Jump to content


Photo

Is this movie from 1927 or is it a modern phony?


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Other
  • Born in L.A....NYC is 2nd home...Rustbelt is home base.

Posted 26 January 2018 - 09:53 AM

I can't tell. In spots it looks like they forgot to add the dust.

nsfw

Contains nudity



What do you think?
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20072 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2018 - 11:14 AM

Looks like it was made recently. The style is correct but the actresses look modern and the iris in the opening transition was too sharp, they were done in camera back then so the edges were fuzzier. And I’m not sure wipe transitions were done this early (pre-1923-ish).
  • 0

#3 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1175 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 26 January 2018 - 12:02 PM

It's from 1927. The iris opening looks modern because the uploader put it there. The film actually starts earlier.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245903/
  • 0

#4 Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Other
  • Born in L.A....NYC is 2nd home...Rustbelt is home base.

Posted 26 January 2018 - 03:57 PM

Most people knowing something about film think it is a fake. But no one has come up with a name for the film but you. If it is a real 1927...you'd make a good detective!

Here, I looked it up for another version...


Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr., 26 January 2018 - 04:00 PM.

  • 0

#5 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1175 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 26 January 2018 - 04:13 PM

Most people knowing something about film think it is a fake. But no one has come up with a name for the film but you. If it is a real 1927...you'd make a good detective!
 

 

It was directed by a well known photographer of female nudity from the 20's. Here's what you need to know about him: https://www.salon.co.../06/14/allen_4/

 

He didn't have much more on his mind than female nudity.

 

This particular film was made pre-code. One of those harem girls can be seen in a Jack Benny film some ten years later.


  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20072 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2018 - 07:37 PM

Another reason it feels fake, even if it isn't, is the use of an open studio covered with muslin sheets to light the sets with sunlight -- by 1927, most movies had gone to artificial lighting, or mixed artificial and diffused daylight.  The lighting style here feels more early 1920's but maybe that's a budget issue.


  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20072 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2018 - 07:43 PM

Take a look at John Seitz' lighting in "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse", which was 1921:

tumblr_olna7syAnt1vl6o1po1_400.gif


  • 0

#8 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2252 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 27 January 2018 - 02:11 AM

Looks like it was made recently. The style is correct but the actresses look modern and the iris in the opening transition was too sharp, they were done in camera back then so the edges were fuzzier. And I’m not sure wipe transitions were done this early (pre-1923-ish).

Exactly. For one thing, the actresses are too skinny. Finding a 5 or so actresses today with convincingly pretty faces but with the plumper physique in favour in the 1920s would be a major ask, even for a big-budget production, so the fact that they look pretty much exactly like what you seen on TV and in the movies today is an obvious giveaway.
The hairstyles are also suspiciously modern. Screen actresses in the 1920s either wore their hair short with a severe Marcel perm, or if they had long hair it was usually tied up.

And on to a different sort of "hairstyle", I have seen a number of "vintage" silent porn flicks; I don't ever recall seeing any  featuring "Brazilian's"  :rolleyes:

The lighting looks exactly like someone using a modern studio light and trying to simulate a carbon arc in post. Arc lights didn't just flicker; the arc plasma tended to jump around, giving a characteristic "twitch" to the shadows. There's no sign of that.
 


  • 0

#9 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1175 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 27 January 2018 - 02:22 AM

Exactly. For one thing, the actresses are too skinny. Finding a 5 or so actresses today with convincingly pretty faces but with the plumper physique in favour in the 1920s would be a major ask, even for a big-budget production, so the fact that they look pretty much exactly like what you seen on TV and in the movies today is an obvious giveaway.
The hairstyles are also suspiciously modern. Screen actresses in the 1920s either wore their hair short with a severe Marcel perm, or if they had long hair it was usually tied up.

And on to a different sort of "hairstyle", I have seen a number of "vintage" silent porn flicks; I don't ever recall seeing any  featuring "Brazilian's"  :rolleyes:

The lighting looks exactly like someone using a modern studio light and trying to simulate a carbon arc in post. Arc lights didn't just flicker; the arc plasma tended to jump around, giving a characteristic "twitch" to the shadows. There's no sign of that.
 

 

 

Okay, well,  I've already explained who made this and when, but if you have doubts go find his photobooks on Amazon. Oh well, Keith can still laugh at the fact that Panavision "is losing money".


  • 0

#10 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5195 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 January 2018 - 07:04 AM

If you look at his still images online they do have extremely slender models in them.


  • 0

#11 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2665 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 27 January 2018 - 07:39 AM

 

 

Okay, well,  I've already explained who made this and when, but if you have doubts go find his photobooks on Amazon. Oh well, Keith can still laugh at the fact that Panavision "is losing money".

That piece does say "No Allen motion pictures were ever filmed." but it's dated 2001- the film could have come to light since. There was no Youtube in 2001.


  • 0

#12 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5195 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 January 2018 - 11:08 AM

There are references to a 1927 film called  "Forbidden daughters" on a number of web sites, of course that doesn't mean much without other evidence.


  • 0

#13 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1175 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 27 January 2018 - 02:22 PM

There are references to a 1927 film called  "Forbidden daughters" on a number of web sites, of course that doesn't mean much without other evidence.

 

I think that even if I didn't know about that film and its director from Ned Beatty's SEX AND BUTTERED POPCORN (1989) documentaries, I'd have known it was vintage due to the absence of hundreds of tattoos and piercings on the nude models. ;-)


  • 0

#14 Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Other
  • Born in L.A....NYC is 2nd home...Rustbelt is home base.

Posted 27 January 2018 - 06:45 PM

I think that even if I didn't know about that film and its director from Ned Beatty's SEX AND BUTTERED POPCORN (1989) documentaries, I'd have known it was vintage due to the absence of hundreds of tattoos and piercings on the nude models. ;-)


Yes, forgot about that, but people can use makeup. Anyone trying to make a phony can't have girls with tats in it.I did a large project on girls from the beat generation. Only 1 or 2 gals had little tats out of thousands. Now the girls got everything pierced...nipples, their privates, down their throat...Jesus what a metal mess!
 
I don't know if the imdb is always 100% either. I got a film called Gerite the Grapfruit Girl. The imdb has a listing for Gertie The Grapefruit Girl and Friends as 1969. This does not have the 'friends' at end, but it looks like 1950's more than 1969 to me.

nsfw

https://filmarchived...ding-dong-bell/

 

Really sad all this history is being lost from not that long ago.
 


  • 0

#15 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4080 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 January 2018 - 10:25 PM

It sure feels legit: 

 

1) Real photochemical titles (some obviously are digital inserts)

2) Not processed using modern conventional means (poor consistency) 

3) Hand crank camera

4) For sure shot on 35mm film, no way digital can replicate that look even with tons of effects. 

5) Humans have changed quite a bit since the 20's and finding a modern person to look like that, is hard. So the facial features, costumes, hair styles, etc... it all points to original work. 

 

Nobody would go through the headache it would be to do all of that photochemically AND perform a lousy film to video scan to boot! From my perspective, it's just a digitally altered "legit" film from around the 20's. 


  • 0


Visual Products

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Wooden Camera

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment