was possible to remove the audio footage as it is quite distracting.

reply

[–] ebright99 16 years ago

I can't believe that many of you are complaining about the decades of effort that has gone into restoring this film.

Many of you are complaining that the scenes that are reconstructed using the original soundtrack, and the substitution of stills for footage that has been lost, should have been left out.

What needs to be understood is that these scenes with stills are not elongations being done years later; they are restorations. It IS NOT the reinsertion of footage cut before release. It is the restoration of footage that was cut years later as the film was shortened for re-release and television.

That missing footage, that WAS MEANT TO BE IN THE FILM, was lost many years ago. Since it has been lost, restorers have substituted stills. Thankfully the original soundtrack exists, so we can at least HEAR the original audio of the lost bits.

Again, I repeat, this is not an elongation, this is not some foolish effort to include cut footage that was never part of the film. This is an effort to reproduce as close as possible, the ORIGINAL VERSION of Lost Horizon AS IT PREMIERED in 1937.

Those of you who have tapes of a version from TV that do not contain the stills, you are free to enjoy them, but they do not represent the complete version of the film. Your tape is a version that was cut and shortened. The restoration is for people who want to see the complete film.

reply

[–] jquirk-1 16 years ago

Oh.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FinnurE 16 years ago

The restoration is for people who want to see the complete film.

But you aren't seeing the complete film. The film was not seen originally with stills instead of actual scenes. The fact that the scenes were deleted is unfortunate, but until they're found in complete form, I prefer them to be left out instead of seeing an attempted reconstruction using only the soundtrack of the scenes and some stills.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5184666

reply

[–] rocketXpert 16 years ago

I agree to a certain extent that the still footage is kind of weird and distracting, but I'm happy to have the most complete version possible. Assuming they never find the lost footage, hopefully they'll find a less jarring solution in the future. I can see technology reaching a point where they'll probably even be able to recreate the scenes digitally, or perhaps through some combination of CGI and live action footage.

reply

[–] ebright99 16 years ago

FinnurE,
Sorry, but people should see the most complete version of a film, and if it is lost, then the closest approximation to the complete version. The current restoration offers the closest approximation of the complete version that is in existance on the planet. It's the closest thing we have to the way the film premiered in 1937. Your preference for something less is odd and frankly wrong.

reply

[–] drystyx 10 years ago

The stills with Mitchell and his fall guy were the only ones I was okay with. They tended to act as a vehicle for showing the change that came over the other character in an artistic fashion.

However, I think the other stills would have been better served by cut away shots to scenery, even if it meant scenery not in the original, or in the case of the high lama with the hero, flashbacks to some of the turmoil which they spoke of.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

reply

[–] cliffcarson-1 16 years ago

Missing footage with still photographs take you out of the story. They are very distracting. Particularly when the sequence plays on for minutes at a time the way it does in LOST HORIZON. If the original scene cannot be found, then leave it out. The same thing was done with A STAR IS BORN and it ruined that picture. It breaks up the flow and makes the film seem choppy and incomplete. The direct opposite of what it is intended to do, it does. And yes, the studio version can be cleaner and tighter than the director's cut.

reply

[–] ebright99 16 years ago

In the case of both LOST HORIZON and A STAR IS BORN we aren't talking about a "studio version" or a "director's cut". Both films were cut months, and in some cases years, after they premiered so that they could be shorter and play as a double bill with another film. They didn't cut it so they could market it as a "studio version". They didn't cut it because they thought it played better or was tighter. They cut it for purely commercial reasons during the time the film was in the secondary market (re-release, television, home video). They were then further cut down in order to be played on television. The careless and negligent film studio threw away the cut footage because they felt it had no value. It is lost for all time. Film historians have been forced to substitute stills in order to give modern audiences some approximation of what the film was originally meant to be.

There IS an audience out there that wants to see these films as closely as possible to how they premiered. There IS an audience for restorations that utilize stills to substitute for lost footage. Personally I think people with your opinion should keep it to themselves, or else studios might listen to you and stop allowing important restoration work to continue.

It's like you don't want the complete version to be available, what a strange position to take. I understand you'd like the option to watch it with or without the stills, but it also sounds like in the absence of that, you would like only the unrestored version to be available.

reply

[–] cliffcarson-1 16 years ago

LOST HORIZON has been restored with additional scenes, 35mm and 16mm. Great, I'm all for restoration. However, in the case of many of these films, I feel the DVD should give the viewer an option. With "audio accompanied with production stills" or without.

The reason being . . . . film has a constant flow that can cast a hypnotic spell over an audience and leave them thinking about that movie for days. I am all for restoring a film back to it's original origins and having that as an option. However, I'm also thinking about the film and the importance of it finding a new generation of viewers. In the case of LOST HORIZON, I would like first time viewers to have the opportunity of experiencing the film and and getting "lost" in it (no pun intended) without too many stop and start interruptions that take one out of the story. Whether you want to admit it or not, stop and starting with audio accompanied with production stills does change the flow of a film lush changing the way one experiences it. The involvement is shifted. It can also make all the difference in how much a person loves and gets attached to a film, thus extending it's popularity and it's statue. LOST HORIZON is blessed with having a great director having directed it and a major studio behind it.

I'm the first one that wants to see a film with all it's missing scenes and whatever material that can be restored, audio and production stills . . . whatever it may be, anything and everything. HOWEVER, after repeated viewings of LOST HORIZON with it's audio accompanied with production stills, I wish there was an alternate version with just the film and it's restored scenes. I have turned many a person onto LOST HORIZON and each time when the film stops to show audio with production stills they have commented on it in some way and been interrupted somehow, thus depriving them of getting involved in the film the way they should. Most people are not connoisseur's of film or a purist like yourself. When they watch LOST HORIZON and the audio accompanied with production stills comes up, the first time it happens is okay, the 2nd time it occurs, alright. By the 3rd and 4th time, they're thinking, "not again, do we have to stop and do this again?" Like it or not, that's the way most people are.

The DVD of LOST HORIZON is great as a reminder of film not being as permanent as everyone thought and the importance of restoration for all movies. I'm all for it.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bodryn 15 years ago

People can say pacifism is "naif" and doesn't work, but then how does one explain the astounding success of Mahatma Gandhi in India in the 1940s?? I suppose this could go over some people's heads...

reply

[–] efs2 15 years ago

I think a key factor there is that Gandhi was dealing with the British at the end of their empire. Whatever can be said about how badly the Brits treated their foreign subjects - and much can be said - by the time Gandhi came along, that thinking was evolving into something more enlightened.

In contrast, there are many for whom that level of enlightenment is still a long way off. So as much as I support peaceful resolution of disputes and peaceful co-existence, I recognize that as a tactic against some tyrants, pacifism will not achieve peace but rather enslavement.

Oh, how I wish I could believe or understand that.

reply

[–] spirit_30 15 years ago

I thought the missing footage added a great deal to the story ... especially the commentary that discuss how the movie was originally suppose to open at the foreign secretary's office saying Conway was found alive ... and he had no memory of what happen the last year ... and how he regain his memory while on the ship home. He started to tell his friends what happen then it goes back to where the dvd began in Baskui. After he passes out at the mission they go back to him telling his friends what happen ... then he jumped ship to get back after they lock him in is room. The still shot they used during that commentary were very helpful ... So I enjoyed the still shot to fill in the missing pieces ... they done it with other films too like "A Star is Born"

reply