A Star Is Born - "mystery collector" revealed- Page 2

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/28/10 at 12:20am

Who knows -if this petition works maybe the same collector has a complete print of THE ROGUE SONG or the missing last reel of GOOD NEWS. Maybe the lost Laurel and Hardy short HATS OFF or the long missing 1930 film of NO! NO!! NANETTE.....


Ok, seriously. IF a collector has this material this attempt to force it out of him may well just push it further into his closet.

Ron Hoover did a pretty thorough search and he reassembled all that he found. I too would love to see Cukor's original director's cut, but the Haver restoration at least put back the missing musical numbers. It is really just a few moments of the dramatic scenes that are missing.

[marknyc]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 7:45pm

Just got confirmation that it arrived, with over 1,000 signatures:

Your item was delivered at 1:55 pm on August 02, 2010 in SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91423.

Here's the cover letter:

Dear Mr. Arick,

As you may have heard, sources on the internet have named you as the long-rumored “mystery collector” who has perhaps the only complete remaining print of George Cukor’s 1954 film, A Star Is Born. One poster states that he personally viewed your print at a private screening some years ago.

Is this true? If so, film buffs and Judy Garland fans from around the world would like to do whatever we can to assist in getting the complete print restored and made available. If you have the time to read some of the comments in the enclosed petition – containing over 1,000 signatures – you’ll see that there is still considerable passion for this film and interest in seeing it restored to its original state.

I understand there were plans for Roddy McDowall to act as a go-between you and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but that these ended with his death. Although you don't know me, I speak for a large group of Judy Garland fans, some with connections in the industry. Is there anything we could do to help toward restoring the long-lost missing scenes of this classic film?

Thanks for preserving this classic for so many years, and we hope you agree it is finally time to let the public see it. There are many thousands of fans awaiting your response. We stand ready to help!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/shareasib

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 8:15pm

I still think this is Much Ado About Bullcrap.

I didn't sign the petition because I think it just makes him feel like a VIP.

[marknyc]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 8:47pm

I don't care how it makes him feel. If there's a possibility he has a complete print, someone has to find out. This is at least a first step.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 10:36pm

Those of us who did sign it who are fans of Garland and this film were more focused on trying to at least get this going if in fact Mr. Arick has the print in his possession and not if it was going to "make him feel that he was a VIP".

I agree with marknyc. At least it's a first step.
Updated On: 8/3/10 at 10:36 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 3:24am

I think BrodyFosse123 is Michael Arick.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 2:50pm

If that were the case, I would sign the petition.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 8:33pm

"Because there was absolutely no use for them - no TV, no DVDs, nothing. As far as they were concerned, the film was done and would never be revised or expanded. So holding onto outtakes just didn't make sense. They were held for awhile but then trashed to save money and space.'

The sequence was cut for good reason by the MGM honchos---it stopped the film dead in its tracks and was unnecessary. Secondly, unlike today, that era of Hollywood film making was profligate, life-affirming and brilliant in its talent. So one idea didn't work, another one would come along to take its place. In that sense, it was very much like Broadway of its period. Be glad that The Wizard of Oz exists as it does---you won't see the likes of it again.





Updated On: 8/7/13 at 08:33 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 8:45pm

Updated On: 8/3/10 at 08:45 PM

[marknyc]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 12:54am

"The sequence was cut for good reason by the MGM honchos---it stopped the film dead in its tracks and was unnecessary."

No, all the cuts (which included much more than the sequence after Esther first meets Norman) were made (by Warner Bros, not MGM) only because theater owners wanted to get in more screenings. If they had wanted to tighten the film, they could have done that but instead they just chopped out long sections and musical numbers. It was butchered.

Updated On: 8/5/10 at 12:54 AM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 1:25am

^
I believe EnchantedHunter was referring to the cuts made to The Wizard of Oz, not A Star Is Born.

[WestwardHoHo]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 2:06am

The Enchanted Hunter is a constipated, insufferable twit.
More prune juice for you, Grandpa....

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 8:53am

A bit of a story here, for anyone interested ...

My grandfather was a top executive at Warner Bros. for 30 years, and during the era of "A Star Is Born," you'd be hard pressed to find anyone there higher up in the executive ranks who didn't have the last name "Warner." He was Jack's right-hand man for production, as well as heading up the NY office (the $$$) with Albert Warner (Chairman of the Board), as the Exec. VP and Treasurer. I say this because I do have some inside info on what went down with this movie. Granted, it's second-hand info, but it's not something I read in a book.

This movie was special, in that it basically was a one-picture deal with Garland and Luft in the hope of doing more films, naturally. It was to be Judy's big, triumphant return to the screen after "leaving" MGM and doing concerts, etc. Their deal was a sweet one. Judy and Sid got a lot of creative control, including hiring of cast and director. When the "final cut" of the movie screened for the executives, everyone seemed to love it, except Jack Warner (VP in charge of Production).

My grandfather (VP Treasurer), Harry Warner (President) and others agreed that it was ready to go. Jack didn't like that. He felt he was losing creative control of not just this film but the entire studio. He had been in an ongoing fight with his brother Harry for years, and now that the "studio system" was breaking up everywhere in Hollywood, he wasn't a happy guy. He made lots of rumblings about "A Star Is Born" being too long and ponderous, and, with all the delays and added expenses during production, it would never recoup or turn a profit. But the print was "locked" and had gone into distribution (another arm of the studio my grandfather helmed).

During production, my grandparents had become friendly with Garland and Luft. And they were both very concerned by Jack Warner's "threats" to cut the film down. My grandfather assured them not to worry. The print had been approved by everyone at the studio, including Jack and Harry.

Well, of course, you know the rest. Very shortly after the film was released, it was pulled from distribution. Jack used some of the reviews, which had been mixed to favorable but called the film "long," as proof that he was right. He ordered the movie to be cut down, and all of the excised footage destroyed. And no, it was not common in 1955 to burn every last existing print of a film that had already gone out for distribution. Jack was mad, primarily at his brother Harry. He wanted to show "the President" of Warner Bros. that he still was "creatively in charge" of the studio. No one else. No outside producer or committee of executives.

So, while my grandfather, the supposed right-hand man to Jack Warner, is telling Sid and Judy they have nothing to worry about, Jack is butchering the film and sending it back out to the theatres behind all of their backs. He made my grandfather feel like a liar and a fool.

The repercussions were terrible behind the scenes. This was the straw that broke the camel's back between Jack and Harry. After a huge end-all fight, they never spoke to each other again. Ever. It was that bad.

My grandparents sailed to the UK with Sid and Judy and spent time with them in London. The trust between Jack and my grandfather was permanently damaged as well. And not long after this, my grandfather turned in his notice (after 30 years). It was a mutual parting of ways. Jack was furious at him for "siding" with Sid, Judy, and his brother Harry.

He got his gold watch from Jack after many years of devoted service. I actually wear it now, and have worn it since it was passed on to me. But Jack didn't have it engraved. There was nothing more to say between them.

So I have a strange reaction to this movie. I'd love to see the full version that everyone (but Jack) seemed extremely proud of. At the same time, I know this is the film that ultimately pushed my own grandfather out of the studio, and it forged a permanent wall between Harry and Jack Warner.

All of this so Jack could show them "who was in charge." So the cuts to the print were made for very personal reasons. It was not just a business decision. And it was made without the knowledge of many of top executives as well as Judy and Sid who supposedly had a lot of creative control over this project. Jack had to have his way. And he butchered the film to prove his point, had the footage immediately burned so it could never be reinstated, and started the final breakup of the studio known as Warner Bros.

Fun story! Yeah ... right.

[marknyc]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 5:56pm

Thanks for a great story. Do you really think Jack ordered >all< the prints destroyed, or was that just due to the lack of preservation in those days?

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 6:32pm

He ordered all the excised footage destroyed. That order would have been sent to Distribution, and they would have carried out his wishes. But I'm sure he didn't personally oversee each and every print coming in, so it is possible that a print or two remained intact. I'm sure Jack was VERY clear about "each and every" print being accounted for. And if one had slipped through the cracks, whoever had been responsible in distribution could have found himself looking for a new job. It would have been risky, but not impossible.

Remember, the film was already out in the major cities. So the prints all had to be called back to the studio, edited down, and sent back out to the theatres. Very painful, and all done on a super rushed schedule, no doubt.

This is not the same thing as when films were previewed in a single theatre (as most of them were back then), and edited (as needed) afterward. It was standard practice to destroy or "archive," meaning throw any unused footage in a bottomless pit of a warehouse with other bits of celluloid. They would do that with whatever ended up on the cutting room floor after a certain period of time when the film was finally considered "locked." Then the prints were made from the final, approved master.

A Star Is Born WAS locked at the longer length. The film was already out and running in theatres when Jack called it back to be edited down. That's the other sneaky thing ... he obviously had to work "secretly" with an editor to make the cuts to his liking. None of the other execs knew about it. It was all done by Jack behind their backs.

So, just to clarify, there definitely was a "lack of preservation," as you say, back then. But that had more to do with deleted or extended scenes, musical numbers, etc. ending up in an incinerator somewhere.

This was a case where the master had been used to strike multiple prints, and each print had to be "recalled" and re-edited. Immediately destroying all of the excised footage would not have been considered a common practice for something like that. But Jack specifically did it to make sure Harry wouldn't order it to be put back in. And Harry was the President of Warner Bros. Jack was VP in charge of production. Harry was still his boss. Albert Warner was the "NY boss," and the chairman of the board.

Brothers in business together ... scary dynamics.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 6:46pm

That's an amazing story, besty. Amazing.

I believe the footage is out there. But I do not believe Arick has it.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 7:53pm

Wow. How much of that "second-hand" information has been told to archivists, historians, and biographers?

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 8:51pm

I love the story!

He made lots of rumblings about "A Star Is Born" being too long and ponderous,

He was right. It still is! Too bad he didn't feel the same way about his too long and ponderous, My Fair Lady.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 8/7/10 at 5:35am

Wow. No doubt Jack Warner was a miserable ****but sadly, it's so much worse now. The studios are run be miserable talentless pricks. No matter how awful, petty and vindictive those guys were, the old time studio heads actually cared passionately about the films they made. Today, the execs could be making suppositories, for all they care. Sadly, it's all about the money.

I'd rather be screwed by Jark W or Louis B or Harry C than be screwed by the guys who are screwing us today.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/7/10 at 8:56am

Glad you guys are enjoying the info. I debated launching into the whole thing for a few days. Sometimes, it's weird to talk about it, but I figured "what the hell," right?

I would actually think a good chunk of this info is fairly known, at least for those hardcore historians (as you say, Capn) who are into all the behind-the-scenes studio politics. I doubt my grandfather's perspective on it is well known, though. Most people know that the prints were recalled and the footage destroyed without Sid & Judy's knowledge or approval. And that Jack and Harry had a huge fight as a result.

I will add one more thing ... it wasn't unheard of for all the major studios to call back their prints and cut them down for release in the smaller markets. For one of the reasons Jack actually did it: to add more showings and make more money. It didn't happen often, but it did happen.

For instance (and it's a cringe-worthy example), MGM used to call back any prints that played in the smaller southern markets featuring Lena Horne in specialty numbers. Movies like "Words and Music," "Ziegfeld Follies" or "Thousands Cheer" would have her numbers removed before these "largely white entertainments" were sent down south.

Other films with long running times were "tightened" to add more show times into each day. So there was a precedence in place at Warners to call in the "Star Is Born" prints, make the cuts, and send them back out again.

What was unusual was immediately burning and/or destroying the edited footage. Actually, it was fairly unheard of to do that. In most cases, the edited versions were considered only as "B market" prints. So the master wasn't tampered with, and the footage was saved in case one of the markets needed the longer print again. But Jack was hell-bent on Harry not stepping in to usurp his authority. So he made sure those cuts were permanent on all the existing prints and the master.

The other unusual part was that it was done so quickly after the film's initial release. Just a matter of a couple of weeks (if that), before Jack was already making these "global" and permanent changes to the film. And again, he did it without any of the execs (or Judy and Sid's) knowledge.

Updated On: 8/7/10 at 08:56 AM

[marknyc]

Posted: 8/11/10 at 6:29pm

Ronald Haver's book, "A Star Is Born: The Making of the 1954 Movie and Its 1983 Restoration" directly contradicts almost everything best12bars has written:

This was the major criticism that was leveled at the film everywhere: it was too long, and the story was constantly being interrupted for too many lengthy musical numbers, especially in the second half. Exhibitors were complaining to [head of distribution] Ben Kalmenson about this; even Variety, the show-business barometer, while commenting on the tremendous business the picture was doing in its initial week, observed that "the tremendous length of pic is murder to the turnover."

Kalmenson, armed with reviews criticizing the picture's length and with complaints from exhibitors, made a strong case to Harry Warner that if the picture were shortened, they could make even more money. In its first week, the picture was outgrossing just about every other picture in release. The second week saw a slight falling off in attendance; at several first-run theaters, prices were dropped and schedules were revamped so that the last show started at nine instead of ten. Unfortunately, there still was no "prime time" screening at seven-thirty or eight, and once again a chorus of complaints went up about the length.

Finally, Harry Warner ordered Jack to shorten the film as quickly and efficiently as possible; editor Folmar Blangsted's cutting notes indicate that there had been discussion abut this within the first few days after the Los Angeles opening.

Just exactly why the picture was cut as it was is very simple when you consider that both Harry and Jack Warner wanted the picture shortened as quickly and as economically as possible. This meant no meticulous recutting, no rerecording, no making of new prints. Instead, the picture was to be trimmed by lifting out whole reels, or portions thereof.

This was done in utmost secrecy, as Jack Warner was still not entirely convinced that the picture would work with the cuts. Blangsted worked from a finished print, completing all deletions and changes within a week and after this new version was screened for Warner, he wrote to Kalmenson, "We have eliminated 27 minutes . . . [and I] am certain we have lost none of the values . . . in fact we have gained a lot by sharpening the story line and eliminating any 'sore fanny’ restlessness. We are sneaking this 'shorter version' at the Pantages tomorrow night [Sunday]."

The picture was generally released in the shorter version in mid-January 1955. The existing full-length prints were shortened at the various Warner Bros. film offices around the country as per detailed instructions from the studio's editorial department in Burbank. The cut material was shipped back to the studio, and the long version, for all practical purpose, ceased to exist. Even the studio print was cut to conform to this new length. Over the next months this version of "A Star Is Born" did fair business; as it wended its way down the theatrical release ladder, the sales department added another $2 million to the picture’s gross, bringing its total to iust over $4.3 million for the first six months of its release.

Over the years, many people have insisted that one of the reasons "A Star Is Born" was mutilated was because Jack Warner wanted to "get back" at Garland and Luft for causing him so much personal and financial trouble with the film. This is nonsense - Warner, as we have seen, was ordered to cut the film by his brother Harry; he put up a good fight to maintain the integrity of Cukor's work but finally had to back down when faced with the intractability of his brother and of Ben Kalmenson.

The only thing Jack Warner can be faulted on was not keeping a full-length version of the film for archival purposes. Even the studio print, the last existing "long version," was cut to conform to the 154-minute edition, as was the master negative; and the footage cut from this print and from all the prints playing around the country was sent back to the studio and put through a silver reclamation process.




Updated On: 8/11/10 at 06:29 PM

[bk]

Posted: 8/11/10 at 7:56pm

Let's be clear: Mr. Arick has nothing. He may have a print of the short version, but beyond that he is one of these people who live in Fantasyland and who enjoy letting other people think he has stuff he doesn't. No one, especially joe caporiccio (who outed him) has seen such a print - Joe also lives in Fantasyland - but he's seen nothing because there is nothing to see. I'm sure, however, Mr. Arick got a kick out of the petition.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/11/10 at 7:58pm

Hey, I didn't read about it in a book, as I said before. I only know what I was told by the people who were actually there.

You decide.

Updated On: 8/11/10 at 07:58 PM

[marknyc]

Posted: 8/11/10 at 8:26pm

Haver certainly interviewed many people who were also actually there. And it's interesting that he came up with a completely opposite story.

As to Arick, I'm 99% certain he doesn't have a complete print. But if there is even a 1% chance that he does, we have to pursue it.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/11/10 at 9:30pm

Yes, and people being interviewed never lie, especially when it comes to sticking to the company line. Haver had a book to sell. What possible reason would best12 (or his grandfather) have to create this story? Given that the stories are opposed, I'm more inclined than ever to believe Best's version (not that I ever doubted it to begin with).