Throwback Thursday: The Professor’s First Treasure

Between this blog and my previous one, Professor Damian’s Public Domain Treasure Chest, I’ve been writing about movies for quite a while now. Because of that, there are a lot of posts that have simply gotten lost to the mists of time. So, I figured I’d use the idea of “Throwback Thursday” to spotlight some of those older posts, re-presenting them pretty much exactly as they first appeared except for updating links where necessary or possible, and doing just a bit of re-formatting to help them fit better into the style of this blog. Hope you enjoy these looks back. 

Okay, you’ll notice that in the intro I reference my previous blog, Professor Damian’s Public Domain Treasure Chest, and since we celebrated Public Domain Day yesterday, I thought it might bea good time to look back at the very first post that appeared on that blog, and if you’re expecting it to be some black and white creeper from the 20s, well, you may be surprised.

So here we go, from way back in February of 2010…

(Oh, and just to show how complicated all of this copyright/public domain business can be, I’m planning a follow-up post for Saturday on the current status of McLintock!.

Yes. For Saturday. “But what about the Saturday Double Feature?!”

Hey, I told you there were going to be some changes around here, didn’t i?

Anyway…)


 

Monday Oaters – McLintock! (1963) starring John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara

mc1Hello, kiddies! Or perhaps today I should say “Howdy, Pilgrims!” It’s your humble host Professor Damian with today’s offering from the public domain treasure chest, and we’re starting off with a great one!

In 1963, 13 years after they had first appeared together in the John Ford epic Rio Grande and 11 years after they both appeared in what may be Wayne’s greatest non-western movie, The Quiet Man, John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara came together once again to bring the story of The Taming of the Shrew to the wild west.

In the movie, Wayne plays George Washington McLintock, a cattle baron, mine owner, lumberyard boss, and generally the biggest man (physically and financially) in a town that has even been named after him. However, no matter how big McLintock may be, his biggest challenge may have just arrived on the morning train. No, it’s not a gunslinger come to challenge the rancher. Or even one of the new settlers who are intent on farming land given to them by the government. No, the true challenge to McLintock’s power (and his sanity) is his estranged wife, Katherine (O’Hara) who has just returned to town to meet up with their daughter, Becky, (Stephanie Powers) who is coming home from college. Katherine plans to take Becky east to start a new life, but McLintock is, shall we say, less than thrilled with the idea.

The sparks soon begin to fly, but the question soon becomes: will the two exes simply burn each other up, or are the sparks merely a prelude to renewed romantic fireworks?

The film definitely has its ups and downs. The chemistry between the two leads is immediately obvious, and they are backed by a supporting cast that not only includes Powers and Wayne’s son Patrick and daughter Aissa, but also the lovely Yvonne De Carlo (yes, Lily Munster herself), Jerry Van Dyke, Bruce Cabot, Strother Martin, and Chill Wills as Mclintock’s right hand man Drago.

The highlight of the movie has to be the oft highlighted “mud fight scene”, which begins with Drago trying to calm his boss down. “I know, I know. I’m gonna use good judgement,” Mclintock says through gritted teeth. “I haven’t lost my temper in forty years, but pilgrim you caused a lot of trouble this morning, might have got somebody killed… and somebody oughta belt you in the mouth. But I won’t.” He begins to turn away. “I won’t… The HELL I won’t!”

mc2And with that he belts the other man, knocking him down a hill and into a mud pit. Donnybrooking soon ensues. (The entire scene can be seen here.)

On the negative side, the movie is definitely a product of its time and attitudes. One of the reasons that I chose to feature the poster above is that it highlights one of the scenes that has been, in later years, highly criticised. Actually there are two spanking scenes in the movie, one in which Mclintock turns Katherine over his knee, another which involves Becky and her fiancee. For those who are offended by that kind of thing, I can only say that it seems to me sort of part-and-parcel with the whole Taming of the Shrew theme, and also that throughout the movie, it seems that both women for the most part give as good as they get.

Then there is the portrayal of Native Americans. I’m not even going to try to defend this one, though I will say that it seems at least a bit more enlightened than some of Wayne’s earlier “Injun Fighter” westerns. At a couple of points, McLintock is shown as a fighter for indian rights and rescues a Comanche friend from hanging for a crime he didn’t commit. At one point, one of the characters even has the dialogue “Yes, I know I’m an Indian. But I’m also the fastest runner in town. I’ve got a college education and I’m also the railroad telegrapher. But does anybody say ‘Hello Runner’ or ‘Hello College Man’ or ‘Hello Telegrapher’? No! Not even ‘Hello Knothead’! It’s always ‘Let the Indian do it.'”

So how did a movie from 1963 with a major star like John Wayne, produced by his own Batjac production company wind up in the Public Domain? The answer is simple. When the movie was made, in 1963, the term for copyrights was 28 years with a possible 28 year extension. When the time for renewal came up in 1991, Wayne’s son, Michael, who was in charge of Batjac at the time, failed to file for the extension. Therefore it automatically fell into the Public Domain.

And now, just to whet your appetite and give you a taste of this gem from the Public Domain, here is the trailer for McLintock!

OK, enough commentary. Here’s the skinny:

Title: McLintock!
Release Date: 1963
Running Time: 127 min.
Color
Stars: John Wayne, Mureen O’Hara, Patrick Wayne, Stephanie Powers
Director: Andrew V. McLaglen
Producer: Michael Wayne
Production Company: Batjac
Distributed by: United Artists

Until next time, Happy Treasure Hunting
-Professor Damian

Happy Public Domain Day 2020!!

pdd1

Looking back, I see that I wasn’t blogging this time last year, and that’s a shame, because that’s the first time i would have been able to wish you a Happy Public Domain Day instead of an (Un)Happy one as had become the annual tradition around here. Why? Because last year was the first in far, far too long that new items were actually allowed to enter the Public Domain here in the U.S.

Why it’s almost enough to make me want to revive my old blog, Professor Damian’s Public Domain Treasure Chest.

Almost.

But not quite.

I do have some ideas about what to do with some of that material and research, but that will have to wait for another time. Today we’re here to celebrate!

pdd4So what is Public Domain Day? well, as of last year, it the day that we celebrate new works actually entering the Public Domain. Of course, it’s still only a partial celebration, since, up until the copyright law was changes in 1978 and subsequently, most of the items we’re celebrating today would have become your property much, much earlier, and  there is a treasure trove of material that should be available that won’t be for years to come. As a matter of fact, the ones that would have been released before those changes won’t actually become part of the common weal until 2058. Again, though, that only applies to the U.S. Other countries have other laws regarding copyright and the Public Domain, so depending on where you’re reading this from, you may have more or less reason to celebrate.

So wait… I keep using this term “Public Domain”, but what exactly is the Public Domain, and what does it mean if a work is part of it? Well, to quote the Duke Law School’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain

The public domain is the realm of material — ideas, images, sounds, discoveries, facts, texts — that is unprotected by intellectual property rights and free for all to use or build upon. It includes our collective cultural and scientific heritage, and the raw materials for future expression, research, democratic dialogue and education.

pdd2To take that a little further,

Public domain material is “free” as in “free speech,” not “free” as in “free beer” — because it is unprotected by intellectual property rights, it is free of centralized control as a legal matter, and you can use it without having to get permission. But we hope that in many cases it would also be available at little or no cost. So for example, the works of Charles Dickens are in the public domain even though they are still for sale, but if you love A Tale of Two Cities you can freely translate it, make it into a movie, or turn it into a present-day tale of two cities without permission. Conversely, many copyrighted works may be available free of cost online, but because they are copyrighted you would need permission before translating or selling or adapting them.

Okay, all of that is fine, I hear you say, but how can I actually use material that’s in the Public Domain?, Well…

Below are only a few examples of activities enabled by a robust public domain… Artists of all kinds — writers, musicians, filmmakers, painters — rely on the public domain: “Poetry can only be made out of other poems, novels out of other novels,” as the critic Northrop Frye put it. Creators draw on previous works, and on the cultural artifacts around them; they remix vintage footage with new clips, turn books into plays and musicals, borrow lyrics and melodies from old songs, adapt classic stories to present day circumstances. For example, you or your children may have been transfixed by Disney’s beloved versions of CinderellaSnow White, Pinocchio, and The Little Mermaid, which are based on public domain works by Charles Perrault, The Brothers Grimm, Carlo Collodi, and Hans Christian Anderson….

Libraries, museums, historians, archivists, teachers, filmmakers, publishers, and database creators rely on the public domain to collect, preserve, and teach us about our past. Anyone can freely restore and digitize works published in 1924 and before, but far too many projects have had to abandon older works because of the extraordinarily long copyright term. Libraries avoid digitizing important resources, archives and databases are incomplete, important historical images are redacted from documentaries, museums cannot publish or digitize millions of pages of archival documents, photographs, oral histories, and reels of film (as the US Copyright Office has explained), all because the copyright ownership of these orphan works cannot be determined…

pdd3The case of film preservation is particularly troubling because older films are literally disintegrating, soon to be lost forever. The overwhelming majority of our cinematic heritage consists of orphan films — they are covered by copyright but have no ascertainable copyright owner. They include newsreels, documentaries, anthropological films, portraits of minority life in the United States, instructional films, and even some Hollywood studio productions. Because copyright law prevents scholars and citizens from using these orphan films (including copying and restoring them for preservation), the existing copies are actually disintegrating….

And I could keep quoting, but I think by now you get the idea, and if you want to read more I’ll simply direct you to this page. And even more info can be found here.

So after all that, what is actually entering the Public Domain today? Well, here are just a few examples:

Films:

  • Buster Keaton’s Sherlock, Jr. and The Navigator
  • Harold Lloyd’s Girl Shy and Hot Water
  • The first film adaptation of Peter Pan
  • The Sea Hawk
  • Secrets
  • He Who Gets Slapped
  • Dante’s Inferno

Books:

  • Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain
  • E.M. Forster, A Passage to India
  • Ford Madox Ford, Some Do Not… (the first volume of his “Parade’s End” tetralogy)
  • Eugene O’Neill, Desire Under the Elms
  • Edith Wharton, Old New York (four novellas)
  • Yevgeny Zamyatin, We (the English translation by Gregory Zilboorg)
  • A.A. Milne, When We Were Very Young
  • Hugh Lofting, Doctor Dolittle’s Circus
  • Edgar Rice Burroughs, Tarzan and the Ant Men
  • Agatha Christie, The Man in the Brown Suit
  • Lord Dunsany (Edward Plunkett), The King of Elfland’s Daughter

Music:

  • Rhapsody in Blue, George Gershwin
  • Fascinating Rhythm and Oh, Lady Be Good, music George Gershwin, lyrics Ira Gershwin
  • Lazy, Irving Berlin
  • Jealous Hearted Blues, Cora “Lovie” Austin (composer, pianist, bandleader) (recorded by Ma Rainey)
  • Santa Claus Blues, Charley Straight and Gus Kahn (recorded by Louis Armstrong)
  • Nobody’s Sweetheart, music Billy Meyers and Elmer Schoebel, lyrics Gus Kahn and Ernie Erdman

And so, so, much more. All of which is great, and cause to celebrate. But when you look at what might have been before the changes in the law, well, I’ll quote one last time:

pdd5…under the laws that were in effect until 1978, thousands of works from 1963 would be entering the public domain this year. They range from the books The Fire Next Time and Where the Wild Things Are, to the film The Birds and the albums and The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, and much more. Have a look at some of the others. In fact, since copyright used to come in renewable terms of 28 years, and 85% of authors did not renew, 85% of the works from 1991 might be entering the public domain! Imagine what the great libraries of the world—or just internet hobbyists—could do: digitizing those holdings, making them available for education and research, for pleasure and for creative reuse.

Anyway, let’s be positive and grateful today that we’re finally getting something, and that congress didn’t change the laws again just to make sure that the giant corporations that either control so much of our media or make it nearly impossible to work with what we do have could maintain mastery over this, too.

And with that, I’ll wish you a Happy Public Domain Day, and also a very, very Happy New Year!

Throwback Thursday – The Incredible Two-Headed Transplant (1971)

Between this blog and my previous one, Professor Damian’s Public Domain Treasure Chest, I’ve been writing about movies for quite a while now. Because of that, there are a lot of posts that have simply gotten lost to the mists of time. So, I figured I’d use the idea of “Throwback Thursday” to spotlight some of those older posts, re-presenting them pretty much exactly as they first appeared except for updating links where necessary or possible, and doing just a bit of re-formatting to help them fit better into the style of this blog. Hope you enjoy these looks back. 

This post first ran on the Treasure Chest back on April 6, 2010.


Tuesday Terrors – The Incredible 2 Headed Transplant (1971)

2ht1Y’know, in baseball, a double is a good thing. Depending on which side you’re on, a double play can also be a very good thing. Best of all, though, especially for the fans, is a double-header. Unfotunately, I don’t think anyone in today’s flick is going to be trying out for the majors anytime soon. Which means in this case a double header is simply double trouble.

In The Incredible 2 Headed Transplant, Bruce Dern (yes, really, that Bruce Dern) plays a doctor who is obsessed with the concept of transplanting heads. Why? Well, from what yer Ol’ Professor can tell it’s because Dern’s Dr. Girard just swallowed a whole bottle of why-the-hell-not pills. He’s already been kicked out of the hospital he worked at, and has set up a lab in the basement of his house where he’s continuing his experiments with his assistant Igor… umm, I mean Max. This, of course, thrills the doctor’s wife Linda (Pat Priest, who really shouldn’t be so freaked out by all of this after all those years living with the Munsters) to no end, since it explains the stench wafting upstairs that has not only killed all the roaches in the house but also made the bacon smell funny. (Ok, there’s really nothing about cockroaches or bacon in the movie, but really it makes as much sense as anything you will find there.)

2ht2Meanwhile, we also meet Dr. Girard’s caretaker, Andrew Norton and his son Danny. Now Danny is not a small boy, but unfortunately he does have a very small brain. According to his father he was trapped by a mine cave-in when he was a child and his brain was starved for oxygen long enough to leave him in a very retarded state. From the looks of him, nowadays Danny could probably have just pushed the boulders aside, but then…

Anyway, also meanwhile, we meet serial rapist-murderer Manuel “Mama” Cass, who escapes from the mental institution to which he had been confined. Stealing a car, Cass winds up ending his freedom joyride at Dr. Girard’s house. Unfortunately, the doctor is out (well, actually he’s physically down in his lab, but trust me, he’s pretty far out) as is Max, which leaves Linda to confront the madman alone. Finally both the doctor and the caretaker hear her screams and rush to her aid, but Cass kills Andrew and leaves the doctor tied up, making his escape with Linda. When Danny finally comes in, he freaks out at the sight of his dead father, neglecting to release the doctor. Finally Max returns and frees Dr. Girard and they go hunting for the killer and his hostage. Catching up with them, Girard shoots Cass in the back, but doesn’t quite kill him.

Hmm… ok, so now we’ve got a nearly dead serial killer, a practically brain dead hulk of a man-boy, and a doctor who is working on building creatures with two heads. Anyone want to guess where we’re gonna go next?

How about to the trailer?

And now, the Skinny:
Title: The Incredible 2 Headed Transplant
Release Date: 1971
Running Time: 87min
Color
Starring: Bruce Dern, Pat Priest
Directed by: Anthony M. Lanza
Produced by: John Lawrence, Volodymyr Kowal, Nicholas Wowchuk, Alvin L. Fast, Arthur N. Gilbert
Distributed by: American International Pictures

 

(Un)Happy Public Domain Day – 2017 Edition

puub17So what do the founder of the Surrealist movement, a star of the silent film era, the Japanese author behind the popularization of Buddhism in the West, two female writers at the heart of the Modernist scene, and one of the “fathers of science fiction” have in common this year?

If you guessed that they’re among the creators whose works will be entering the Public Domain this year in other countries but not in the U.S., then you’re right.

Sigh…

Yep, once again, in what has become an annual tradition, it’s time to not celebrate Public Domain Day.

pub001What’s Public Domain Day? Simply put, it’s the day that we recognize the deleterious effects of the changes in copyright law since it was changed in 1978 and subsequently which have kept most of the things that would have gone into the public domain from doing so, and will continue to keep anything new from entering it until at least 2019, and in many cases even longer. As a matter of fact, that 2019 date only applies to the earliest works that will be eligible to enter the public domain. The ones that would be joining it this year most likely won’t actually become a part of it until 2056. And that’s if Congress doesn’t shift the dates on us again, which is altogether likely to happen. This is true for the U.S., though it is not necessarily so in Canada and much of the EU or other parts of the world.

For those of you wondering about the names of the individuals included in the list above, here’s a partial list of this year’s “honorees” courtesy of this page: André Breton; Buster Keaton; László Moholy-Nagy, Gertrude Stein; H. G. Wells; Frank O’Hara; Alfred Stieglitz, Evelyn Waugh; D. T. Suzuki; Paul Nash; Mina Loy, Walt Disney,  W. C. Fields, Lenny Bruce, an C. S. Forester. An that’s just a snippet of the list of authors whose works would be eligible. (More information about each them can be found at the link above or at their respective Wikipedia pages.) As far as movies go, the list includes: The Time Machine, Psycho, Spartacus, Exodus, The Apartment, Inherit the Wind, The Magnificent Seven, Ocean’s 11, The Alamo, The Andy Griffith Show (first episodes) The Flintstones(first episodes).

So what would these works being in the public domain mean in practical terms? As the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School puts it:

pub002Readers interested in iconic stories of courage in the face of racial injustice, or middle class America in the late 1950s, or just great literature, would have something to celebrate. In the current political climate, Shirer’s work, and also those of Hayek, Bell, and Schlesinger, might provide food for thought. And Dr. Seuss’s beloved books would be legally available for free online for children (of all ages).

You would be free to use these books in your own stories, adapt them for theater, animate them, or make them into a film. You could translate them into other languages, or create accessible Braille or audio versions. You could read them online or buy cheaper print editions, because others were free to republish them. Empirical studies have shown that public domain books are less expensive, available in more editions and formats, and more likely to be in print—see here, here, and here. Take, for example, The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater—like the works listed above, it was published in 1960; but unlike those works, it’s in the public domain because the copyright was not renewed. You can legally download it for free, and the purchase price for an eBook is $0.99, instead of $10 or $20.

Imagine a digital Library of Alexandria containing all of the world’s books from 1960 and earlier, where, thanks to technology, you can search, link, annotate, copy and paste.

Beyond even that, though, our film heritage is suffering even more. Again, from Duke Law:

The case of film preservation is particularly troubling because older films are literally disintegrating, soon to be lost forever. The overwhelming majority of our cinematic heritage consists of orphan films — they are covered by copyright but have no ascertainable copyright owner. They include newsreels, documentaries, anthropological films, portraits of minority life in the United States, instructional films, and even some Hollywood studio productions. Because copyright law prevents scholars and citizens from using these orphan films (including copying and restoring them for preservation), the existing copies are actually disintegrating. This is because the cellulose nitrate base on which they were made makes them prone to shrinkage, to outgassing that destroys the film’s emulsion, and even to spontaneous combustion. The vast majority (upwards of 90%) of films from the 1910s have already decayed beyond the possibility of restoration. The numbers are only slightly better for works from 1920 to 1950. And the number of orphan films is staggering. As of 2005, of the 13,000 films housed at the Museum of Modern Art, over half were orphan works unavailable to the public. Vast numbers of the 150,000 titles held at the Library of Congress and the 46,000 tiles at the UCLA Film and Television Archive were also orphan films. (For more information, see the 2005 Report on Orphan Films submitted by the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at the invitation of the Copyright Office.) The law does allow libraries and archives (not preservationists generally) to digitize films during the last 20 years of their copyright term, but only in limited circumstances: the library or archive first has to determine through a “reasonable investigation” both that the work is not being commercially exploited, and that they cannot obtain another copy of it at a reasonable price.

Learn more about the situation in the U.S. and why the public domain is important in this article in Huff Post Books and this from the Duke Law School’s Centre for the Study of the Public Domain.

Throwback Thursday – The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes (1935)

Between this blog and my previous one, Professor Damian’s Public Domain Treasure Chest, I’ve been writing about movies for quite a while now. Because of that, there are a lot of posts that have simply gotten lost to the mists of time. So, I figured I’d use the idea of “Throwback Thursday” to spotlight some of those older posts, re-presenting them pretty much exactly as they first appeared except for updating links where necessary or possible, and doing just a bit of re-formatting to help them fit better into the style of this blog. Hope you enjoy these looks back.

Here’s one for you Sherlock Holmes fans out there from Professor Damian.

———————-

Whodunnit Wednesday – The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes (1935)

tt31There have been so many different adaptations, interpretations and reiterations of the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s great detective that it is often quite nearly impossible to keep up with them. Wikipedia lists the first filmed Holmes story as 1900’s Sherlock Holmes Baffled, and since that time there must have been hundreds of different actors portraying the famed investigator right up to last year’s entry starring Robert Downey Jr. Some of these interpretations, of course, have been more faithful (and some more successful) than others. A while back, I wrote about one of my personal favorite portrayals, that of Basil Rathbone in the series of films produced by Universal Studios. Today I’d like to take a look at another, slightly earlier series of films which unfortunately have been overshadowed by those Universal films.

Arthur Wotner was born in 1875 and portrayed Holmes in a series of five films from 1931 to 1937. Of these five films, the first, The Sleeping Cardinal was, until recently, thought to be a lost film. Unfortunately, though prints have been found of this one, his second, The Missing Rembrant is still considered lost. nonetheless, the films that we do have show Wotner as a Holmes that is more cerebral than many interpretations, and who also definitely looks the part. Wotner is not as athletic as some of the later Holmes, relying much more on his deductive prowess, and that serves him in good stead in today’s feature, his fourth outing as the titular detective, The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes.

tt32Of course, a large part of the credit for this must go to the screenwriters who have hewn fairly closely to the original source material, in this case, Doyle’s fourth Holmes novel, The Valley of Fear. One of the trickier aspects of any Holmes story is that since he is truly smarter than anyone else in the room (unless, of course, his brother Mycroft also happens to be present), he has often already figured out the main puzzle of the story before the explanation of the situation is finished. That is why he works better in a short story format than in a longer work such as a novel or film, and why, so often, those longer works feel padded with action scenes or obstacles that do not really belong. In this particular instance, Doyle figured out a unique way to lengthen the story. Almost one third of the book is taken up by an extended flashback to Holmes’s client’s past as a miner in the U.S. The movie makers have kept this flashback, and though it does cause the film to drag a bit in the middle, it also gives the film a feeling of having more substance than other efforts at padding. On the flip side, the producers also felt the need to include Holmes’ arch-nemesis Professor Moriarty in the film, when he does not appear in the original story, but that change does not distract too much from the overall quality of the film.

Note should also be made of Ian Fleming’s (no, not the James Bond author) interpretation of the role of Dr. Watson. Instead of the bumbling oaf that Watson often seems, in Fleming’s hands we see a Watson that lets us understand why Holmes would have kept him around. After all, when compared to the brilliance of Holmes, anyone is going to seem second rate, and it is important to remember that Watson was not only considered a first-rate doctor, but also a highly trained military man.

There’s no embedable trailer online that I’ve been able to find, but here’s a clip from the first part of the movie which introduces not only Holmes and Watson to the audience, but also the detective’s arch enemy:

And now, the Skinny:
Title: The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes
Release Date: 1935
Running Time: 75min
Black and White
Starring: Arthur Wotner, Ian Fleming
Directed by: Leslie S. Hiscott
Produced by: Julius Hagen
Until next time, Happy Treasure Hunting,
-Professor Damian

 

—————————–

Hope you enjoyed this blast from the past.

 

(Un)Happy Public Domain Day 2016

pdd

Once again, in what has become an annual tradition, it’s time to not celebrate Public Domain Day.

What’s Public Domain Day? Simply put, it’s the day that we recognize the deleterious effects of the changes in copyright law since it was changed in 1978 and subsequently which have kept most of the things that would have gone into the public domain from doing so, and will continue to keep anything new from entering it until at least 2019, and in many cases even longer. This is true for the U.S., though it is not necessarily so in Canada and much of the EU.

I’m not going to go into a lot of detail about all of this here today, instead referring you to this page for a good explanation of why the situation is the way it is and why all of this matters (or at least should) to all of you and to this page for a good look at what could have been entering the public domain today and isn’t. Take a look, the list may surprise you.

Jewels Of The Public Domain Treasure Chest – The Cat And The Canary (1925)

I’ve mentioned before that quite a few years back I ran another blog, Professor Damian’s Public Domain Treasure Chest. In it I tried to spotlight some of the real jewels that can be found in the Public Domain. It’s been quite a while since I’ve actually updated the site, but there’s quite a few pieces there that I still think are deserving of attention, so I thought I’d begin to spotlight some of them in a new occasional feature, “Jewels Of The Public Domain Treasure Chest”. For the most part I’m going to be running them just as they were posted then, except for – as I’ve done with this post – editing a bit of the grammar, fixing a couple of links, and adding a few more graphics just to make it fit in a little better with the other posts here. I hope you’ll enjoy this little blast from the past, and let me know what you think about it in the comments.

cc1aOk, gang, time to jump into the way-way-back machine and set the dial for 1927, and the American debut of famed German director Paul Leni who has just combined the expressionism movement of his home country with the burgeoning horror-comedy genre of this country to create what may be one of the most influential films of the mid 1920s, The Cat and the Canary.

Now I’ve made no bones before about my love for the so-called “old dark house” genre of films. I’ve used the analogy before, but in a lot of ways,  for me sitting down for one of these movies is like tucking into a favorite meal of… oh, go ahead and pick your own comfort food. It’s the kind of thing where it doesn’t matter how many times you’ve eaten it, no matter how well you may know the taste of it, that’s a large part of the enjoyment of it. You know what I’m talking about, the kind of thing that may bring back special memories, maybe from your childhood, maybe of a particular time with someone special, maybe of a place that you once visited and want to go back to. It’s the kind of thing you maybe keep in the back of your mind when you go to a new restaurant, something that even if you’re unsure of the menu, you know that you’re going to enjoy this particular dish. That’s how I feel about old dark house mysteries – they’re my fall back comfort food, because even when they’re not that great, there’s usually some aspect of them that I can enjoy.

cc3But if the old dark house mysteries are comfort food, then watching The Cat and the Canary was, for me, like going back to the place where it all started, finding that little English pub or off the byway place where your favorite dish was created. Or maybe talking to the great grandparent that first came up with the secret family recipe and realizing that all along there had been something missing. Like taking that first bite and realizing that no matter how many times you’ve had the dish, how many variations you’ve tried, there really is nothing quite like the original.Now I’ve made no bones before about my love for the so-called “old dark house” genre of films. I’ve used the analogy before, but in a lot of ways,  for me sitting down for one of these movies is like tucking into a favorite meal of… oh, go ahead and pick your own comfort food. It’s the kind of thing where it doesn’t matter how many times you’ve eaten it, no matter how well you may know the taste of it, that’s a large part of the enjoyment of it. You know what I’m talking about, the kind of thing that may bring back special memories, maybe from your childhood, maybe of a particular time with someone special, maybe of a place that you once visited and want to go back to. It’s the kind of thing you maybe keep in the back of your mind when you go to a new restaurant, something that even if you’re unsure of the menu, you know that you’re going to enjoy this particular dish. That’s how I feel about old dark house mysteries – they’re my fall back comfort food, because even when they’re not that great, there’s usually some aspect of them that I can enjoy.

cc2

Like I said at the first, the year is 1927. Carl Laemmle, one of the founders of Universal Studios, was reaching back to his home country of Germany to bring in new talent. One of those he invited to come direct movies for him was Paul Leni, who was already beginning to make a name for himself as he explored the boundaries of what was becoming known as the “expressionist” movement in film. Now, expressionism can and has been defined in many different ways, but basically it seeks to combine certain stylized visuals with the narrative structure of the film in a way that tends to affect the viewer not only mentally but emotionally. Sometimes this involves shooting a sequence with an odd camera angle. Sometimes it involves odd, often stylized and overpowering architecture. Sometimes it involves the superimposition of seemingly unrelated objects into the frame. Whatever form it takes, however, the effect is generally one of keeping the audience off-balance, and of trying to bring a more visceral feel to the proceedings. This is the influence that Leni was able to bring with him to Universal and to the beginning of what would be a long line of horror and horror-comedy films, and this influence can be felt from the very opening sequence of the movie.

cc6The film opens with what could have been a fairly standard sequence, as we are given the history of one Cyrus West, a millionaire who is approaching death. West lives alone in a huge mansion with only his caretaker, the ironically-named, ever-frowning Mammy Pleasant for company. However, as news of his impending death spreads, we are told that he is descended upon “like cats around a canary” by his greedy family who attempt to drive him insane. Interspersed with this narrative are scenes of West, flailing about the screen, but instead of being shown how his family is treating him or perhaps seeing him lying on his death bed, he is instead superimposed upon a model of his towering mansion, which instead of providing space and refuge seems instead to imprison and confine the old man. Then as the narrative goes on to tell of the medicines and potions he is taking, the towers of his mansion are slowly echoed and replaced by the bottles containing those potions. And still the old man is trapped, and his growing despair and desperation is made evident. Meanwhile, behind the bottles, we have another superimposition of menacing black cats, towering over both the bottles/mansion and the man. Yes, it is, perhaps a bit too spot-on literal, but there is a power to it, nonetheless.

cc5Finally the old man passes, slumping into his chair, and we see, coming slowly into focus, an envelope, and written on the outside of it is “Last Will and Testament of Cyrus West. To be opened twenty years after my death”.  This scene then fades back to show us just the mansion and then a furred, long-clawed hand enters the frame and picks up another envelope reading “This envelope is never to be opened if the terms of my will are carried out.” The clawed hand replaces the envelope, the scene fades, and a card tells us “and for twenty years, it was said, the tormented ghost of Cyrus West wandered nightly through the deserted corridors”, at which point, we the viewers become the ghost himself, wandering the hallways of the mansion, ever vigilant. Another card appears: “But on the night when the will was to be read, there was something more tangible than a ghost in the house”, and though we go back to the same first person perspective, wandering through the hallways, this time our way is illuminated by the beam of a flashlight. It falls upon a safe which is opened by a gloved hand, and we see one of the envelopes being replaced in the safe. It is only after this opening mood setting five minutes that we see the first of the participants in our drama-to-come, and the mayhem, murder, and accusations begin.

Ok, enough of me telling you about it, instead, here’s a very short scene which shows not only the exterior of the mansion and the creepy clawed hand I mentioned above menacing our sleeping heroine, but also the sometimes innovative use of even the intertitles. I do think in this version the atmosphere is somewhat undercut by the score, but it was, unfortunately, the best that I could find.

Ok, let’s take a look at the skinny for this flick, shall we?

Title: The Cat and the Canary
Release Date: 1927
Running Time: 82 min
Silent
Tinted Black and White
Stars: Laura La Plante, Forrest Stanley, Creighton Hale
Directed by:  Paul Leni
Produced by:  Paul Kohner
Distributed by:  Universal Pictures
Adapted from the 1922 play by John Willard

The Cat and the Canary is available to watch for free or as a free legal download here.

(Un)Happy Public Domain Day 2015!

pdd2015

Once again, as has become an unfortunate ritual here at DurnMoose Central, it’s time to celebrate what could have been. That’s right, along with today being New Year’s Day, it’s also Public Domain Day!

So what is Public Domain Day? It’s a day when we look at what could have been. I’ll let the good folk at the Duke Law School’s Center for the Public Domain explain:

Public Domain Day is January 1st of every year. If you live in Canada, January 1st 2015 would be the day when the writings of Rachel Carlson, Ian Fleming, and Flannery O’Connor enter the public domain. It will be a not-so-silent spring! In Europe, the works of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Wassily Kandinsky, Piet Mondrian, Edvard Munch, and hundreds of others will emerge into the public domain. You can find a great celebration of such authors here. All of these public domain works can be freely digitized and archived, so that anyone can find and use them. Canadians can make their own James Bond movies using Fleming’s books and Europeans can add a wealth of works to online archives of 20th century art, all without asking permission or violating the law.

On the first day of each year, Public Domain Day celebrates the moment when copyrights expire. The films, photos, books and symphonies whose copyright term has finished become, to quote Justice Louis Brandeis, “free as the air to common use.” The end of the copyright term on these works means that they enter the public domain, completing the copyright bargain. Copyright gives creators – authors, musicians, filmmakers, photographers – exclusive rights over their works for a limited time. This encourages creators to create and publishers to distribute – that’s a very good thing. But when the copyright ends, the work enters the public domain – to join the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Mozart, the books of Dickens – the material of our collective culture. That’s a good thing too! It’s the second part of the copyright bargain; the limited period of exclusive rights ends and the work enters the realm of free culture. Prices fall, new editions come out, songs can be sung, symphonies performed, movies displayed. Even better, people can legally build on what came before.

pdd2

Sounds great, doesn’t it? But there’s only one hitch: You may notice that the above talks about what’s entering the P.D. in Canada and Europe. However, here in the good old USA, well, again, here’s Duke Law:

Current US law extends copyright for 70 years after the date of the author’s death, and corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years after publication. But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years—an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years. Under those laws, works published in 1958 would enter the public domain on January 1, 2015, where they would be “free as the air to common use.” Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2054. And no published works will enter our public domain until 2019.

So, yeah. Nothing. Not these books (which under the old law would have):

  • Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart
  • Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition
  • Isaac Asimov (writing as Paul French), Lucky Starr and the Rings of Saturn
  • Simone de Beauvoir, Mémoires d’une jeune fille rangée (Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter)
  • Michael Bond, A Bear Called Paddington, with illustrations by Peggy Fortnum
  • Eugene Burdick and William Lederer, The Ugly American
  • Truman Capote, Breakfast at Tiffany’s
  • Agatha Christie, Ordeal by Innocence
  • John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society
  • Graham Greene, Our Man in Havana
  • Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story
  • Claude Lévi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale (Structural Anthropology)2
  • Mary Renault, The King Must Die
  • Dr. Seuss, Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories
  • T.H. White, The Once and Future King

Not these movies (again, under the older copyright law, they would have):

  • Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, a low-budget horror/sci-fi cult hit.
  • Auntie Mame, starring Rosalind Russell, Coral Browne, Roger Smith, and Peggy Cass.
  • The Blob, sci-fi/horror classic starring Steve McQueen in his first leading role.
  • Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman, and Burl Ives.
  • The Defiant Ones, starring Sidney Poitier, Tony Curtis, and Theodore Bikel.
  • From the Earth to the Moon, starring Joseph Cotten, George Sanders, and Debra Paget.
  • Gigi, directed by Vincente Minnelli and starring Leslie Caron, Maurice Chevalier, and Louis Jourdan. The film garnered 9 Academy Awards.
  • Mon Oncle, writer/director Jacques Tati reprises his comic alter-ego, Monsieur Hulot, and wins the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.
  • Some Came Running, directed by Vincente Minnelli and starring Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Shirley MacLaine.
  • South Pacific, Rodgers and Hammerstein’s musical, directed by Joshua Logan, starring Rossano Brazzi and Mitzi Gaynor.
  • Touch of Evil, written and directed by Orson Welles, starring Welles, Charlton Heston, and Janet Leigh.
  • The Young Lions, starring Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, and Dean Martin.
  • Vertigo, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring James Stewart, Kim Novak, and Barbara Bel Geddes.

No new music, no new scientific papers, no nothing.

So, what can be done? Well, as noted, 2019 is a very important year, because that’s the year that things finally start moving into the Public Domain again. Which means it’s not going to be long before Congress is going to be pressured to start reviewing yet another copyright extension by those corporations (yes, here’s where I really start pointing the finger at Disney, not only because they are always one of the biggest fighters for keeping their works out of the Public Domain, but because so much of their own work is built on fairy tales, stories, and other works that they got from where? Yep, you guessed it!) who have a vested interest in keeping things from moving to the P.D.

So right now, it’s mostly a matter of informing yourself about the issue, finding out more about the Public Domain, what it is, what it isn’t, and why it’s so important not just to future creativity, but to many of the activities that people enjoy today. Again, I’ll mention that Duke Law’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain is a great resource, and a great place to start is their page on Public Domain Day which you can access right here. And then keep an eye out as we get closer to 2019 and watch for the discussions to begin. And, of course, keep an eye here, because I’ll be letting you know as things really begin to progress.

 

Happy Public Domain Day! Unless, Of Course, You’re In The U.S.

pdd2014Yep, it’s the first of January, and time to celebrate all of those great books, stories, characters, films, recordings, and everything else that enters the Public Domain today.

So what new treasures are on tap to enter the P.D. this year? Well, according to The Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, if it weren’t for the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978) this would be the year that works from 1957 would be entering the P.D. (and don’t forget that anything prior to that would already be there) So, among the list of books would be:

  • Samuel Beckett, Endgame (“Fin de partie”, the original French version)
  • Jack Kerouac, On the Road (completed 1951, published 1957)
  • Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
  • Margret Rey and H.A. Rey, Curious George Gets a Medal
  • Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel), How the Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat
  • Eliot Ness and Oscar Fraley, The Untouchables
  • Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays
  • Walter Lord, Day of Infamy
  • Studs Terkel, Giants of Jazz
  • Corbett H. Thigpen and Hervey M. Cleckley, The Three Faces of Eve
  • Ian Fleming, From Russia, with Love
  • Ann Weldy (as Ann Bannon), Odd Girl Out
  • A.E. Van Vogt, Empire of the Atom

2014whatcouldhavebeencollage

Then there are the films and TV shows,, such as:

  • The Incredible Shrinking Man (Based on Richard Matheson’s 1956 book The Shrinking Man)
  • The Bridge on the River Kwai (Best Picture, Best Director (David Lean), Best Actor (Alec Guinness); also starring William Holden, Jack Hawkins and Sessue Hayakawa)
  • A Farewell to Arms (Rock Hudson and Jennifer Jones)
  • Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas)
  • 3:10 to Yuma (1957 original starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin)
  • Island in the Sun (James Mason, Joan Fontaine, Dorothy Dandridge, and introducing Harry Belafonte)
  • Witness for the Prosecution (Tyrone Power, Marlene Dietrich, Charles Laughton, Elsa Lanchester)
  • 12 Angry Men (Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, and more)
  • Sweet Smell of Success (Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis)
  • Jailhouse Rock (Elvis Presley)
  • The Prince and the Showgirl (Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe)
  • Funny Face (Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire . . . and Paris as only Hollywood can imagine it)
  • An Affair to Remember (Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr . . . and the Empire State Building)
  • Nights of Cabiria (written and directed by Federico Fellini and starring Giulietta Masina)
  • The Seventh Seal (written and directed by Ingmar Bergman and starring Max von Sydow and Bengt Ekerot)
  • What’s Opera, Doc? (Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd do Wagner)
  • The first episodes of Leave It to Beaver and Perry Mason
  • Elvis Presley’s third and final appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show on January 6, 1957 (CBS refused to show his gyrating hips)

And then there are all of the sound recordings and artworks and other cultural artifacts, and that doesn’t begin to take in the items from 1985 whose copyright would be up for renewal this year, meaning it would be up to the copyright holder to decide if it were worth it to renew the copyright or not.

So what will actually be entering the U.S. Public Domain this year?

Just as has been the case every year since 1978, the answer is simple:

Nothing.

Yep, You read that right.

Nothing.

incredibleshrinknigpdgreyAs a matter of fact, nothing will be entering the Public Domain here in the U.S. until at least 2019.

Again, yes, I said 2019.

Oh, and the items I mentioned above? Yeah, we’ll have to wait until at least 2053 for them.

And that’s assuming that congress doesn’t pass another extension to the Copyright Act between now and then.

And yes, that extension is already under consideration.

I’m not going to go into a lot of the background of the public domain and why it’s so important, nor am I going to go into the history of the Copyright Act and why things are in the sad state they’re in. All of that information can be found at the Duke Law Center website , along with information about other works that would also be included in the “Class of 2014”

4663860075_195d7ac4f6_bI will, however note that for those of you interested in further exploring the treasures that can be found in the Public Domain and my own personal take and reviews on many of them, I used to run another blog, Professor Damian’s Public Domain Treasure Chest which, though I quit updating it a while back for a number of reasons, still has quite a number of reviews and articles about things that actually are currently in the Public Domain. And some of them may surprise you.

Anyway, here’s to What Could Have Been!

Building a Better War Through Propaganda – The Fighting Lady (1944)

***SPECIAL “GUEST BLOGGER” NOTE*** I suppose you could consider this a late Memorial Day Post. I had not really planned to do anything special for the day, but when I was looking at a couple of other things, I was reminded of this post that I did a while back. However, due to an extended work schedule and other things going on yesterday, I didn’t get a chance to get this up. Still, it seemed worth a revisit, so here it is. First, however, let’s get the usual “guest blogger” boilerplate out of the way for new visitors:

A couple of years ago, under the guise of “Professor Michael Damian”, I was writing and running a blog called “Professor Damian’s Public Domain Treasure Chest” in which I attempted to highlight movies that were available for free legal download, streaming, remix, what-have-you, thanks to the Public Domain. The site hasn’t been updated for awhile now, but if you like what you’ve read here so far, or if you enjoy this post, or have an interest in the public domain or even just want to check out some really good (and, admittedly, some not-so-good) free movies, I encourage you to go check it out.

Anyway, from time to time, when it’s relevant or when I’m under a kind of time crunch, or maybe just when the fancy strikes, I’ll be re-presenting some posts that originally appeared there. The post below first ran there a couple of years ago, on June 17, 2010. At first I considered rewriting or editing this some for its presentation here, but ultimately decided, for better or worse, to just let it stand on its own, as is, though I have changed/updated some of the links so they will work properly. I hope you enjoy this little blast from the past. ***END NOTE***

Today we shift focus to a different, though no less fascinating, type of feature: the propaganda film. Governments, and especially the military have used various forms of propaganda probably ever since Kulano of the Shell Tribe called the inland tribe they were fighting “squirrelly little tree climbers who are afraid of the water” and said therefore that they would be easy to defeat.

So what exactly is “propaganda”? Well, in his book Film Propaganda and American Politics, author James Combs describes propaganda as material produced by governments or political groups designed to “sway relevant groups of people in order to accommodate their [the government’s] agendas”. In other words, propaganda, and specifically for our discussion propaganda films, are movies, either documentary or fictional, which are designed not only to present a particular point of view, but to persuade the viewer of the rightness of tht point of view or outlook. For a current example, one could point, say, to the films of Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock or Al Gore as propaganda. No, they are not produced by the government, but they definitely have a particular point of view, and though the use of select footage and interviews, are designed to persuade the viewer that that point of view is the only “correct” or “intelligent” one.

nips1A couple of weeks ago, in an article I wrote for Blogcritics.org, I discussed the use of characters from popular fiction to promote the war effort during World War II. Characters as diverse as Bugs Bunny, Tarzan, Superman, and even Sherlock Holmes were all used to promote different aspects of the war against the Axis powers, whether it was conservation/recycling, the need for vigilance on the homefront, the superiority and fighting capability of the Allied forces, or even the dehumanization of the enemy. (The last being an especially popular tactic in cartoons of the day as animation made it easy to over-exaggerate certain physical or stereotypical qualities of the enemy, thereby making them seem less like “us” and even more alien and therefore easier to kill in battle. For an actually fairly restrained example, see the picture at the left.)

Famous characters were not the only ones called upon to contribute their talents to the government’s propaganda efforts during the great war. On both sides of the conflict, all-star directors were also expected to bring their expertise to bear in the creation of films designed either to convince viewers of the rightness of the cause and the superior military might of their respective countries. In Germany, Leni Riefenstahl was busy creating Triumph of the Will, long considered one of the greatest propaganda films of all time, while in America Frank Capra (with the aid of the Disney studios) was making his seven-part propagandistic blockbuster Why We Fight which was first commissioned to show to U.S. soldiers to explain the necessity of going to war against the axis, but was later also used to convince the American people not only of the rightness and validity of the U.S. joining the fray but early intervention was the only way to keep the war from coming to America’s shores. As a matter of fact, the last film in the series is titled “War Comes to America”, and spells out in dire terms the consequences to America of an Axis victory:

German conquest of Europe and Africa would bring all their raw materials, plus their entire industrial development, under one control. Of the 2 billion people in the world, the Nazis would rule roughly one quarter, the 500 million people of Europe and Africa, forced into slavery to labor for Germany. German conquest of Russia would add the vast raw materials and the production facilities of another of the world’s industrial areas, and of the world’s people, another 200 million would be added to the Nazi labor pile.

whywefight1Japanese conquest of the Orient would pour into their factory the almost unlimited resources of that area, and of the peoples of the earth, a thousand million would come under their rule, slaves for their industrial machine.

We in North and South America would be left with the raw materials of three-tenths of the earth’s surface, against the Axis with the resources of seven-tenths. We would have one industrial region against their three industrial regions. We would have one-eighth of the world’s population against their seven-eighths. If we together, along with the other nations of North and South America, could mobilize 30 million fully equipped men, the Axis could mobilize 200 million.

Thus, an Axis victory in Europe and Asia would leave us alone and virtually surrounded facing enemies ten times stronger than ourselves.

The film then ends with images of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, showing that even as the U.S was honorably negotiating with them, the “treacherous Japs” were plotting to attack us on our own soil. Of course, this idea is the same that fueled the propaganda of a more recent administration who more simply put it “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Let’s face it, kiddies, good propaganda never dies.

Capra was not the only filmmaker called into the service of his country at the time, of course. Other notable directors who lent their talents were John Ford, John Houston, William Wyler, and the director of today’s feature, noted photographer and Director of the Naval Aviation Photographic Unit Edward Steichen who spent months aboard the USS Yorktown documenting the lives and heroic deeds of the brave men who manned this great ship.(The ship, and most of her crewmen, are never actually identified by name, due to wartime security restrictions, thus, she is simply called The Fighting Lady. It was only after the end of the war that the ship in question was officially identified as the Yorktown.)

fightinglady3The film opens slowly, exploring the lives of these men as they go about their day-to-day duties as the ship sails through the Panama Canal and on into the Pacific Ocean. The emphasis here is on the mundanity of the shipboard life, and quite often we are reminded (in a voice-over by narrator Robert Taylor) of the saying that 99% of war is waiting. The waiting does not last forever, however, and it is not long before we get to see the ship and her crew in action at Marcus Island. This, and the subsequent battle scenes (especially those filmed at what was to become known as the “Marianas turkey shoot”) is where the film truly begins to take off, as the Technicolor photography brings the dogfights and ship-to-air fighting a spectacular brilliance. It’s easy to see why the government wanted the most skilled directors and photographers (many of them enlisted men who went uncredited for their part in the filming for years afterward) involved in a project like this. The battle raging all around them, these men, just like their comrades manning the guns or working the take-offs and landings of the airplanes, stood their ground and provided a document of the war like few others, including some truly spectacular footage taken by cameras actually mounted on the cockpits of fighter planes in the air. There is even footage of some spectacular crashes as the planes try to return to the ship once the fighting has ended.

Nor does the film forget to remind the viewer of the cost of war even as it celebrates the victory at the Turkey shoot” and shows the sailors and airmen painting battle flags and war markings on the ship and planes, counting the number of enemies downed, it also shows us the flag-draped bodies of those lost by our side, letting the viewer know the fates of some of the ones met earlier, and even giving us a glimpse of a twenty-one gun salute and burial at sea.

Here’s a section from the middle of the film showing some of the fighting and its aftermath:

And the skinny:
Title: The Fighting Lady
Release Date: 1944
Running Time: 61min
Color

The Fighting Lady and many other World War II propaganda films including Capra’s Why We Fight are available to watch or download for free here.
It’s also available for purchase on DVD from Amazon: The Fighting Lady Deluxe Edition Featuring USS Yorktown.

Until next time, Happy Treasure Hunting,
-Professor Damian