london after midnight found?

[Big Bad Wolf]

Look peeps...if the film is ever found, it won't go unnoticed. The sheer weight of the entire nerd community fainting simultaneously will cause an earthquake not seen since the birth of Godzilla. That's headline news there.



Then the internet will explode with reviews of "This movie sucked. Can't believe I waited 150 years for this. 1/2 star."

Let it live on in the arena of our minds,lol.

I'm surprised its legendary status hasn't been mined for a film yet. I could see a Shadow of the Vampire type of film that adds a supernatural twist to the film's disappearance. Perhaps the main character is trying to track it down and catches the attention of the real vampire who wants it to stay missing.

At this point I think you have the right idea, though. The legend of the film is almost more significant than the film itself at this point. If we actually found it, the mystique is gone and it becomes just another silent horror film that's ignored because it's silent. London After Midnight may be gone but it's not forgotten. How many silent films do we still have that arguably have been mostly forgotten anyway?

[Mike Scott]

Then the internet will explode with reviews of "This movie sucked. Can't believe I waited 150 years for this. 1/2 star."

Anyone who has seen MARK OF THE VAMPIRE kinda knows what they are in for.

[Mord]

If you love it, let it go.

[BRICK]

I remember seeing a documentary segment that showed for a while in the 1920's, when they copyrighted a film, studios made a paper contact print of the movie to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, along with a synopsis of the film. Film historians were finding and restoring several "lost" films this way. I always wondered if London After Midnight was submitted in this fashion.

[Mike Scott]

I always wondered if London After Midnight was submitted in this fashion.

I think that would have been the first place people would have looked, but they stopped making the paper prints in 1912.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_print

[LugosiFan25]

I agree with the others. The legend of London After Midnight is probably more enjoyable than the actual film itself. Plus we still have the magnificent Chaney makeup that will live on forever.

[marsattacks666]

NEVER....going to  happen.

[BRICK]

I think that would have been the first place people would have looked, but they stopped making the paper prints in 1912.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_print

Yeah, I looked it up, you're right. My memory is a little fuzzy about this after 30 years. I did think at the time that maybe the 1910 version of Frankenstein was saved this way.

[BRICK]

It still boggles my mind that London After Midnight is a lost film! I know all about purging silent movies when they switched over to talkies and about flammable acetate stock. But this was a major Hollywood studio and a major star (and director) at the height of his career. It received worldwide distribution and at least one copy survived until the late 1960's, well after the monster craze and 8mm/16mm home movie business had begun. It is just strange!

[ChristineBCW]

I have leaned towards the camp that argues, "It wasn't very good, was almost never reshown anywhere because no one liked it.  The demand for extra prints was never there, like so many other films.  It just wasn't very good."

As if, now, "GOOD FILM" has any relevancy to our quest. 

"Oh jeez, no, that Lost City wasn't so great... just a few buildings.  A small market.  Dry-cleaners.  Hardware store.  Saloon.  Basically, an intersection of gold.  Not much to see.  Forget it."

"Forget it... no one's interested in the unfinished Beatles 1979 Reunion Album.  They were all sick with the flu.  It's, like, 19 hours of puking.  I'll never be convinced that 28 minutes of puking and flushing can be called Revolution Ten."

"Oh, don't bother with THAT chalise... it's more like Christ's leftover iced-tea or something.  It's not the Good One."

[BRICK]

I have leaned towards the camp that argues, "It wasn't very good, was almost never reshown anywhere because no one liked it.  The demand for extra prints was never there, like so many other films.  It just wasn't very good."

As if, now, "GOOD FILM" has any relevancy to our quest. 

And we all know that Hollywood has never, EVER produced, released or marketed a BAD film before!

[Mike Scott]

I have leaned towards the camp that argues, "It just wasn't very good."

Then, why do a remake?

[Pat]

I'm wondering if there wasn't a made for TV documentary in the 50s or 60s that used a snippet from the film that might be sitting on s shelf some where.

[ChristineBCW]

Then, why do a remake?

ha ha... yes, "Money" is never a reason for any remake. 

But, let's return to the actual context of the "not so good" campers: the question they answer is, "Why aren't there plenty of prints of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT, like other films'?" 

I think we should marvel that there haven't been many remakes of this classic since then. 

[Mike Scott]

I'm wondering if there wasn't a made for TV documentary in the 50s or 60s that used a snippet from the film that might be sitting on s shelf some where.

Found it!
https://youtu.be/aFk36pizlcM