NitrateVille.com

In honor of TCM broadcasting 2011 Best Picture The Artist here is a new post that summarizes some of the amazing connections between that movie and Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd.

https://silentlocations.wordpress.com/2 ... and-lloyd/

Cheers, John

All excited about the broadcast of "The Artist".
Yes,I saw it in a theater, & bought the disc, but was hoping to share my love of it with friends &/or neighbors watching.

No such luck! Nasty storm here in the east has signals flicking on &out.

Agnes

All things don't, for sure, come to those who wait, & probably not any important thing, but once in a while a small thing actually does come to the patient waiter; in proof of which contention, I saw it for the first time tonight, thanks only to TCM. Liked it quite well, though without being possessed by any strong ambition to watch it again.

One very appealing little detail: a "The End" which closely resembled the graphic used by RKO in the '30s.

I saw THE ARTIST last night on TCM and was AMAZED!

The film makers got almost EVERY detail correct to replicate a silent 1920s movie--the camera work--types of shots, transitions, titles, lighting, cutting were totally like the 1920s! The locations, interiors, etc. were also incredible!
Especially the inside and outside movie theatre shots!

It is ironic it took a French production shot in Hollywood to properly recreate the mood and atmosphere of the silent era!

And the dog!!

Marr&Colton wrote:And the dog!!

We had an Uggie discussion a few years ago:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10961&p=88155&hilit ... iny#p72940" target="_blank

I still don't see the point. It didn't work for me, as anything other than a pretend silent movie, and not a very good one at that.

Mick, I agree that the film was not the Second Coming that some made it out to be... but it is a solid movie, and it does have - to use a much out of fashion term - some "charm."

(Okay, maybe I'm a little prejudiced, as I saw it at a SAG screening here in NY, where Jean Dujardin did a little talkback with us after.)

And it is nice, every few decades or so, to see a genuine piece of that grand old art form, Silent Cinema. (But then, what can I say? I still produce Radio Dramas!)

Best,
-Craig

We have to remember (and I think I made this point when the film first came out) that we are the very last audience The Artist was intended for. To us, it was just another silent, but it was designed for people who had never seen a silent before.

Brooksie wrote:We have to remember (and I think I made this point when the film first came out) that we are the very last audience The Artist was intended for. To us, it was just another silent, but it was designed for people who had never seen a silent before.

But, this was my point when it came out. It wasn't "just another silent" at all. The silent era ( and maybe a little way into the talkie era) is when silent films were produced. THE ARTIST is just a novelty film-without-talking.

People, 'round here especially, acted as if it were the recovery of a long-lost film from the silent era.

Since seeing it, I altered my input to movie-related conversations from "I am a fan of silent film" to "I am a fan of films from the silent era", in order to avoid the irritating response..."OH! Have you seen THE ARTIST?".

I hear your point, Mick.

But I'll continue to consider the occasional offering like this and Mel Brook's SILENT MOVIE, to be "Silent Films." In the same way that an audio play, even if broadcast today instead of in the 1940's, is still a "Radio Drama."

Best,
-Craig

Fair comment, Craig, although, personally, I would consider Radio Drama to be Radio Drama, no matter when it was produced.

...and anyways, you know me by now....just a contrary bastard!

The director wanted to make a film about old-time Hollywood. I think he said it was a Valentine to old-time Hollywood. He could have made it for widescreen, with color and dialog, but what better way to communicate an admiration for the silent era than to make a silent film about silents, in academy ratio, and in black & white. It was not an attempt to resurrect silent movies. That ain't gonna happen. But it was a very special homage to the silent era, using locations from the silent era, and for that I thank him, and I'm more than happy it won the Oscar. It's the first time since the '70s that I was interested in the best picture winner, and whatever interest - admittedly little - in the silent era The Artist may have stirred up was more than anyone on this board had reason to expect before the film was made.

. It was not an attempt to resurrect silent movies. That ain't gonna happen.

DRAT!

Michael O'Regan wrote: People, 'round here especially, acted as if it were the recovery of a long-lost film from the silent era....

That's what some of the palaver suggested.

Still, I'm not sorry it was made (though not for my benefit), & won so many awards...which, if nothing else, prevented them from falling into the hands of producers of the usual Academy-nominated tripe.

Now I'd like to see the Weinstein Co. undertake a really challenging project: a replica of an ur-talkie, as produced in '28 & '29, my favorite genre.

If they do, they simply must--as they didn't do in The Artist--procure, or commission, a pair of silk stockings for every Jane in the cast; the seam can be easily faked in nylon, but not silk's sheen.

Mitch Farish wrote:...But it was a very special homage to the silent era, using locations from the silent era, and for that I thank him, and I'm more than happy it won the Oscar....

Homage--that's the way I took & appreciated it.

It wasn't the only mainstream silent picture to come out in recent years - there was also the Spanish "Biencannives" I liked them both. I believe also that there is a silent picture coming out about Rudolf Valentino.

I like Blancanieves, better than The Artist. If silent technique can find a place in modern cinema at all, I think it is mostly in these kinds of dreamlike fantasies, where the intertitles and lack of dialogue fit with the sense of strangeness and mystery. But that film was an homage to European silents, and despite following in The Artist's footsteps it has not started any trends.

I don't think such a rarefied thing will ever start a very wide trend. But it is nice to get the single example once in a while.

(There was also the Silent B & W film about the Inner City African-American boy a few years back, that I believe ran on PBS?)

-Craig

I very much enjoyed both The Artist and Blancanieves. I noted above there is possibly another modern silent in the works on the life of Valentino. Does anyone have any details on that or any other modern silent that might be in production? I would love to see more.

Thanks,
Matthew

mwalls wrote:I noted above there is possibly another modern silent in the works on the life of Valentino....

Thanks,
Matthew

If so, remind them about those silk stockings. And if any action takes place in the 'teens, patterned stockings will be required.

mwalls wrote:I very much enjoyed both The Artist and Blancanieves. I noted above there is possibly another modern silent in the works on the life of Valentino. Does anyone have any details on that or any other modern silent that might be in production? I would love to see more.

Thanks,
Matthew

I saw something on You Tube as a promo a year or so back:


the picture was supposed to have come out in 2014 - but it has now been put back to this year.
Here it is on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099209/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Last year Italian TV did "Rodolfo Valentino la leggenda"

[quote="Donald Binks"][quote="mwalls"]

I saw something on You Tube as a promo a year or so back:


the picture was supposed to have come out in 2014 - but it has now been put back to this year.
Here it is on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099209/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank/quote]

According to the Imdb entry, the release date is supposed to be this coming Tuesday, 10 March 2015. Great.

mwalls wrote: According to the Imdb entry, the release date is supposed to be this coming Tuesday, 10 March 2015. Great.

Great? Hell no, not if this s___ is going to be in it:

The Picture "Silent Life" is actually streaming on Vimeo!
https://vimeo.com/119383975" target="_blank
(If you are homophobic, it might be best to avert your gaze during any bits that depict homosexuality).

wich2 wrote:(There was also the Silent B & W film about the Inner City African-American boy a few years back, that I believe ran on PBS?)-Craig

You're thinking of Charles Lane's 1989 film Sidewalk Stories. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know) it's a remake of Chaplin's The Kid, but I'd call it more of a loose reworking of the basic theme. And a worthy one, at that.

Donald Binks wrote:The Picture "Silent Life" is actually streaming on Vimeo!
https://vimeo.com/119383975" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank
(If you are homophobic, it might be best to avert your gaze during any bits that depict homosexuality).

Where's the credible evidence that Rudy was either homosexual or bisexual? Rumors aren't evidence, nor does repetition in that scandal-mongering compendium of trash, Hollywood Babylon, make them evidence.

Good God, why would anyone fond of Valentino (as I am) waste their time watching such a piece of sleazy, sensationalist, garbage? And if it were not sleazy, sensationalist, garbage, it wouldn't be streaming on Vimeo!

Where's the credible evidence that Rudy was either homosexual or bisexual? Rumors aren't evidence, nor does repetition in that scandal-mongering compendium of trash, Hollywood Babylon, make them evidence.

Good God, why would anyone fond of Valentino (as I am) waste their time watching such a piece of sleazy, sensationalist, garbage? And if it were not sleazy, sensationalist, garbage, it wouldn't be streaming on Vimeo!

It's a biographic picture made in America. Since when did any American biographical picture retain much resemblance to real life? Very, very few if you ask me. In any case if the late Mr. Valentino had been homosexual, bi-sexual, asexual, heterosexual - who cares?

Donald Binks wrote: ...In any case if the late Mr. Valentino had been homosexual, bi-sexual, asexual, heterosexual - who cares?

Mr. Valentino would have cared how he was depicted, I should imagine, & as would what remains of his family & friends. Also, anyone, I should hope, with some respect for conscientious methods of biographical research. And not least, anyone who, on general principal, hates exploitation.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Donald Binks wrote: ...In any case if the late Mr. Valentino had been homosexual, bi-sexual, asexual, heterosexual - who cares?

Mr. Valentino would have cared how he was depicted, I should imagine, & as would what remains of his family & friends. Also, anyone, I should hope, with some respect for conscientious methods of biographical research. And not least, anyone who, on general principal, hates exploitation.

I have just watched this film - which, incidentally, I didn't much care for. The scene for which you showed repulsion - without bothering to look at the picture, lasted about 2 seconds and showed Mr. Valentino repelling a man attempting an homosexual advance. Golden rule" "Don't count your chickens before they're hatched".

Donald Binks wrote: I have just watched this film - which, incidentally, I didn't much care for. The scene for which you showed repulsion - without bothering to look at the picture, lasted about 2 seconds and showed Mr. Valentino repelling a man attempting an homosexual advance.

I only watched the trailer, making a logical inference from what that scene was deliberately suggesting. Had that scene ended with Rudy punching his nose, or the like, of course I wouldn't have arrived at that erroneous conclusion.