NitrateVille.com

Frederica wrote: Even Beowulf didn't speak Anglo Saxon.

Just think, but for a slight mix-up in language, instead of being Anglophiles, we could be called Saxophones!

Frederica wrote:
And most of them speak American English. Except for Romans, all Romans had British accents. No one ever speaks Provencal or Thuringian or Uto-Aztecan or Anglo-Saxon. Even Beowulf didn't speak Anglo Saxon.

Fred

Interestingly, in early talkies apparently the conventions hadn't been set and reviewers weren't quite sure what they wanted either. A reviewer of Du Barry, Woman of Passion complained that none of the actors had French accents! Why not complain that none of them were speaking French? (particularly 18th century French). Grand Hotel takes place in Germany, but only Wallace Beery has a German accent, making him seem like a foreigner in his own country. They were a little nervous about actors with real accents, too--Novarro and del Rio tended to get cast as exotics, but after a couple of movies there didn't seem to be any more need to explain Garbo's accent.

Yes, i notice that modern people have American accents, while ancient people have British accents. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, except maybe giving the Brits a vast stage for chewing scenery. This kind of seems analogous to me to the early silents (such as Griffith) having actors behave naturalistically in a modern film but in a stylized Delsartian manner in costume, especially biblical, films. Maybe the Brits are our model for old-fashioned-therefore-serious acting? (fine with me whatever the reason, they're a blast to watch).

greta

Jonthan Rosenbaum pointed out how bizarre it is that Inspector Clouseau is unintelligible to other Frenchmen because of his thick French accent in English.

Yes, i notice that modern people have American accents, while ancient people have British accents. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, except maybe giving the Brits a vast stage for chewing scenery.

Well, and now we have the convention that the upper crust Romans speak British but the plebeian Hebrews are from New York City (eg, The Last Temptation of Christ). Which you must admit feels right, for the Bible to follow the conventions of 1930s screwball comedies.

The one thing that always annoys me when they get down to serious rumpy-pumpy in period drama is that all these 17th, 18th, 19th century aristocrats and peasants tend to have flawless 21st century tans under their finery or rags.

I had that problem with the recent version of Pride and Prejudice, the conviction that Keira Knightley's body type by definition is as glaring an anachronism in a Jane Austen movie as a cell phone or somebody saying "Yo, Darcy dogg! What's the shizzle?"

What you see in nearly all period pictures, even those produced today, is that everybody's wearing impeccably tailored, immaculate outfits, and the vintage cars are always gleaming and flawless without so much as a speck on the windshields.

And the atmosphere in the 1940s was yellow, as you can tell by the tint that scenes set then always have (eg, Malcolm X).

Mike Gebert wrote: Well, and now we have the convention that the upper crust Romans speak British but the plebeian Hebrews are from New York City (eg, The Last Temptation of Christ). Which you must admit feels right, for the Bible to follow the conventions of 1930s screwball comedies.

Great! Thanks a lot! Now tons of blasphemous titles are rolling around my empty head!

My Man Jesus
Bringing Up Christ
Mr. Christ Goes to Golgotha
It Happened One Seder
His Girl Magdelene
1st Century...

Mike Gebert wrote:
They do seem to go off the rails after The Red Shoes. Oh!! Rosalinda!! is a great-looking boxcar load of marshmallow fluff, and River Plate is a complete disappointment-- I think they composed it for widescreen and so everything's in long shot, which doesn't work on TV at all, but even if you could see the faces, it's not much of a drama (compare it to the great unknown British WWII naval film The Cruel Sea).

There I do agree with you - I do wish The Red Shoes was a one-off, but after its US success they tried to recreate it with Tales Of Hoffmann (interesting but flawed) and Oh! Rosalinda (Crap, frankly.) However, if you haven't seen The Small Back Room (1949)....do try and get hold of a copy. Small scale, noirish, and with David Farrar and Kathleen Byron striking quiet sparks off each other.
Battle of the River Plate (Pursuit of the Graf Spee over there IIRC) does need to be seen on the big screen....and it does predate Das Boot in the sense that Peter Finch's Langsdorff is shown as a 3D character, doomed for being in the wrong Navy at the wrong time.
The Cruel Sea?? Unknown??? It, and Jack Hawkins, has legendary status over here....but I do find the actors other than Hawkins a bit.....underpowered...but the climactic dilemma (you know the one I mean) is agonising to the point of unwatchability...still. Definitely recommended to those of you who don't know it.

Mike Gebert wrote:
Well, and now we have the convention that the upper crust Romans speak British but the plebeian Hebrews are from New York City (eg, The Last Temptation of Christ). Which you must admit feels right, for the Bible to follow the conventions of 1930s screwball comedies.

And the Devil is English....pretty much always....

The Cruel Sea is fairly unknown in the US, though I know it's very well known in Britain, deservedly so.

I have seen The Small Back Room, and it's quite good, though I think Contraband is the best of their black and white thrillers.

Penfold wrote:
And the Devil is English....pretty much always....

well, d'uh!

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:

Penfold wrote:
And the Devil is English....pretty much always....

well, d'uh!

And should have always been portrayed by George Saunders

Oh please let me add here the ever so often within top-3 ranking/best of all times film OTTO E MEZZO. I dont think how hard I try I could ever get to see this film to the end.
Never got to understand why this is supposed to be so great... (could one name any Fellini film that is really great, anyway?)

Casablanca. I have seen this three times, but can’t understand its greatness. I rate this one just ok, not excellent – for me Casablanca is just a movie about people during the war, nothing more. And maybe I’m weird, but I’m not Humphrey Bogart fan.

Ben-Hur. 11 Oscars, for what? Overlong, overacted and so on. Silent version is much, much better.

Shane. That young kid, who repeats “Shane” time after time ruined the whole movie. Annoying kid.

A Place in the Sun. Where is the first half of the book? Now the story starts from the middle and George’s motives remain unknown. I’m sure Sergei Eisenstein would have gotten more out of the story.

Murnau wrote:
A Place in the Sun. Where is the first half of the book? Now the story starts from the middle and George’s motives remain unknown. I’m sure Sergei Eisenstein would have gotten more out of the story.

Sternberg did, in An American Tragedy.

^ I know, but I still believe that Eisenstein's visions would be much more interesting than Sternberg's.

CASABLANCA
REAR WINDOW
CITIZEN KANE (AMBERSONS is way superior)
all of the STAR WARS series - - what is all the fuss about?????
2001 - can't say I hate this one but, it IS way overrated, as is Kubrick in general.


-Mike

Michael O'Regan wrote:CASABLANCA
REAR WINDOW
CITIZEN KANE (AMBERSONS is way superior)
all of the STAR WARS series - - what is all the fuss about?????
2001 - can't say I hate this one but, it IS way overrated, as is Kubrick in general.

I totally agree with you on Star Wars and Kubrick. With the rest you're on your own.

Ha, I figured I might be

Mike Gebert wrote:... name movies that everybody seems to think are great, or ought to be, and why you look at them and go... ennh.

I've only been watching silent films for the past 6 months, and admit I've only scratched the surface, but I fail to see what was so great about:
Ecstasy (Ekstase)
Prix de Beaute (I did like the song)
Pandora's Box (I preferred Diary of a Lost Girl)
Sparrows (I don't get Mary Pickford...yet)
Keaton and silent comedy in general except for a few Chaplin films.

Wings got me interested in silents so that's one of my favorites. My other favorites so far are Hunchback of Notre Dame, La Roue, J'Accuse, Die Freudlose Gasse.

Keaton and silent comedy in general except for a few Chaplin films.

~boggle~

Well, try to see them with a live audience, that's all I can say.

Mike Gebert wrote:

Keaton and silent comedy in general except for a few Chaplin films.

~boggle~

Well, try to see them with a live audience, that's all I can say.

Crucial, absolutely crucial....watch them as they were designed to be seen....big screen, big audience, preferably live music. It's a different ballgame...very few - only the very best - silent comedies can overcome the handicap of being seen at home, on a telly, on your own.

Saving Private Ryan-- First 20 minutes is brilliantly done cotton candy. The rest of the film is a pastiche of every bad war movie cliche. The deus ex machina is cringe inducing.


[Asa pulls the pin, ready to throw the grenade]
This one's for you, Kaiser Bill. Special delivery from Uncle Sam and all the boys in D company. Yeah... Johnny, Harris, Brooklyn Bob. And Reggie. Yeah, even Reggie. He ain't so stuck up once you get to know hi...
[*** KABOOM ***]

SecondReel wrote:Saving Private Ryan-- First 20 minutes is brilliantly done cotton candy. The rest of the film is a pastiche of every bad war movie cliche. The deus ex machina is cringe inducing.


[Asa pulls the pin, ready to throw the grenade]
This one's for you, Kaiser Bill. Special delivery from Uncle Sam and all the boys in D company. Yeah... Johnny, Harris, Brooklyn Bob. And Reggie. Yeah, even Reggie. He ain't so stuck up once you get to know hi...
[*** KABOOM ***]

Yep, I totally agree.

THE SHINING - not scary, not clever, not anything....

This thread is really starting to depress me! You would think that there are a few classics that everyone could agree on.

For me its stuff like:

SORRY, WRONG NUMBER
IN A LONELY PLACE
THE HUMAN COMEDY
THE OLD DARK HOUSE

to name but a few. These make my life happier.

I guess we would need to define "classic" (and possibly move to another section as this is no longer "Talking About Silents")

Bruce Calvert wrote

This thread is really starting to depress me! You would think that there are a few classics that everyone could agree on.

I find it exhilirating, Bruce. Yes, it would be nice to have everyone agree with us, but we don't learn anything.

Of course it would help if people would bring up the specific issues that ruin what others consider great movies. But then people accuse me often enough of being prolix.

Bob

If we can't all agree on Casablanca, we can't all agree on anything.

Mike Gebert wrote:If we can't all agree on Casablanca, we can't all agree on anything.

I love Casablanca, except I think Bogart says "Here's looking at you kid" at least one time too many.

Mike Gebert wrote:If we can't all agree on Casablanca, we can't all agree on anything.

Oh, we can't, we can't. I'll take a 1925 Rayart western any day instead!

-Harold

I for one am enjoying all the opinions.....I think that's what makes film so great--we all get or fail to get something from a film.

All the personal reasons are valid--but I have a nostalgic attachment to many old films--I allow them to be my personal time machine back to being a child at the Saturday matinee in a local movie palace taking in a feast of visual and audio stimulation. If you approach a film that way, you can glean more from it.

I have run both P&B's BLIMP and RED SHOES at my movie parties to rave reviews--their use of technicolor and the visual are striking.

I'm another non-Chaplin fan--never liked heavy-handed silent comedy, but have discovered so MUCH good silent comedy done by not only the other major stars, but many unknowns.

Am on a pre-code kick right now, and can't get enough of those fast moving, slick tales of personal agenda! Come to think of it, Film Noir of the 40s & 50s took up where the pre-codes left off ten years earlier.

I watched G. W. Pabst PANDORA'S BOX for the first time in a long time. Actually, I had only watched the Second Site version before, and didn't even remember it. So this was my first time to really watch much of this film with the Jillian Anderson score on the Criterion release. I have had the 2 DVD set for a couple years or more, but only had seen the first 10 minutes or so, until just last night.

To be frank, I didn't much care for this movie the first time that I saw it, and didn't like it all that much better now. I know it supposed to be a Masterpiece, and many people think that it is really great and everything, but I just didn't get it? Part of the problem was that I'm not overly enamored with Louise Brooks, like allot of guys are, and the supporting cast did nothing for me. I didn't like anyone in it! Probably would have enjoyed LAZYBONES much more which I had planned to watch for awhile now. I hated the father, He was just awful! You have to care about the characters, and these characters just skunked it up for me! I really wanted to like this movie, but I didn't!

Lulu seemed to me to be allot more trouble than she was worth! Yet the ending is a shocker, and just left you perplexed. The whole story seemed so pointless? And the murderer walks of into the mist scott-free? What the devil? Terribly unsettling stuff. In all candor, I liked LOVE EM' AND LEAVE EM' with Louise and Evelyn Brent allot better than PANDORA'S BOX, and that is just a programmer. So go figure?

Jillian Anderson's score was maybe not as good as I expected overall, but I like some of the themes. It didn't seem to be all that well thought out to me. Haven't listened to the other two alternate scores on the disc. So why do so many people think this picture is so great??? Please explain. Louise Brooks beauty escaped me? Looked great in some scenes, not so hot in others. Give me Renee Adoree, or Colleen Moore! Both much better actresses in my opinion. Sorry, that's just how I feel.

Gagman 66 wrote:So why do so many people think this picture is so great??? Please explain. Louise Brooks beauty escaped me?

I think she's a beautiful woman, but I find her films overrated. Out of the four Brooks films I have, the only one I really like is Diary Of A Lost Girl. Can't imagine why Pandora's Box needed 4 scores. I was only able to watch it once.