NitrateVille.com

silentmovies742 wrote:I don't think after a PhD in the subject I need to see a whole new level in film

As someone who has made films for the past 30 years, I am seeing new levels in them all the time!

I work in comedy and animation. There, it's never about the script. It's always about the visual storytelling. The best animated films have the no plot at all, and the best comedic animated films have few words if any. Instead they focus on visual design, personality of the character through physical pantomime acting and cinematic clarity. That is to narrative film making as poetry is to narrative writing. The fluency on that particular level of communication is exactly what drew me to silent films in the first place. A lot of directors in the sound era could still operate on that level... Hitchcock, Tashlin, etc... But in the silent era, almost all the greats focused on cinematics because the medium required a focus on visual communication.

I see Birth of a Nation, not just as an exercise in techniques or a "first" for any particular use of them, but rather as a very early film that is completely fluent on a visual cinematic level. It's an engaging film with a lot of contrasts in mood, pacing and scale, along with truly inspired setups and staging. You could take any of those battle sequences and do frame grabs and create a really well planned storyboard out of them. And you can find the characters striking poses that are expressive, dynamic and alive all the way through the film. That isn't true of many other films from that era. Griffith was like a juggler that could keep a whole bunch of balls in the air at once, while most other directors of that era were juggling one or two at a time.

I really don't care if the subject matter isn't relevant because it has so much going on besides the plot. I understand if someone can't get past the story- I understand that is a huge hurdle for people. But that isn't a problem for me, because that isn't what I'm watching the picture for. If you look for visual storyTELLING instead of the linear story, there is a LOT in Birth of a Nation to appreciate.

Visual fluency takes study, just like verbal fluency does. There's a great deal to learn from the great early films. I see something new going on every time I watch a film like Birth of a Nation. That's exciting, because there are a lot of films I see that just shut my brain down and put me in a chatty dialogue induced coma while I watch... the "books on tape" model of film making. But I guess I can also understand someone reading Shakespeare's sonnets and complaining that there isn't enough action in the plot to keep their interest.

bigshot wrote:
As someone who has made films for the past 30 years, I am seeing new levels in them all the time!

I work in comedy and animation. There, it's never about the script. It's always about the visual storytelling. The best animated films have the no plot at all, and the best comedic animated films have few words if any.

Really? Who says they're the best? So how come Up, Wall-E, Finding Nemo and Toy Story all found themselves nominated for best Screenplay? And why is virtually every Best Animated Feature Oscar going to an animation with a traditional narrative and script? While I'm not saying the Academy always make the best decisions, they probably haven't got it wrong fifteen years on the bounce.

You could take any of those battle sequences and do frame grabs and create a really well planned storyboard out of them.

That is SO why people love watching films so much - so that they can make their own storyboard. Is that really a sign of great filmmaking?

I understand if someone can't get past the story- I understand that is a huge hurdle for people. But that isn't a problem for me, because that isn't what I'm watching the picture for. If you look for visual storyTELLING instead of the linear story, there is a LOT in Birth of a Nation to appreciate.

I think you are still missing the point of film, and why it even exists. Getting past the story isn't a "huge hurdle," it's simply that people are quite happy to sit there in the cinema or at home on the sofa and watch a film for what it is and don't care about pulling it to bits and declaring that such-and-such is a wonderful example of X or that this camera shot is a great example of Y. Half the reason why Griffith's developments are important is that they made it possible to create seamless storytelling - but by watching the film in the way you're suggesting, those developments were for nowt because you're pulling it all to bits again. That's fine in a classroom or a lecture theatre or an academic text - but not for a bowl of popcorn. There's much in BOAN to appreciate, but precious little for people to enjoy if they want to watch a film for entertainment purposes...and that's without even going into the subject matter.

There are a lot of films I see that just shut my brain down.

And that's the point of them. Watching a film isn't about analysis (unless you're studying it), it's about being sucked into the story (in most cases), forgetting about everything else, and being taken away to that other world or other time that you have spoken of. How can you be transported if you're sitting there analysing how it's all put together? You never get taken to those other worlds at all...you just end up watching them through a telescope and noting how well they're constructed. That's pointless.

silentmovies742 wrote:Really? Who says they're the best? So how come Up, Wall-E, Finding Nemo and Toy Story all found themselves nominated for best Screenplay?

You are just being argumentative. But that's OK. However, if you think Wall-E, Finding Nemo and Toy Story are among the greatest animated films ever made, I can give you a terrific list of films to check out that will blow your mind about what greatness in animation consists of. Just a friendly offer...

bigshot wrote:

silentmovies742 wrote:Really? Who says they're the best? So how come Up, Wall-E, Finding Nemo and Toy Story all found themselves nominated for best Screenplay?

You are just being argumentative. But that's OK. However, if you think Wall-E, Finding Nemo and Toy Story are among the greatest animated films ever made, I can give you a terrific list of films to check out that will blow your mind about what greatness in animation consists of. Just a friendly offer...

And, again, you're suggesting that what I want is greatness when what I actually want is a bit of fun - and I certainly don't want to be watching animation and pulling it to bits as I do so, thus missing out on what the film is meant to be providing me with in the first place.

Since you got a PhD in film studies, I would assume you think about films. I can guarantee you that people who make the films do. Otherwise they would be out of a job!

It's fine to just "like" something. And it doesn't even matter why you like it as long as you do. Everyone doesn't have to understand film making to enjoy watching a film. Some people won't like Birth of a Nation because they don't like the politics. Others just don't like war films, or silent films, or melodrama... or maybe their diner isn't agreeing with them. That is perfectly fine. But there's a level beyond an individual's "like" or "dislikes" that involves understanding and appreciation for how the magician performs his tricks. The organization and style of the film can add up to be more eloquent than just the surface plot. The way the film is being made can have a message too. That's the level that I fully appreciate Birth of a Nation on.

I can name other films like that... The Big Sleep, Pinocchio... heck, just this week I watched Dick Powell in Farewell My Lovely and the script is the absolute last reason to watch that film. I bet if you thought about it, you could think of examples like this too.

bigshot wrote:Since you got a PhD in film studies, I would assume you think about films.

That's my work.

When I go to the cinema or watch a DVD thinking about the films is the last thing on mind.

Remember to turn it back on again when you leave the theater and drive your car back home!

Oh! Something new appeared!

silentmovies742 wrote:I certainly don't want to be watching animation and pulling it to bits as I do so, thus missing out on what the film is meant to be providing me with in the first place.

Understanding how film makers make films leads to a deeper understanding of the art of cinema, not a mistaken impression about what the film is supposed to be about. It's just like understanding the way music is composed can make you appreciate music better, or understanding the fundamentals of life drawing can help you appreciate art. Art is intended to be thought about. But I think you already know that.

bigshot wrote:Remember to turn it back on again when you leave the theater and drive your car back home!

Oh! Something new appeared!

silentmovies742 wrote:I certainly don't want to be watching animation and pulling it to bits as I do so, thus missing out on what the film is meant to be providing me with in the first place.

Understanding how film makers make films leads to a deeper understanding of the art of cinema, not a mistaken impression about what the film is supposed to be about. It's just like understanding the way music is composed can make you appreciate music better, or understanding the fundamentals of life drawing can help you appreciate art. Art is intended to be thought about. But I think you already know that.

Nothing new appeared - it was there in the original post. What I can't seem to get through to you - or something you simply can't understand - is that most people don't give a damn about a deeper understanding of cinema, or how film makers make films. They want to watch the damned film while having some popcorn and then go home after disengaging brain for 90 minutes (or the home-viewing equivalent of that). It is impossible to even view a film as it was originally intended if you're going to be sitting there in the cinema pulling it to bits to see how it's filmed and compiled and thus reminding yourself throughout the film that you are watching a film. Art IS intended to be thought about - but most films were never intended to be art at all, but simply diverting entertainment. I'm not quite sure why this is so difficult to understand. It must be very draining never being able to switch off, put your feet up and watch a film just to be entertained.

If the art is showing, the storytelling has failed. If the storytelling has failed, the film is just a succession of (possibly very pretty) pictures with no value beyond that. As a wise teacher/designer/director told me decades ago about stage plays, "if they're concentrating on the scenery, the show's dying."

"I work in comedy and animation. There, it's never about the script."

Well, I'm betting that many who have labored in those vineyards, from Sturges to Wilder and from Starewitch to Williams, might debate you on that.

-Craig

silentmovies742 wrote:most people don't give a damn about a deeper understanding of cinema, or how film makers make films. They want to watch the damned film while having some popcorn and then go home after disengaging brain for 90 minutes (or the home-viewing equivalent of that).

I understand that perfectly. But those people are more interested in Tom Cruise than silent film. It's kind of ironic to see passive viewing being championed in a silent film forum. Most silent films wouldn't meet that standard.

There is a whole level of appreciation beyond just sitting and zoning out in front of the tube. But that sort of understanding is for a different audience... kind of like the difference between an american cheese sandwich on white bread and pheasant under glass. A cheese sandwich gets the job done if you're hungry, but it isn't the same satisfaction as a great meal.

Every really good film maker I've ever worked with can look at a great film they've never seen before, and then sit down and tell you the reasons behind the director's decisions and break down the visual grammar of the presentation. That is a level of communication that is right there on the surface, plain to see. It's visual poetry. But you have to have your brain turned on or it's just transparent to you. Film is a visual medium, particularly in silent films, and visual storytelling is much more important than scripts written down in words. Many of the greatest silent film makers didn't even use scripts. And the ones that did improvised and translated the words into a visual narrative as they shot and edited.

The people who do commentaries and supplements on disks have thought about what they watched. The people who listen to the commentaries and view the documentaries are interested in thinking about film too. Obviously there is an audience that is looking at film differently than the schlub in the Barcalounger with is beer and cell phone surfing the internet while he enjoys a rip roaring Ingmar Bergman film!

Honestly, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't like things just because they like them. I'm saying that even if an individual doesn't "enjoy" a film watching it with his brain turned off, it doesn't mean that there is nothing to entertain someone who has their brain turned on while they're watching it. A great example of this is Jack Clayton's "The Innocents". To me, it is one of the best ghost stories ever put on film. A friend of mine who likes superhero and sci-fi films overheard me talking about it and asked to borrow it. After he returned it, he said... "I guess it was OK, but there was only one scene with a ghost in it, and the ending when she kissed the kid made no sense." He had completely missed the point of the whole picture because he was just watching the surface and not parsing the subtext. To him it was just another dry British costume drama about kids and their nanny. But if you are able to think and watch at the same time, you realize that what is going on in the surface isn't what the film is about. The subtext of the film is the real story, and it's very terrifying, disturbing and perverted.

I love to think about films. It's an art form as deserving of thought as easel painting, music or great writing. It's fine if folks just want simple diversion from movies. Most modern films cater to that audience. I love classic films, and in particular silent films because they have more going on than just that.

wich2 wrote:"I work in comedy and animation. There, it's never about the script." Well, I'm betting that many who have labored in those vineyards, from Sturges to Wilder and from Starewitch to Williams, might debate you on that.

Keaton and Chaplin sure wouldn't!

It might not be common knowledge outside of animation, but Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse were based on techniques from silent films, not talkies. At Disney, they did frame by frame analysis of scenes like "One AM" where Chaplin is drunk and he is trying to unlock the front door. They studied the river rescue in Our Hospitality for how it was staged and paced. The old school cartoonists knew more about silent film acting than some silent film actors did. The techniques they learned from studying silent films ended up being codified into a list of animation principles that animators follow to this day. And animators still study silent films... probably more than live action film makers do.

>Keaton and Chaplin sure wouldn't!<

Text scripts for a silent comedy of course wouldn't be precisely like ones for sound drama.

But if you're saying those two men and their contemporaries worked totally off the cuff, with no story preplanning (and in fact, sometimes with written scripting), you're simply factually wrong.

Here's an example:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmalti ... eaton-find" target="_blank

(And yes, most of us who grew up with classic Warner's cartoons are fully aware of the influence of silent comedy on them. Their creators never hid that fact.)

-Craig

Where is the script? I'd love to see it if one exists. People who don't work in film use the term "script" very loosely. Cutting continuities created after shooting has been completed, basic structural outlines, thumbnail descriptions of individual gags, etc don't serve the same function as scripts. Keaton himself said that they didn't shoot using scripts, and the Unknown Chaplin makes it very clear how he worked.

Visuals are created visually with the camera and performers. They aren't described in words, then photographed as written. Otherwise it would take a thousand words for each picture, as the old saying goes! Scripts became important tools in the sound era, largely because of dialogue. But even then, visually literate film makers like Hitchcock established the visual elements and established staging of individual shots in thumbnail sketches for his cameraman and art directors. Dialogue in silent films isn't able to carry the storytelling because it's a visual medium.

This is tangential to the value of Birth of a Nation though. A friend of mine has a book coming out in the first week of December called "Comedy For Animators" that is all about how silent film was a model for how golden age animators created their pantomime acting techniques. I got to read a few chapters in draft form. It's going to be a very useful book.

Bigshot -

>Where is the script? I'd love to see it if one exists.<

Did you read the info at the link I posted?

>People who don't work in film use the term "script" very loosely.<

I'm aware of what the word "script' means; I've worked on scripts. (I've been a working actor for nearly 40 years, and have also done a bit of writing, producing, and directing.)

>Cutting continuities created after shooting has been completed, basic structural outlines, thumbnail descriptions of individual gags, etc don't serve the same function as scripts.<

That is not the case here. See the info at the link I posted.

>Keaton himself said that they didn't shoot using scripts<

Buster said a lot of things in later years; and like many in showbiz, sometimes with a good deal of embellishment.

>Visuals are created visually with the camera and performers. They aren't described in words<

Surely you know that's not always the case. Depending on who wrote them, there are often visual cues in the text.

>Dialogue in silent films isn't able to carry the storytelling because it's a visual medium.<

Yes, I believe that general point is self-evident to most of us here. Though again, it's NOT always the case - title cards, and even obviously understood on-screen vocal performances, have absolutely helped advance the story in many silent films.

-Craig

wich2 wrote:Buster said a lot of things in later years; and like many in showbiz, sometimes with a good deal of embellishment.-Craig

Are you serious? They didn't always adhere to God's Truth? Like Anita Loos, Louise Brooks, etc., etc.? I can't believe it.

Good God, can this thread get any more off topic or repetitive? Most of the posts following littleshot's on page 2, 'Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:08 pm', should have been split off into a separate thread. Moderators! Are you out there?

There are worse ills in the world than discussion, and discussion sometimes is discursive.

Is the script online? All I saw there was a cover.

I make animated films, and I know how useful scripts are on a non-dialogue driven show. Usually the script is actually just a simple outline of the basic continuity and the action is all worked out in storyboard. I would guess in silent comedy, that would equate to a basic shooting outline, then improvisation and elaboration created on the set. The one thing I know for sure... you can't describe physical gags in words and have any idea of how they will work out on film. The setup, staging and timing of the gag are more important than the gag itself, and that kind of thing is very difficult to conceptualize in words. From everything I've seen, the Chaplin and Keaton films were created in performance, not at a typewriter. They primarily used a typewriter to record on paper what they had created in performance after the fact- a shooting log or shot list. That might look like a script to the average person, but it serves a different function.

bigshot wrote:
There is a whole level of appreciation beyond just sitting and zoning out in front of the tube. But that sort of understanding is for a different audience... kind of like the difference between an american cheese sandwich on white bread and pheasant under glass. A cheese sandwich gets the job done if you're hungry, but it isn't the same satisfaction as a great meal.

All I see here is pure and simply snobbery: "What I do when watching a film is deeper and more important and shows my intellect more than what those others who are just up for an entertaining 90 minutes do." What's more, comparing film-watching to meal-eating is dubious at best, not least because it doesn't even make sense in light of your arguments. You've been saying that it is the way we consume the film that is important, and now you're saying it is what is being consumed that is important. You can't have it both ways. But if people were being honest, I'm sure most would go for a cheese sandwich - there is less chance of indigestion.

Well, when you make films, you have to understand film making.

bigshot wrote:Well, when you make films, you have to understand film making.

But we're not talking about making films, we're talking about watching them. And non-filmmakers watching them at that. And even as someone who writes about, teaches, and researches film, I know the difference between watching films for my day job and switching off and enjoying a bit of entertainment. And if you can't do the latter (as appears to be the case) then it's you who is missing out, and not us.

I agree with Brent. All of this is way off-topic for BOAN, which I have just watched on the BFI bluray. I was kinda hoping to find a discussion on that topic here.

Anyway, the visual quality on that bluray is outstanding. I had some friends round at the weekend and we watched part of the film together on the big screen. After a minute or so one asked: "Is the picture that good throughout?", to which I could only reply: "Pretty much."

The old dilemma persists, but now this most schizophrenic of viewing experiences comes in beautiful HD.

My copy hasn't arrived yet. It's still on the boat from the UK. I'll certainly take a look at it and comment on how it stacks up to the Kino when it arrives.

silentmovies742 wrote:I know the difference between watching films for my day job and switching off and enjoying a bit of entertainment.

Let me know how that works out for you with Birth of a Nation!

Arndt wrote:I agree with Brent. All of this is way off-topic for BOAN, which I have just watched on the BFI bluray. I was kinda hoping to find a discussion on that topic here.

Anyway, the visual quality on that bluray is outstanding. I had some friends round at the weekend and we watched part of the film together on the big screen. After a minute or so one asked: "Is the picture that good throughout?", to which I could only reply: "Pretty much."

The old dilemma persists, but now this most schizophrenic of viewing experiences comes in beautiful HD.

I got my copy today and have to second that. As a purely technical review, its an absolutely superb transfer. Blows the Kino/MoC releases away.

I did notice a shot or two that seemed to run offspeed, almost at 24fps, but I assume that was deliberate to keep in sync with the score recorded in 1993.

Other than that, a beautiful transfer.

Received my copy today as well.

It is a major upgrade in quality as compared to what has been released on Blu ray before.

Just another reason to invest in an region free Blu ray player.

Mr.Mycroft wrote:

Arndt wrote:II did notice a shot or two that seemed to run offspeed, almost at 24fps, but I assume that was deliberate to keep in sync with the score recorded in 1993. Other than that, a beautiful transfer.

How fast did it correct? The music should be edited to work with the picture, not the other way around.

bigshot wrote:

silentmovies742 wrote:I know the difference between watching films for my day job and switching off and enjoying a bit of entertainment.

Let me know how that works out for you with Birth of a Nation!

So when I asked my original question:

Strange question, but does anyone actually sit down and watch Birth of a Nation for pleasure? You know, rainy afternoon, pot of tea and a piece of cake. "I know what I fancy watching..."

You could have saved us a lot of time and just answered "no."

Thanks Arndt. As for (some of) the others:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... d+crapping

bigshot wrote:

Mr.Mycroft wrote:

Arndt wrote:II did notice a shot or two that seemed to run offspeed, almost at 24fps, but I assume that was deliberate to keep in sync with the score recorded in 1993. Other than that, a beautiful transfer.

How fast did it correct? The music should be edited to work with the picture, not the other way around.

Its in a couple of shots. Corrected within a few seconds but I'm only guessing as to the technical motive.

My copy arrived today and it is INCREDIBLE! The image quality is a huge leap forward over the Kino and the musical score is superb. I can totally see why this film blew the existing film business out of the water in 1915. It is hugely powerful when you don't have to squint past scratches and put up with lousy music. The cinematics and melodrama are far beyond anything being done at the time, even if the story isn't at all accurate. The supplements are great too. I watched The Coward and it was one of the best looking films from that era that I have ever seen. I watched a little bit of the commentaries too, and they did a great job of putting the film in context, even if they did deal with its greatness in vague generalities. (I think film historians are better talking about contextual stuff than cinematics.) This film is packed with fantastic techniques and the BFI version blows Kino out of the water. I recommend it highly. I'm going to be devouring this for the next couple of weeks I think. Tons to learn. I REALLY enjoyed watching this! It was a revelation!