The Making of F. W. Murnau’s ‘Tabu’ – The Outtakes Edition

After films like ‘Nosferatu. Eine Symphonie des Grauens’ (GER, 1922), ‘Die Austreibung’ (GER, 1923) and the comedy ‘Die Finanzen des Großherzogs’ (GER, 1924), Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s international career was established with ‘Der letzte Mann’ (GER, 1924). The director signed a contract with the American producer William Fox in January 1925. In the following years, he shot three films in Hollywood: ‘Sunrise – A Song of Two Humans’ (USA, 1927); ‘4 Devils’ (USA, 1928); and ‘City Girl’ (USA, 1930). Although ‘Sunrise’ was awarded three “Oscars,” it was not successful at the box offices. Fox Studios demanded compromises from Murnau during the realization of two subsequent films, which led to the final break between the contracting parties at the beginning of 1929.
During the filming of ‘4 Devils’, Murnau met the documentary filmmaker Robert J. Flaherty, who had become famous through two films, ‘Nanook of the North’ (USA, 1922) and ‘Moana’ (USA, 1926). Their mutual disappointment over working conditions in Hollywood connected the two. Together, they developed a plan to realize a film in the South Seas based entirely on their own conceptions. Murnau had long since considered sailing to Bali, where his friend, the painter Walter Spies, lived. Flaherty knew the South Seas since production of ‘Moana’ and the film ’White Shadows in the South Seas’ (USA, 1928), made on Tahiti, in which he was initially involved.
The formation of Murnau-Flaherty Productions took place in March 1929, which soon afterwards found itself aligned with Colorart Productions Ltd., a production company prepared to finance the project of the two filmmakers. The working title of the planned color film was “Turia”; its storyline was based on an idea by Robert Flaherty. The film was to be produced in Technicolor, the latest, leading color motion picture process. All rights for a screen adaptation or a possible theater version were controlled by Colorart. Murnau and Flaherty were obliged to shoot a happy ending in addition to the end of the film they intended. During production, individual scenes were to be laid out with regard to audio dubbing and/or synchronous sound recording in the USA. The Production costs were estimated at $150,000. Additionally, Colorart was to pay $25,000 to the Technicolor company for the use of film and special cameras. Production was to begin on May 11, 1929 and to be completed on November 26, 1929. Moreover, it was agreed that profits from sales should first go to Colorart to cover production costs and that Murnau and Flaherty should only participate in gains that exceeded these costs.
Murnau purchased a two-masted schooner, which he called “Bali,” and he took the captain’s exam. He started for Tahiti from Los Angeles in the spring of 1929; Flaherty set out on his way some weeks later.

On May 12, 1929, one day after the beginning of production noted in the Colorart contract, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau left San Pedro, the port of Los Angeles, with the “Bali.” Included on board was a six-person team and David Flaherty, Robert Flaherty’s brother, who Murnau had met at the Fox Film Corporation and who would become one of his most important film crew staff on the ‘Tabu’ project.
In order to meet Murnau and his brother on Tahiti, Robert Flaherty, together with his assistant Sam Brown, set out on a journey from San Francisco a month later, on June 12th, aboard an ocean liner of the “Canadian Australiasian Royal Mail Line.”
The “Bali” first sailed to San Diego, then further south through the Gulf of California. On May 21st the ship laid anchor for several days outside the Mexican port of Mazatlán. At the sight of many coconut palms, the traveling party already felt closer to the South Seas: “Flaherty, next to me, suddenly says we should sail into the port of Mazatlan on Sunday morning: ‘There are coconut palms – it looks exactly like the islands in the South Seas!’ and really, through a thin line of high palms one sees the Mexican city preceded by small islands, and flat stretches of sand densely overlapped with coconut groves to the sides – one sees the thick, green clusters of nuts through the glass.” [Letter from F. W. Murnau to Salka and Berthold Viertel, undated, Literaturarchiv Marbach]

Murnau sent his mother a postcard with the picture of a palm on May 23rd: “First station in the tropics. I drank my first coconut today! The ‘Southern Cross’ appears on the horizon at night. Tomorrow, we’re heading further south for several weeks.” [Postcard from F. W. Murnau to Ottilie Plumpe, illegible postmark, dated “23.5.1929” by Murnau, F. W. Murnau estate, Deutsche Kinemathek] However, a defective generator coil and a broken anchor cable detained the travelers until the end of May.
At first the continuation of the journey was influenced by bad weather: “[...] with a week of nearly uninterrupted rain – rain like we can hardly imagine it – it’s like a lake that is poured over you; it’s as if we’re packed in water in our boat [...].” Murnau’s mood soon changed into enthusiasm, however: “Shortly before reaching the equator – suddenly overnight – everything changed: We’re in the southeast trade wind – there are no more clouds in the sky (only a soft wreath of the lightest, whitest dabs encircling the horizon); the wind blows us up and down on light waves across the equator; the days are all so beautiful – the nights are more beautiful, the most beautiful – sunsets in so tender, pastel-like colors that you laugh happily about the fulfillment of such dreams, as if a gigantic sea shell encases the sky for us, shimmering in all the colors of mother-of-pearl.” [Letter from F. W. Murnau to Salka and Berthold Viertel, undated, Literaturarchiv Marbach]
After more than three weeks at sea, the “Bali” reached the island Nuku Hiva, one of the Marquesas Islands belonging to French Polynesia. “When the ship pulled into port, I shouted jubilantly to my people: ‘We’re really here! – We made it!’ – In that small boat – more than 4000 miles … I see these gorgeous people for the first time – slim and sinewy in figure – their manner noble and friendly. – I hear my first Polynesian, soft and melodious – the ancient language of the natives on most of the islands in the South Seas.” [Loose-leaf collection, p. 16, F. W. Murnau estate, Deutsche Kinemathek]
On Nuku Hiva, Murnau and David Flaherty visited the Taipivai valley, described in Herman Melville’s novel Typee, where the natives had held the writer prisoner for some weeks in 1842 after he was deserted by a whaler. A copy of this book was in the ship’s library on the “Bali.” “We had a good selection of books about the South Seas with us: Conrad, Stevenson, Pierre Loti, Melville, Frederick O’Brien, Hall and Nordhoff – Works, which were suited to strengthening our longing for the bright islands.” [“Meine Fahrt zu den Glücklichen Inseln” (“Meine Fahrt zu den Inseln der Glücklichen”), undated manuscript, p. 1, Cinémathèque française]

From Nuku Hiva, the trip went further south to the island Ua Pu, afterwards back to Nuku Hiva and finally to the southeast, to the island of Hiva Oa. The travelers went there to see the grave of the French painter Paul Gauguin, who had lived on the island from 1901 until his death in 1903.
After an excursion to the neighboring island Tahuata, the trip went to Fatu Hiva, an island located at the southern end of the Marquesas Islands group. At a celebration there, Murnau’s attention was drawn to the young man Mehao, who he initially engaged as the lead actor for the film. Later, Matahi received this part and Mehao played one of his friends.
The “Bali” crossed the northern region of the Tuamotu Archipelago on the way to Tahiti. The travel group stopped again on the Takapoto Atoll and Takaroa. Murnau saw pearl divers at work for the first time; and it occurred to him that they were dependent on the businessmen who bought their pearls – an impression that Murnau incorporated into 'Tabu’.

After more than two months at sea and a route of more than 5,000 nautical miles, the “Bali” reached Tahiti on the evening of July 22, 1929: “While going along the coast, we saw the nightly fires, which are lit to prepare a meal or in order to show directions back and forth for those going out to fish. – We soon saw roving lights, car headlights, and heard horns honking as we approached the port city of Papeete, which shone like a sea of light and was reflected in the lagoon. […] We anchored someplace, practically on the street at the dock, since the cars and bicycles that rode past us seemed so near. We could almost see into the lighted houses. The anchor had hardly been cast, when a voice from the shore called my name. At first I didn’t believe it. It was Sam Brown and I called out a ‘hello’ in reply. – We have been long overdue for several weeks.” [Loose-leaf collection, pp. 40-41, F. W. Murnau estate, Deutsche Kinemathek]

When Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau and David Flaherty arrived in Papeete, the capital of Tahiti, on July 22, 1929, they learned from Robert Flaherty and Sam Brown that the production company Colorart had not transferred the monies agreed upon. The two had arrived on Tahiti on June 12th and had been living on borrowed money since then. Bad news also came from the USA: Murnau’s secretary Rose Kearin reported in a letter that Colorart also owed the salaries for the crew of the “Bali,” which were supposed to be covered under the production costs. [Letter from Rose Kearin to F. W. Murnau, July 5, 1929, F. W. Murnau estate, Deutsche Kinemathek]
What would end as fruitless correspondence between the contracting parties about the financing of the film “Turia” went on until November. In order to gain additional partners as sponsors for the project, the people in charge at Colorart demanded that Murnau and Flaherty give up their shares in the sales of the film. Both of them refused. However, they reached an agreement with Colorart to shoot the film in black-and-white so that they could forego the expensive Technicolor process. In addition, they proposed recording audio sequences for dubbing in the USA, in order to be able to do without sound equipment on location. Finally, both also agreed to other sales concepts, reduced the intended duration of production and the estimated on-site costs. Colorart first transferred money to Tahiti in August 1929; the next partial payment followed in September.
From a letter that Robert Flaherty wrote to his wife on August 20, 1929, it is evident that by this date Murnau had already decided to finance the film himself and to designate Flaherty as its cinematographer. [“Robert Joseph Flaherty Papers,” The Flaherty / International Film Seminars, Inc., New York, at the Butler Library of Columbia University, New York]

On Colorart’s behalf, Wallace Gillis, the lab technician Jack Cortissoz and the cameraman L. Guy Wilky arrived on Tahiti in October 1929. According to the original production schedules, Wilky was supposed to have operated the Technicolor camera.
The first takes of Tabu that were listed, recorded in the traditional daily reports, were filmed in black-and-white at a little river near Toahotu on October 16, 1929. L. Guy Wilky is noted as cameraman on only one of these takes, no. 137A. Wilky and Robert Flaherty filmed twelve further takes in the following four weeks. They made some of these recordings in parallel from various points of view of the camera, by using camera objectives with differing focal lengths. Robert Flaherty used his own camera, an “Akeley”, for Tabu, which he had already used during his preceding films. The type of camera with which L. Guy Wilky worked is not known.
On November 12, 1929 – in the interim it became certain that Colorart could not finance the Film “Turia” –Wilky, Gillis and Cortissoz set out on the journey home to the USA. As compensation for the missing payments, Wallace Gillis left Murnau the equipment they had brought. The particulars of the technical equipment of which it consisted are not documented. Murnau took over financing the project from this time forward.
Apparently, no filming occurred during the entire month of November 1929. There are no entries, either in the daily reports or in other documents. It can be assumed that after the “Turia” project had failed, Murnau and Flaherty were first engaged in developing a new film idea and in determining its essential features. The initial story about the exploitation of the Tahitians by Chinese pearl fishers turned into a love story, a story about Tabu.
The village, which served as a backdrop for the film, was built on the beach of Motu Tapu between November 19th and the beginning of December 1929. Its huts were simultaneously used by the film crew as accommodations.
Various takes were also shot on Motu Tapu from December 11th-21st. These show villagers, swimming and in canoes, who hasten to meet the ship arriving with Hitu (take nos. 62, 62E, 64A, 65, 65A, 68, 68A, 72A); women preparing themselves for the dance along the water (take nos.155, 155–157, 157, 157A); men under a tree (154–156, 154–6–8, 156); as well as parts of the celebration in honor of Hitu and Reri, who has been chosen for the gods (95, 147, 151, 151A, 159B).

The crew returned to Tahiti at the end of December 1929, where takes were first made at the Fautaua Waterfall near Papeete.
The cameraman Floyd Crosby joined the team at approximately the same time. He had previously worked together with Robert Flaherty and it was only because of other obligations that he belatedly joined the work on Tabu. He is first mentioned in the daily reports on January 6, 1930. Correspondingly, the takes from December 1929 were – with great probability – made exclusively by Robert Flaherty.
In an interview that Crosby gave Nicholas Pasquariello for the American Film Institute in 1973, he claimed that Flaherty was untalented and that his camera was defective [cf. Floyd Crosby: “The Development of Cinematography.” In: Louis B. Mayer Oral History Collection. Beverly Hills: American Film Institute, 1973, p. T1, p. 14]. Although Crosby could not boast of having shot a completed film on his own by this date, he quickly took on the largest portion of the camera work for Tabu. He mounted the “Debrie” camera, model “L” that he used onto an “Akeley” tripod, in order to be able to make better pan shots [ibid., p. T6, p. 156, T6, p. 196]. However, most takes of the film were shot from a fixed camera position and without movement.

Flaherty withdrew more and more from the camera work – possibly on account of the technical problems that he had with his “Akeley.” The report from the afternoon of March 14, 1930 lists his last shoot: Canoes are loaded on the beach of Motu Tapu with fruit and other going-away presents for Hitu, before he takes Reri away with him.
From here on, Robert Flaherty’s involvement on the production was confined to developing the negatives and copying the shot material onto positive film [cf. R. Flaherty: “Wie Tabu entstand.” In: Die Filmwoche, no. 22, May 27, 1931]. This work was carried out on site with equipment from the Steinman company, which had remained on Tahiti after the end of filming White Shadow in the South Seas (USA, 1928) [cf. Floyd Crosby: “The Development of Cinematography,” T2, p. 59f]. Robert Flaherty had participated on White Shadows as co-director, but had prematurely given up his involvement. Crosby was temporarily employed as a camera assistant on this production.
Flaherty continued to work together with Murnau on the development of the plot of Tabu [ibid., T1, p. 17], but the originally balanced job-sharing between the two changed considerably with Murnau’s taking charge of the financing. The film developed into a pure Murnau production with a story told jointly by Flaherty and Murnau.

The team filmed mainly on Motu Tapu until March 1930 [in the Reo Māʼohi language the word “motu” means “place” or “island,” while “tapu” stands for “holy” and “taboo”/“untouchable”]. Night takes were listed on the shooting schedule for the last day of filming here, on March 15th: After the discovery of Matahi’s and Reri’s escape, a large fire was to be ignited and torches were to be carried across the screen. Murnau’s assistant Bob Reese was badly burned as a result and filming stopped. The takes were subsequently filmed again on Tahiti. Later, the accident was partly interpreted as a punishment and a warning. According to Polynesian beliefs, Motu Tapu was regarded as a place that was not allowed to be entered.
In her biography of Murnau, Lotte Eisner reports about further accidents during filming: Two cameras, along with their entire film material, were apparently destroyed by a big wave; actors were hurt and fell ill in mysterious ways; the crew’s cook was killed under puzzling circumstances [cf. Lotte H. Eisner: Murnau. 1979, p. 355]. However, these accounts have not been proven.
Floyd Crosby described difficulties of another type during filming: He claims that Murnau always put off ordering film material and moreover, ordered old material, including odds and ends that came from other productions [cf. “Development,” T1/P36]. Mandatory breaks also arose because of the rainy season or because film material was falsely sent to New Zealand instead of to Tahiti [cf. letter from Murnau to Salka and Berthold Viertel, May 1930, Literaturarchiv Marbach, Salka Viertel estate].

Martha Dresback, an editor for the negative, who had been engaged by Rose Kearin on Murnau’s behalf, arrived on Tahiti in May 1930. Murnau jointly worked out a cut version with her, although the special effects were still missing; these were subsequently filmed in the USA.

Filming in the South Seas lasted until the beginning of September 1930. In addition to Motu Tapu, Bora Bora also provided film locations, where the takes on the schooner “Moana” were made. The so-called “Fish Drive” – material, which Murnau did not include in his cut version of Tabu – was also filmed in the lagoon of Bora Bora. Further film locations were Tautira, in the southeast of Tahiti; the racetrack in Papeete, where the celebration with the Chinese businessman takes place; Faa’a, located to the south of Papeete; the commune of Punaauia on the west shore of Tahiti; as well as the island Moorea northwest of Tahiti.
The last take recorded in the daily reports was filmed on Saturday, September 6, 1930 in Faa’a: Take No. XYZ shows a sleeping Matahi.
In the following weeks, Murnau and Martha Dresback finished the cut. Afterward, Murnau returned to the USA together with Robert Flaherty and the other crew members on an ocean liner. He arrived in San Francisco on November 8, 1930. The “Bali” remained in the South Seas; Murnau intended to return.

When Murnau traveled from Tahiti with an ocean liner back to the USA at the end of 1930, his financial reserves were depleted. He had to rush completion of ‘Tabu’, because his visa for the United States was not going to be valid much longer.
Murnau initially commissioned Hugo Riesenfeld, who worked for United Artists at that time, to compose the music for ‘Tabu’. He borrowed money for this fee from his friends Berthold and Salka Viertel. Riesenfeld not only supplied the film music, in which he incorporated motifs from Friedrich Smetana’s “Die Moldau” and Franz Schubert’s string quartet “Der Tod und das Mädchen”, he also took charge of the sound effects. Sound, music and the nearly completed negative, which Murnau had brought with him from Tahiti, were connected in the Tec-Art Studios in Hollywood.
In December 1930, Murnau worked on the special effects for the scenes of ‘Tabu’ in which the artificial shark can be seen.
No later than the beginning of 1931, Arthur A. Brooks, as editor, became mainly involved with the synchronous cut and he also carried out any work on the negative brought about by Murnau’s changes and the sequences of special effects.
In several previews, Murnau showed ‘Tabu’ to a select audience at various stages of completion. In attendance were representatives of production and distribution companies, Murnau’s friends and acquaintances, including Greta Garbo, Katherine Hilliker and H. H. Caldwell, from whom, among other things, the English intertitles for ‘Nosferatu’ and ‘Sunrise’ originated.
Murnau sold the worldwide distribution rights to Tabu to Paramount on February 18, 1931, for the duration of five years. The production company had offered him a ten-year contract as well. Afterwards, the director planned to travel to the premiere of ‘Tabu’ in New York on March 18, 1931, followed by a trip to Europe for some time. However, this never came to pass. On March 11, 1931, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau succumbed to injuries he had suffered in a car accident the same day near Santa Barbara. He had been on his way to the author and scriptwriter Gouverneur Morris, to talk to him about an adaptation of the ‘Tabu’ material as a book [cf. letter from David Flaherty to Robert Flaherty, March 19, 1931, “Robert Joseph Flaherty Papers,” The Flaherty / International Film Seminars, Inc., New York, at the Butler Library of Columbia University, New York], and possibly also about his next film project. It was the story of a white man and a native woman from a South Seas island, entitled “Was It For This?” [Letter from David Flaherty to Robert Flaherty, August 18, 1931, “Robert Joseph Flaherty Papers,” The Flaherty / International Film Seminars, Inc., New York, at the Butler Library of Columbia University, New York].

Following a memorial service in Hollywood, Murnau’s body was transported to Germany. A funeral service took place in the chapel of the Südwestkirchhof Stahnsdorf (cemetery) near Berlin on April 11th, 1931 attended by Ludwig Berger, Robert J. Flaherty, Rochus Gliese, Robert Herlth, Carl Hoffmann, Emil Jannings, Fritz Lang, Carl Mayer, G. W. Pabst, Erich Pommer, Walter Röhrig and Fritz Arno Wagner.
After Murnau’s death, Paramount possessed the worldwide utilization rights to ‘Tabu’ until 1936, which subsequently went to Murnau’s family: first to his mother Ottilie, who died in 1944, then to his brother Robert Plumpe. Following Robert’s death in 1961, the rights were transferred to his daughters Eva Diekmann and Ursula Plumpe.

In addition to F. W. Murnau’s director’s cut version of ‘Tabu’ – the film historian Enno Patalas has called it the “Pre-Paramount” version − which did not make it into distribution in the USA, there is a version of the film created in 1931 that was based on it, which Paramount did distribute, the so-called Paramount version.
The reasons for the production of these two different versions are still obscure, and the person responsible for the editing of the Paramount version is not known.
Aside from specific distribution differences in the opening and closing credits, changes in the intertitles are primarily noticeable. Thus, for example, on the texts inserted in the film Paramount replaced the word “virgin” (referring to Reri) with the more harmless word “maiden.” The graphic design of the texts is nevertheless identical with Murnau’s version.
One difference between the two versions – concerning the scene in the second half of the film where Reri sinks to the ground in the hut – is dramatically important: Although this scene is realized in Murnau’s director’s cut version with 16 takes, it was shortened to merely four takes in the Paramount version. In addition, the underwater segments where Matahi is shown while pearl diving are missing in the Paramount version. In the second half of ‘Tabu’, the brief dance of the policeman playing an accordion during a celebration was also cut: Paramount replaced part of this scene with a short take showing guests in front of a wheel of fortune on the bar. This scene is not contained in the “Pre-Paramount” version. Another difference concerns takes in the second half of the film where a full moon can be seen: In the Paramount version, the moon is considerably larger and correspondingly more effective than in the “Pre-Paramount” version. These divergences illustrate that Paramount had access to segments of the film extending beyond the takes that Murnau used for its production. The list of cast and crew in the opening and closing credits in Murnau’s version refer to some contributors, who are not mentioned by Paramount: In addition to several actors, William Bambridge and David Flaherty are absent under the heading “Assistant Director.”

Paramount also distributed ‘Tabu’ in Germany after 1931, although in Murnau’s version, which was provided with credits [Haupttiteln] and intertitles in German.
The film was recognized as a German production by the German censorship board [July 20, 1931, B. 29412, 8 files, G-rated]. After the expiration of the contract regulating the distribution of ‘Tabu’, Paramount gave all the materials back to Murnau’s heirs.
The world rights – except for Sweden – were subsequently allocated to Tobis-Cinema Film AG for five years; after its expiration, the contract was extended for another five years (up to 1947). The version of ‘Tabu’ sold in Germany was distributed by Degeto-Kulturfilm GmbH as of 1938.
On November 1, 1940, Robert Plumpe sold all rights to ‘Tabu’ and the “Turia” story to Samuel Brown, who had participated as Flaherty’s assistant during the filming of ‘Tabu’. Together with his brother Rowland, Brown operated the company Golden Bough, Inc. in Los Angeles. However, before ‘Tabu’ could be brought into American movie theaters again, the distributors – Golden Bough, in cooperation with the Motion Pictures Sales Corporation – had to implement specifications of the Production Code Administration. The Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association, under its chairman Will Hays, had already published a collection of “dont’s” and “carefuls” at the end of March 1930, to avoid reproach about a decline in moral standards in the American film industry raised by a conservative faction. This list, designated as “Production Code,” was first consistently put into practice as of the summer of 1934. The first movie theater version of ‘Tabu’, which premiered in New York on March 18, 1931, was still able to be realized unchallenged by the demands of the Production Code.
However, the film had to be greatly shortened for its remarketing through Golden Bough, before it received the necessary certificate (with the number 14360) in January 1950. All takes in which (partially) nude women or children were shown were affected by censorship. The recordings of Reri’s and Matahi’s dance at the celebration honoring Hitus also had to be removed, as well as takes in which Reri laid her head in Matahi’s lap. What had become superfluous alternative footage meant to be intercut was inevitably also omitted in this manner. In addition, the divisions of the film into two chapters of “Paradise” and “Paradise Lost” was rejected in the Golden Bough version. The credits at the beginning and end of ‘Tabu’ were also modified. The basic material Golden Bough made use of originated from both Murnau’s version and the Paramount version. The intertitles, in particular, were mainly taken from Murnau’s version. The Golden Bough version did not manage to hold its own at the cinema.
In 1967, Sam Brown sold the rights to ‘Tabu’ and the “Turia” story that he had acquired through contracts from 1940 and 1949 back to the Murnau heirs, for the symbolic amount of one dollar. The American copyright authority was informed about the reassignment of all rights and titles to the Murnau heirs through a notarized letter in February 1968. However, proper acknowledgement of this letter by the authority and the legally relevant transcription of the copyright entry was lacking. During an inquiry by the Murnau heirs to this authority in 1987, they were informed that the Paramount Publix Corporation had held the copyright since September 3, 1931, and that the rights had been issued to Samuel G. Brown since July 31, 1959. These rights first ran out on December 31, 2006.

Media consulted for comparison purposes:
- for Murnau’s director’s cut version (“Pre-Paramount”): a copy at the SDK (00351-V)
- for the Paramount version: a DVD from Milestone, on which a restored version of the film by the University of California, Los Angeles, is published
- for the Golden Bough version: a copy in the Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv (BSP 3791)
- for the German version: a recording of a NDR television broadcast, which concerns an undated repeat of a broadcast from March 14, 1971.

USA 1931
Directed by: Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau
Assistant Directors: William “Bill” Bambridge, David Flaherty
Told by: Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Robert J. Flaherty
Camera: Floyd Crosby, Robert J. Flaherty, L. Guy Wilky
Editor: Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Martha Dresback, Arthur A. Brooks
Musical Setting: Hugo Riesenfeld
Assistant to Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau: Bob Reese
Assistant to Robert J. Flaherty: Sam Brown
Secretary of the production, USA: Rose Kearin

Cast
Reri (i. e. Anna Chevalier): The Girl, Matahi: The Boy, Hitu: The old Warrior, Jean (i. e. William “Bill” Bambridge): The Policeman, Jules: The Captain, Kong Ah: The Chinese Trader.

Shooting period:
October 16,1929 to September 1930 (Tahiti: Faa'a, Matavai Bay, Papeete, Punaauia, Tautira, Toahotu; Bora Bora, Motu Tapu); December 1931 (USA)

Copyright entry, USA:
‘Tabu’. 1931. 7,383 ft., sd.
Credits: Director, F. W. Murnau; story, F. W. Murnau, R. J. Flaherty; musical setting, Hugo Riesenfeld.
(c) Paramount Publix Corp.; 3Aug31; LP2371

Der Film wurde von der Zensurbehörde in Deutschland als deutsche Produktion anerkannt.

Zensureintrag 1 Deutschland:
Tabu. – U. F. W. Murnau. – A. Parufament-Filmvertrieb G. m. b. H., Berlin. – Uld. Deutschland. – 8 Akte, 2311 Mtr. – 20.7.31. – B. 29412. – G. – (Tonfilm)
[U. = Ursprungsfirma, A. = Antragsteller bei der betreffenden Prüfstelle, Uld.: Ursprungsland, B. = Berlin, G. = Genehmigt, d. h. allgemein zugelassen (Legende aus Jahrbuch)]
Zensureintrag 2 Deutschland (von Zensurkarte genommen)
Prüf-Nr. 38543
Antragsteller: Degeto-Kulturfilm G. m. b. H., Berlin
Hersteller: F. W. Murnau
Gesamtlänge: 2237 m (1. Akt: 569 m, 2. Akt: 525 m, 3. Akt: 578 m, 4. Akt: 565 m)
„Der Film wird zur öffentlichen Vorführung im Deutschen Reiche, auch vor Jugendlichen, zugelassen."
„Der Film ist zur Vorführung am Karfreitag, am Bußtag und am Heldengedenktag geeignet."
Berlin, den 14. Februar 1935
Ausgefertigt Berlin, den 26. Oktober 1937
aus: Karl Wolffsohn (Hrsg.): Jahrbuch der Filmindustrie 1933, Kapitel VII, Die Filme des Jahres 1930 - 1931 - 1932, Verlag der ‘Lichtbildbühne’, Berlin 1933. Zensurkarte nicht vorhanden

Zensureintrag deutscher Trailer 1:
Vorspannfilm: Tabu. – U. F. W. Murnau. – A. Parufament-Filmvertrieb G. m. b. H., Berlin. – Uld. Deutschland. – 1 Akt, 117 Mtr. – 26.3.31. – B. 29685. – G. – (Tonfilm)
[U. = Ursprungsfirma, A. = Antragsteller bei der betreffenden Prüfstelle, Uld.: Ursprungsland, B. = Berlin, G. = Genehmigt, d. h. allgemein zugelassen (Legende aus Jahrbuch)]
aus: Karl Wolffsohn (Hrsg.): Jahrbuch der Filmindustrie 1933, Kapitel VII, Die Filme des Jahres 1930 - 1931 - 1932, Verlag der ‘Lichtbildbühne’, Berlin 1933. Zensurkarte nicht vorhanden

Zensureintrag deutscher Trailer 2:
Vorspannfilm: Tabu (2. Fassung). – U. F. W. Murnau. – A. Paramount-Film AG, Berlin. – Uld. Deutschland. – 1 Akt, 104 Mtr. – 16.12.32. – B. 32753. – G. – (Tonfilm)
[U. = Ursprungsfirma, A. = Antragsteller bei der betreffenden Prüfstelle, Uld.: Ursprungsland, B. = Berlin, G. = Genehmigt, d. h. allgemein zugelassen (Legende aus Jahrbuch)]
aus: Karl Wolffsohn (Hrsg.): Jahrbuch der Filmindustrie 1933, Kapitel VII, Die Filme des Jahres 1930 - 1931 - 1932, Verlag der Lichtbildbühne, Berlin 1933. Zensurkarte nicht vorhanden

The raw film material that was used during filming on ‘Tabu’ includes 35 mm nitrate film made by Kodak (Eastman Type I, Eastman Type II), DuPont, as well as material from unknown manufacturers. The film rolls originate in part from inventory remnants; some were pasted together from short clips of leftover material [see Floyd Crosby, “The Development of Cinematography,” The American Film Institute / Louis B. Mayer Oral History Collection, 1977].

The lengths of the majority of the film rolls, which were examined and processed in the context of preparing ‘The Outtakes Edition’, are approximately 200 to 300 meters each. The shortest roll is 24.6 meters long; the longest is 667 meters. According to the daily reports [WW1], the material was filmed between October 16, 1929 and September 6, 1930. Special effects (including scenes with a man-made shark) were shot in December 1930. Robert Flaherty lists 80,000 meters as the total amount of footage filmed for ‘Tabu’ [Robert Flaherty, “Wie ‘Tabu’ entstand,” Die Filmwoche, no. 22, 1931]; Paramount’s press kit reports 250,000 feet, an equivalent of approximately 76,000 meters. This information, which seems disproportionately high from a production and technical point of view, cannot be verified. The actual material that was ultimately used in the completed film was also contained in this total: 7,383 feet = 2,250.34 [WW2] meters. However, whether these details also include film recordings that were subsequently made in the USA has not been clarified. Robert Plumpe brought film material to Germany after the death of his brother, F. W. Murnau, but there are also no reliable statements about how much or which ‘Tabu’ materials came from the USA and Tahiti.

A total of 16,245.66 meters of negative and positive materials were processed in the context of ‘The Outtakes Edition’, amounting to about ten hours of film altogether. Film material that did not belong to ‘Tabu’ – 314 meters – was separated from the rest. The film material used for 'The Outtakes Edition’ comes from the following archives:

Österreichisches Filmmuseum (Filmmuseum Austria), Vienna

This is an inventory of originally 92 film canisters containing film rolls varying in length, which the owner of the Graz film production company Alpenfilm, Albin Oswalder Wandegg, gave to the Filmmuseum Austria in May 1971.

Both negative (camera negative material, dupe negative) and positive materials make up this inventory. Among the positives, the corresponding [WW3] negative material is only available in a few cases.

In addition, the inventory in Vienna contains three rolls of film that were separated out prior to their arrival at the Filmmuseum Austria since they do not show any recognizable references to ‘Tabu’. Five other rolls of film in the inventory have not been included in The Outtakes Edition, because they deal with optical sound, but do not contain any image information.

Correspondingly, 84 film rolls contain ‘Tabu’ material. Their combined total length amounts to 14,185.76 meters. Roll no. 81 (150 meters) is missing from this material. The total length of the processed material that was made available by the Filmmuseum Austria is therefore 14,035.76 meters. Nevertheless, roll no. 81 could be included in ‘The Outtakes Edition’, because an editing table version of it still exists, although differences in picture quality are apparent when compared to the other extant materials.

Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv (BArch)

This is a processed inventory of eight film canisters, containing film rolls of varying length that amount to a total length of 2,059.9 meters. Murnau’s heirs had originally given the material to the Deutsche Filminstitut (DIF, German Film Institute) for assessment, and since then it has been stored in the Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv (the federal film archives).

Both negative (camera negative material, dupe negative) and positive materials make up this inventory. Among the positives, the corresponding [WW4] negative material is only available in a few cases. In addition, the inventory contains 434 meters of material (two rolls), which show Anna Chevalier in a city, possibly New York, that were taken some years after ‘Tabu’ was being filmed. This material was separated out and not included in the edition.

The material (314.13 meters) from the inventory of the Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv that arrived as the original negative of the Schonger film, ‘Reise zu den glücklichen Inseln’ (1968), could no longer be taken into account for this edition, because it was found too late for publication.

After the arrival of the extant film material in Bologna – 16,095.66 meters in total – a preliminary examination took place. The material was then stored in safety cabinets for nitrate film.
In order to maintain the original arrangement of the material, the film canisters and their labeling, as well as the labels on the film leaders, were photographed within the scope of the condition documentation. The contents of every single roll of film were registered in the next step. The screen content of every take was briefly noted, in addition to the margin numbers and the manufacturer information on the dating of the film stock, as well as (so far as was possible) the information from the panels, which precede the takes and the take number, the name of the cameraman and other data. The number of individual images for every single take was registered. Scratches and other damages, glued segments, as well as partially existing markings were also documented.
During the technical analysis, the material was rewound and concurrently examined to determine whether it was negative or positive film; the vast majority of the film rolls are made of negative material, but duplicate negatives and duplicate positives also exist in various copying stages with a corresponding loss of quality. In addition, the shrinkage of the material was measured. All of the data gained from this analysis was summarized in a table format.
Damaged or missing perforations were repaired or replaced in the subsequent phase of work. Nearly all of the glue joints were opened, freed from old adhesive and resealed (while wet in most cases). In some instances the adhesive was applied dry, but special attention was paid so that the edges of the adhesive would not overlap the image. The generally good condition of the ‘Tabu’ materials – which can be traced back to the fact they are predominantly comprised of camera negatives that never ran outside the camera – required no further interventions or repairs.
In preparation for copying, an initial color grading was carried out for each roll of film to make sure that every scene would receive the proper timing light suited to it. This stage of work proved to be very complex for the ‘Tabu’ materials since the rolls of film consist of diverse, unordered types of material and generations of material, which, moreover, were shot on various film stock. Some of the rolls of film are mounted together from hundreds of takes or take fragments, which, in part, only consist of few individual images. The correct light also had to be found in each case for these very short fragments.
The material was subjected to ultrasonic cleaning in Hydrofluoroether before copying. Taking the sensitive nitrate material into consideration, very soft sponge rolls were used and the film rate was reduced to 80 frames per second.
In the interest of better image steadiness, the optical step-and-repeat process was chosen instead of contact printing. Copying the negatives followed in a wet process using Perchlorethylen on Eastman Duplicating Positive Film 2366 at a rate of 4 frames per second. The positives were correspondingly secured on duplicate negative.
In the second stage of preservation, the duplicate material obtained was digitalized at a 2K resolution and filed into 10-bit log DPX files. Afterwards, the 2K material was converted into HD (HD downconvert). A renewed color grading was digitally carried out at this stage. The results were transferred onto HDCAM tapes and a further backup of the 2K raw files was copied to a hard disk.

In ‘The Making of F. W. Murnau’s Tabu: The Outtakes Edition’, the Deutsche Kinemathek is providing an online publication, which makes Murnau’s working methods on his last great work truly comprehensible. Primary cinematic materials and preserved secondary written materials have been systematically brought together for the first time: In addition to the unusual abundance of surviving cinematic materials that have been secured in the context of this project, the film script for ‘Tabu’ (“Current Continuity,” abbreviated CON), as well as the preserved daily reports on its filming (“Script Clerk’s Reports,” abbreviated SCR), have also been digitally catalogued and made available.
The film’s takes, which are mentioned and/or described in the sources, function as a central organizing principle for the materials provided. Several thousand digitized components that comprise the outtakes were mounted into clips corresponding to their visual contents, which were also analogously named and sorted according to the film’s takes as far as possible. Each take number lists all the respective entries noted in other available sources.
In this composite presentation of sources, the making of ‘Tabu’ can be studied – take for take, film shoot for film shoot.

Since the daily reports were written in direct connection with the filming, they reflect it more accurately than the “Current Continuity” does. There is not complete agreement between the take numbers, which are each indicated in the written sources and those which could be verified for the outtakes. In part, information on individual take numbers has not been supplied by the documents, although conversely, film recordings have also survived among the outtakes, which cannot be attributed to any take with written documentation (in order to make searching them possible, they have been given the denotation “non-allocatable”).

In addition to information about the genesis of ‘Tabu’, about the cinematic materials and their safeguarding in the context of the project, as well as the archival and editorial processing of the sources, this edition provides a user interface on which all of these components can be searched and viewed. Searching by topics offers access to the material in which keywords like “cameraman,” “film location” or individual “clip themes” can be used to generate an overview among the existing results without having to have detailed prior knowledge. An advanced search requires the input of specific search terms related to a take number, cameraman, person, date and/or film location, where results can be specifically filtered by combination. Moreover, a complete query of the data is possible, sorted by the type of source in each case (CON, SCR and CLIP). An unrestricted search function assists in finding further content among the sources that is not covered by the other two search options. Registered users can save search results on a reference list.

The combined representation of moving image, text and image sources provides users with an individually-structured access to the materials, while also revealing new ways of safeguarding, presenting and utilizing audiovisual cultural assets. Foundations for the further scholarly evaluation of ‘Tabu’s’ outtakes are created with this edition.

Parallel to the safeguarding and digitalization of the surviving film materials, the editorial work in Berlin began. At first, the basis for this were descriptions, which the staff of L’Immagine ritrovata in Bologna had made based on a Deutsche Kinemathek criterion catalogue. They collected information on the conditions of the materials, on splices and cuts, margin numbers, as well as manufacturer’s information with year codes, information written on or scratched into the material, as well as descriptions of the image content.
Following safeguarding and digitalization, the ‘Tabu’ material was delivered to the Deutsche Kinemathek: First as safety film, on which all the rolls were copied (fine grain), and additionally in the form of digitized images of the copied rolls (in a 2K resolution on a hard drive, a HDCAM tape and as a DigiBeta tape). The basic material for the 782 clips shown in the context of The Outtakes Edition was the DigiBeta material, which was imported into a film editing program (Final Cut Pro) in the form of .mov files and optimized for the Internet.
The digitized contents of the rolls were then separated from one another piece by piece. In the next step, several thousand film fragments were presorted by means of their visual content and in comparison to the action of the completed film (Murnau’s first cut). Material, which did not have any recognizable references to ‘Tabu’, was sorted out.
In the next working phase, the presorted material was organized according to the take numbers, which are listed on the film material itself, as well as in the film script and the daily reports. Using these sources, as well as the documentation from Bologna, footage that could not previously be attributed (of water or sky for example) could be correctly pieced together.
In each case, the material belonging to a take number was ordered into the sequence in which it was filmed according to its margin numbers. Materials, which display no margin numbers, were sorted by means of the visual content as far as possible. Materials, which could not be attributed to specific take numbers, were consolidated under the denotation “non-allocatable,” and were assigned a keyword name representing their visual content (e.g. “Fish Drive 1”, etc.).
Positive material was sorted out from the resulting collections of film segments, provided that the corresponding negative material in each case has survived. While sorting the positive material – from which a negative no longer exists – the original margin numbers were not copied over. In these cases, visual content was used to attempt to determine the sequence of filming. If this was not possible, the positive material was attached to the end of the clips, but before the partially used VHS material.

The material belonging to a take from the completed film was also mounted to each clip – provided it was available. In order to differentiate this material from the outtakes, it was reduced to 88 percent of the size of the outtake materials and made recognizable as such by a corresponding wide black frame. The material from the completed film only shows a segment of the origin material: It is provided with a soundtrack in the original, which was removed for this edition. The lower and the left edge of the image are principally affected (during viewing/display).
If it was not possible to plausibly incorporate the corresponding takes from the completed film into the individual clips, then these passages were placed at the beginning of the clips.
Missing passages of a take are identified by a black screen (20 frames).

The composition of each clip was automatically recorded by the editing program; the prerequisite for this was that the time codes from the tapes of imported data were added manually for every roll at the start of the work. The editing program provides this information in the form of an “Edit Decision List” (EDL), which can be exported and fed into other editing programs. In this manner it is also possible to recut any clip made in the context of ‘The Outtakes Edition’, e.g. with the available high-definition HDCAM material.

Some of the film materials assembled in the clips display in different image sizes. The reason for this is that the film material was fragmented and distributed across many rolls and had to be copied in this form. Slightly varied shrinkages, and the machine settings resulting from them, occasionally make apparent the small, unavoidable format changes in the digital copies mounted to the clips.

During the filming of ‘Tabu’, clapperboards were normally used after filming a take; in each case the number of the shot and of the current take were noted, as well as the name of the cameraman more often than not, and in rare cases additional remarks that provide information about the footage.
The takes of ‘Tabu’ were at first consecutively numbered. During the course of filming, this changed over to placing an “X-” in front of the numbers. The reason for this could not be determined. Some of the film recordings are labeled with “XX” as a prefix to the number; it presumably refers to additional or subsequent film action in the resulting takes beyond what was originally planned. Almost all the takes of the scene about the fisherman who had an accident – not contained in the film script – are labeled with an additional “P.”
The abbreviation “RT” is found relatively frequently after a take number on the clapperboards, as well as in the film script and in the daily reports. It most likely stands for the identification of a “retake” and indicates that the respective film recording is a repetition of the previous one. This would seem to be confirmed, first in cases of takes, where no further labels or “RT” numbers are indicated, that they are each concerned with further takes of the original shot, and secondly, that some takes exclusively exist in the RT version: The original takes may have been judged useless from the start and were consequently weeded out. Other reasons for this might have been difficulties with the cameras or the film processing equipment.
The note “Retort,” which indicates that the recording is a reverse angle shot to the previous one, is repeatedly found on the clapperboards of film recordings made by Robert J. Flaherty. Flaherty sometimes named several different “Retort” recordings within a take number, which received a further number in addition to the take number (for example: 1 Retort 5, Take 1). This term does not appear in the film script or in the daily reports.
The “NG” abbreviation also used on the clapperboards stands for “No Good.”
In general, the designation “A” on a clapperboard indicates that a take has been filmed a second time, but somewhat “closer” and mostly with another lens.
If an “F” follows after a take number and there are no “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” and “E” takes for this number, the footage belongs to a take made by Robert J. Flaherty.
The term “Gauze” is also listed on some clapperboards, next to the shot and take number, in part enhanced by the designation “big” or “small.” This entry indicates that gauze was spanned across the lens as a soft-focus for the respective film recording. “Big” and “small” presumably describe the stitch size of the gauze.

The scenes with the model shark that Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau filmed after his return to the USA and other underwater recordings are listed neither in the film script, nor in the daily reports. The numbering of these takes that Murnau carried out on corresponding clapperboards is perplexing, particularly since some of the numbers had already been used during filming (no. 151, for example). In some of these cases, a date (presumably the day of shooting), is listed on the clapperboards next to the numbers. In the present edition, these data were used as an alternative to the take numbers.
Murnau’s name is also repeatedly noted on the clapperboards for the additional film recordings that were made later. This reference is normally reserved for the cameraman. However, whether Murnau himself operated the camera for these film recordings cannot be verified.
The numbers at times scratched into the material – in most cases the first frame of a take – presumably concern a numbering of the takes, which is intended to contribute to an overview during editing. In addition to consecutive numbers, the same handwriting (which cannot be obviously identified) was also always used to scratch in the clapperboard numbers; nevertheless, it is not Murnau’s handwriting.

The notation style of the take numbers was predominantly adapted from the cinematic material, but cautiously harmonized to increase legibility; the numbers of the shots filmed were not taken into account here.
- Letters following numbers were added directly to the number (e.g. “23A”).
- Letters following letters were given a hyphen (23A-B).
- Letters prefixing the take numbers were given a hyphen (X-23A).
- Multiple letters prefixing a take number were strung together (PP-41, XX-23).
- The designations “RT” and “Retort” were each written after the take number (X-23A RT, X-23A Retort); sometimes an additional number follows “Retort” after a blank (23A Retort 3).
- In cases where another take number is listed in the clip than that in the film script and/or the daily report, these numbers are shown beneath one another in the first frame of the clip: first the information on the clapperboard, including the number of film script and/or daily report in square brackets. An explanation in each case is found in the commentary field for the clip (for example X-X-24A = 24A).

When the cameraman is not indicated on the clapperboard for a take, but he can be determined from the sources on the film, his name is indicated in each case at the beginning of the clip below the take number.
If a take was filmed by two or more cameramen and the footage is provided in each case with the same take number, both variants are shown one after another, and each cameraman is referred to separately. Naming occurs in alphabetical order.
In cases where the name of the cameraman is not indicated, yet it may be presumed whom it concerns, the name was put into square brackets with a question mark:
                          6D
                  [Robert J. Flaherty ?]

Cases, in which the name the cameraman is unknown, are listed as follows:
                    [Camera ?]

In cases where no clapperboard is available, but the material could be attributed to a take number by means of the film script and/or a daily report, this information was incorporated and provided with a question mark in square brackets:
                          6D [?]
                     Robert J. Flaherty

The nearly 150 clips with material that cannot be assigned to a specific take can be located through a subject search (clip themes / non-allocatable clips) and through an unrestricted search (search term: “non-allocatable”).

All persons appearing in the film footage are included by name. A role name is indicated for actors where enacted scenes are concerned; if they appear on the screen as members of the crew, they are mentioned with their real names.

Only those clips that clearly correspond to one of the takes mentioned in the ‘Tabu’ daily reports and film script were linked to them and integrated into the context of this edition. Clips, for which this does not apply, were not linked to the sources.

In some cases the image quality of transitions in the clips or the first or last frame of a clip is blurred. This is due to the fact that during copying blurring occurred around the areas of the splices in the original positive materials as a result of deficient contact.
The occasionally recognizable “shaking” of the material can also be found on the original materials and was presumably already a problem during filming. Due to the difficult production conditions, F. W. Murnau also had to work with vestiges of raw film stock made by unknown manufacturers, whose quality was deficient. Moreover, it has been recounted that there were technical problems with Robert J. Flaherty’s Akeley camera, which may also have had an effect on the quality of the footage that was filmed. In addition, the negatives were developed on location on Tahiti. The equipment for this was left behind from an earlier film production and may no longer have been in the best condition.

The field descriptions for the clips are:
Type: Field showing the specification from which of the three sources of this edition the data record originates
Data Record No.: Field for the designations assigned to the individual data records within the context of this edition. The data records for the clips were named to correspond to the take numbers.
Commentary: Field for editorial explanations
Material details: Field for information about the individual film segments, from which a clip is comprised; if available: information about the type of material, if available: information about the margin numbers, information on the video tape number of the secured materials, time code information on the total length of each segment, time code information in/out on the respective video tape (no details are gathered here about film segments from the completed film; these are each marked with the abbreviation “PreParam”). The composition of each clip was automatically recorded by the editing program.

The field description is not shown in cases where no data can be found for one of the established fields.
The results available in the film script and/or in the daily reports are listed and interlinked to the relevant take to the left of each data record shown for a clip.

Two navigational possibilities to view or find material are available on the result pages for the clips:
- one after another according to the sequence of the take numbers (arrow navigation)
- by searching according to the individual take numbers (search box)

Deutsche Kinemathek, archive no.: 4.4-199224,8 ‘Tabu’
Cover: cardboard, 27 x 20.5 cm., labeled: “Current Continuity,” metal binders rings inside
Pages inside: c. 27 x 20.5 cm.; several types of paper with various measurements were used, also including forms for the daily reports, for example pp. 5, 5RS).
A total of 152 loose sheets; sequential numbering written in pencil is to be found on the upper right front of all the pages, carried out in the context of archival registration at the Deutsche Kinemathek.

In 1992, the Deutsche Kinemathek acquired from Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s heirs the binder marked “Current Continuity,” published here, together with a series of other scripts to his films.
The title “Current Continuity” listed on the cover indicates that the documentation was used during the filming of ‘Tabu’ to document and control the connections, which is to say the consistency of transitions between two takes. On average, the individual pages contain three to five descriptions of takes from ‘Tabu’, which are annotated with handwritten notes and amendments; the author of the typescript is not known. From the contents of the pages contained in this collection of papers, it can be concluded that “Current Continuity” primarily fulfilled the function of a film script, which, based on the current state of research for ‘Tabu’, does not exist in another form. One of the reasons for this lies in the short period of time in which Murnau and Robert Flaherty had to develop the plot of ‘Tabu’ following the failure of the “Turia” project. By means of numerous handwritten, annotated takes in particular – for the most part by F. W. Murnau himself – a comparison of the “Current Continuity” to filming that had already taken place (corresponding to details in the daily reports between October 16, 1929 and September 6, 1930), makes it apparent that the film’s plot was maintained and further developed. It can be assumed that the document at hand was F. W. Murnau’s working script.
In accordance with the contents and the function of the documentation, “Current Continuity” is designated as a film script within the context of this edition.

An identification of F. W. Murnau’s handwriting was made by a comparison with letter documents from the Murnau estate at the Deutsche Kinemathek. David Flaherty’s handwriting could be identified using correspondence between David Flaherty and F. W. Murnau. The authorship of other handwritten notes cannot be clearly established.

Four different colored pens and pencils were used for the handwritten remarks in the film script:
- A dark gray pencil, which was used by Murnau, David Flaherty, as well as unidentified authors, constitutes the largest portion.
- A red pencil was used (thematically) to mark interrelated pages (e.g. pp. 16–23) and to comment on notes; it can be attributed to Murnau and a person unknown (p. 19).
- A blue pencil was used exclusively by Murnau (p. 5RS, 129RS, 127RS).
- A black fountain pen was used exclusively by Murnau (e.g. p. 45 RS).
In some cases, handwritten red markings (e.g. two thick strokes) are found next to the description of a take. They were possibly meant to refer to a handwritten comment (from Murnau, etc.), which, respectively, was either on the back of the page in question or on the preceding page (e.g. RS71 + p. 72).

Handwritten deletions to the typewritten text with an x indicate that the take in question was finished. Variants, in which paragraphs are crossed out with handwritten lines (straight or wavelike and repeated), indicate that the take described was not filmed (e.g. p. 35).
Unequivocal meanings for the other markings on hand, particularly the ones in color, could not be established.

Within the context of this edition, the 152 individual pages of the existing film script were each scanned on both sides. The available archival pagination was adopted while registering the pages; all of the pages used on the reverse were included with the page number of the front side, supplemented by the abbreviation RS. Moreover, every take described was listed separately. As a result, 304 individual pages are published, which are presented in this edition in various ways:
-    page by page
-    when searching by page numbers
-    when searching by take numbers

A thumbnail view of the individual pages will appear at first, combining the reverse side of the previous page (to the left) and the front of the next page (to the right). The pages can be viewed at their original size in a separate window (+/- symbols).
The following information on the film script and its contents are recorded in digital form and accessible through the website’s online search functions:

Type: Field showing the specification from which of the three sources of this edition the data record originates
Data Record No.: Field for the designations assigned to the individual data records within the context of this edition. The abbreviation CON (“Current Continuity”) prefixes all the data records to the film script. The following multi-digit numbers do not follow any pagination, but instead reflect the sequence in which the data records were laid out and through which the pages can be “leafed.”
Pagination: Field for the page numbers assigned within the context of this edition.
Pagination of the Deutsche Kinemathek: Field for the page numbers, which were assigned during the archival registration of the film script at the Deutsche Kinemathek (backs of pages are not listed separately here).
Heading: Field for headings in the film script, which do not directly pertain to the description of the take.
“Shot No. / Scene No. / Continuity No. / Old Continuity No. / Slate No. / Temporary Slate No.”: Fields for the names of take numbers used in the film script
“Footage”: Field for information about the length of the takes, which were made from one take (in feet)
“Location”: Field for information about the film location
“Props”: Field for information about props
“Date Shot”: Field for the specified date, corresponding to the statement in the film script
Date: Field for an internationalized notation of the specified date
“Action”: Field for the description of action in an individual take present in the script
Notes: Field for the transcription of handwritten notes, annotations, etc., in the document; if several notes about a take exist, these are listed from left to right and from top to bottom
Commentary: Field for editorial explanations

The field designations are set in normal type if they refer to categories that were developed in the context of this edition. They are in italics if they refer to categories that were taken from the sources.
A field designation does not appear in cases in which no data can be found to match the applied fields.
The enlargement function makes it possible to view every page of the film script in a separate window; in its original size and from both sides.

Links from each displayed data record to the film script are listed with the appropriate take and interlinked with the results available from the daily reports and/or the clips.

While registering the film script data, it was attempted to represent typographical details as true to the original as possible, as a matter of principle. This applies to the line breaks of the typographical passages (in the field “Action”), as well as for insertions and notes, where the handwritten nature is made recognizable by italics (in the field “Notes”). Underlining and deletions were additionally taken into account.
Words in capital letters have been reproduced (however, no apparent content-related function can be recognized in this notation style).
Obvious spelling or grammar mistakes were cautiously corrected in the interest of better comprehensibility; explanatory additions were inserted in square brackets where required.
Original passages that are typed over with the letter x are reproduced with the simplified notation xxx; unreadable passages are listed with the symbol [?].
Paragraphs crossed out by hand are set in square brackets.
The reproduction of various other written elements – including, for example, small sketches or marks – was not carried out. Their authorship and meaning is indicated in the commentary field, if known.
Neither differences in line spacing, nor reduced or enlarged space between consecutive characters, letters and/or individual words have been registered.
The use of font colors was dispensed with during digital recording; since uncertainties during reproduction would have been unavoidable.
The indication […] at the end of the contents of the text fields “Action” and “Notes” points out that the take description or notes continue on the following page of the film script. Since such continuations on a following page are not normally provided with their own take number, in these cases the number of the take was supplemented with that on the previous page.
Handwritten notes on page backs normally do not refer to the front of the same page, but rather to the front of the following sheet. Although it concerns a loose binder of individual pages, in addition to the information about the take numbers, there are clues about the logic of the sequence in which the pages are filed – and are now published.

Deutsche Kinemathek, archive no.: 4.3-200217-0 ‘Tabu’ -5 (permanent loan of the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung, Wiesbaden)
Set of documents totaling 727 loose sheets: printed forms filled out by hand; heading in each case: SCRIPT CLERK’S REPORT
28 x 21.5 cm.

The daily reports about ‘Tabu’ belong to the Murnau estate, which the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung, Wiesbaden, acquired from Murnau’s heirs. The estate was incorporated into the archives of the Deutsche Kinemathek as a permanent loan in 2002.
According to the information in this set of papers, the printed forms were filled out between October 16, 1929 and September 6, 1930.

For the most part, the handwriting can be attributed to David Flaherty; very few pages were filled out by F. W. Murnau and Robert Flaherty.
The identification of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s handwriting was made by a comparison with letter documents from the Murnau estate at the Deutsche Kinemathek. The handwriting of David and Robert Flaherty could be identified using letters that they wrote to F. W. Murnau. The authorship of other handwritten notes cannot be clearly established.
The individual “Script Clerk’s Reports” functioned as daily progress reports about the filming and primarily document technical details (including the number of takes, length of the exposed film material per clapper board (take), the lenses used, the film location and date, and the props used). In addition, descriptions can be found of each take filmed, which partly come from the film script.
The set of papers at hand does not contain the original daily reports, but carbon copies of the originals. Nothing is known about the whereabouts of the original daily reports.
The writing appears a little blurred as a consequence of the use of carbon paper. On some of the pages it is obvious that the carbon paper shifted while being filled out, so that the details are outside the categories provided for them and/or break off (>>Example). Only a few pages display handwritten notes that were written directly in pencil, which is to say without the use of a carbon paper imprint. It is possible that this information does not exist in the original daily reports ((>>e. g. p. 651)).
Some of the pages planned as copies were inserted into the typewriter 180 degrees askew; sometimes with the back turned over. In such cases, the lettering of the form shines through and is recognizable on the pages.
The daily reports reflect the actual filming status of ‘Tabu’ better than the film script.

The 727 extant individual pages of the daily reports were scanned in the context of this edition. Since the backs of the pages contain no information, they were not included. Pagination was recorded on them, which is orientated to the chronology of the days of shooting listed. Correspondingly, the sequence in which the daily reports are included and published are also orientated to the chronology of shooting. Choices can be made between the following methods of viewing and searching:
- page by page
- searching by take numbers
- searching by specific days of shooting

Generally, a thumbnail overall view of a document will appear at first. It can be viewed in its original size in a separate window (+- symbols).

The following information on the daily reports and their contents are recorded in digital form and accessible through the website’s online search functions:
Type: Field showing the specification from which of the three sources of this edition the data record originates
Data Record No.: Field for the designations assigned to the individual data records within the context of this edition. The abbreviation SCR (“Script Clerk’s Report”) prefixes all the data records to the daily reports. The following multi-digit numbers do not follow any pagination, but instead reflect the sequence in which the data records were laid out.
Pagination of the Deutsche Kinemathek: Field for the page numbers, which were assigned during the archival registration of the film script at the Deutsche Kinemathek (noted on the unpublished reverse side)
“Production No.”: Field for the production number assigned to the film
“Director”: Field for information about the director
“Sequence“: Field for information about the take
“No. of Takes”: Number of takes filmed of a shot
“Scene No.“: Field for the take number indicated in the daily report
“Long Shot“: Field for information on the field size of the camera
“Semi Shot“: Field for information on the field size of the camera
“Medium Shot“: Field for information on the field size of the camera
“Close Up”: Field for information on the field size of the camera
“Lens No.“: Field for information on the lens used
“Footage“: Field for information about the length of the takes, which were made from one take (in feet)
“Props on Set“: Field for information about props
“Location“: Field for information about the film location
“Date”: Field for the specified date, corresponding to the daily reports
“Date”: Field for an internationalized notation of the specified date
“Fade In”: Field for information on the fade in
“Fade Out”: Field for information on the fade out
“Day”: Field for information on the time of day for filming
“Night”: Field for information on the time of day for filming
“Costume Details”: Field for information on costumes
“Action”: Field for the description of action in an individual take
“Notes”: Field for the transcription of handwritten notes in the document; if several notes about a take exist, these are listed from left to right and from top to bottom
“Commentary”: Field for editorial explanations

The field designations are set in normal type if they refer to categories that were developed in the context of this edition. They are in italics if they refer to categories that were taken from the sources.
A field designation does not appear in cases in which no data can be found to match the applied fields.
The enlargement function makes it possible to view every page of the film script in a separate window; in its original size and from both sides.

Links from each displayed data record to a daily report are listed with the appropriate take and interlinked with the results available in the script [Drehbuch] and/or the clips.

While registering the daily reports, it was attempted to represent typographical details as true to the original as possible, as a matter of principle. Italics have been not used for the reproduction of the contents, because this set of papers was filled out completely by hand. However, notes that were clearly inserted later are indicated by italics.
Line breaks have been maintained, as have underlining and cuts.
Words in capital letters have been reproduced (however, no apparent content-related function can be recognized in this notation style).
Obvious spelling or grammar mistakes were cautiously corrected in the interest of better comprehensibility; explanatory additions were inserted in square brackets where required. 
Please be advised that the English version of this website is a translation and is therefore a considered, but nevertheless a subjective interpretation of the original documentation. Unreadable passages are listed with the symbol [?].
The reproduction of various other written elements – including, for example, small sketches or marks – was not carried out. Their authorship and meaning is indicated in the commentary field, if known.
The circles frequently represented around the numbers in the field “No. of Takes,” which stand for takes that had been filmed, are represented here in round parentheses. Presumably, the circle meant that the take in question was considered good and was copied.
Neither differences in line spacing, nor reduced or enlarged space between consecutive characters, letters and/or individual words have been registered.
The use of font colors was dispensed with during digital recording; since uncertainties during reproduction would have been unavoidable.

General:
- Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s estate at the Deutsche Kinemathek, Berlin
- including: loose-leaf collection, 72 sheets, untitled, undated, typewritten with corrections (also handwritten), numbered up to 74, non-sequential, incomplete, incl. 4 pages of drawings of islands and South Seas island groups, F. W. Murnau estate. [The authorship of these travel reports cannot be clearly verified. Evidence seems to suggest that Murnau’s brother Robert Plumpe was involved in their creation.]
- “Robert Joseph Flaherty Papers” and “David Flaherty Papers” of The Flaherty / International Film Seminars, Inc., New York at the Butler Library of Columbia University, New York, NY
- Materials about Tabu belonging to the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Science at the Margaret Harrick Library, Beverly Hills, CA
- Materials about Tabu in the Paul Kohner Collection at the Margaret Herrick Library, Beverly Hills, CA
- MPAA Production Code Files at the Margaret Herrick Library, Beverly Hills, CA
- Paramount Press Sheet Collection at the Margaret Herrick Library, Beverly Hills, CA

Documents:
- Contract between F. W. Murnau and Robert Flaherty about the production of one or more films “with the South Sea Islands, or other islands, or a foreign locale as a background...,” unsigned, March 1929 (Flaherty Papers)
- Contract between Colorart Productions, Ltd. on one side and F. W. Murnau and Robert J. Flaherty on the other about the production of a feature film entitled “Turia,” unsigned, dated May 1, 1929 in the text (Murnau estate)
- Contract between F. W. Murnau and Ned Marin on one side and Paramount Publix Corporation on the other about the distribution of Tabu, unsigned, dated Feb. 18, 1931 in the text (Flaherty Papers)
- Robert J. Flaherty’s written statement that he sold Murnau all rights to Tabu, unsigned, dated May 20, 1931 in the text (Flaherty Papers)
- Written summary made by David Flaherty for the lawsuit between Colorart and the Murnau heirs that includes quotations of all the relevant telegrams concerning the dispute with Colorart from the beginning of filming, undated (1931), signed (Flaherty Papers)
- Tabu Press Sheet, Paramount Pictures, 1931 (Margaret Herrick Library)

Articles, Essays:
- F. W. Murnau, “Liebste Salka, liebster Berthold...” Letter to Salka and Berthold Viertel. undated (1929), Literaturarchiv Marbach, Salka Viertel estate. Shortened and printed in a slightly altered form as “Reise zu den Inseln der Glücklichen. Briefe an Salka,” Die Dame, 2nd December issue, 1929. Reprinted in Fred Gehler, Ullrich Kasten, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Berlin/GDR: Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft, 1990. Reprinted in Die Tageszeitung, Dec. 24, 1988
- F. W. Murnau, “Der Feuergeist von Bora-Bora. Ein gespenstiges Erlebnis aus Murnaus Südsee-Tagebuch,” Berliner Börsen-Zeitung, no. 603, Dec. 25,1938. Reprinted in Der Film. Heute und Morgen, no. 41, Feb. 25, 1940. Reprinted in Fred Gehler, Ullrich Kasten, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Berlin/GDR: Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft, 1990
- Margaret Reid, “Exile Murnau Returns Here,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 22, 1931
- Anonymous, “Filming in South Seas Presents Difficulties,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 15, 1931 [Murnau is cited with statements about the filming]
- F. W. Murnau, “L’Étoile du Sud,” La Revue Du Cinéma, no. 23, 1. June 1931; German version, “Der Stern des Südens,” Wolfgang Klaue, Jay Leyda (eds.), Robert Flaherty, Berlin/GDR: Henschelverlag, undated. Reprinted in Fred Gehler, Ullrich Kasten, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Berlin/GDR: Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft, 1990
- Robert J. Flaherty: “Wie Tabu entstand,” Die Filmwoche, no. 22, May 27, 1931
- Ernst Hofmann, “Aus Briefen F. W. Murnaus. Der Mensch und der Künstler,” 8Uhr-Abendblatt, Aug. 27, 1931
- Lotte H. Eisner, “Film-Kritik: Tabu,” Film-Kurier, no. 201, Aug. 28, 1931
- Anonymous, “Murnaus letzter Film Tabu,” Kinematograph, no. 198, Aug. 28, 1931
- Erik Barnouw, “Robert Flaherty (Barnouw’s File).” Film Culture, nos. 53, 54, 55, Spring 1972
- BB (i.e. Bob Baker), “Floyd Crosby,” Film Dope, no. 8, Oct. 1975
- Floyd Crosby, “The Development of Cinematography,” The American Film Institute / Louis B. Mayer Oral History Collection, 1977
- David Flaherty, “A Few Reminiscences,” Film Culture, no. 20, 1959; German version: “Ein paar Erinnerungen,” Filmfaust, no. 12, Feb. 1979
- Robert Plumpe-Murnau, “Mein Bruder F. W. Murnau,” Lotte H. Eisner, Murnau, Frankfurt am Main: Kommunales Kino, 1979
- Mark J. Langer, “ Tabu: The Making of a Film,” Cinema Journal, vol. 24, no. 3, Spring 1985
- Mark Langer, “Flaherty’s Hollywood Period: The Crosby Version,” Wide Angel, vol. 20., no. 2, Apr. 1998
- Scott Eyman, “Sunrise in Bora Bora,” Film Comment, vol. 26, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1990
- Luciano Berriatúa, “Los proverbios chinos de F. W. Murnau,” vol. 1: Etapa alemana, vol. 2, Etapa americana, Madrid: Filmoteca Española / Instituto de la Cinematografía y de las Artes Audiovisuales, 1990
- Yves de Peretti, “The Dancing Cannibal,” Trafic, no. 31, Fall 1999
- Enno Patalas, “Der irische Querkopf und der Meister aus Deutschland. Wie mit Flahertys Hilfe Murnaus Tabu entstand,” CameraMagazin, no. 7, Mar.-Apr. 2002
- Janet Bergstrom, “Murnau in America. Chronicle of Lost Films,” Film History, vol. 14, pp. 430-60, 2002
- Enno Patalas,“ Tabu: Takes und Outtakes,” Hans Helmut Prinzler (ed.), Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau. Ein Melancholiker des Films. Catalogue for the “Retrospektive” of the 53. Internationalen Filmfestspiele Berlin, Berlin: Stiftung Deutsche Kinemathek and Bertz Verlag, 2003

Monographs:
- Wolfgang Klaue, Jay Leyda (ed.), “Robert Flaherty,” Berlin/GDR: Henschelverlag, undated
- Richard Griffith, The World Of Robert Flaherty, New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1953
- Arthur Calder-Marshall, The Innocent Eye, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1963
- Lotte H. Eisner, F. W. Murnau, Paris: Le Terrain Vague, 1964 / Murnau. Der Klassiker des deutschen Films, Velber/Hanover: Friedrich Verlag, 1967 / Murnau, London: Secker & Warburg, 1973 / Murnau, Frankfurt am Main: Kommunales Kino, 1979
- Salka Viertel, Das unbelehrbare Herz, Hamburg and Düsseldorf: Claassen Verlag, 1970
- Paul Rotha, Robert J. Flaherty. A Biography, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983
- Fred Gehler, Ullrich Kasten, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Berlin/GDR: Henschelverlag, 1990
- Hans Helmut Prinzler (ed.), Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau. Ein Melancholiker des Films. The catalogue for the exhibition of the same name by the Stiftung Deutsche Kinemathek in Berlin, Berlin: Stiftung Deutsche Kinemathek and Bertz Verlag, 2003
- Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung (ed.), Südseebilder: Texte, Fotos und der Film Tabu. Selected, edited and annotated by Enno Patalas, Berlin: Bertz + Fischer GbR, 2005

Films:
- F. W. Murnau’s Tabu. DVD, Milestone/Image Entertainment, 2002. With an original audio essay co-extensive with the film and a 25-minute audio essay co-extensive with outtakes by Janet Bergstrom
- Yves de Peretti: Tabou – Dernier voyage, France, Germany, 1996, 75 mins., premiere: Nov. 8, 1996, Arte

A project of
Deutschen Kinemathek – Museum für Film und Fernsehen, Berlin

Funded by the KUR Programme for the Conservation of Moveable Cultural Assets.
An initiative of Germany’s Kulturstiftung des Bundes and the Kulturstiftung der Länder
 SHAPE  \* MERGEFORMAT

In cooperation with

Österreichisches Filmmuseum, Wien
Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung, Wiesbaden

Supported by

Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv, Berlin
Deutsches Filminstitut DIF, Frankfurt am Main

The Flaherty / International Film Seminars, Inc., New York

Project direction: Bernd Eichhorn, Karin Herbst-Meßlinger, Martin Koerber
Archival conception: Bernd Eichhorn
Editorial conception, editor: Karin Herbst-Meßlinger
Research and assistance: Franziska Latell, Daniel Stetich, Annika Schaefer, Daniel Meiller, Melanie Martin, Nick Patterson
English translations: Wendy Wallis, TransART, Berlin
Scholarly consultation: Janet Bergstrom
Additional research: Enno Patalas
Documentation, processing, copying and digitalization of the outtakes: L’immagine ritrovata, Bologna
Programming, web integration database: Whirl-i-Gig, New York
Web design of the database: Anja Matzker Kommunikations- und Grafikdesign, Berlin
Finances: Uwe Meder-Seidel

We would like to express our appreciation for further support to the following institutions and people:

Akademie der Künste, Berlin; Dr. Anna Bohn, Berlin; The Cinema Museum, London: Ronald Grant; Cinémathèque Française, Paris: Marianne Bauer; Columbia University, Butler Library, New York: Tara C. Craig; Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Marbach; Eva Diekmann, Esslingen; Ulrich Döge, Berlin; Margaret Herrick Library, Beverly Hills: Kristine Kruger; Schongerfilm, Inning am Ammersee