What to show? Or, How to save and promote silent films

[Bob Birchard]

I completely disagree. I think "The Patent Leather Kid" is a terrific picture right up until the last 30 seconds, when it does jump the shark. And, we ran it at Cinecon primarily because I wanted to see it, so I had nothing invested in it except desire. I've always found "What Price Glory?" to be pretty tedious.

Woof Woof, I'll second that vote, TPLK is a long-winded bore, and even the battle footage was done better elsewhere. If you want an entertaining silent war film with just two reels of battle footage, I go with WHAT PRICE GLORY (1926)anyday.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Mike Gebert]

They had listings for some chapters of Fantomas, Onésime and other French films viewers in the US are only now getting hip to and some other oddball things in circulation by that time. However, these titles were not getting the rentals at the Universities; the big canonical titles were.

Hey, some of us were showing them! But what they had was pretty random-- ie., a single chapter of Fantomas (which seemed to make little sense and, in any case, Fantomas is no Judex or Les Vampires, as I've subsequently learned. When I had more success at finding French silents, it was from Em Gee (who had both a version of La Roue and Volkoff's Kean, both of which I showed at the University of Kansas).

[Bob Birchard]

if anyone is worried that the next generation will be swayed by the old canon, fear not! If for some odd reason a twenty year old should fall under the spell of the same art form that has mesmerized all of us, they will still read up on it by the latest books that have unbroken bindings with clean, plastic covers before they would ever go search out the works of Sarris or Everson encased in yellowing paper hidden on dusty mantels

See, here is where I completely disagree, and you get to the point of my original post. And please understand I do not intend this as a criticism in any way, but merely an observation.

We have at least one younger person on Nitrateville, who has taken exception to the notion of obcurities, and has written: "Silent film is a beautiful art. These films, and these stars, are still very relevant. Put on "Son of the Sheik" or "Sparrows" or "City Lights" for a youngin and they will enjoy these films. I didn't just pull this theory out of my behind or base it on myself. I've seen it time and time again."

The three films cited are indeed good films, and if one can actually get asses in seats to watch them they may appeal to a wider audience than say something like "The Canadian" (1926) or "The Last Card" (1921) or "The False Faces" (1919) or "Captain Salvation" (1927) or "The Man Who Laughs" (1928) in part because the stars and the titles are well known--largely, I would suggest, because of Joe Franklin's (actually written by Bill Everson) book "Classics of the Silent Screen."

As a toiler in the vinyards of film history, I'm here to tell you that we who actually do heavy research are often confronted by those who question our work because they read something different in an earlier book. A minor example, though illustrative, is the notion that "Ranch Life in the Great South-West" (1910) was Tom Mix's first movie--a notion that was first put forward by Terry Ramsaye in the 1920s. I demonstrated conclusively in my book "King Cowboy--Tom Mix and the Movies" that this was not so--that in fact there were pictures in which Tom Mix appeared in release before "Ranch Life" ever went before the camera--but, still I'm told I'm wrong because Terry Ramsaye has been cited by every lazy researcher who has been willing to settle for secondary and tertiary sources rather than digging in deep in original primary sources.

Similarly, I have been criticized for not condemning Cecil B. DeMille's supposed racism in making "The Cheat," when in fact I demonstrate that the film was not his idea, that he did not care for Hector Turnbull as a writer, and that there is little in any of his other work to suggest that the "yellow peril" paranoia of "The Cheat" is part of DeMille's world view. But it is already "well-establshed" that the racial politics of the film should be laid completely and totally at DeMille's feet--after all, other, earlier writers have said so, and they've been often quoted, so it must be true.

I don't think it's a secret that one of our Nitrateville regulars has been doing research on Virginia Rappe and Roscoe Arbuckle. It is astonishing what she has been able to come up with--and equally astonishing that silent film enthusiasts still look to David Yallop's not deeply researched book "The Day the Laughter Stopped" as the last word on the Arbuckle scandal.

Being first in print does have its advantages.

So, while there seems to be broad agreement (at least so far) on this thread that the canon should be broadened, are we merely deluding ourselves? Perhaps, if we want silent film to survive in the hearts and minds of "youngins" then we ought, borrowing a phrase from Dutton Peabody, to "know what everybody knows!" If we keep the high points of silent film in circulation to the exclusion of those problematic obscurities, and print the legend when it comes to history instead of the facts, we may well build a bigger, if not necessarily better, audience.

[gjohnson]

I don't know Bob.....I think you are over fretting this, to coin a non-phrase. I have both of your books you cited. We know they are out there. If there are lazy researchers wandering the Web citing the old tales then call them out on it in print. And let's get wider distributions for your books. You say you are worried about the entire next generation just based on your dealings with Hala? I don't think 00000.1% would even make a Rasmussen poll on healthcare. You cite Yallops book as still the main source on the Arbuckle scandal over Frederica's even though I don't believe Fred has even finished her study on the case yet. That's putting the horse before the proverbial eight ball.

The main point is that the old accepted canon was in books. The new canon is right here on the Web and this is where the majority will look first. If someone googles "Name the big 3 comedians" chances are they will come across a thread where Mr. Roberts, among others. will bellow and roar over such a simplistic suggestion and state that you are a ninny for even asking such a thing.

We are the new canon. Treat it right. And keep the facts straight.

Gary J.

[Christopher Jacobs]

I would argue that the canon of silents should not be replaced, but should definitely be expanded. The "Joe Franklin" William K. Everson book of classics is really an ideal place to start for beginners -- a good variety of good films, most of which are quite accessible for modern viewers and many of which are now much more easily available than they were when I got the book as a teenager back in the early 70s. The old MoMA canon is really no less valid than it was a half century or more ago, but it is far too limited to be useful as the only films worth discussing or measuring up any new discoveries to. For us "old-time" movie collectors, the Blackhawk catalog was the main canon, supplemented by the Griggs-Moviedrome, Thunderbird, and Murray Glass catalogs. A very good and representative, but still fairly limited canon of world cinema history might be the Criterion Collection of DVDs currently available (very few silents at present). For silents, the catalogs of Kino, Milestone, and Flicker Alley are exellent starting places for any beginner looking into silent cinema.

I could also argue that it is conventions like the Cinefest and Cinecon and Cinesation (and Slapsticon for comedy) that have helped expand the canon dramatically over the past 20 years among those serious film buffs and historians who make an effort to attend them. I have a feeling that more than a few silent film screenings and series and perhaps academic classes, articles and books have been directly affected by those particular venues. Somebody who's seen or heard about audience response to a festival screening gets to a position of booking or at least suggesting those films for showings back in their own turf. Many new archival restorations often premiere at one or the other of those three major classic film conventions, and then go on to one or both of the other three, and then finally show up at places like the San Francisco silent festival or a New York revival house or the Packard before going on to various college and regional film series, and perhaps even coming out on DVD.

Cinecon, Cinefest, and Cinesation are slowly but surely helping expand the canon to reveal that the "classics" may still be classics but they certainly weren't always the first or only or even most interesting examples of some genre, star, or director that they've long been considered by the popular press and general opinion -- who likely haven't seen any of them and are going by Google and Wikipedia and imdb info that's been parroted from the standard histories written from the 1920s through the 1960s.

--Christopher Jacobs
http://hpr1.com/film
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs

[Richard M Roberts]

Bob Birchard wrote:

completely disagree. I think "The Patent Leather Kid" is a terrific picture right up until the last 30 seconds, when it does jump the shark. And, we ran it at Cinecon primarily because I wanted to see it, so I had nothing invested in it except desire. I've always found "What Price Glory?" to be pretty tedious.

Gee, why does that not suprise me Bob? WHAT PRICE GLORY has those things you don't really understand that well, ie. laughs. It's a broad, unsubtle film, exactly the kind you'd have difficulty napping through, and would never relax enough to enjoy.Whereas THE PATENT LEATHER KID? A bonafied sleep-inducer, with nothing much in the first hour and a half to make you smile or frown, just yawn. I think you're scheduling your nap times at Cinecon with these sort of films.

Perhaps if it had been a six-reeler, PATENT LEATHER KID might have something, but it goes on and on about will Barthelmess join the Army, is he a coward.....and he doesn't get to the war until we're ten reels into the damn thing. At that point, he's just a character you really didn't care about in the first place, off to prove something we could care less if he proves it to us or not. BIG PARADE beats it hands down in the first couple reels.

if anyone is worried that the next generation will be swayed by the old canon, fear not! If for some odd reason a twenty year old should fall under the spell of the same art form that has mesmerized all of us, they will still read up on it by the latest books that have unbroken bindings with clean, plastic covers before they would ever go search out the works of Sarris or Everson encased in yellowing paper hidden on dusty mantels

See, here is where I completely disagree, and you get to the point of my original post. And please understand I do not intend this as a criticism in any way, but merely an observation.

We have at least one younger person on Nitrateville, who has taken exception to the notion of obcurities, and has written: "Silent film is a beautiful art. These films, and these stars, are still very relevant. Put on "Son of the Sheik" or "Sparrows" or "City Lights" for a youngin and they will enjoy these films. I didn't just pull this theory out of my behind or base it on myself. I've seen it time and time again."

The three films cited are indeed good films, and if one can actually get asses in seats to watch them they may appeal to a wider audience than say something like "The Canadian" (1926) or "The Last Card" (1921) or "The False Faces" (1919) or "Captain Salvation" (1927) or "The Man Who Laughs" (1928) in part because the stars and the titles are well known--largely, I would suggest, because of Joe Franklin's (actually written by Bill Everson) book "Classics of the Silent Screen."

As a toiler in the vinyards of film history, I'm here to tell you that we who actually do heavy research are often confronted by those who question our work because they read something different in an earlier book. A minor example, though illustrative, is the notion that "Ranch Life in the Great South-West" (1910) was Tom Mix's first movie--a notion that was first put forward by Terry Ramsaye in the 1920s. I demonstrated conclusively in my book "King Cowboy--Tom Mix and the Movies" that this was not so--that in fact there were pictures in which Tom Mix appeared in release before "Ranch Life" ever went before the camera--but, still I'm told I'm wrong because Terry Ramsaye has been cited by every lazy researcher who has been willing to settle for secondary and tertiary sources rather than digging in deep in original primary sources.

Similarly, I have been criticized for not condemning Cecil B. DeMille's supposed racism in making "The Cheat," when in fact I demonstrate that the film was not his idea, that he did not care for Hector Turnbull as a writer, and that there is little in any of his other work to suggest that the "yellow peril" paranoia of "The Cheat" is part of DeMille's world view. But it is already "well-establshed" that the racial politics of the film should be laid completely and totally at DeMille's feet--after all, other, earlier writers have said so, and they've been often quoted, so it must be true.

I don't think it's a secret that one of our Nitrateville regulars has been doing research on Virginia Rappe and Roscoe Arbuckle. It is astonishing what she has been able to come up with--and equally astonishing that silent film enthusiasts still look to David Yallop's not deeply researched book "The Day the Laughter Stopped" as the last word on the Arbuckle scandal.

Being first in print does have its advantages.

So, while there seems to be broad agreement (at least so far) on this thread that the canon should be broadened, are we merely deluding ourselves? Perhaps, if we want silent film to survive in the hearts and minds of "youngins" then we ought, borrowing a phrase from Dutton Peabody, to "know what everybody knows!" If we keep the high points of silent film in circulation to the exclusion of those problematic obscurities, and print the legend when it comes to history instead of the facts, we may well build a bigger, if not necessarily better, audience.

Ummhmmmm, I was waiting for this, I knew you were still fretting and smarting over this years Cinecon Car Wreck on Nitrateville. For goodness sake, You got guff from one person who didn't go at all, one person who whined and moaned about it before it happened, and barely made it to two films after getting a free pass (something I doubt she will ever see again), and then whined and moaned more afterwards like anyone thought she was actually informed enough about the Festival to have an opinion, and one person who did actually go, but never likes much of anything anyway! Heck, that was a pretty lame lineup of naysayers compared to previous years, even I ,who have had plenty of dislikes about how Cinecon is put together over the years actually said nothing this year because I had a good time!

There were enough films I wanted to see, and I have learned how to avoid the annoyances. It's not so much a festival or convention to me anymore, just a series of films to see while in Los Angeles over a long weekend, and I set up my socializing in advance since Cinecon is not really set up for much random socializing anymore (unless you happen to run into someone on Hollywood Boulevard in between the Theater and the Hotel). And you put the films I cared less about at times where I could have nice long meals with friends, or avoid whole days completely.

So, as I know you damn well ain't gonna change the Cinecon into the Joe Franklin Silent Warhorse Film Festival, what do you want us to tell you? Cinecon ain't what it used to be? No sh*t Sherlock, all the silent legends who attended former Cinecons are six feet under, and a lot of great films have been shown and a lot of more obscure ones are still out there needing to be rediscovered. I'm not going to pay good money to travel out to see films I have in my own vaults, or can be purchased for the price of a DVD, nor, I think, will most of Cinecon's current crowd of "geezers". And if you are going to cater to Miss Picky,who fancies herself the up and coming generation (somewhat misguidedly I think, I know fourteen year-olds better versed in this stuff than she apparently is), do you think there are enough of her ilk to pay the bills?

Basically, like back when you and I were having to convince Lokke Heiss on alt.silent.movies that Hungarian films from the 1960's were a bit beyond the boundaries of what Cinecon is all about, you really have to say that to the warhorse crowd as well. Yes, there's nothing wrong with showing one or two, especially in new and improved restorations, and certainly okay to re-run things still rare that may have been shown a decade or more ago, but Cinecon has always been about showing the rarities and the obscure. There are plenty of venues like the San Francisco Silent Film Festival to run the warhorses, and introduce the newbies (or let the well-versed see again), but there are very few places to unearth something and take a chance. Cinecon was never the place for beginners, and it ain't likely that your going to attract that many even if your publicity gets better. So keep running the hard to see stuff for those willing to spend the money and time to see them.Yep, sometimes there are failures, but I wager even the whiners are down-deep happy for the chance to be able to offer an informed whine on something most folk have never seen.

If you're really concerned about attendance, I'd say you're better off announcing the schedule sooner than a few weeks before the show, and doing better publicity in general than worrying about what you're showing. I agree with Chris Jacobs that the Cinephile Conventions (and yes, Slapsticon as well)have indeed done much to re-write film history, and open eyes to new old things that need to be seen and appreciated, and will continue to do so, just as folk will also continue to complain about it. What, you want to spoil their fun?


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[boblipton]

Bob Birchard wrote

So, while there seems to be broad agreement (at least so far) on this thread that the canon should be broadened, are we merely deluding ourselves? Perhaps, if we want silent film to survive in the hearts and minds of "youngins" then we ought, borrowing a phrase from Dutton Peabody, to "know what everybody knows!" If we keep the high points of silent film in circulation to the exclusion of those problematic obscurities, and print the legend when it comes to history instead of the facts, we may well build a bigger, if not necessarily better, audience.

I think the idea of a short list that comprises a 'canon' is a useful selling point. When Barnum & Bailley's comes to town they show you a lion, a tiger, a pretty girl and the star act on the posters. But that isn't what makes you go to the circus; you know there's going to be more and a lot of it is going to be familiar and fun and a lot of it will be new and surprising. To me, that's what a good film show for the great unwashed should be: one or two warhorses (i.e. canon members) to bring the newbies in and one or two good obscurities.

I think that arguing over whether Langdon is as good as Chaplin or whether THE SATURDAY NIGHT KID floats your boat is a mug's game and just convinces the outsider we're all nuts. Which we are.

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

To just make a mad dash through the opposing Cinecon trenches:

I don't think the canon is necessarily the popular draws (Joan of Arc?) and I think you can sell things for popular appeal that aren't the same 8 famous titles-- the summer silent festival here in Chicago almost always includes either Colleen Moore or Clara Bow because they've built an audience for them as stars, and they draw crowds up to 1000 by now. Anyway, I don't think it's so either-or as The Gold Rush or The Canadian and nothing in between.

What is either-or... is that jump from being willing to see a really great silent film show and being willing to sit through anything. I don't know how you turn the first into the second....

Cinecon isn't what everybody who's been part of it wishes it was-- and the result has been a number of other fests coming into existence around the country. Win-win!

[Harlett O'Dowd]

No, there's more to it than that; Griffith's influence in his own time is a well documented phenomenon. Whether or not we feel he was truly worthy of his reputation, he had earned it. Cecil B. DeMille idolized him, so did Eisenstein and many, many others right on down the line. A lot of people felt they owed DWG their start in pictures, and at one point I compiled a list of persons who worked in some capacity with Griffith up through Intolerance and then went into direction. I had about 60 director names on that list.

And that number really shouldn't be terribly surprising. BOAN and INTOLLERANCE were huge projects - I've often heard them cited as "community projects" in that just about everyone who was working in California at the time worked on one or both of these films in some capacity. Can any other american film prior to, say, BEN-HUR or maybe THE TEN COMMANDMENTS make such a claim?

DWG is the Kevin Bacon of the american silent film. Damn near *everyone* worked for him at one time or another. No one, not even DeMille comes close in that regard.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

I would argue that the canon of silents should not be replaced, but should definitely be expanded. The "Joe Franklin" William K. Everson book of classics is really an ideal place to start for beginners -- a good variety of good films, most of which are quite accessible for modern viewers and many of which are now much more easily available than they were when I got the book as a teenager back in the early 70s.

Maybe my case is more the exception than the rule, but I didn't stumble across Franklin's book until much later in my silents (self)education.

For me, the biggie was Brownlow's HOLLYWOOD series and the tie-in book that accompanied it. Look at how many people were thrilled to have the chance to finally see The Fire Brigade at Cinevent and elsewhere.

And several of TCM's documentaries (Marion Davies to be sure) have raised the TV-Q of several artists and films. The problem there, as noted before, is that TCM understandably concentrates on what's in their own collection, so, like MOMA before them, the victor is the one re-writing history.

Mike mentioned elsewhere that in Chcago, Clara Bow and Colleen Moore films draw crowds because of repeat exposure.

Coming into the sound era, the current resurgence of interest in Pre-Codes and the TCM "Forbidden Hollywood" series (and the VHS series that preceeded that) would not have happened without the festivals finding crowd-pleasers in them and returning to the source to mine more gold.

Thanks to Mike S, we're seeing a similar thing at Cinecon these days with a re-appraisal of the Columbia silents and the WWII-era murder-mystery-comedies.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the canon is expanding naturally. Getting the academic world to put down Joe Franklin for a minute and expand that list is another thing entiirely.

[MGH]

No one, not even DeMille comes close in that regard.

Yes, but he couldn't throw a pie like Moe.

[Bob Birchard]

Perhaps if it had been a six-reeler, PATENT LEATHER KID might have something, but it goes on and on about will Barthelmess join the Army, is he a coward.....and he doesn't get to the war until we're ten reels into the damn thing. At that point, he's just a character you really didn't care about in the first place, off to prove something we could care less if he proves it to us or not. BIG PARADE beats it hands down in the first couple reels.

Ah, Richard, a course in logic and argument 101 would do you well. Your initial argument was that What Price Glory? is better than The Patent Leather Kid; but now you slide to The Big Parade in making your case. I would never argue that The Patent Leather Kid is better than The Big Parade ;-}

[Richard M Roberts]

Perhaps if it had been a six-reeler, PATENT LEATHER KID might have something, but it goes on and on about will Barthelmess join the Army, is he a coward.....and he doesn't get to the war until we're ten reels into the damn thing. At that point, he's just a character you really didn't care about in the first place, off to prove something we could care less if he proves it to us or not. BIG PARADE beats it hands down in the first couple reels.

Ah, Richard, a course in logic and argument 101 would do you well. Your initial argument was that What Price Glory? is better than The Patent Leather Kid; but now you slide to The Big Parade in making your case. I would never argue that The Patent Leather Kid is better than The Big Parade ;-}

Not at all, WHAT PRICE GLORY is better than THE PATENT LEATHER KID, but THE BIG PARADE is better than both of them.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Frederica]

No one, not even DeMille comes close in that regard.

Yes, but he couldn't throw a pie like Moe.

How do you know? Have we ever seen DeMille throw a pie? DeMille's pie-throwing skills have not heretofore been studied. We languish in ignorance.

OMG. Now look what you've done. Now I must see DeMille throw a pie.

Fred

[boblipton]

Don't forget the eye pokes, Fred.

Bob

[drednm]

Griffith is interesting. As some have mentioned here he turned out his share of clunkers in the 20s, stuck on and with Carol Dempster (who I liked in Sally of the Sawdust) and misreading the then current itrends films.

I'm sure that audiences in the teens were more interested in the storylines of Judith of Bethulia, The Birth of a Nation, and Intolerance than they were in filmic contrivances, camera angles, flashy editing, etc. If these techniques added to the enjoyment or excitement of a story, they so much the better. Early audiences responded to stories and stars, not the nuts and bolts of auteurism.

I'm not sure Griffith saw himself as anything much more than a story teller. By the 20s many of his (and Bitzer's and Brown's) film tricks were picked up by other directors, but Griffith's vision (which I think was storytelling) became static. By the end of the silent era, Griffith continued to churn out pretty much what he had started the decade with. With talkies, he was totally unequipped to deal with the new medium.

Still, with the above-mentioned films, and adding Broken Blossoms, Way Down East, and The White Rose along with some of the short films from the teens, Griffith's body of work in silent films cannot be equalled.

As has been often noted, Griffith was not the father of films, not the first to use many film techniques he became famous for, but he was the one who put it all together along with assembling a great cast of actors.

For me, silent film starts with D.W. Griffith.

[Chris Snowden]

I don't think the canon is necessarily the popular draws (Joan of Arc?) and I think you can sell things for popular appeal that aren't the same 8 famous titles-- the summer silent festival here in Chicago almost always includes either Colleen Moore or Clara Bow because they've built an audience for them as stars, and they draw crowds up to 1000 by now. Anyway, I don't think it's so either-or as The Gold Rush or The Canadian and nothing in between.

What is either-or... is that jump from being willing to see a really great silent film show and being willing to sit through anything. I don't know how you turn the first into the second.

I don't think you can really turn your average man on the street into a silent movie fan. The Niles group has been trying for years to pull off that trick, and their audiences haven't grown much (if at all) from what they were when they began. It's a noble experiment, but with a few very rare exceptions, the public at large sees silent movies as tedious relics.

You definitely can turn your average film buff into a silent movie fan. That's the crowd that the San Francisco Silent Film Festival pulls in: the same people who attend the SF International Film Festival, and the SF Gay/Lesbian Film Festival, etc. etc. The SFSFF presents warhorses that these people have heard of, but never seen, and the crowd piles in. The Stanford Theater shows Keaton and Lloyd comedies, packing the house with the very same people who attend their 1940s-1950s screenings. (Significantly, when the Stanford ran obscure silents like Sensation Seekers, attendance was often pretty bad, and they no longer book such films unless a Ronald Colman or a Gary Cooper's in the cast.)

Cinecon caters to a narrow audience: film buffs who also like silents, but who don't want the common silents that they've seen before. As long as Cinecon's target audience is that narrow, it will never draw more than the couple hundred people who typically attend. However, it's nice to see rare titles get a screening (at least when the rarities are good, and have more to offer than the illusion of motion produced by the rapid projection of a series of still images).

If Cinecon is to grow, or even survive long-term, it's got to be sure that it's giving its audience what it really wants, and then try broadening that audience by offering what appeals to film buffs who are a little less hard-core. Yes, you might lose Jon Mirsalis that way, or even Richard Roberts, and they'd be missed... but you'd also be building a festival that could last another 45 years or more.

In shorthand:

Niles
Runs a Colleen Moore film for an audience who's never heard of her
Result: thirty people show up

SFSFF
Runs a Colleen Moore film for an audience who's intrigued by her
Result: full house

Cinecon
Runs an Owen Moore film instead, because we've already seen the Colleen Moore films
Result: the same 200 people show up who always attend Cinecon

[Jack Theakston]

In shorthand:

Niles
Runs a Colleen Moore film for an audience who's never heard of her
Result: thirty people show up

SFSFF
Runs a Colleen Moore film for an audience who's intrigued by her
Result: full house

Cinecon
Runs an Owen Moore film instead, because we've already seen the Colleen Moore films
Result: the same 200 people show up who always attend Cinecon

Chris, I was drinking coffee when I read your post. I'm sending you a bill for the new keyboard...

[gjohnson]

I don't think you can really turn your average man on the street into a silent movie fan. The Niles group has been trying for years to pull off that trick, and their audiences haven't grown much (if at all) from what they were when they began. It's a noble experiment, but with a few very rare exceptions, the public at large sees silent movies as tedious relics.

You definitely can turn your average film buff into a silent movie fan. That's the crowd that the San Francisco Silent Film Festival pulls in:

Then why doesn't Niles ignore the average man on the street and go after the same average film buff that the SFSFF attracts?

Gary J.

[Chris Snowden]

Then why doesn't Niles ignore the average man on the street and go after the same average film buff that the SFSFF attracts?

Well, maybe they should, but there are challenges. Niles is 40 or 50 miles from San Francisco, and off the beaten path. The SFSFF is well-funded with corporate sponsors and does a great job of publicizing itself; the Niles group is comparatively more of a shoestring operation. The SFSFF emerged from a well-established SF cineaste scene; the Niles group emerged from a fairly small bunch of local-history buffs. The SFSFF shows gleaming 35mm prints in a big urban theater, with the most prominent accompanists in America; Niles has one or two exceptional piano accompanists, but mainly shows 16mm in a building that's seen better days.

None of this is to say that one is better than the other, just that there are big differences which explain why the audiences at Niles are predominately local folks who aren't necessarily devotees of silent cinema.

[Mike Gebert]

I'm sure that audiences in the teens were more interested in the storylines of Judith of Bethulia, The Birth of a Nation, and Intolerance than they were in filmic contrivances, camera angles, flashy editing, etc. If these techniques added to the enjoyment or excitement of a story, they so much the better. Early audiences responded to stories and stars, not the nuts and bolts of auteurism.

I didn't mean to suggest (by the comparison to Welles, say) that Griffith's strength was visual flash. On the contrary, I think the one thing you can really attribute to him (rather than the close up, the jump cut, the Steadicam, the Latham Loop, etc.) is the strongest sense in the teens of how to focus on his actors, capture personality in little actorly moments, etc. Which is exactly why, to someone's point above, he had so many proteges-- a film like Intolerance literally gave two dozen people an important early start as actors and a role model to follow in terms of directing performances. Films like True Heart Susie transcend cliched and one-dimensional stories because they're full of three-dimensional moments in the persons of Lilian Gish or Bobby Harron.

Alas, then the man who discovered Pickford and Gish and Barthelmess devoted his talents to showcasing Carol Dempster and Neil Hamilton.

[Mike Gebert]

I don't think you can really turn your average man on the street into a silent movie fan...

You definitely can turn your average film buff into a silent movie fan.

That's really my point. My wife and I both have a number of friends we can invite along to a well-chosen film at the Chicago silent film series in the summer who will have a wonderful time at Seventh Heaven, Son of the Sheik, Keaton or Lloyd, My Best Girl, etc etc. But I'm pretty sure none of them-- including my wife-- could in a million years be convinced to accompany me to Cinevent or Cinesation to see most of the obscurities that play there.

[silentfilm]

In shorthand:

Niles
Runs a Colleen Moore film for an audience who's never heard of her
Result: thirty people show up

SFSFF
Runs a Colleen Moore film for an audience who's intrigued by her
Result: full house

Cinecon
Runs an Owen Moore film instead, because we've already seen the Colleen Moore films
Result: the same 200 people show up who always attend Cinecon

Fantastic comparison. However, Niles is at a disadvantage in that they screen films every weekend. The SFSFF and Cinecon (and practically all of the film festivals) are an event. If Niles showed warhorses every weekend, their audience would have soon seen "everything."

[Claus H.]

From an amateur's perspective:

First, great discussion about the "opening up" of silent history past the accepted conventions. I have by no means seen as many silents as most people here, but I did find with several lesser-known films that they have a 'freshness' and timelessness that quite a few of the warhorses can't manage for an average audience.

When you get down to more or less B-movie level, you get sex, stories and comedy, much like in any era, and the results, especially when seen in a theatre, can be startlingly contemporary, with some very sharp, funny writing.

One question raised is: how to make young people like silents. And it is a very good question. How to make 80-90-yr. old films "cool", especially in an era where film history in general is ignored, people don't like watching B/W and anything from the 50es or so is already considered "old" (Just read the comments on Amazon for some of the classics.)

I am only thinking aloud here, but maybe imagery and actors are the selling points, ironically enough.
The grab-bag that constitutes 'image' for both younger performers and many younger people today incorporates fashion/advertizing/looks from many decades, most likely with many of them not even knowing where the inspiration came from.

One thing silent films have as an advantage: unlike post-WW2 sound films, most younger people don't know/remember anything about them. None of the actors, very few of the films (apart from some comedies, at most.) That at least gives a pretty blank slate to work on.

Louise Brooks could be used as an icon. She broke plenty of rules in her time, and looked sexy and beautiful in a way that connects to this day, unlike the bee-stung lips and little-girl curls that simply scream "silents" to so many.
A bad girl for the ages. Tie it in with some of her films, and find one or two other strong types to do the same with.

I think what would be needed would be a really cutting-edge advertizing campaign, marrying the the most intense message delivery (along the lines of the current teen-oriented films) with strong images of Brooks and possibly others.The hammy tag-lines are already welling up in me

"Badness/sexiness/(you name it) is timeless. This is where it all began."
"Brooks. She didn't need sound." (appropriate tight CU.)

Online excerpts of 'hot' scenes could be on the tie-in website to whet the appetite.

I am kidding a little bit, but a good part of me is serious.

Never forget what happened when they released the Robert Johnson boxed CD set.
Suddenly a legendary old blues player revered by modern musicians became a bonafide 'hit', and that was advertizing plus finding that indefinable "critical mass" with a larger audience where it became 'the thing' to have this set, for people who wouldn't dream of owning a 78 or buying acoustic blues albums in general.

Surely it can't be impossible to do the same for silents.

[drednm]

Mike... great point about Griffith and his ending with Dempster and Hamilton.

I cannot explain his utter inability to change with the times and turn out better stories.

[boblipton]

Perfectly ordinary run of a talent. He found a story and set of technique that worked for a while and got left behind as the rest of the industry moved forward. Even at his peak in the mid-teens, Ince's teams of specialized talents including set dressers were surpassing his one-man-band approach. A great artist may lead the way, but once a form has been set down, a production line with lots of specialists will outdo the one-man band.

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

And the fact is, the 50-year career of a Hitchcock or a Ford is the exception. It's at least as common to have a dozen good years and then to struggle to find worthy subjects or make the magic happen again... true of Capra or Sturges or even Curtiz, true of Peckinpah and Ashby and Penn.

[Jack Theakston]

I can't speak for Curtiz's early years in Hungary, but once he hit America, his output stayed consistently pretty good between the late '20s and mid-to-late '50s. I'd hardly say he lost his spark.

Capra's career, while similar to Curtiz's, was quality over quantity. I don't think he ever lost "it" so much as he was interested in retiring (he was 64 when he made POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES, which is still a fairly well-received film).

[Mike Gebert]

Well, you could argue what are somebody's peak years, certainly, and there are decent and enjoyable films outside 1933-46 for Capra or 1935-47 for Curtiz, but if you subtracted those years, would we really remember Capra for Dirigible, The Miracle Woman and State of the Union, or Curtiz for Mystery of the Wax Museum and Jim Thorpe All American?

(I've seen one early Curtiz, Sodom and Gomorrah. It was nothing great. And I've never seen what's supposed to be so great about The Kennel Murder Case, incidentally. I mean, it's fine for what it is, but so is The Ex-Mrs. Bradford or something.)

[Jack Theakston]

Depends on how you look at it. Curtiz directed NOAH'S ARK, at the time a high-profile picture. Capra was doing well received pictures as SUBMARINE. Are they the height of the careers of either? No, but I doubt they'd be forgotten, because those were pretty big movies of their time.