NitrateVille.com

http://www.empireonline.com/features/be ... -movies/p1" target="_blank

Yawn

Well, I've only seen half of them so I'm no expert, but it appears to be just the usual suspects.

Actually, in the time it takes to watch all those "usual suspects" a person could really become a silent film expert by pouring through Daniel Blum's A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE SILENT SCREEN. I still thumb through it some 50+ years after I first borrowed it from my public library (not the same copy I might add - imagine what the overdue fines would be?). Blum covers films and performers regardless of the survival rates of the films. One truly becomes an expert by knowing about lost films as well as those we can download from Netflix in a minute's time.

bobfells wrote:Actually, in the time it takes to watch all those "usual suspects" a person could really become a silent film expert by pouring through Daniel Blum's A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE SILENT SCREEN. I still thumb through it some 50+ years after I first borrowed it from my public library (not the same copy I might add - imagine what the overdue fines would be?). Blum covers films and performers regardless of the survival rates of the films. One truly becomes an expert by knowing about lost films as well as those we can download from Netflix in a minute's time.

Blum's genius with that book and his others ie PICTORIAL HISTORY OF TALKIES, A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN THEATRE 1860-1985, GREAT STARS OF THE AMERICAN STAGE is that he made the history an almost visual experience. The only text beginning each year giving a rundown of personnel and films. How would customers would react to looking at pictures from the scene of a play or movie with the performers long dead? no matter how famous the performers were. The silent film book needed no update after the intial publication cause the silent era ended about 1929. But the Talkies and American Theatre books got updated to the current year of publication. Blum couldn't get everything in his silent film book, that would be unfair to think he could, but he mentions films like Gallagher and Sheen's AROUND THE TOWN(1923) which is so obscure it's not even catalogued in key books like AFI catalogue.

ten easy lessons into how to become a silent film bore.

There are going to be a lot more articles of this genre in the near future. Even the most well intentioned might make it as far as 'Battleship Potempkin' and give it up as too much hard work. I often wonder if compilers of lists like these have even seen the films themselves.

One piece of commentary about 'The Artist' that has really stuck with me is the idea that for most people, the link between silents and popular entertainment has been severed. That is, they feel anxious that they must take a scholarly approach to every silent they see, and that viewing a silent properly is an academic skill that must be acquired. Lists like this perpetuate that view.

The hope is that 'The Artist' will show people what we all know - that it's entirely possible to enjoy a silent as an entertaining film first, and a silent film second.

If I were making up a list like this, I'd pack it with well-made, enjoyable, but completely 'non canon' films - perhaps 'Chicago' (1927) or 'Lonesome' (1928), or 'Show People' (1928). Nobody has to try hard to enjoy any of those.

Brooksie wrote:There are going to be a lot more articles of this genre in the near future. Even the most well intentioned might make it as far as 'Battleship Potempkin' and give it up as too much hard work. I often wonder if compilers of lists like these have even seen the films themselves.

One piece of commentary about 'The Artist' that has really stuck with me is the idea that for most people, the link between silents and popular entertainment has been severed. That is, they feel anxious that they must take a scholarly approach to every silent they see, and that viewing a silent properly is an academic skill that must be acquired. Lists like this perpetuate that view.

The hope is that 'The Artist' will show people what we all know - that it's entirely possible to enjoy a silent as an entertaining film first, and a silent film second.

If I were making up a list like this, I'd pack it with well-made, enjoyable, but completely 'non canon' films - perhaps 'Chicago' (1927) or 'Lonesome' (1928), or 'Show People' (1928). Nobody has to try hard to enjoy any of those.

I agree with the "silent film bore" line of an earlier post.

Still, the restoration of POTEMKIN (available from Kino) plays wonderfully. I'd never show INTOLERANCE to someone who'd never seen a silent film. I don't know about SHOW PEOPLE, either, as an intro.

Nothing beats a comedy, live, as an introduction: Chaplin, Lloyd, or Keaton.

The internet has made it possible for anyone
to become an expert on anything.
The nature of information acquisition has
changed. At one time, a person willing
to commit to memory lots of information
about a given subject was revered
and consulted. Sometimes they tagged
along solo on group dates brimming with
facts. That type of person has been
replaced by a smartphone. Now, it is not
a matter of memory retention but more
data retrieval.

syd wrote:Now, it is not
a matter of memory retention but more
data retrieval.

That's exactly what some ancient philosopher (was it Plato, Aristotle, or someone else?) warned when reading and writing started to become more widespread. Who needs to know anything anymore, when you can just look it up in a book/scroll!

Yes it is interesting - for example I've only been a silent fan until very recently. A general "classic movies" fan for many years, but never silents. Then 2 months ago something clicked, and I haven't looked back.

I guess the bad stereotypes were that strong that I never entertained the thought previously...

Nathan, as a neophyte to silents, what exactly clicked for you? Was it one particular film? For me, it was seeing the lon Chaney phantom of the Opera on tv when I was about 12. I had seen silents before on TV and was interested in them. But I had just seen the Herbert Lom version of Phantom in the movie theater and was disappointed. The Chaney version was everything I could imagine and more.

syd wrote:The internet has made it possible for anyone
to become an expert on anything.
The nature of information acquisition has
changed. At one time, a person willing
to commit to memory lots of information
about a given subject was revered
and consulted. Sometimes they tagged
along solo on group dates brimming with
facts. That type of person has been
replaced by a smartphone. Now, it is not
a matter of memory retention but more
data retrieval.

Actually, judgment becomes far more important, as the normal process of weeding out bad information as you go and learn over time is gone, replaced by a giant morass of data and you have to decide what's accurate and what's not. Wikipedia, for instance, isn't nearly 100% accurate, nor are many other prominent sites. I just wonder how knowledgable, to use a Nitrateville hot potato, someone would be about the Fatty Arbuckle trial by casual surfing. Lots of wrong information out there. And lots of people convinced that they know something because they saw it online, without discrimination as to whether it was actually right.

Internet data, aside from accuracy issues, is a matter of Quantity vs. Quality. Don't confuse mere data retrieval with evaluation of that data. Going back to Blum's Pictorial History of the Silent Screen, he provided quality evaluations via the size of the photos. Major films were given larger size photos, lesser films smaller photos. If a player got a thumbnail photo or a full page, you knew who was the big star and who wasn't. Data has to be evaluated so human thought is in no danger of becoming obsolete.

Brooksie wrote:There are going to be a lot more articles of this genre in the near future. Even the most well intentioned might make it as far as 'Battleship Potempkin' and give it up as too much hard work. I often wonder if compilers of lists like these have even seen the films themselves.

One piece of commentary about 'The Artist' that has really stuck with me is the idea that for most people, the link between silents and popular entertainment has been severed. That is, they feel anxious that they must take a scholarly approach to every silent they see, and that viewing a silent properly is an academic skill that must be acquired. Lists like this perpetuate that view.

The hope is that 'The Artist' will show people what we all know - that it's entirely possible to enjoy a silent as an entertaining film first, and a silent film second.

If I were making up a list like this, I'd pack it with well-made, enjoyable, but completely 'non canon' films - perhaps 'Chicago' (1927) or 'Lonesome' (1928), or 'Show People' (1928). Nobody has to try hard to enjoy any of those.

Here, here. What you said. Although, I discovered to my chagrin that Show People is not the best film to show to a newbie. You have to know something about early film history, and you have to know who Marion is imitating to get the jokes. As much as I love the film, it is an in-joke. Chicago, yes, in a heartbeat. I've had really good luck with taking friends to see The General, too. The best reaction I get from newbies--absolutely, slam dunk, the best--is with Valentino, especially Four Horsemen.

To be honest, I don't feel any need to proselytize for silent films. I like them. If any of my non-silent-watching friends indicate an interest in seeing one, I'll pick one I think they'll enjoy, rather than battering them with tiresome '60s film theory. If they never see another silent in their lives, I'm fine with that, too. I would never dream of making a list of films to assign them, unless they asked me for one.

I hope I detected a wee bit of tongue-in-cheek in the intro to that list.

augustinius wrote: Actually, judgment becomes far more important, as the normal process of weeding out bad information as you go and learn over time is gone, replaced by a giant morass of data and you have to decide what's accurate and what's not. Wikipedia, for instance, isn't nearly 100% accurate, nor are many other prominent sites. I just wonder how knowledgable, to use a Nitrateville hot potato, someone would be about the Fatty Arbuckle trial by casual surfing. Lots of wrong information out there. And lots of people convinced that they know something because they saw it online, without discrimination as to whether it was actually right.

So they can go to the library and check out well-reviewed books on the trial, and they'd be wrong too.

greta

greta de groat wrote:

augustinius wrote: Actually, judgment becomes far more important, as the normal process of weeding out bad information as you go and learn over time is gone, replaced by a giant morass of data and you have to decide what's accurate and what's not. Wikipedia, for instance, isn't nearly 100% accurate, nor are many other prominent sites. I just wonder how knowledgable, to use a Nitrateville hot potato, someone would be about the Fatty Arbuckle trial by casual surfing. Lots of wrong information out there. And lots of people convinced that they know something because they saw it online, without discrimination as to whether it was actually right.

So they can go to the library and check out well-reviewed books on the trial, and they'd be wrong too.

greta

Well, yes, maybe that isn't the perfect example, but hopefully what I meant was clear. Lots of inaccuate stuff on Wiki and other prominent sites.

On Show People - I took my husband along to this and even without knowing the people being imitated, he enjoyed it. We started with Laurel and Hardy, Keaton, and Lloyd on his journey through silents. We have sat through The Wind, Way Down East, Waterloo, Ben Hur, Her Sister from Paris, J'accuse, The Student of Prague, Blackmail, The Constant Nymph, Triumph of the Rat, The Lodger, Palais de Danse, Underground, The Passion of Joan of Arc, and The First Born.

It has been fascinating to watch him discover what is a whole new art form for him, largely without the usual suspects (other than the restored Metropolis), and all on the big screen.

Given the recent hubbub on Metropolis here, I almost hesitate to say anything about it in this thread, but I have to share this -- I know a young single male movie/music fan about 30 who is only just now exploring films older than he is. He went to see the Complete Metropolis theater showing and came back raving. He had mildly laughed at my advocacy of Chaplin/Keaton, silent horror, et al, but boy did he get that one.

Another silent that I think seems to translate somewhat well to a modern audience while showing the advantages of the silent format is The Cat and the Canary. A lot of creative use of silent film limitations along with great camera work, lighting, and a fun script, with less exaggerated acting than most neophytes expect.

When i first started taking my husband to silent films, he amiably tolerated them, but the one he raved about was Terje Vigen. So the unlikeliest of suspects might grab somebody.

greta

Back in the 70s and 80s when I ran film series at our public library, a sure fire crowd pleaser was TEMPEST (1928), the John Barrymore film. I should call it the Charles Rosher film because his shimmering evocative photography made the case for "who needs dialogue?" And I think everybody in the audience got the message. I owned a 16mm Blackhawk print so I could program it often and it never disappointed. TEMPEST doesn't seem to be on anybody's short list of favorites (except mine) and is not one of the "suspects" but don't over look this one.

Surely no hot-blooded male would have a problem sitting pleasurably through anything with Clara Bow in it.

Michael O'Regan wrote:Surely no hot-blooded male would have a problem sitting pleasurably through anything with Clara Bow in it.

I wouldn't think so--then again, some of my hotblooded male friends prefer Valentino. Bow and Valentino have a lot in common, although Valentino is probably more recognizable these days--so many films, so few really good ones. And so much star power that the bad films don't matter all that much.

Michael O'Regan wrote:Surely no hot-blooded male would have a problem sitting pleasurably through anything with Clara Bow in it.

Except, sadly, often the only good thing in a Bow film is Clara Bow. They worked that poor thing to death in film after film with the thinest material. She carried those film alone and that, my dears, is a real testament to her talent and star quality. IMHO.

I eventually managed to get my wife into watching silents. She was never a much of a film fan, more of a book reader. She likes the films with a strong Jazz Age roaring 20's feel with all the fashion and wild glamour like OUR MODERN MAIDENS etc. She is also now very well read on silent film stars even more so than me.

That's exactly what some ancient philosopher (was it Plato, Aristotle, or someone else?) warned when reading and writing started to become more widespread. Who needs to know anything anymore, when you can just look it up in a book/scroll![/quote]

A good commercial for the iPhone 5. Have Plato (or whomever) holding the device
and declaring the end of knowledge as we know it.

Call me a sci-fi geek, but I see the day when humans will access knowledge directly
through a usb type plug imbedded in the skin.

"Why go through four years of college when you can "plug in"
future ads will scream.

Nathan, as a neophyte to silents, what exactly clicked for you? Was it one particular film?

It started with "Pandora's Box", but it really wasn't any one film in particular. It was more the revelation that the canon of silent films, featured some incredible films and a whole new world of great "stars", most of whom I had never heard of. Also, far from being "Silent" & "B&W" - I found many silent films to have more sound and color than many "normal" movies.

The quality of many restored prints available was amazing - watching "The Passion of Joan of Arc" I can barely believe that this was filmed in 1927 - the detail & clarity in the print is astonishing.

I started my silent fandom with seeing Keaton's features (especially) and he is still my overwhelming favorite but it didn't take long at all for me to make the jump over to silent drama as well and I very much enjoy Lang's work, as well as Sunrise, Greed, The Wind and many more.

Part of my fascination is not only with the films themselves and their quality - and there is something hypnotic about the unspoken story accompanied only by music - but also with all the speculation about the lost films of a bygone era. I will admit that for awhile after I started watching around 1979, I was under the impression that no more "lost" films were going to be discovered. I was shocked to read about the discovery of the complete Metropolis in Argentina, and the American films located recently in Australia and New Zealand. I still wonder how much longer films can remain undiscovered, it's a fascinating side interest. Of course when I first started watching there was no internet to speak of, and a group like this is invaluable for information.

Anyway, if anyone finds Four Devils or The Great Gatsby, I'm there.

a sure fire crowd pleaser was TEMPEST (1928), the John Barrymore film

Oh, and what I love about watching Barrymore in silents is that I always feel that I can tell what he is thinking. It's yet another fascination.

syd wrote:That's exactly what some ancient philosopher (was it Plato, Aristotle, or someone else?) warned when reading and writing started to become more widespread. Who needs to know anything anymore, when you can just look it up in a book/scroll!

A good commercial for the iPhone 5. Have Plato (or whomever) holding the device
and declaring the end of knowledge as we know it.

Call me a sci-fi geek, but I see the day when humans will access knowledge directly
through a usb type plug imbedded in the skin.

"Why go through four years of college when you can "plug in"
future ads will scream.[/quote]


Those ads would be wrong. Life is more than knowledge, and knowing facts alone is not sufficient. Learning also involves handling situations, developing judgment, learning to interact with others very different from yourself. I see college as a safe and reliable crucible to accomplish these aims. Anyone who claims that there is a shortcut to personal development is a liar.

bobfells wrote:Actually, in the time it takes to watch all those "usual suspects" a person could really become a silent film expert by pouring through Daniel Blum's A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE SILENT SCREEN. I still thumb through it some 50+ years after I first borrowed it from my public library (not the same copy I might add - imagine what the overdue fines would be?). Blum covers films and performers regardless of the survival rates of the films. One truly becomes an expert by knowing about lost films as well as those we can download from Netflix in a minute's time.

Just bought it for $15.00 from Amazon. Thanks for the tip!