Daniel Marvin Titanic footage "recovered and acquired

Jun 27, 2002
42
1
136
You know, you make a lot of sense. That would be a lot more plausible than some of the details/rumors I've read elsewhere on the web (and discussed previously here) that it was given to Mary Marvin in the lifeboat. I think the point you made, despite being speculative, is a very strong possibility.

And the other major variable is William Harbeck, who we know for a fact had 100,000 feet of film stock and five cameras on board, at least one of which was loaded with film by a friend before departure (so Harbeck could grab anything that was "interesting"). It could be just as plausible that HE grabbed some shots around the same time, perhaps before boarding, and left the unexposed film with his colleague(s) before departing.

And SURELY there were other newsreel cameramen there in Southampton to document the departure, however routine it was. And since the sinking happened five days later, you'd think that would be short enough of a timespan that any footage shot would still be extant (as opposed to footage of a ship that sank several years later, and so in the intervening years was thrown out as "worthless").

Honestly, I'm a little surprised something HASN'T come out before now. While the rate of attrition amongst nitrate based silent films is apalling (as much as 90 percent lost by some estimates), the frenzy over the Titanic would seem to suggest that related footage would have better odds of being preserved.

So I'd agree with Jim...I'm willing to bet that if Biograph has footage, it will be of the ship circa April 10th, either of her arrival in Southampton, her departure, or the interim.

Whether it was shot by Marvin is harder to say. Because Marvin's story is so well known, as are his associations with cinema, it would be easy to assume any discovered footage must be Marvin's. But it seems as likely it could be Harbeck's or a non-embarking cameraman from Pathe or Gaumont or someplace.

So while the Marvin angle seems suspect, it seems to me more and more plausible that something indeed is out there.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,272
563
183
Germany
As previously said, I think there is more talk and mystery about that "film" which in the end will be some mixed up footage of Olympic and other ships as known from several other documentary's or even the beginning of SOS TITANIC.

And Rocky W. yes, if I remember right there was talk about this marvin film some years ago.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
379
283
Easley South Carolina
>>So do the lines at exhibits and the TV schedules.<<

Don't be so sure. The RMSTI concern hasn't exactly been flush with profits and the only two permanent attractions...Branson and Pigeon Forge...are in towns crawling with attractions and tourists.

As to television, how much has been made since the 2005 History Channel and James Cameron's return expedition which is actually and genuinely new?

Not that much.

>>...the frenzy over the Titanic would seem to suggest that related footage would have better odds of being preserved. <<

More likely buried and by deliberate design, due in no small part by White Star doing everything they possibly could to make the whole affair go away and be forgotten as quickly as possible.
 

Sam Brannigan

Member
Feb 24, 2007
896
8
88
http://www.biographcompany.com/history/timeline.html

Check 1912 from the timeline on Biograph's site:

"...his wife was rescued by one of the lifeboats. Daniel gave her film that was taken aboard the ship when she boarded the lifeboat which is the only film in existence onboard Titanic."

That seems pretty clear on their part - the footage wasn't sent to London from Southampton, and it wasn't removed from the ship at Cherbourg or Queenstown. It was put ina lifeboat with Mrs Marvin and she brought it on to the Carpathia.

I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Jun 27, 2002
42
1
136
That's what we're all trying to figure out. IF (and that's a big, big IF), there indeed was film taken off the ship with Mary Marvin, the speculation is that she might have kept it hidden. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest she destroyed the lone copy of her wedding film (the first of its kind in history), out of grief, and perhaps she kept the other film away from the public eye along similar lines (though obviously not destroying it).

But again, this is all speculation. The only people who know for sure aren't talking just yet.

BR
 
Jul 30, 2006
1
0
71
Hello Titanica group. I'm Thomas Bond II with Biograph Company and want to thank everyone for thier interest in our project, as well as furthering the history of the RMS Titanic. This tragedy was personal, I had friends that were actors from Biograph in 1912 that were there when they got the news about Daniel, a very sad time. Now to today... First, we are not trying to be mysterious at all, but as one of the group pointed out, we 'Have' to be, the entertainment industry today is very unscrupulous and have to keep all of our projects with some sort of confidentiality, no matter what the subject matter is. I 'Can' tell you that there is archival footage, and some was purported to be filmed by D.H. Marvin. I do want to make it clear how much we truly appreciate your enduring interest in this history, and we enjoy sharing with all Titanica members any information that we can release. Thank you again and we will keep you posted. Thomas @ Biograph Company
 
Nov 15, 2006
131
0
86
What I'm having trouble with is this "purported" comment. Sorry, but there either 'is' footage of the Titanic or there isn't. Surely someone from the Biograph company has had it verified by a Titanic historian 'before' making such a statement as Titanic footage.

Lot of egg on the face if it turns out to be any other ship other than that of the Titanic.
 
Jun 27, 2002
42
1
136
One would expect they have, but as others have mentioned, any historians they would have consulted likely have had to sign confidentiality agreements.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
379
283
Easley South Carolina
>>What I'm having trouble with is this "purported" comment.<<

In context, the expressed skepticism is over the alleged source, not the subject of the footage. If it is Titanic, it should become instantly apparant to anybody who really knows the ship. If it's not, rivet counters will be throwing the B.S. flag before the first broadcast is even over. If it's the real deal, they'll be saying so just as quickly.

Speaking only for myself, I'll give Biograph the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence to justify an opinion one way or another.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
379
283
Easley South Carolina
>>One decent still would put an end to this speculation, and ratchet up the interest... (hint, hint)<<

Unfortunately, that would leave Biograph open to exactly the sort of internet copyright pirating that we've discussed in this thread. It can happen in a few seconds and with only a few clicks of the mouse.

As much as I would like to see what they really have, if it's in fact genuine, they are very wise to keep it under wraps.
 
Jun 27, 2002
42
1
136
Well I've sent a few emails to Biograph's website and their email, seeking updates. Nothing, and the links on their website to the Titanic doc are broken. I hope I'm wrong, but it ain't looking good. I suspect if this project ever sees the light of day, it's gonna be a whole lot more mundane than they let on. I should've known better...if new Titanic footage gets discovered, you write a press release. You can't buy that kind of promotion. Their silence has proven worrisome. Biograph, PLEASE refute what I've said. I'd be thrilled if you prove me wrong. Truly.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,108
12
198
Funny- I was just thinking about this a few days ago and wondering if there was any new information. Not encouraging, to say the least.