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

[Bob Birchard]

You say you are worried about the entire next generation just based on your dealings with Hala? [snip]

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.

Actually, Hala's comment was only a convenient jumping off place for me, but I really am not trying to bash Hala, or to drum up support for Cinecon, or to whine that my books aren't NYT best-sellers.

Here, for example, is another quote from Gagman 66:

THE BIG PARADE should be much better known. It is among the greatest films of all time. Most classics don't hold a candle to it. Even the better known ones. In all honesty, it isn't even that well known among Silent film fans. Sure most fans have heard of the film, and would like to see the picture.. The majority though it's been my experience have not seen it from what I gather.

What frustrates me even further is the restoration made us anxious that the film would be getting far more exposure and hopefully the recognition it justly deserves. Instead, it ended up becoming more obscure than before. As the restoration sat, and continues to sit, the Thames Silent version disappeared for 5 years off TCM.

Now, admittedly, this is from a discussion about why the new restoration is not on TV--and it suggests that Gagman has seen the film himself but would like it to be more widely available.

I'd like to see it on DVD myself, but what the hey? Who ever thought that one could own legit copies of the Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton features not to mention the hundreds of other silent features now available?

The fact is that even though many films are available, most silent releases sell a few hundred copies--not many more than Blackhawk sold of its 8mm release of "The Birth of a Nation" (which cost $65 in 1965 dollars as opposed to $24.95 in today's dollars for the DVD--and much less if you go for one of the PD versions out there). So better availability and more communication via all the technical marvels we have today has not really created all that much more interest--though it has allowed those of us who are interested to communicate more easily. And it does allow the the few newbies who come along to find a community of like-minded enthusiasts more easily than in the past.

Being a geezer has some advantages--perspective being one of them. Back in 1969 when the AFI mounted its "Rediscovering the American Cinema" series, hundreds of people flocked to each show at the Los Angeles County art museum to see rareties like "Broadway" (1929) and "The Canadian" (1926)--there was, at least in the big cities where there was some accessibility, a "film culture" a large group of movie fans who were adventurous enough to take a flyer on a picture they had never heard of--and many of the shows sold out.

Today when UCLA runs a newly restored silent at their Billy Wilder Theater they are lucky to draw fifty people--and they are the "usual suspects" who are also often seen at Cinecon. In other words, the spirit of adventure seems to have been lost. Few people seem willing to take a chance on an early film they have not heard of.

Yes, yes, I know, people are more distracted, and they have more on their plates. They can watch TCM or DVDs or even stream some films on their computers? But are they realy doing that? The evidence suggests not. The reason AMC (when it was actually showing classic movies) could get by running the same handfull of films over and over is because there was little or no audience for a broader spectrum of rarer titles. The audience preferred to revisit their established favorites and less interested in taking a chance they might discover a new favorite in the cinematic "slush pile" of unscreened films.

[Gagman 66]

Bob,

Yes, I have seen THE BIG PARADE obviously. But I haven't seen the 2004 restoration. Precious few people have.

[Arndt]

Bob,

Yes, I have seen THE BIG PARADE obviously. But I haven't seen the 2004 restoration. Precious few people have.

I saw it in Bonn last year. It's indeed glorious.

[Chris Snowden]

Back in 1969 when the AFI mounted its "Rediscovering the American Cinema" series, hundreds of people flocked to each show at the Los Angeles County art museum to see rareties like "Broadway" (1929) and "The Canadian" (1926)--there was, at least in the big cities where there was some accessibility, a "film culture" a large group of movie fans who were adventurous enough to take a flyer on a picture they had never heard of--and many of the shows sold out.

Today when UCLA runs a newly restored silent at their Billy Wilder Theater they are lucky to draw fifty people--and they are the "usual suspects" who are also often seen at Cinecon. In other words, the spirit of adventure seems to have been lost. Few people seem willing to take a chance on an early film they have not heard of.

I think part of this is because there are so many more things competing for viewers' attention. The people who are no longer taking a chance on an old movie might simply be somewhere else, taking a chance on a computer game, some Japanese animation, a film from Iran or something else. Look how the major TV networks are struggling... not because there are fewer viewers, but because viewers have far more options.

I think there's also a generational shift. Remember back in the 1970s when Film Collectors' World was jam-packed with ads for B-westerns? I couldn't believe there were so many collectors seemingly interested in nothing else. Those guys had grown up watching Hoppy, Roy and Gene. But now that generation is dying off, and hardly anyone's into B-westerns anymore (the 16mm prints often draw no bidders at all on eBay).

The older folks who grew up on silents and early talkies are dying off... and those of us who grew up watching old movies on TV are middle-aged or older.

I think there'll always be an audience for good films. But an audience for films that have little to offer but their age and obscurity? Maybe not.

[Bob Birchard]

Bob,

Yes, I have seen THE BIG PARADE obviously. But I haven't seen the 2004 restoration. Precious few people have.

And I hope you do have an opportunity to see the restoration in the near future . . . but while the restoration is a better print than those available in the past in that it has color tints and one stencil color scene, it is not so dramatically better than the prints that have been available in the past as to make "The Big Parade" seem a better film than it is already perceived to be.

Yet, you seem obsessed with seeing "The Big Parade" again, immediately, it this new print when there are any number of other silents out there that you haven't seen. This, again, is not a criticism--merely an observation.

While I agree with Chris Snowden that one cannot force anyone to become a silent film fan and that the subset, or niche or clique of silent film fans is likely to remain finite on the low end, there really ought to be a way to make the silent film fans there are more adventurous in seeking out pictures to watch.

It has been observed that Cinecon and the other festivals are places for more adventurous programming, and that that they have been influential through the years in broadening the canon. But at the same time the most consistent objection I hear from potential Cinecon newbies is: "We haven't heard of any of the films you're running."

I have no illusions that Cinecon, Cinefest, Cinevent or Cinesation are ever going to appeal to a broad mainstream audience. They will always appeal to a niche group. And I am also optimistic that there will always be just enough interest to keep these events going for some time--because some first timers do come every year. But for the most part those first timers are already "part of the club" in that they are attracted by the chance to see things they would not otherwise have a chance to see.

How does one instill that spirit of adventure in even a portion of the subset of more casual film fans?

Reading Kevin Brownlow's books makes me want to see all the films he describes . . .and more . . . but they have not seemed to have had this same effect on many others.

[Gagman 66]

Well, for one thing Classic movie releases, (let alone Silents) apart from a WIZARD OF OZ, or SNOW WHITE, receive positively zero advertising/promotion on Television anywhere, outside of TCM. That doesn't help sales any. I don't buy the notion that it is to expensive either.

There is the rare exception with a Disney film, but that is about it. How are younger people expected to discover these movies? 500 channels, and for the most part TCM is the only place to see films from the 30's and 40's and even the 50's anymore. Ridiculous. I've been considering dropping cable for the past three years.

[Gagman 66]

I managed to hook some 20 year old's on Harold Lloyd, and it only took one feature to do it. HOT WATER. (with the Adrian Johnston score, not Robert Israel). After that they wanted to see them all. So it's not as tough as some of you might think. Getting them into Lloyd, got them into Chaplin. I had much less success with Keaton, which surprised me somewhat. And I even started out with SHERLOCK JUNIOR.

[rudyfan]

Reading Kevin Brownlow's books makes me want to see all the films he describes . . .and more . . . but they have not seemed to have had this same effect on many others.

Nope, reading Brownlow did, and still does it for me. William K. Everson, Karl Brown (not Paul Rotha) all made me want to see the films. Daniel Blum's Pictorial History drove me mad, same with the Deems Taylor book, all those great stills, all those movies I wanted to see.

Blackhawk was expensive for me as a 12-16 year old, but I saved my allowance and job money so I could buy the few films I had, and loved them. It got me started. It worked once, it can work again!

[Chris Snowden]

But at the same time the most consistent objection I hear from potential Cinecon newbies is: "We haven't heard of any of the films you're running."

I have no illusions that Cinecon, Cinefest, Cinevent or Cinesation are ever going to appeal to a broad mainstream audience. They will always appeal to a niche group. And I am also optimistic that there will always be just enough interest to keep these events going for some time--because some first timers do come every year. But for the most part those first timers are already "part of the club" in that they are attracted by the chance to see things they would not otherwise have a chance to see.

How does one instill that spirit of adventure in even a portion of the subset of more casual film fans?

One thing that the festivals could do is to really sell us on the films they're showing. It's not enough to just announce the titles.

Play up the stars. If the director has some cachet, play up the director. If the film made Photoplay's Ten-Best list for 1926, let us know. If it's the last film Paul Kelly made before he went to prison for killing a guy, let us know. If it's the film that Fay Wray said she was the most proud of, let us know. If David Shepard saw it at Pordenone in 1992 and it blew everyone away, let us know!

Convince us that it's likely to be a really good film. Or get us intrigued in it somehow. As in the case of Sally, Irene and Mary, give us the heads-up that we'll likely never get a second chance to see the film.

An unfamiliar title alone doesn't excite a lot of us, but with a little more info or persuasion, we'll be there!

[Harlett O'Dowd]

How does one instill that spirit of adventure in even a portion of the subset of more casual film fans?

As I've suggested in the past, make nice-nice with TCM. Maybe get them on board as some sort of Cinecon sponsor in exchange for some wrap-around airtime letting the casual vintage film fan know that events like Cinecon, Cinevent, etc., exist and see if they can frame whatever coverage along the "for the more adventurous/those who need a new fix" line.

If Cinecon can get coverage in a comic book, Cinecon and the other festivals should be able to get coverage from TCM and other outlets.

Warners DVD-R program should be an easy foot in the door. If Warners has film but not transfer for something they're toying with releasing, make a deal to screen it at a festival with TCM presence. Let them see how the title(s) play and if it makes sense to make the investment of a transfer.

I sincerely doubt that Warners, Fox or many other studios/video branches are aware of the sifting and rediscovery work that goes on at the fests.

Reading Kevin Brownlow's books makes me want to see all the films he describes . . .and more . . . but they have not seemed to have had this same effect on many others.

As previously noted, you can add me to the list. And FAMOUS MONSTERS for the Chaneys.

[Jack Theakston]

The question seems to have been expanded into, "what are we doing wrong to get newer generations interested in silent film?" Aside from some things a little change of plan couldn't help, the answer is truly: nothing.

As someone who is in the demographic this discussion is about (although extremely in the minority of my group) while at the same time an exhibitor of sorts myself, my honest opinion is that you guys are simply on the wrong track about interest level.

Yes, I'd agree that the amusements market has been spread paper thin in the last thirty years with the advent of home video, computers and the Internet. I don't deny that a percentage of the audience has become complacent in staying at home.

However, there is still a percentage of folks both young and old that are movie buffs who go to movies not because it's just a viewing experience, but a social one. This has undoubtedly been the catalyst to a number, if not all, of the silent film festivals that run across this country.

If there is any one aspect of exhibition that is weaker than ever now, it is the one thing that I believe most strongly defines the success of any given project: advertising.

To those who exhibit I ask: how many times have you had someone new or unknown to your festivities come up and ask you, "why don't you run such-and-such?" And doesn't it burn you up that you or someone else in the area just played that film?

When I first started recognizing this problem, I couldn't fault these people with not knowing for the most part, because none of them had any conception of shows I'd done previously. The questions were genuine, and the realization was that the interest level is actually there waiting to be tapped.

And advertising need not be expensive. Because I frequent the scene, I have a pretty good idea of what's playing in my area. But the audience that could be receptive to these shows don't have the network to find out that these films are playing in their area.

So newspaper advertisement, fliers in bookstores, cafes and the like, aggressive Internet advertisement, mailing lists, and TV/Radio interviews are really important things that often get overlooked.

I also agree with Chris that if you are running classic films, you have to go above and beyond what these people are expecting the show to end up being. With many of these festivals, it's not just movies, it's organ concerts, a dinner banquet, dealers in the lobby, ballyhoo, etc. There has to be more than just movies, because people get burnt out on that sort of stuff really easily.

As was expressed in the Cinecon thread, the warhorses or centerpieces have to be after the dinner hour, and that's when the general public is going to show up.

There is something to be said for regularity, too. Obviously you can't have a festival every week, but if someone was programming a series, it has to be the same time on the same day every week. Saturday afternoon at 2:00, for example. It always starts small, but many people are creatures of habit, and if they know that it's going to be the same time every week, they begin showing up regardless of what the feature is.

Finally, there is one aspect that is never discussed here-- time of year and weather. About five years ago, I co-organized a silent film festival in NY. It was a great show and we had everyone-- Robert Israel, Dennis James, Ben Model, Donald Sosin, Mont Alto... and while it wasn't a total flop, the outcome was a total let-down. Why was it? Because we had planned it on the first nice day of the year after an incredibly cold winter!! But who could possibly know? That's why I now play it safe and schedule these sort of events in the middle of the season. Summer and fall are the best time because it's either hot or rainy back east and it gets people into the theaters.

Well, for one thing Classic movie releases, (let alone Silents) apart from a WIZARD OF OZ, or SNOW WHITE, receive positively zero advertising/promotion on Television anywhere, outside of TCM. That doesn't help sales any. I don't buy the notion that it is to expensive either.

In their cases, they don't need to advertise either film (even though there WERE commercials for SNOW WHITE running ad nausea last month). Both films are perennial favorites, and the number of extra sales garnered from the advertising doesn't justify the cost of running them.

[LouieD]

I guess I could best some it up by some people will care while others won't. I think these films are something that you HAVE to have an interest in and seek them out. Trying to convert new people to come and enjoy these movies like YOU ENJOY THEM is totally the wrong way to think this "old film thingy".

[Harlett O'Dowd]

What scares me is that, in Atlanta, at least, no colleges to my knowledge are screening vintage film outside the classroom anymore. I suspect a lot of cinephiles (and folks with other interests,) took advantage of the convenience of campus-screened films to try something new for free or a nominal fee. I certianly did.

I still giggle that a fairly full lecture hall (150-200 seats) of the mostly uninitiated sat through a shorts program that included, among other things, Keaton's Cops, the 35-minute pre-restoration version of Nazimova's Salome and Bambi Meets Godzilla. I think it's fair to say everyone in that room experienced at least one film/genre they wouldn't have sought out on his/her own.

College screenings, of course, are also easier/cheaper to advertise with flyers, etc. than it is for those in the public sector.

Which of course brings us back to the "evil academia" issue and the rigid silent canon.

At the end of the day, we need to create multiple modern-day Bill Eversons to entice the young into cinematic experimentation.

As many here have noted, once you get someone with *some* interest in classic film to sit down and try a silent, many/most will enjoy the experience. They key is creating an environment when people are willing to try.

[gjohnson]

Following up on Harlett's suggestion of tieing in TCM to Cinecon, how about inviting Robert Osborne to introduce a film next year? He probably lives in L.A. so it wouldn't be an inconvience. I'll bet he lives right down the street from the Egyptian. He can walk over. If he insists we'll rent a rickshaw and get some of the members to run him down the street (some of the older, original members - just so we all have a good laugh). Osborne could then perform just as he does on cable and introduce some film (only with the correct info this time) and then everyone can yell at him for not showing such-and-such a film on TCM. Well, maybe we better not inform him of the yelling part. And this way we could be assured of getting free air plugs on TCM (..then we can all yell at him).

Gary J. - Always thinking for the greater good.

[rudyfan]

Actually, I believe Osborne lives in NYC. But, he has come out (excuse the choice of words here) to San Francisco for the festival.

[boblipton]

A good idea, Gary, since every once in a while the Film Forum gets mentioned in their montly on-air news wrapup.


Bob

[Richard M Roberts]

Hmmm, this is all what I've been saying to you Bob all along. Publicity Publicity Publicity!! You have to get the word out about what you are showing more than a few weeks before your damn show! And get the word out about exactly why you are showing what particular rare title and why folks should spend the dough to book a plane and a hotel room and spend extra bucks on food and such in a different town from where they live to go see it!

In other words, what we are going to do with Slapsticon 2010 in just a few weeks. Stay Tuned!!!!!


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[LouieD]

In other words, what we are going to do with Slapsticon 2010 in just a few weeks. Stay Tuned!!!!!


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I heard whispers of a full El Brendel day.

[Christopher Jacobs]

the spirit of adventure seems to have been lost. Few people seem willing to take a chance on an early film they have not heard of.

Yes, yes, I know, people are more distracted, and they have more on their plates. They can watch TCM or DVDs or even stream some films on their computers? But are they realy doing that? The evidence suggests not. The reason AMC (when it was actually showing classic movies) could get by running the same handfull of films over and over is because there was little or no audience for a broader spectrum of rarer titles. The audience preferred to revisit their established favorites and less interested in taking a chance they might discover a new favorite in the cinematic "slush pile" of unscreened films.

This is a pervasive problem these days with almost everything -- not simply silent films, but independent films, low-profile studio releases, stage plays outside the established canon, etc. An unfortunate majority of people seem to feel the need to be told what they should see, whether it be by some established critic, "ten best" list, or simply some friend who's already seen it. Once they've read about it or heard about it, especially if there is some intriguing aspect to the report (unexpectedly powerful, hilariously funny, major new acting talent, socially controversial, critically controversial -- whatever, just so it sticks in their mind that some people find the film worth talking about) then they decide that they really need to see the film or play for themselves.

As has been mentioned above, the only way to get people to think that a silent film or any film is worth their time and effort is to get the message to them that "everybody's talking about it" or "everybody needs to see this" -- and that requires substantial media promotion and actual news coverage, paid advertising, and as much word of mouth as possible. Otherwise, those who seek out classic films will continue to seek them out wherever they are, and the casual film fan or everyday person on the street will never know they exist unless they stumble across a public notice or happen to get a recommendation from a friend. Despite the growing number of classic film screenings, outside of NY and LA (and even there) many if not most of the events and the films themselves are completely under the radar of the average person...just one more random event listing in the fine print of a calendar section with titles and stars nobody ever heard of (if the stars are even listed at all).

As Jack has mentioned, publicity and showmanship can make a tremendous difference (if the weather cooperates). Rare old movies CAN be sold to a fair number of people if there is some angle that ties them in to something the people are already familiar with, and/or piques their curiosity to the point that they simply can't resist seeing what all the publicity and furor is about.

Movies and actors nobody ever heard of can become movies and actors that everybody has at least heard of if the names get repeated enough. And because so many people prefer to rely on the opinions of others, it's up to us, once we've seen the rarities, to promote the memorable ones actively, and to debate them with others, bring them up in conversations (You mean to say you never even heard of ...? You really should track it down, you know. It's one of my favorites. The audience was blown away.) as often as possible. Pop culture references can only help. Quentin Tarantino probably did more for THE WHITE HELL OF PIZ PALU with his latest film than all of Kino's advertising and any convention screenings put together, and snuck in a number of references to wartime French cinema, as well.

And whether or not many actually watched them, more people got their own copies of the silent TEN COMMANDMENTS and BEN HUR and THE LOST WORLD and WIZARD OF OZ movies through their inclusion with the talkie remakes than would ever consider buying a silent movie on DVD for its own sake (of course for me and a few other people I know, it was the talkie remake that we considered the "bonus" feature). Yet the silents included were barely even mentioned, much less promoted as valuable bonus materials, again marginalizing their importance to the typical buying public.

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

[Richard M Roberts]

In other words, what we are going to do with Slapsticon 2010 in just a few weeks. Stay Tuned!!!!!


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I heard whispers of a full El Brendel day.

Not a Chance.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Harold Aherne]

I have one small concern about getting Robert Osborne involved in these cine-gatherings: would he be able to bring deep insight into the films or would he just give a rather general introduction like (IMO) he does on TCM? I'm sure he could talk for hours about Now Voyager or The Heiress, but could he bring something genuinely new to the table with, say, an Anita Stewart or Hobart Bosworth picture? (Not a rhetorical question; I actually don't know how much silent research he's done.)

In order to get someone interested in lesser-known silents or other older pictures I think they need to have a degree of pre-existing knowledge or curiousity about earlier historical periods. At minimun, they should have some sympathy for the time and place in which the film was made and give the stars, scenarist, and director their givens. Some people today (and not just young people) would be baffled by Stella Maris: why doesn't Conway Tearle just divorce Marcia Manon and be done with the matter? Aren't Stella Maris's guardians being cruel to her by allowing her to exist in a sort of fairyland in which she doesn't know about poverty and war? Why does Unity regard herself as so inferior that she doesn't pursue Tearle more actively? Why doesn't Tearle arrange for an "intervention" in Manon's drug and alcohol problem?

If someone has no conception of everyday life in England ca. 1918 they'll find it hard to suspend their disbelief regarding class structure, treatment of ill or disabled people, and the difficulty of getting a divorce. The disparities between their life experience and what's shown on screen may distract them from the real brilliance that's going on and why Pickford, Marion, and Neilan should matter to them. It can take some education to get the cobwebs out of their imaginations and sensibilities--but I'm reasonably optimistic that it can be done at least in certain cases.

-Harold

[precode]

Been away for a few days, so forgive my tardiness in jumping into the breach.

Year in, year out, THE single biggest complaint about Cinecon is the lack of timely info in general and the non-updating of the website in particular. It's extremely difficult (especially in this economy) to get people to book a hotel and airfare at the last minute because they have not been told until August what's happening. Additionally, most of the other fests send out e-mail updates; Cinecon does not. Most of the other fests have FaceBook pages; Cinecon does not. Most of the other fests encourage "youngins" by admitting them for free or at least a reduced fee; Cinecon does not. You fail to reap what you fail to sow.

As for Bob's observation that people complain that they haven't heard of any of the films we're showing, my response is always, "That's the point! We show films you can't see anywhere else!" Alas, one person's key marketing point is another person's liability.

Mike S.
(who now jumps back out of the breach)

[Einar the Lonely]

Allright, but there must have been some reason why Griffith got the "Father of Film" - title at such an early point in film history. Did he have the better PR, was it all hearsay, one film historian copying another? If pre-home-video availability is the key, how did the pre-selection process come to pass? Why have the Griffith films been kept and shown by archives and film museums all over the world and not others?

(Sorry for jumping in so late... )

[Mike Gebert]

I have one small concern about getting Robert Osborne involved in these cine-gatherings: would he be able to bring deep insight into the films or would he just give a rather general introduction like (IMO) he does on TCM?

He could dance the hula, it doesn't matter. He's on TV.

[MGH]

He's on TV.

So was Moe.

[boblipton]

If you're suggesting that Cinecon steal Moe's corpse for publicity....

Bob

[MGH]

To film lovers all over South [and North] America, Moe is still very much alive........... And they are correct. In fact, it is heretical to even imply otherwise.

[boblipton]

Well then, let's kill him now and put him out of our misery.

Bob

[MGH]

Ohhhh no!!! Moe changed his name from MOSES. Don't you see what you've done!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have tampered with forces whose power is so far-reaching you couldn't imagine it.

[R Michael Pyle]

Meanwhile, back at the Red Sea...