Jump to content
Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

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

Recommended Posts

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/2001/06/14/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://filmarchivedanieldteolijrarchivalcollection.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/gertie-the-grapefruit-girl-starring-virginia-ding-dong-bell/

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Wooden Camera



    Abel Cine



    Ritter Battery



    Tai Audio



    Glidecam



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Paralinx LLC



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Visual Products



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Metropolis Post



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Rig Wheels Passport



    CineLab



    Serious Gear


×
×
  • Create New...