NitrateVille.com

After scanning a few other vintage movie sites recently I was struck by how often the fact that only 15 per cent of silent movies survive is bemoaned as though this were some sort of singular tragedy affecting the subject. I would beg to differ.

As with the preservation of all 'ancient' commodities particularly one such as this which is subject to the vagaries of human judgment large losses will be made and on the whole I think that vintage films have survived remarkably well.

All genres are represented a good selection of woks considered masterpieces remains and fairly representative samples of the work of most of the major figures can be accessed.

In my particular area of interest the 1920 I can only think of one genre that of the early colour musicals where the lamentable survival rate detracts from the genre as a whole.

And even for lost films there wiill invariably be a range of ephemera which can often be highly entertaining and illuminating.

Compare this for example with the task faced by palaeontogists (and I think the analogy can be supported since 1928/9 was undoubtedly an extinction event for the chances of survival of the stars and their films) where even optimistic estimates suggest that only 0.01 percent of vertebrate (forget invertebrate) species have left any trace. The remainder are truly lost in that nothing is known about them at all.

After a decade of watching listening to and reading about 20s popular culture I can truthfully only think of about 20 or so films I would like to see to the extent of troubling to visit the archive in which they are held and above that perhaps only a similar number of lost films I would get down on my knees and pray for the recovery of.

Yours is a rational attitude. Fans of any field are rarely rational.

Bob

Just like a history of a war is written by the side that won, the history of film is written about the ones that survive. We are lucky that most of Chaplin and Laurel & Hardy survive. We'll never really know if Theda Bara was really that good of an actress. It would be great to know if Raymond Griffith's lost comedies were as good as the few that survive.

I think part of the allure of silent films at least is that so much is missing that it is exciting when something is found, even if the film turns out to be a stinker.

I don't think that I'd every pray for a film to be found, but there are literally thousands of films that have so little modern interest in them that the only way that you will see them will be to visit an archive. Of course many of them are educational, news, or even home movies, but some people are interesting in those topics too. On the other hand, an obscure film shot in a particular town will always be of great interest to the people that live in the area.

Go to a festival like Cinesation and one thing you discover is how pleasurable the run of the mill is. Admittedly, it can also be frustrating or simply tedious. But a minor little cross-country road picture like Rubber Tires offers an unexpectedly charming vision of early car travel... a forgotten genre like railroad movies can prove totally satisfying. They don't have to be classics; after a while you enjoy them not for the whole, but for moments, for the side benefits.

Part of the reason why the low(ish) survival rate of silents is so often rued is that later eras of film are, for the most part, quite well-preserved. Stats posted at AMS indicate that about 35% of American features from 1925 still exist. By contrast, nearly 84% of American features from 1940 are marked "print viewed" in the AFI catalogue, so we know at least that many survive (and I'm sure many more do, since not all extant films are necessarily viewed).

This pattern doesn't hold for all countries, of course; many British talkies are missing or lost, even from well beyond the 30s, and other lands have still grimmer survival rates for their cinematic heritage. But the considerable disparity between silent and most talkie survival percentages is a factor in bemoaning the loss of so many of the former.

Then, of course, is the fact that lost films were a part of living human memory at the time many of them were first valourised in the 60s and 70s. That's much less the case now, but when Gloria Swanson or Lillian Gish wrote about portions of their filmographies that were (and sometimes remain) unavailable, it's understandable why film lovers regretted that after only a few decades, something that was once enjoyed by mass audiences could have been so completely extirpated.

Like anything else, silent films have survived better than some things (cf. early radio) and worse than others. For me, the glass is neither half-empty nor half-full; it just is what it is.

-Harold

silentfilm wrote: It would be great to know if Raymond Griffith's lost comedies were as good as the few that survive.

Agreed, although I finally caught up with You'd Be Surprised (via the Grapevine) after 30 years of waiting and was disappointed. IMHO, a very minor effort.

What you also have to take into account is the large number of films churned out in the teens. If those losses "count" in the 15% figure, then it's more understandable.