Tweet the worst silent film you've ever seen

<snip>However, the interesting thing about Larry Semon's THE WIZARD OF OZ, which I think is a mess in most respects, is that I once ran a beautiful print of it to a group of silent comedy aficianados who had never seen it and they actually didn't think it was too bad. They looked at it as another Larry Semon comedy and on that basis it worked just fine.<snip>

Richard -

I think this is exactly the reason most people react so negatively to the Semon film. They see it and think something like "Because Semon bought the movie rights, instead of getting a beautifully cast, imagininatively presented version of something at least sort of like the Baum book we get THIS?" (And of course if you're not a fam of Semon in general that would make the reaction even stronger...)

But I also come from a different life experience than maybe some of you. I didn't grow up watching silent films on television or on 8mm film prints because family were not lovers of cinema. I learned about silent cinema mainly from Turner Classic Movies channel, as silly as that sounds and they did a thing on Carl T. Dreyer for a month and that's when I accidentally came upon Passion of Joan of Arc. I saw it alone in the dark without any interruption and I'll never forget that experience but it was a very personal emotional experience that happens rarely.

Worst, like Best, involves a lot that is VERY subjective. I've taken a lot of ribbing over the years for my dislike of "2001 A Space Oddysey" and "Lawrence of Arabia," and have spoken highly of some personal favorites that have folks scratching their head in, if not disbelief, utter confussion.

Far be it from me do deny you or anyone else whatever pleasure or inspiration you get from "Passion of Joan of Arc" (I agree with you on "Potemkin" and most of the rest you mentioned). It is a film with some beautiful and powerful images; it just seems to me like watching a slide show and because of that I will be happy without it.

(If my comments on my two least favorite highly regarded talkies helps you dismiss my comments on "Joan" then all the better. Best/Worst is often more about what we like as individual viewers than what is great.

Pina menichelli is the worst silent film actress i've watched so far. This is the worst silent film i've seen. I haven't watched cabiria yet maybe i will change my mind....

La Tigre Reale (ROYAL TIGER ) 1916 pina menichelli

Here's a couple more that bored me to death: Shattered 1921 lupo pick and hintertreppe (backstairs) 1921 henny porten.

And you base this opinion on what exactly? Please expound . . .

It's always amusing when something you think is 15 kinds of awesome (TIGRE REALE or THE CAT AND THE CANARY or the Buster Keaton short comedies, for example) is someone else's worst silent-film experience.

Well, as said, "worst" is ultimately subjective, unless you're speaking of a film like Manos: The Hands of Fate, which is so technically bad, it qualifies as a horrible movie even though there is (IMHO) the bones of a fairly chilling horror story there.

But anyway - in my limited opinion, The Mysterious Island has to be the worst thing I've seen yet. It just dragged on and on, and I found myself losing interest even in Lionel Barrymore about half an hour in. I stayed to the end just to say I'd done it, then wiped it off my DVR for good. I can't say exactly what bored me to tears other than just the labored pace of the thing.

And here's my contribution to the general heresy - I really can't stand Laurel and Hardy. I hate their talkies, and their silents bore me even more. I've seen Sons of the Desert, Big Business and The Music Box all once, and never care to see them again. Give me an Arbuckle short any day!

It's always amusing when something you think is 15 kinds of awesome (TIGRE REALE or THE CAT AND THE CANARY or the Buster Keaton short comedies, for example) is someone else's worst silent-film experience.

It's even more amusing when people get their knickers in a twist and fight about it.

Oh dear. I'd forgotten Cabiria. It wasn't a completely bad film-watching experience, but that was only because we had spirituous liquids handy. By the time that piece of turkey lasagna ended..well, let's just say we were not behaving in a ladylike fashion. Memories of the film are understandably hazy, but the frissons of horror remain.

And here's my contribution to the general heresy - I really can't stand Laurel and Hardy. I hate their talkies, and their silents bore me even more. I've seen Sons of the Desert, Big Business and The Music Box all once, and never care to see them again. Give me an Arbuckle short any day!

I like Arbuckle too! I've seen 2 Harold Lloyd films; Saftey First and Girl Shy, and decided that I had seen enough of Lloyd. Would rather watch Harry Langdon.

Cheers,
Maureen

Far be it from me do deny you or anyone else whatever pleasure or inspiration you get from "Passion of Joan of Arc". It is a film with some beautiful and powerful images; it just seems to me like watching a slide show and because of that I will be happy without it.

I find it easy to understand the strong positive or negative reactions to Dreyer's JOAN. It is an extreme film so it is almost impossible to be indifferent about it. You either love it or hate it.
I love it.

"Street Angel" has to be the worst especially because it is highly rated. The story & acting by Janet Gaynor is phony as it gets. Gaynor could not hook her way out of a paper bag. When arrested she chooses not to tell her man & just leave him disillusioned! For what good purpose? Bad upon bad.
Another bad one is "The White Sister" in which Gish is engaged to Colman & he is imprisoned & presumed dead but he returns & in that time Gish became a nun. She refuses to give it up & marry him. Another phony story which will never end. They argue for it seems a half hour.

And here's my contribution to the general heresy - I really can't stand Laurel and Hardy. I hate their talkies, and their silents bore me even more. I've seen Sons of the Desert, Big Business and The Music Box all once, and never care to see them again. Give me an Arbuckle short any day!

I like Arbuckle too! I've seen 2 Harold Lloyd films; Saftey First and Girl Shy, and decided that I had seen enough of Lloyd. Would rather watch Harry Langdon.

Cheers,
Maureen

I can understand that. As a child, we got a two hour strip of kiddie shows, starting with DIVER DAN (why are they diving in a fish tank?), Our Gang (some good, some bad) L&H (peculiar) and the Three Stooges (terrifying). The Roach stuff has improved (although as the earlier stuff shows up as better, the later looks even worse) and the Stooges are usually horrifying, except for two or three that turned out to be directed by Charley Chase. You could put out an eye with that! But L&H has grown on me. Behind all the beautifully performed mayhem is a real sense of friendship. That friendship carries it for me. As for the silents.... perhaps you need to see some of them with a good accompanyist, and for my money, the best you can get is Ben Model playing variations on "Tannenbaum" for BIG BUSINESS or his witty choices for YOU'RE DARN TOOTING. I'm not insisting you change your mind, just give them a fair chance, They play much better with an audience. Heck, even Semon plays better with an audience, although you better have a lot of five-year-olds in there.

Bob

Far be it from me do deny you or anyone else whatever pleasure or inspiration you get from "Passion of Joan of Arc". It is a film with some beautiful and powerful images; it just seems to me like watching a slide show and because of that I will be happy without it.

I find it easy to understand the strong positive or negative reactions to Dreyer's JOAN. It is an extreme film so it is almost impossible to be indifferent about it. You either love it or hate it.
I love it.

My reaction to JOAN is very strong. I'm bored out of my mind.

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

As a kid I noticed that Leonard Maltin rarely gave BOMB to an older movie, and formulated a theory which has held up. Which is, unbearably awful needs to bug you on a level that you relate to personally; a movie that purports to show the life of your peers, say, can make your skin crawl because you just identify enough to despise everyone in it. (I have never seen American Graffiti all the way through, for instance, even though for me the answer to "Where were you in '62?" is "diapers.") But an older movie which seems utterly implausible or cheap doesn't make your flesh creep, it just bores you because it doesn't resonate on any level. So for me, there's no Bo Derek Tarzan or Myra Breckinridge of silents, or even 30s or 40s movies. If there's a Tarzan movie as bad, it's just cheap and dull, not appalling.

That said, my sympathy for murder mysteries has steadily declined over the years, and the more one is driven by plot logistics and the need to supply red herrings and twists rather than anything resembling real life, the more I check out in disgust and sheer boredom. I have to admit even good ones have a hard time selling me these days; my son likes the Rathbone-Bruce Holmes films, but somewhere at the 50 minute mark, I could care less who's really disguised as The Violet Lugnut or whatever and would just as soon watch the two of them practice chromatic scales and banter, plotfree. There aren't a lot of silent murder mysteries of this kind, to bring this back to the actual subject, but the ones that there are, have a hard time making me care.

<snip>However, the interesting thing about Larry Semon's THE WIZARD OF OZ, which I think is a mess in most respects, is that I once ran a beautiful print of it to a group of silent comedy aficianados who had never seen it and they actually didn't think it was too bad. They looked at it as another Larry Semon comedy and on that basis it worked just fine.<snip>

Richard -

I think this is exactly the reason most people react so negatively to the Semon film. They see it and think something like "Because Semon bought the movie rights, instead of getting a beautifully cast, imagininatively presented version of something at least sort of like the Baum book we get THIS?" (And of course if you're not a fam of Semon in general that would make the reaction even stronger...)

Well, the frustrating part is it is beautifully cast! Semon makes a very good Scarecrow, Oliver Hardy would be a perfect Tin Man if he spent more than a few minutes in the costume,Dorothy Dwan isn't much older than Judy Garland was when she played Dorothy and probably could be just as charming if she had the chance, and actually, Charlie Murray could be a perfectly Great and Wonderful Wizard! The head scratcher is again, why pay a exhorbitant pile for the book rights, then ignore the book and just make what you could have made all along without shelling out for those rights. Semon's WIZARD OF OZ is one of the best examples of ego or insecurity or what have you getting in the way of making a good picture, except in the other irony of ironies, the reviews of the film when it came out were surprisingly positive! But Dorothy Dwan summed it up the best when I interviewed her in the late 70's, "When Larry (Semon) and (I. E.) Chadwick started producing pictures, they didn't know what the hell they were doing!".

And then again, the MGM version doesn't have that much to do with Baums books either, and when Disney made a far more faithful to the books version called RETURN TO OZ, it was panned as being too dark and weird (I though it was rather well done).


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Mike Gebert]

As I said after it was shown at Cinesation this year, Semon's Oz may be a botch of the first book, but it's quite a lot like the other (generally inferior, but intermittently charming) books, with their fantasy court intrigue and characters. So I don't know that I think people then, who would have been more familiar with the series as a whole, would have thought it the travesty that those of who mainly have '39 as an example do. (The 39 is only so faithful in any case, but it definitely achieves and, indeed, improves on the emotional impact that the first book has and none of the others really do, in terms of a journey for the main character.)

Well, as said, "worst" is ultimately subjective, unless you're speaking of a film like Manos: The Hands of Fate, which is so technically bad, it qualifies as a horrible movie even though there is (IMHO) the bones of a fairly chilling horror story there.

But anyway - in my limited opinion, The Mysterious Island has to be the worst thing I've seen yet. It just dragged on and on, and I found myself losing interest even in Lionel Barrymore about half an hour in. I stayed to the end just to say I'd done it, then wiped it off my DVR for good. I can't say exactly what bored me to tears other than just the labored pace of the thing.

THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND is an interesting case for me, the first time I saw it on video I had the same reaction of total boredom and wrote the thing off, but then years later, I watched it again in a print on a big screen with an audience and found it worked rather better. It'll never be a favorite, but it seems to need exactly a right mood to make it palatable.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

It's always amusing when something you think is 15 kinds of awesome (TIGRE REALE or THE CAT AND THE CANARY or the Buster Keaton short comedies, for example) is someone else's worst silent-film experience.

Good Doctor, How dare you!! 15 kinds of awsome??? Tigre Reale is at LEAST 16 . . . maybe 16 and 1/2 kinds of AWSOME! Your choice of pistols at 30 paces or TASERS at CLOSE RANGE!!!

Did John Wayne once say that HIGH NOON was the worst film he had ever seen? Many answers to this thread seem more to do with our inner character, development, beliefs, prejudices, cultural background and other personality traits rather than the merits of the films in question.

... rather than the merits of the films in question.

Well, ya see...those who dislike a particular film will see no merit in it while those who like it, will.

So, don't we all come to a film with these:

... our inner character, development, beliefs, prejudices, cultural background and other personality traits...

?

Did John Wayne once say that HIGH NOON was the worst film he had ever seen? Many answers to this thread seem more to do with our inner character, development, beliefs, prejudices, cultural background and other personality traits rather than the merits of the films in question.

Well...yes. Since no one has yet managed to establish an objective, immutable, universal standard for determining a film's merits, we can hardly make decisions regarding worth on anything other than subjective criteria.

I will watch anything silent, but I was initially hooked by comedies and westerns. I read the books by Kalton Lahue and was on board before I'd really seen very much at all. That being said I vote for 'Jesse James under the Red Flag" and "When Quackel did Hide". Kid and animal comedies are not my favorites either. Dippy-doo-dads, really? I'll watch them, but they make me squirm

I will watch anything silent, but I was initially hooked by comedies and westerns. I read the books by Kalton Lahue and was on board before I'd really seen very much at all. That being said I vote for 'Jesse James under the Red Flag" and "When Quackel did Hide". Kid and animal comedies are not my favorites either. Dippy-doo-dads, really? I'll watch them, but they make me squirm

Is that JESSE JAMES UNDER THE RED FLAG in it's original silent form, or with the incredibly inept narration and musical accompaniment by James nephew?

WHEN QUACKEL DID HYDE starring Charlie Joy is more proof that the Joy family is the kiss of death to any film comedy. THE HELPLESS HELPER with Al Joy is also on the list of worst silent comedies ever made.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

I'd have to go with La Roue. There are great set pieces within the film in terms of montage sequences; certainly the rail montages in the opening minutes are bracing and dynamically visual. The death of Elie, with its frame upon frame editing, I think looks better on the strip of film than projected; it goes by so fast you can only sense what happens. But the convoluted story is just agony, and Severin-Mars is over over-the-top. And it's far, far too long even when shortened.

Nevertheless, I'm still fascinated by any Gance I see. I did like J'Accuse, though I prefer the sound version. I thought Beethoven was absolutely dreadful, and I suspect that among the rest of his output that I have not yet seen I will find other clinkers. But that does not scare me off him; actually, I'd be happy to endure the bad along with the good in his case. I'd really like to see Austerlitz, even though the Cahiers du Cinema crowd condemned it as pro-Fascist. And I'd really like to see Valmy just to see Serge Gainsborough portray the Marquis de Sade.

I really don't think I have seen a silent that was as bad as something like Manos, the Hand of Fate. And I think I may find one if I keep digging, though I've been watching silent films for several decades and I haven't found one. I have found sound works by silent directors that are nearly so, such as The Lost City (Harry Revier) and Chloe (Marshall Neilan, for crying out loud). But those were talkies.

spadeneal

Did John Wayne once say that HIGH NOON was the worst film he had ever seen? Many answers to this thread seem more to do with our inner character, development, beliefs, prejudices, cultural background and other personality traits rather than the merits of the films in question.

Sounds almost analogous to something Bing Crosby once said about Elvis Presley ("He had no influence on pop music").

Charlie Chaplin may have admired the silent comedies created by his contemporaries, but he left no tales about them, due to his deep-seated insecurity even at the height of his popularity. We only know of his enthusiasm for Harold Lloyd's GRANDMA'S BOY because an associate innocently shared the news with Lloyd. Chaplin was furious about this "leak" when he later found out.

I've wondered if Chaplin's momentary lapse (in 1942) when he praised Lou Costello hadn't had more to do with projecting himself as "hip" with the current crop of wartime humor just as his 17-year-old silent, THE GOLD RUSH, was being re-released. Then according to a book on the Three Stooges, Chaplin also had complimentary words for Curly Howard, though I never saw the actual quote attributed to CC...word of mouth between Charlie and Curly, perhaps, at a Harry Cohn stag party?

It's so rare to read about Chaplin complimenting (or even acknowledging) his comedic contemporaries that these stories must be savored. I was familiar with the Costello reference (and I also felt it was more of an attempt by Chaplin at the time to sound current) but Curly??? That's a hoot! I can picture Charlie sneaking into The Dahl Theatre on Beverly Blvd incognito with dark shades and a top coat in order to silently enjoy HEALTHY, WEALTHY and DUMB (1938) on the big screen and curse himself for never coming up with Curly's circular floor run.

It's so rare to read about Chaplin complimenting (or even acknowledging) his comedic contemporaries that these stories must be savored.

I recall reading that Chaplin, ever-insecure, was genuinely nervous about the rising popularity of Harry Langdon in the mid-’20s. Langdon was apparently the only one of his contemporaries he feared might topple his throne.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, Langdon’s The Chaser is the worst silent feature I’ve seen. (Along with Semon’s Wizard of Oz.) I count some of Langdon’ Sennett shorts and his second feature among my all-time favorite comedies, but for me The Chaser leaves a very sour aftertaste. The first half, when Harry’s in drag, is disturbing and unfunny, and the second half, when he goes with Bud Jamison to the golf course, is strained and unfunny. I guess Chaplin relaxed when he saw that one.

It may be, just by virtue of being silent, that silent films have a built in forgiveness factor, at least to those who watch them regularly. Sound adds an additional level of potential "bad" that is harder not to notice. Certainly the pool scene in Blood Feast is technically the worst scene in the film because the wind and a loose connection makes the track break up so bad you can hardly understand what is being said. If you were able to hear it, it would be a typically empty exchange from Alison Louise Downe's typically Dadaistic approach to screenwriting. The script, as spoken, really adds a dimension that can lead to major amounts of bad. I saw, against my will last night, the miserable buddy comedy The Dilemma which I must say was beautifully filmed -- it was directed by Ron Howard -- but was a miserable experience in every other way. I think if you removed all of the needless profanity from the script, took the soundtrack off, and replaced the dialogue with title cards it may well play like a mediocre 1920s sex comedy that is nicely filmed but still inoffensive. I would hope that you would add some gags though; it was about the unfunniest comedy I think I've ever seen.

spadeneal

Oh dear. I'd forgotten Cabiria. It wasn't a completely bad film-watching experience, but that was only because we had spirituous liquids handy. By the time that piece of turkey lasagna ended..well, let's just say we were not behaving in a ladylike fashion. Memories of the film are understandably hazy, but the frissons of horror remain.

I'm in the wine business, Frederica. Although I enjoy "Cabiria", I think I'd enjoy watching it with you.

Oh dear. I'd forgotten Cabiria. It wasn't a completely bad film-watching experience, but that was only because we had spirituous liquids handy. By the time that piece of turkey lasagna ended..well, let's just say we were not behaving in a ladylike fashion. Memories of the film are understandably hazy, but the frissons of horror remain.

I'm in the wine business, Frederica. Although I enjoy "Cabiria", I think I'd enjoy watching it with you.

Please bring your work with you. I must admit, there were points during that film where I found myself practicing my planking. Didn't Mr. Urbanora once confess to sitting through outtakes of Cabiria? The mind reels.

It's so rare to read about Chaplin complimenting (or even acknowledging) his comedic contemporaries that these stories must be savored.

I recall reading that Chaplin, ever-insecure, was genuinely nervous about the rising popularity of Harry Langdon in the mid-’20s. Langdon was apparently the only one of his contemporaries he feared might topple his throne.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, Langdon’s The Chaser is the worst silent feature I’ve seen. (Along with Semon’s Wizard of Oz.) I count some of Langdon’ Sennett shorts and his second feature among my all-time favorite comedies, but for me The Chaser leaves a very sour aftertaste. The first half, when Harry’s in drag, is disturbing and unfunny, and the second half, when he goes with Bud Jamison to the golf course, is strained and unfunny. I guess Chaplin relaxed when he saw that one.

There's a great old knock-down/drag-out fight on the old alt.movie.silent about THE CHASER, whose first-half apparently creeps out some Guys. So you and Jon Mirsalis can sit together in happy agreement on this one. I think it's pretty good.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I've thought long ad hard about this topic and finally came up with DeMille's The Squaw Man as the worst I've seen. As I remember this film, the acting was terrible, the plot boring, and the whole production just plain flat. I cannot remember if there is missing footage or if it just seemed like it because the narrative was so badly done.

As for The Sorrows of Satan, I remember liking it so much because it was nothing like anything Griffith had done before, and I remember liking the performance by Carol Dempster, Ricardo Cortez, and Lya De Putti. What it shows about Griffith, I think, is that he had more in him. Maybe talkies took the wind out of his sails. Who knows.