Talk:Frankenstein (1910 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Alois Dettlaff

This is an article about the film Frankenstein, not an article about Alois Dettlaff. Even if it were an article about Dettlaff, unsouced allegations like that would not be sustainable in an encyclopedia. - Walloon 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Detlaff's behavior, and actions are more than relevant to the current condition of the film, and the fact that he refused to allow a proper restoration of the film, and kept it from being widely seen is important. Your comment that "This is an article about the film Frankenstein, not an article about Alois Dettlaff" Is comporable to writing an article about the Iraqi War but not giving significant mention to Saddam Hussein. — 67.90.32.66 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You supply no sources for your allegations about Dettlaff (note correct spelling). What his house was like, and how he died, are irrelevant to an article about the film Frankenstein. His copyright claim was based on the music score and titles he commissioned for the home video release. He had the George Eastman House, one of the leading film preservation labs, make a color 35 mm negative from the original tinted nitrate print in 1978. Besides the "mom and pop video store" you mention, several Web retailers (e.g., Creepy Classics) also sold the DVD — a thousand copies were made and sold. And you are incorrect that "he had been dead for over a month before his body was discovered." He died on 26 July 2005 (according to his death certificate), and his relatives submitted his newspaper obituary two and a half weeks later. — Walloon 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I wonder where the poster obtained his information from. — 4.159.20.84 22:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but for all your protestations the current condition of the film is the direct result of Detlaff's behavior, and as such is relevant to the discussion.

As for your foolish query " concur. I wonder where the poster obtained his information from."

Try this link http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/4781365/detail.html

Which mentions his "badly decomposed body" and that his daughter hadn't seen him "in some time"

and finally "Police said he had been dead for about a month."

That is where this poster obtained his information! — Yakofujimato 23:08, 8 September 2006

Unless you know the condition of the film at the time Alois Dettlaff bought it in the 1950s, how would you know whether "the current condition of the film is the direct result of Detlaff's behavior"? — Walloon 23:29, 8 September 2006

Because Waloon, he himself stated that the only maintenance he performed on the print was a yearly hand cranked unspooling to prevent the print from becoming gummy and essentially destroyed. For this Detlaff, a trained projectionist, deserves some credit, as this surely saved the print from total destruction. However, the early nitrate prints of that era are gone and deserved special care. Two thirds of all films made before 1928 are lost forever. Even if his initial print was printed on safety stock, twenty plus years of neglect, other than the previously mentioned yearly despooling cause portions of the film to crack, warp and fade. Detlaff kept his films, and he had other rare films, in his home stacked and in old boxs and rusted tins. None of his films were kept in an appropriate tempature controlled enviorment. Detlaff obtained his print in the early 1950s, and a new prreservation print was not struck until he was convinced to do so in the late 1970s. That meant that twenty plus years of improper storage naturally took it's toll. Even the safety print was struck in sub-standard conditions. Had old Alois allowed UCLA , or another entity, to do a proper restoration, we eould at least be allowed to see an improved print. Even if the Detlaff print is given a restoration now, it will never be as good as would be possible had a proper preservation print been struck earlier. So to answer you question, I do not know the exact condition the print was in when AD recieved it in trade, I can say in all certainty that the picture quality twenty + years later was of a lesser quality. I cant fault AD for his actions before he knew of the films rarity, but his actions afterwards were hardly the actions of a film preservationist, and to call him such is a joke. Not allowing a proper preservation print to be struck in the 1970s would have to be defined as AD's actions or inactions. Why are you so interested in defending him? Was he a family member? Yakofujimato

You wrote, "his actions afterwards were hardly the actions of a film preservationist, and to call him such is a joke." Now there's a strawman argument. Where or when did anyone call him a "film preservationist"? He was a film collector, plain and simple. And where do you get the idea that the safety print was "struck in sub-standard conditions"? It was done by Eastman House, one of the top film preservation centers in the country. Dettlaff didn't know the rarity of the film until the 1970s, and when he learned it, he had Eastman House make a safety copy.

The fact is, you don't know whether or not the film suffered deterioration after Dettlaff acquired it, and you should admit it. You don't know whether "twenty plus years of improper storage naturally took it's [sic] toll," but you're pretending that you do. The film may have been affected, or it may have not been affected at all. As an example, a nitrate print of Richard III (1912), one of the first American features, was recently discovered in near mint condition. It was kept by a collector in the basement of his home for thirty years, with no special storage conditions, other than, like Dettlaff, he periodically rewound it.[1]

I never met Dettlaff, but he was the friend of two people I know. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have the film at all. In any case, this isn't an article about Al Dettlaff (two t's, two f's). — Walloon (two l's) 04:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You stated that the aforementioned 'Richard III' was found in mint condition, and that it had been stored in a basement for roughly thirty years. It should be obvious that a basement would usually be a better place to store a film depending on various factors. If this basement was/is a cool, dry place then it may have worked well as a defacto vault for the film-of course this is speculation, but it is a distinct possibility. Dettlaff, by his own admission-as well as the accounts of various vistors to his home, store his films in various places in his home: bookshelfs, tables, as smaller seperate room, and so on. Unlike the other collector, who stored the film in a basement, which could reasonably be close to a tempature controlled enviorment, a small residential home in Wisconsin usually would be subject to various shifts in tempature. Winters in the mid-west can be very harsh, so we can reasonably assume that Detlaff and his family heated their homes in the winter. We can also reasonably conclude that the room tempature during the summers also varied, and that at some point (probably the 1970s) Detlaff, especially in his later years, had a working air conditioner. In short, between the early 1950s when the original print was recieved in trade, and the late 1970s when the rough preservation print was struck the film was stored inside a residence either in a tin, or in a cardboard container (Which, I do not now)and was subject to, we can reasonably surmise, variations in tempatures, dampness, possible tampering or handling by children, dropping, and other conditions many of which may not be comparable to continued storage in a basement where it was likely only handled during the yearly de-spooling. So Waloon, No I can't say that I was there as an eyewitness to the ongoing storage of the print in Detlaff's home, but use your common sense here! It's unlikely given all the possible variables involved that the print was in the same shape after twenty odd years of less than ideal storage. Beyond being unlikely, it is a mathematical improbability that the film was in the relativly same condition after two decades of improper storage. Your citing of the condition of the 'Richard III' print weakens your contention (I can't consider it a reasoned argument when your contention seems to be along the lines of "How do you know? Where you there?" rather than an objective look at what we know about the man in question, and his cavilier attitude about the films he collected-i.e. burning single frames of rare films in his pipe to show visitors that they did not go uo "that easily", his hermit like lifestyle, his belief that he would make a fortune off a short film in the public domain, and of interest to relatively few people, even those close to him who I have had contact with him charitably described him as "eccentric" and the reality of how film stored in certain conditions will be subject to damage.) Do you homestly believe that the film suffered no damage during the twenty plus years he was in possession of it before the safety was struck? Does that make sense to you? If you want this to be about proving me wrong, thats fine, but look at the circumstances by which this film was re-discovered. Do you honestly believe that the print we see now is in the shape it would been if a full restoration of it was undertaken 30 years ago? You seem to be reasonably intelligent, so I have a hard time thinking that you honestly feel Detlaff was the best person who could have been in possession of this film. I am not contending he was a bad person, just misguided, a bit greedy, and possibly a bit hypervigilant about "his film". Thank you- Yako Fujimato

Although he was only the friend of two friends, I have known since the mid-1970s that Al Dettlaff (two t's, two l's) owned the print of Frankenstein, and I saw frame enlargements of it at the time, and yes I can compare the quality then and now. I also know the person who helped curate Dettlaff's film collection. To put it brief, I can say you are wrong about all of the above. His nitrate films were kept in metal cans in the basement (most of his film collection was not nitrate). Kept in the basement, like the near-mint nitrate print of Richard III that was also stored in a basement for thirty years.

Likewise, Biograph Studio's nitrtate film negatives were kept in a warehouse without temperature control for thirty years or more before they were donated to the Museum of Modern Art in 1939. Curator Iris Barry wrote,

Thanks for the wonderful craftsmanship that characterized that firm's work, they were found to be in prime shape although they had been stored in a tumbledown building, with broken windows, that the Fire Department had condemned as a meance.

— Walloon 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (two l's)

My query was not foolish. I am well aware of the circumstances surrounding Dettlaff's death - even those which were not in the article you cited. His daughter called me with the news. You see, I am one of the people Walloon mentions. I was helping Dettlaff catalog his collection in the last two years of his life. Just prior, I had written an article on the film. While you are certainly entitled to ask questions, you did not know him. That's why I asked the question.

Some of what you cite above is certainly logical, but is nonetheless conjecture - and some things you mention - like stuffing his pipe with nitrate, undoubtedly came from a page on the web, rather than from any personal experience. Some things you added were not quite correct. he did not "try to sell it through a small mom and pop type video store". He WAS selling it out of his home, and a few of us were discussing national distribution schemes with him when he was hospitalized. (I drove him to the store you mention and he dropped off a case or two of the DVDs. If his family has since come to some deal with the store, I am unaware of it - but certainly possible.) Also he did not "hoard many rare silent films". How would you know this? Are you aware of what was in his collection? I am. He had a handful - no more, and that he had them was known to others. Because he was not well known, many assumed that he must have had many, many rare films. He didn't. He had published lists of his rareities for years, and there weren't that many. Most of the films in his collection were available elsewhere, but there were a handful that weren't. — 66.73.48.200 12:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If he was not trying to sell the DVD through the "Mom & Pop" venture I mentioned, they ('Creepy Classics') insist that they alone are the only authorized sellers of the DVD. No I did not know AL personally. I do however have it on fairly good authority that he did have an inflated view of the film's monetary value, and that he stored his films in less than ideal conditions. Since he is no longer with us and can not speak for himself, I will take your account as accurate. I have heard however, from someone closely aquainted with him, that he would go to local library on the weekend and use the internet, making sure that no one else was selling DVDs of 'Frankenstein 1910'. I must point out that as a matter of law, AD had no rights to the movie at all other than owning the score and packaging of his video release. The film itself is in the public domain and can be released by anyone. This is the one one fact AD couldn't stand to face, and did everything he could to hypervigilantly guard "his film". — Yakofujimato 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"I have heard from someone closely acquainted with him..." Oh? Al didn't know how to use the internet, and as such wouldn't do what you allege. Once again, it is all unsubstantiated.

As far as I know "Creepy Classics" has NEVER insisted that they were the only authorized DVD outlet. (I don't know that they even have anymore DVDs as they ran out some time ago.) Once again, your information is wrong. There is a store in Al's hometown of Cudahy, that is claiming ton be. They are called "Graveyard Records". They are the one that we dropped off a case or two of DVDs. They may have made a deal with the family to have more copies produced, and as such are selling them as you described. I've seen their ads, but haven't been there to check with them.

Everyone knows that the film is PD, but a number of others don't seem to understand that other elements in the release aren't. Folks have simply copied the entire thing, and have attempted to sell copies on eBay - lying about where they obtained the source material. I check every so often, just to see what's out there, and inquire. One told me that he had duped the film from a 16mm copy of the film, that he obtained from a film seller - who conveniently was going out of business. The business named knew nothing about it, and upon further investigation, it was found that he had simply duped the DVD. He was doing the same to other video releases (many non-PD), and his account has since been suspended by eBay. — 66.73.48.200 12:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks, how about signing your posts so we readers know who is talking to whom? The last three posts were unsigned, and only a search back through the history enabled me to add the correct signatures. A dash and four tildas will do it. Thanks. — Walloon 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone just stated, the film is in the public domain, but presumably replicating the Dettlaff DVD is a copyright violation in so so far as the artwork, the menu, and the music(I would guess ) are copyrighted. However that buyer could have legally used the Detlaff DVD as a master and added his own artwork and new music. He/She could also add their own intertitles. They would be able to sell the resulting DVD legally to whomever they wanted to and it would be totally legal. I don't understand why the eBay seller went through all the foolishness of claiming they had obtained a 16mm copy from a seller (??!!) The Detlaff version has been on gnutella, bit torrent, and Google Video for about a year (it's still up there free of charge in it's entirety). Detlaff's estate would have to sue Google Video, an undertaking that would incur at a tremendous cost to themselves, and the only valid claim they could possibly have, and the only clearly valid one, is that the original soundtrack is copyrighted. The odds are that even if they were successful the case would take years to reach the courts. eBay was just avoiding problems, they could have told Graveyard Records or Dettlaff to go to hell, the seller could have continued selling it with impunity. The MPAA will certainly not back up the estate based on a dead old man thought that he had the right to own the movie itself, despite the legal reality of it being in the public domain. And as for me being "wrong again" which is a favorite mantra of the who are too stupid to engage in a reasoned debate, the source of my information was 'Graveyard Records'. I stated that I was told that he used the internet. I never said that I knew that for fact, just that I was told that by a source close to him. Maybe he could use the internet, maybe he couldn't, maybe they lied to me, but don't question my integrity, I've cited sources everytime I have been challenged. I remember you said that the whole story about AD's body being found rotting in his house was nonsense and then i cited media reports stating just that. So Waloon why don't you read my posts next time. I didn't alledge anything, and my source is cited. I was told that Detlaff did in fact use the public library in his hometown on Saturdays to use the internet there. Were you with him every Saturday? I don't know that it's true, but I was told that. And I do no most people who I have talked to have said in essence that he was a bit of a hermit, a miser and an oddball. If you would like to contact me privately I will be happy to give you details about this. By the way, since there is so much dispute about Dettlaff's actions and his life, I went ahead and started a very sparse wiki page on him. Perhaps we could use that page to begin clarifying his story. The link is under Alois Dettlaff - Yakofujimato

Well, actually, you didn't specify sources, but that's another matter. Google has agreed to review the matter of the film's uploading there, but want need to hear from the estate. If you want to discuss this furtehr, I would suggest that you contact me. Nitelinger 00:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)