Single Greatest Figure of the Silent Era

Dana · Post by **Dana** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:38 pm

Carl Denham

Michael F. Blake · Post by **Michael F. Blake** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:14 am

Lon Chaney.

(You expect me to pick someone else??)

Now, if you were asking the question about someone behind the camera, I'd pick D.W. Griffith.

Arndt · Post by **Arndt** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:23 am

Einar the Lonely wrote:
Arndt wrote:
Einar the Lonely wrote:Loni Nest.

http://gimlihospital.wordpress.com/index.php?s=Loni
Absolutely! I'll second that one without hesitation. A seminal figure, if ever there was one.
Who dares to deny this, especially after the recent discovery of her lost films in Togo...

You mean they found BOTH parts of AUS DEN ERINNERUNGEN EINES FRAUENARZTES? Surely that would be the holy grail of silent movies.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:42 am

I've carefully skated around this thread, because it is to difficult for me to select any one person as number 1. The choices of Pickford and Chaplin certainly have merit. But Chaplin suffers from lack of productivity during the 20's in my book. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Chaplin fan, but he still needed to put out a couple more features than He did. THE PROFESSOR would have been very interesting. SHOULDER ARMS at 5 reels, rather than 3 looked like it could have ranked among his best work. Pickford is vastly underrated, in that I have heard it said that she never really made a great film. But I completely disagree many of them were outstanding. To me LITTLE ANNIE ROONEY is a better movie than THE GOLD RUSH. I love Harold Lloyd and his reputation is still suffering. Now with the DVD's going out of print this certainly won't help any either. I do think he has gained many new fans, but it just isn't enough.

Michael O'Regan · Post by **Michael O'Regan** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:25 am

I love Harold Lloyd and his reputation is still suffering

I'm interested in what you mean by this. How is his reputation still suffering?

Changsham · Post by **Changsham** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:22 am

Though I love CC, I think he played the tramp character for far too long. He eventually became a cliche and caricature of the silent era. And Mary Pickford should never have made talking pictures. She became the cliche silent star who could not speak. I loved mostly all of her silent films but hearing her for the first time in TAMING OF THE SHEW made me wince.

Sandy B · Post by **Sandy B** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:15 am

[quote="FrankFay"]Murnau? Why not Stroheim?[/quote]
Well, maybe because Murnau died fairly young with the possibility of more movies to be made...a career cut short. Whereas Stroheim pretty much lived a long life and left a fulfilled career. He had the opportunity to have a full career. I just think Murnau had more to give but wasn't given the chance.

missdupont · Post by **missdupont** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:24 am

Have you seen SECRETS? Mary gave a wonderful performance in that, showing great range as she aged from young woman to older woman, and expressing so much emotion on her face as the baby died. I would say she was the greatest figure, because she negotiated her own contracts, sometimes directed her own films, was the world's best known female for years, definitely produced her films, pretty much kept United Artists going on on her own in the first years by turning out product, helped establish AMPAS, etc.

Rodney · Post by **Rodney** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:53 am

Frederica is right, Nita Naldi had a greater figure than Charlie Chaplin. And I think Kate Price had a greater figure than Nita Naldi.

The problem with (and maybe one of the benefits of) this question really is that one is free to pick whatever measure one likes, which means that all answers (within reason) are valid answers. D.W. Griffith was a big part of turning film from a novelty into an art form, Mary Pickford proved the value of a star who could create a series of incredibly popular and entertaining movies, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd made films that appear to be "timeless" and will be entertaining for all time, F.W. Murnau brought a sense of complete artistic control over every aspect of the image, and popularized the idea that a film need not be a record of reality. Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Von Stroheim show various sides of the idea of letting one person have complete control over their vision, with vastly different results.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:17 am

Rodney wrote:Frederica is right, Nita Naldi had a greater figure than Charlie Chaplin. And I think Kate Price had a greater figure than Nita Naldi.

The problem with (and maybe one of the benefits of) this question really is that one is free to pick whatever measure one likes, which means that all answers (within reason) are valid answers. D.W. Griffith was a big part of turning film from a novelty into an art form, Mary Pickford proved the value of a star who could create a series of incredibly popular and entertaining movies, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd made films that appear to be "timeless" and will be entertaining for all time, F.W. Murnau brought a sense of complete artistic control over every aspect of the image, and popularized the idea that a film need not be a record of reality. Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Von Stroheim show various sides of the idea of letting one person have complete control over their vision, with vastly different results.

You could even go with Adolph Zukor, Jesse Lasky, Carl Laemmle, Nick and Joe Schenck, Marcus Loew, Thomas Ince, William Selig, etc.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:21 am

And don't leave out the Talmadge Sisters

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:30 am

Major Latham. Without the Latham Loop, none of this would exist.

Einar the Lonely · Post by **Einar the Lonely** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:06 pm

Sandy B wrote:
FrankFay wrote:Murnau? Why not Stroheim?
Well, maybe because Murnau died fairly young with the possibility of more movies to be made...a career cut short. Whereas Stroheim pretty much lived a long life and left a fulfilled career. He had the opportunity to have a full career. I just think Murnau had more to give but wasn't given the chance.

Stroheim stopped directing movies when Murnau did. And, are you joking, Stroheim of all people left a "fulfilled" career?

Sandy B · Post by **Sandy B** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:26 pm

[quote="Einar the Lonely"][quote="Sandy B"][quote="FrankFay"]Murnau? Why not Stroheim?[/quote]
Well, maybe because Murnau died fairly young with the possibility of more movies to be made...a career cut short. Whereas Stroheim pretty much lived a long life and left a fulfilled career. He had the opportunity to have a full career. I just think Murnau had more to give but wasn't given the chance.[/quote]

Stroheim stopped directing movies when Murnau did. And, are you joking, Stroheim of all people left a "fulfilled" career? :P[/quote]

I'm not joking, I was just answering a question about my opinion and, that's all it is. Stroheim did have a full career which lasted multiple decades. But, I thought Murnau died in an automobile accident when he was in his 30s(?) which probably involuntarily shortened his career. I think Murnau had just over a decade of movie-making experience prior to his death. If I've misread this about Murnau, please set me straight. I am not an expert, I'm just a huge fan of silent movies and would love to see more people become fans.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:39 pm

I'm not trying to correct anything, but here's my 2 cents.

Murnau had a successful career both in Germany and Hollywood, with relatively minimal studio interference- at least I can't recall his having had a film forcibly taken out of his hands. He died suddenly at the beginning of sound, at a high point in his career.

Stroheim worked his way up from actor to director with considerable success / notoriety. He had an increasingly rough relationship with his employers and had several films heavily edited or taken completely out of his hands during production. At the beginning of sound his directing career ceased with an incomplete film. For the rest of his career he was an actor, with parts of varying levels of prominence and success. His career both as a director and an actor had many high points, and he gained considerable critical respect in his later years, but I don't think he considered his career fulfilled.

Einar the Lonely · Post by **Einar the Lonely** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:40 pm

Sandy B wrote:
Einar the Lonely wrote:
Sandy B wrote: Well, maybe because Murnau died fairly young with the possibility of more movies to be made...a career cut short. Whereas Stroheim pretty much lived a long life and left a fulfilled career. He had the opportunity to have a full career. I just think Murnau had more to give but wasn't given the chance.
Stroheim stopped directing movies when Murnau did. And, are you joking, Stroheim of all people left a "fulfilled" career?
I'm not joking, I was just answering a question about my opinion and, that's all it is. Stroheim did have a full career which lasted multiple decades. But, I thought Murnau died in an automobile accident when he was in his 30s(?) which probably involuntarily shortened his career. I think Murnau had just over a decade of movie-making experience prior to his death. If I've misread this about Murnau, please set me straight. I am not an expert, I'm just a huge fan of silent movies and would love to see more people become fans.

Well, Stroheim's directing career too lasted only a decade, and nearly all of his films had a disastrous fate and were not released as he intended them to be. He too was finished when he was in his early forties, just like Murnau, albeit for other reasons. Not dead, but rather buried alive. After his final failure as a director he was sent back to the second row and was condemned to repeat the "Man You Love To Hate"-shtick from his beginnings until he found a bearable exile and more respect in France. At the end of his life he said to Lotte Eisner, that his career felt "like a syphillitic wound" to him. I would call that anything but fulfilled.

Murnau on the other hand, had nearly all his major works released according to his vision. From an artist's pov his career was far more "fulfilled" than Stroheim's.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:41 pm

I'll leave my post up, but you said it better.

Changsham · Post by **Changsham** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:27 pm

I think Stroheim was more a victim of his self inflicted excesses and arrogance. As a director he demonstrated he could make a great film and all his works show more than a glimpse of genius but also wastefulness.

He never learn't that in the real world a film production has to have a workable budget and there is a threshold to how long someone can sit down in front of a movie. He could never accept that he had to pack all his creativity and vision into one neat package.

In the end the industry humbled him and relegated him to the B zone. At the beginning of the depression there was no more tolerance left for spendthrifts like him. He blew his final chance when he did not have the self restraint to even complete a modest picture. As an actor he was great in silents but average in talkies.

But he does deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the other greats for his genius and vision alone. In a way he was way ahead of his time. If he was productive in the last 30 years or so he could have fully realised his visions and big projects like Kubrick or via TV ala David Lynch as long as he stuck to a budget.

Changsham · Post by **Changsham** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:27 pm

missdupont wrote:Have you seen SECRETS? Mary gave a wonderful performance in that, showing great range as she aged from young woman to older woman, and expressing so much emotion on her face as the baby died. I would say she was the greatest figure, because she negotiated her own contracts, sometimes directed her own films, was the world's best known female for years, definitely produced her films, pretty much kept United Artists going on on her own in the first years by turning out product, helped establish AMPAS, etc.

I have not seen SECRETS though I have had many opportunities. 20 years ago I had already seen most of the available silent films Mary made but her sound films were not around at the time. I did look forward to seeing them with anticipation and when TOTS appeared on Laser disk I got a copy. I never really got over the deflation and lost interest in pursuing any other of her talking films. That was a long time ago and perhaps I should revisit them.

spadeneal · Post by **spadeneal** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:09 pm

I too would have to opt for Chaplin. He is not my favorite figure in the silent firmament -- though he ranks very, very highly in my hierarchy -- but the very image of Chaplin signifies "silent film" even to non-believers.

spadeneal

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:48 pm

I agree about Pickford and Secrets. Although the film was not a hit, it certainly showed that Pickford could easily have continued in talkies with the right roles. The sequence with the baby is excellent, and Pickford was well matched with Leslie Howard.

Post by **Christopher Jacobs** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:57 am

I guess I'll have to see SECRETS again sometime, as I thought it was only so-so, though substantially better than COQUETTE. I've never seen the original cut of TAMING OF THE SHREW, only the awful 60s reissue, so it might actually stand up a bit better in its original form. My favorite Pickford talkie is KIKI, which is almost as fun as the silent version. Still, Pickford was at her best on screen in the teens and early 20s, and also seemed to have her strongest business instincts during the silent era.

As others have noted, it's more or less impossible to find one person as THE most important/influential/memorable person of the silent era. Each of the four United Artists has a good shot, as well as DeMille, Ince, and numerous others for various reasons.

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

Einar the Lonely · Post by **Einar the Lonely** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:07 am

Changsham wrote:I think Stroheim was more a victim of his self inflicted excesses and arrogance. As a director he demonstrated he could make a great film and all his works show more than a glimpse of genius but also wastefulness.

He never learn't that in the real world a film production has to have a workable budget and there is a threshold to how long someone can sit down in front of a movie. He could never accept that he had to pack all his creativity and vision into one neat package.

In the end the industry humbled him and relegated him to the B zone. At the beginning of the depression there was no more tolerance left for spendthrifts like him. He blew his final chance when he did not have the self restraint to even complete a modest picture. As an actor he was great in silents but average in talkies.

But he does deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the other greats for his genius and vision alone. In a way he was way ahead of his time. If he was productive in the last 30 years or so he could have fully realised his visions and big projects like Kubrick or via TV ala David Lynch as long as he stuck to a budget.

I agree, but without "arrogance and excess" he just would not be Stroheim...

See also our lovely Von thread:
http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.p ... 9&start=60

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:10 am

My question is, suppose von Stroheim had managed to curb his excesses enough to keep working... what would he have made in the 30s and 40s?

His type of movie, tales of decadent aristocracy and thwarted love, wasn't completely out of fashion in the 30s, but it was certainly on its way out the door via the operetta genre, and essentially extinct by Pearl Harbor. Who knows what genre he might have adapted himself to, but it isn't immediately apparent to me where his career could have gone.

One thing I noted a long time ago is that, far from being unique victims of the studio system driven out of the movies in the early 30s, Stroheim and Griffith both were fairly typical of silent directors, a huge number of whom stopped directing somewhere between 1930 and 1935. Fred Niblo, John S. Robertson, Roland West, Irvin Willat, Victor Sjostrom, Rupert Julian, Reginald Barker... lots of commercial talents without Stroheim's or Griffith's baggage who exited the business around the same time.

Einar the Lonely · Post by **Einar the Lonely** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:36 am

Mike, I will copy that into the Stroheim thread, to keep it going...

pickfair14 · Post by **pickfair14** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:33 pm

wow, so many to choose from, but my pick would be...... oh I dunno, maybe.... Mary Pickford?

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:52 pm

Well for the most part this has been a very interesting thread. Perhaps I should have broken it down into actor, actress, director, and others but I feel the same small number of names would have appeared as viable contenders. Had I done this my picks would have been Chaplin, Pickford, Griffith and probably Gloria Swanson for sheer star power.

I have always found it truly astounding that when the silent cinema began there were so many incredible talents in front of and behind the cameras just waiting to show their stuff.

Tracy · Post by **Tracy** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:47 pm

I would say Rudolph Valentino. No star others have mentioned on the previous postings has been afforded the honor of having an annual Memorial held every year since their death. This year will mark the 84th Valentino Memorial Service, August 23, 2011. So, my vote goes to Rudolph Valentino

Changsham · Post by **Changsham** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:07 am

Tracy wrote:I would say Rudolph Valentino. No star others have mentioned on the previous postings has been afforded the honor of having an annual Memorial held every year since their death. This year will mark the 84th Valentino Memorial Service, August 23, 2011. So, my vote goes to Rudolph Valentino

IMO I believe this has to do more with the emotion and hysteria generated by the shock of his tragic death at the peak of his career. He was a great star who certainly left an iconic impression but I suspect if he lived on he would likely have faded at the advent of talkies along with most other Hollywood stars who's first language was not English. His relevance seems to have steadily diminished as the decades roll by.

Many great stars wind down, grow old and eventually fade away. Death at ones peak seems to almost guarantee imortality.

Rodney · Post by **Rodney** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:40 am

Changsham wrote:
Tracy wrote:I would say Rudolph Valentino. .....
His relevance seems to have steadily diminished as the decades roll by.

Rudolph Valentino, though his films are rarely screened, is still a household name like Charlie Chaplin. In fact, I'd say those two are perhaps the only two silent film stars whose names are still in common currency in the general world outside of film. In that particular way, he out-does Pickford, Keaton, Lloyd, Fairbanks, Griffith (DW or Raymond), Von Stroheim, and once-huge stars like the Talmadges and Gloria Swanson. And not everyone who died at the top of their game makes it into the Valentino/James Dean collection. Sure, people who know film revere Grace Kelly, but not the general public.