|
Post by Richard Molesworth on Jan 5, 2018 13:06:41 GMT
Actually, he did not. As stated in his obituary in The Independant: "In 1978, he was arrested for conspiracy to defraud film companies by illegally importing films for his collection. The police seized his 1,800 films, but Monkhouse was later acquitted of all charges at the Old Bailey. He nevertheless lost the greater part of his collection because he would have had to go to court in order to establish his right to each film individually." Many of Bob's films were destroyed as a result of the court case, and I understand that there were a number of unique films amongst them, where Bob had the only known surviving print. Those were destroyed too. Regards, Richard But that doesn't make sense Richard-the story in the superb documentary 'The Secret Life of Bob Monkhouse' gives a different story.If that were the case,what about the cache of around 600 or so prints found after his death? I would imagine they were films that weren't seized, for whatever reason, in 1978. Or perhaps films that he aquired after 1978. Regards, Richard
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jan 5, 2018 14:48:59 GMT
And also the reason why Bob Monkhouse was taken to court ( and in a legal case he eventually won ) was because it was thought he was using his film collection for profit ie hiring a James Bond to the son of Terry Wogan,when in fact all he was doing was lending him the film as a friend-something we all do.His film collection was never thought to be illegal,only what the criminal justice system thought he was doing with it.He still retained his film library after he won the case. Actually, he did not. As stated in his obituary in The Independant: "In 1978, he was arrested for conspiracy to defraud film companies by illegally importing films for his collection. The police seized his 1,800 films, but Monkhouse was later acquitted of all charges at the Old Bailey. He nevertheless lost the greater part of his collection because he would have had to go to court in order to establish his right to each film individually." Many of Bob's films were destroyed as a result of the court case, and I understand that there were a number of unique films amongst them, where Bob had the only known surviving print. Those were destroyed too. Regards, Richard Bob said similarly in his autobiography, 'Crying With Laughter'. "After 11 days of disagreeable absurdity, my judge dismissed my jury declaring there was no case to answer and I was awarded costs, but it was 10 years before I gave up all hope of regaining the greater part of my film collection. My successful defence had failed to establish my right of ownership without each title requiring its individual claim in civil court. I'd been awarded costs in the total sum of £23,000, but it had cost me over £52,000 to defend myself. The lesson? Innocent you may be, but from the moment a copper says "You're nicked", you're losing money.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Jan 5, 2018 20:24:02 GMT
Actually, he did not. As stated in his obituary in The Independant: "In 1978, he was arrested for conspiracy to defraud film companies by illegally importing films for his collection. The police seized his 1,800 films, but Monkhouse was later acquitted of all charges at the Old Bailey. He nevertheless lost the greater part of his collection because he would have had to go to court in order to establish his right to each film individually." Many of Bob's films were destroyed as a result of the court case, and I understand that there were a number of unique films amongst them, where Bob had the only known surviving print. Those were destroyed too. Regards, Richard Bob said similarly in his autobiography, 'Crying With Laughter'. "After 11 days of disagreeable absurdity, my judge dismissed my jury declaring there was no case to answer and I was awarded costs, but it was 10 years before I gave up all hope of regaining the greater part of my film collection. My successful defence had failed to establish my right of ownership without each title requiring its individual claim in civil court. I'd been awarded costs in the total sum of £23,000, but it had cost me over £52,000 to defend myself. The lesson? Innocent you may be, but from the moment a copper says "You're nicked", you're losing money. One thing that baffles me is that they destroyed probably dozens of unique film prints. Wouldn't it have been better to turn them over to a film institute for the preservation of the collection?
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Jan 5, 2018 20:34:07 GMT
Stunning.But this goes beyond film restoration into cutting edge chemistry and physics,even medicine.It's almost like trying to save a life,keeping a person's heart beating against all the odds.. I am trying to work out how much of a print would need to be usable. Based on the research I have done, I was wondering if someone could verify the following numbers and then add one piece of information at the end. 1. Estimated thickness of the film: 0.14 mm 2. Assuming that the film was 16mm with standard gauges and speeds (mix of English and metric) 7.5 mm wide picture / frame 24 frames/sec 40 frames/ft. 3. What is the radius of the reel that the film is mounted on? 4. From any known original prints, what is the length of the print and the running time of the episode from which it comes? From this information, I was planning of modelling a film as an involute circle. I can then compute approximately how much of a print could be damaged (say, a large sector of the print) and how much you could reconstruct from said print. Thank you all very much. blts
|
|