Not-so-silent Films of the 1920s

[altivo]

I never make polls, but answering a meme about films over on Facebook inspired me to ask these questions of LJ readers.

[Poll #1445665]

Comments

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I've been to a silent movie theatre in Los Angeles, and to a silent film festival in San Francisco.

They're great fun!

[altivo.livejournal.com]

They are high art, there's no doubt about that. I find they are best when accompanied by a decent pipe organ and an organist who knows how. Unfortunately, we have now lost nearly all the organists old enough to have learned their art from doing the real thing.

The Son of the Sheik is available on video with the sound track recorded by the late Gaylord Carter on a real Wurlitzer theatre organ. It's one of Valentino's finest performances, but the music makes the whole thing far better.

[ben-who.livejournal.com]

Well...it may be more accurate to say that the ones that survived are high art...that old celluloid has a tendency to turn to goo after a short time, and only the ones that were copied and re-copied survived. There are probably a few crap silents floating around today, but you're more likely to find one of the Canonical Classics rather than some piece of rubbish. The only bad silent movie I've ever seen is "Birth of a Nation."

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I agree, mostly. Unfortunately, the ones that have been copied again and again (including, of course, Birth of a Nation) are not always the best, they are just the best known, most studied, or most popular.

Consider Disney's Fantasia, which we know today as a masterpiece. When it was first released, the reaction was almost universally negative. It was radically different, a concept that wasn't well accepted. If it had been printed only on that early and ephemeral film media, it might be among those that are lost today. I'm sure there were some masterworks that we have lost, and its obvious that some of the worst have still survived.

Birth of a Nation has to be considered in light of its age, as well. It was released in 1915, more than a decade before the silent film reached its peak quality and art level. ;p (I agree, it's pretty awful. Griffith did do better in his later works.)

[kint.livejournal.com]

I've only seen bits and pieces at times, never a full film -- I did just get Metropolis on Netflix, though, and am looking forward to that.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Metropolis is one of the great ones. You might like to look up some commentary on it though, either before or after, because it's filled with allusions and elements that we are likely to miss unless we've studied the culture of the time in detail.

[tinbender.livejournal.com]

They have the Buster Keaton festival in a town here in Kansas every spring, I believe. One of these years I'm going to make that. He's one of my favorite actors.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Agreed, Keaton was really good. In fact, I'd rate him higher than Chaplin, which is nearly heresy in some circles. Chaplin was good too, but he was sort of a caricature of the character he had created before long. I also do like Valentino, and Clara Bow ("The It girl" as she was often known.)

Acting in the silents required the skill of a meme. It had to be much more difficult than what we think of as acting today.

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

Skill of a meme, or the skill of a mime?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

LOL. You're right. I meant "mime."

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

The closest I've gotten to truly silent film was the night Wisconsin Public TV was showing Harold Lloyd films and I had been too close to a too-loud sound (carbide cannon) and had temporary hearing impairment. This was before the time of closed captioning or its being common at least, so the "silent" films were welcome. That Harold Lloyd is good certainly didn't hurt either.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Lloyd is certainly good, but I'm glad I didn't have to see him under those circumstances.

[farhoug.livejournal.com]

It's been ages since I've seen any of those, I think they showed Metropolis when I was back in school, about 20 years back or so.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Most of the big name silent films are available on DVD now, and, in my opinion, worth digging up if you can. :D

[ben-who.livejournal.com]

Every year, the Merrill Auditorium pairs the pipes of the Kotzschmar Organ with an old horror movie. The theater should have seatbelts.

The Nickelodeon, back when it was under different management, would spend New Year's Eve running silent two-reelers for free. However, my silent film education is full of holes. I've seen "Metropolis," but not "The Sheik." I saw the original "Wizard of Oz" (good lord) but haven't seen "Nosferatu." I only recently learned that there even was a real difference between German and American filmmaking at the time. If you're a Batman fan, eventually you have to watch "The Man Who Laughs." However, I couldn't sit through more than 20 minutes of "Birth of a Nation."

Love, Who?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the Wizard of Oz films were pretty poor, but most of them were very early, too (pre-1920.) You should see Nosferatu, though. It's distilled essence of horror flick, and I do mean horror. I think it is probably the scariest film I've ever seen in my life, and combined with a masterful musician at the organ it will pump more adrenalin out of you than anything else you can do while sitting still. In fact it probably beats some pretty vigorous roller coasters. Hard to believe that recent abominations such as "Twilight" are descended from that.

My all time favorites include Ben Hur, The Son of the Sheik, Wings, Metropolis, The Gold Rush, The General, and The Mask of Zorro. For pure melodramatic suspense, you can't beat Orphans of the Storm. For furry fun, try The Return of Grey Wolf or Wolfheart's Revenge. The Thief of Bagdad is really much too long, but it has a flying horse in it. Special effects? They had 'em even back then. The effects work in Wings helped it to win the Academy Award, too.

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

I've forgotten all the details about the most recent silent film I've seen, other than (1) I was with Dave and (2) it was on cable's Turner Classic Movies on a late Sunday night last year. And Dave doesn't remember either. Gah.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Tsk. It must not have been very good. They used to show the long ones as late night features back when I was in college. That's how I saw Birth of a Nation (don't bother) and The Thief of Bagdad (worth it if you like Fairbanks, but really too long.) Broken Blossoms and Orphans of the Storm were also featured that way.

[equusmaximus.livejournal.com]

As I mentioned a few posts ago, when I lived in Calgary one of the independent theatres used to do "Silent Movie Mondays" in February, and they'd bring in this incredible organist to play a massive theatre organ they'd borrow from Mount Royal College. There were a number of Charlie Chaplin films, some Buster Keaton films, and several feature-films. The one's I remember were Metropolis and The Phantom of the Opera, but I know there were more.

The theatre in Shaunavon also hosts the town's live-theatre troupe, and I wonder if they could be convinced to do some Silent-Movie nights? Might be an idea to suggest to them, and see where it goes. :)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

There's nothing like the real experience, provided the theatre shows the films at the proper speed. The 1940s and 1950s practice of showing them at the normal talkie speed is an abomination that makes characters look like jumping jacks running around on drugs.

No harm in suggesting the idea. I think silent films deserve showing and viewing, perhaps even more today than when they were new. They require a good deal more active participation from the audience and are very effective brain stimulation. :D

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

I'd LIKE to see Metropolis. I've seen the anime version, and would like to see the original.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Uh, definitely see the original, shown at proper speed with suitable music. It's readily available on DVD or tape, and shouldn't be hard to find. Over here, it has become a bit of a cult classic, and is shown on television frequently. Notice that more respondents have seen it than any of the other titles I listed.

Wings is magnificent too, with a subliminal affection between two males that blossoms and ends in tragedy, as well as some pretty amazing scenes of World War I aerial combat and cameos by some actors who later became very successful.

The Son of the Sheik is Valentino at his sexiest best, and has lots of beautiful horses in it to boot, as well as some comic relief that really is comical.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

I think the only silent film I've watched in full was Laurel and Hardy's "Big Business", which was absolutely hilarious - I laughed so hard I cried, I think, and I loved the fact it was silent and in black and white, too.

That being said, it's not a full-length feature film, of course. I'm not sure anymore what the accompanying music was, either (if any, but I'm pretty sure there was *something*, at least); also, I'm rating it as a 10 simply because I loved it so much and because I think the fact it was silent etc. was an integral part of why I loved it. ^^

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Laurel and Hardy were really funny, even when they made sound films, but I think they were best in the silents. They made both short features and long ones. Try "Their Purple Moment" or "Two Tars" for something of greater length. There was also one (title escapes me at the moment) that involved trying to move a piano up a long flight of stairs. You wouldn't think they could make so much of that, but they did, and you keep laughing at their antics throug the whole thing.

You should look up some of the big name titles I've listed. Fritz Lang (Metropolis) and F. W. Murnau (Nosferatu) were your countrymen and their work must surely be available. Sergei Eisenstein (Potemkin) is still acclaimed as a master, and was partly of German descent.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Oh, Lang and Murnau are definitely available. I actually started watching "Metropolis" at one point, but I'm not generally able to watch longer movies these days anymore, at least unless they're hilariously funny (like the Laurel and Hardy ones you mentioned would probably be - I'll have to check those out, thanks!), and that's not something you could say about any of Fritz Lang's works, I think.

"Nosferatu" I haven't even started watching, but I know it's considered a great classic that can still be found.

Mmm, Eisenstein? I've got to admit the only Eisenstein I know (of) is the one behind this. ^.~

[altivo.livejournal.com]

This Eisenstein is one of film-making's early saints. ;p

Yep, Lang was no comedian. But then, neither were others of the early silent writers and directors. The surrealist film Un chien Andalou by Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali is one of the strangest things I've ever seen. Thank the gods it's only 16 minutes long, because I'm sure an hour of that would drive anyone insane.

Another one I have seen, though I can't remember the title, was made by either a French or German film maker and features the temptations of a Roman Catholic priest who has fallen in love (or lust) with a woman who comes to him for confession. It is filled with drawn out misery, scenes of him crawling up cobblestone streets on his knees or imagining being carried away by overwhelming floods of water. The saving grace was the organist at the showing, Jay Warren, who kept entertaining us by shouting out comments from the organ console, such as "You haven't seen the worst yet" or "Halfway done, grit your teeth!" The music, needless to say, was the reason I went to see it, so it was still worthwhile.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*noddles* Yeah, that doesn't sound like a movie I'd particularly enjoy, either.

(Of course, there is no reason why a film should be any less nerve-wracking or possibly even annoying just because it's silent instead of having sound.)

[murakozi.livejournal.com]

I'm on the fence when it comes to silent films. TCM shows them fairly regularly late at night and I'd watch them now and then. I guess I just have to be in the right mood for them, since I find that either I really enjoy them or get bored after 10 minutes and stop watching.

Sadly, as of Monday, my cable company moved TCM to one of the digital tier things, so I no longer get it with my basic cable. It was one of my favorite channels.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Like today's movies, there were as many or more bad ones as good. Only a real silent film buff can stand to sit through some of the ones that have survived, such as the notoriously long and boring Birth of a Nation. Many of the classics are well worth looking up, though.

[murakozi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they're like any other movie, old or new, in that some just don't pique my interest. But for me a good part of it does seem to be whether I'm in the mood for a silent film.

For example, I recall starting to watch an old Chaplin film - I believe it was The Kid - and just finding it boring as heck. Months later, I was channel surfing and came across it and was able to enjoy watching it.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The Kid is interesting because it has Jackie Coogan in it, but not IMHO anywhere near Chaplin's best. City Lights or The Gold Rush are far more entertaining and significant.

Try Keaton's The General, though, or Valentino in Blood and Sand or The Son of the Sheik.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Couldn't really complete this because I've never seen a silent film all the way through.

The entirety of my silent film knowledge: We saw clips of Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Battleship Potemkin at uni and were told that the Steps at Odessa is a very famous scene. I know Charlie Chaplin was a notable silent star. And I was aware that they originally had an organ playing in the cinemas rather than actual silence. (That last fact partly courtesy of Terry Pratchett's nice novel about early films, and partly from general knowledge osmosis.)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I do think you'd find it worth the trouble to look up some of the more noted titles and watch them. Most are readily findable on DVD now. In fact, I'd be very interested in hearing the aspie viewpoint on a tearjerker like Orphans of the Storm, though I suspect you'll like the comedies or the technical accomplishments better. Give Metropolis or The General a try. The first is science fiction of a sort, while the latter is based on real events of the US Civil War, though turned into a comedy romance.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

Re: tear jerkers: I have no soul, so unless an animal is put in mild discomfort I'll just look bored... ;)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I see no evidence that you are lacking a soul, only that your perceptions are different.

Orphans of the Storm is about the French Revolution, and follows the experiences of two sisters, one of whom is falsely accused as a traitor and sentenced to the guillotine. Will she be found and rescued in time? With all appropriate fanfare, flourishes, and hand-wringing. Today it seems camp,a sort of Perils of Pauline, but in the time in which it was made, the writers and director were dead serious.

[thedeere.livejournal.com]

As a kid I was blessed with a yardsale-bought standard 8 projector. The thing's gigantic, probably the peak of 8mm tech, heh! Anyhow the library at the time had a whole shelf of 8mm B&W silent, so I'd check out as many as I could at a time, and we'd play 'em at the house on one of those unrollable screens.

So rather than any music, there was just the clicker-clack of my old projector cruising away. Imagine my horror when I went to the library one day to find out they'd gotten rid of the entire collection! I hope they went to somebody who cares enough to save 'em.

Journey to the Moon, Laurel and Hardy, Harold Lloyd, other more obscure titles... Most of it's either "killer good" or at least unintentionally hilarous. Many fond childhood memories there. :) I've been hunting down modern copies of 'em. I don't mind the music, it usually adds to the experience, but on some of 'em it's really no better than watching it in silence. It's all about the skill of the musicians.

The lack of any regard for safety is refreshing, as is the lack of political correctness. Those old shows are just plain fun to watch!

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Most of the classic titles are available on DVD now, usually with pretty good quality music tracks. (Not just random, but music synchronized to the action.)

Often the problem with those inexpensive 8mm copies was the speed. The frame rate of the silent is slower than modern projectors go by default, with the result that everyone seems really hyperactive unless the copy is corrected or the projector can be slowed down to the proper speed. It can make even the melodramatic tragedy of a film like Wings look like some kind of children's comedy. ;p

[thedeere.livejournal.com]

Ahh that was never a problem with my projector. It had a speed control knob. The only bad thing with mine was occasionally, the fan-drive metal-spring "belt" would shoot off and fly somewhere random, and I'd have to shut down the machine before the bulb melted down, then go find it. :)

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Nosferatu scared the bejebus out of me.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Nosferatu is a genuine horror film. Probably the most frightening one I've ever seen. A good organist can amplify the scare by building up to each shock so you know it is coming but don't know what it will be...

Definitely not a movie for little kids to see. Frankly, I don't want to see it again myself.