Housekeeping Matter #11: Correction! (I just can't make it. Correction! All I want to dooooo, is to get back to yoooou)

Well, this is embarassing.

I mean here I am, World Class Cinephile; seen more movies than you've had hot dinners; can identify a film just by looking at a frame of it and everything.

Yet I stand before you this evening chastened . . . shamed beyond words.


I misattributed an image in the "Seminal Image" series, that's cause why.

A visitor to this here blog, David Boswell, took one glance at Seminal Image #90, instantly concluded that it was not from Sternberg's "The Docks of New York" (1928) and left a comment stating such. When I read it, I said, almost out loud "Wrong-o, bud!! I've seen that there film. I oughta know where it's from, cause I'm Super Cinephile!" So I went back to the Czech website where I got the still and found, to my considerable displeasure, that . . . ho-leeee . . . it was indeed a still from Mauritz Stiller's "Street of Sin" (1928)

I have three excuses I can employ here to hopefully mitigate my error, but there's no point. They're each one unsurpassingly lame ("I saw the film so LONG ago!!"). In short, I fucked up royally and pawned hastily collected goods off on y'all as something they weren't. I promise to be more careful and avoid such errors in future. That is all I can do to demonstrate how unutterably chastened I am by this incident.

Okay, that last sentence was overdoing it. But I do apologize to our visitors all the same.

Of course . . . I'm not a petty and vindictive sort who wishes to pont fingers where they shouldn't be pointed . . . but I'd like to know where my Partner in Blogging was during all of this.

Sure, maybe Stephen's not responsible . . primarily . . . for this monumental cock-up.

But he did see the image and its attribution, didn't he.

And . . . and he actually owns a copy of the thing, too.


And while I'm flailing about here, trying to offload some guilt, I'm not forgetting our erstwhile visitor Ivan Shreve. I mean . . . he commented on the image, right?

So he's just gotta be mixed up in this somehow.

Don't never let me catch you screwing up this blog again, Cooke-meister, y'hear?

And that goes for the rest of ya!

(stalks out of the room, shaking both fists at the heavens)


Stratu said...

Pretty funny post, but you shouldn't beat yourself up so much. How often would you make a mistake like that? Probably less than annually. Anyway, keep up the fine work, I love those old pictures.

Tom Sutpen said...

Thank ye. I actually was a little bit embarassed when David informed me about the misattribution; since at the very least I should have recognized it was Jannings under the shaving cream.

I would hope I'm not a recidivist on this stuff, but it'll probably happen again someday; more than likely with a film I'll have even less excuse for getting wrong.

Ah, well . . .

Sam said...

Breathe, Tom. Breathe...

Ivan G. said...

Well, I can certainly explain my participation in this little fox paw. You see...when I...that is to occurred that...

Good Lord, is that the time? Sorry, my excuse will have to wait another day--I'm off like a prom dress!

(Ivan leaves, Bob Clampett-style, out nearest exit.)

Tom Sutpen said...

(Ivan leaves, Bob Clampett-style, out nearest exit.)

Hey! No cartoon exits in this blog! That's a steadfast rule of ours. You people are supposed to file in and out like 3rd graders during a fire drill.