Masterpieces You Don't Really Care For

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

Speaking of "not like the book" I've never liked the 1939 WUTHERING HEIGHTS, simply because I felt they made Heathcliff, as played by Olivier, way too sympathetic. And they left out so much of the story that it felt really incomplete.

Some thirty years back, the Bunuel version of WUTHERING HEIGHTS was advertised at Aberystwyth University. I recall finding this very unlikely, as I had seen the film at the NFT a few years earlier, and it was shown with an earphone translation. Sure enough, the Wyler - Hecht version was the one shown, unfortunately widescreened! Even with this treatment, I enjoyed the film, partly because I hadn't read the novel. I do, however recall a teacher apologising crossly to a gaggle of her charges about the liberties taken with the book!

[Brent]

I've just skimmed the last few pages and sexism, rudeness and trolling are, predictably, all too apparent. My site has chat forums which I've been a little slow in promoting thus far, but I will say this: none of those three will be tolerated – at all. There is an alternative.

A question: does Nitrateville have any female moderators? Don't worry: I already know the answer; I'm just saddened by it, that's all.

[boblipton]

I've just skimmed the last few pages and sexism, rudeness and trolling are, predictably, all too apparent. My site has chat forums which I've been a little slow in promoting thus far, but I will say this: none of those three will be tolerated – at all. There is an alternative.

A question: does Nitrateville have any female moderators? Don't worry: I already know the answer; I'm just saddened by it, that's all.

I have just spent a couple of hours when I should be reviewing yesterday's business news in preparation for today's work in rereading this thread. Are you referring to the bemused discussion of bra-burning or the side discussion of language gender? Those Nitratevillains of the feminine persuasion have demonstrated themselves capable of crying "Bullshit!" when appropriate. Frederica is quite adept at it.

A few months ago I found myself at my gym, distracted by a tv screen with one of those shows in which people discuss the issues of the day. As I recall it it, there were four people, all Black, discussing the need for diversity. One of them said in demonstration of the validity of this attitude and their commitment to it, "We all voted for Obama!" The others nodded in solemn agreement. I thought to myself "Wouldn't diversity include people of Asian extraction, maybe some one who argued that a group united in an attitude might be better in sometimes? Maybe a principled conservative? I like to think there are a few of us." I decided this was another example of the sort of echo chamber discussion one sees and hears too much in public these days and turned my attention elsewhere.

Nitrateville's active administrators, Mike, Danny and Bruce, permit a wider range of opinion than you seem to find comfortable. That's your opinion, and you certainly have a right to express it. I have found them responsive to private messages when I feel some statements might be inappropriate, including a couple of occasions on which I was concerned that I might have been intemperate in my language and asked for a review; it is my wish to be clear, interesting and provocative, but I hold to the dictum that a gentleman is never unintentionally rude.

Speaking of rudeness, permit me to offer a bit of advice when it comes to promoting your own discussion board. When I was working in the office and a potential customer came in, speaking of what the competition had offered, we never spoke about the problems that other people had reported in dealing with the competition. We would limit ourselves to saying "I think we can do better for you."

Now, if you will excuse me, I do need to get back to work.

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

This thread, really? Not the first one I would have thought of.

We already have one competitor which devotes a fair amount of (their own) bandwidth to criticizing NitrateVille, but (inasmuch as they really are learned folks, or fellow in particular) occasionally they provide actual information amid the amusing claims that they never look here, so I check it occasionally to see what I'm doing all wrong. Keeping us honest, in some way, I suppose, like the guy who was employed to ride behind the Roman emperor in parades whispering "glory fades," or whatever the story is. And, they pay for their own bandwidth to carry on this noble crusade, so there's nothing I could do about it, if I would (which I wouldn't).

This, however, just seems a rather tacky attack-slash-commercial, short on specifics, and to me self-defeating in that by its very nature, I am not enticed to live under the brave new rule of Brent, knowing that if I say something dreadful and objectifying like "Alice Faye is hot," I will be subject to chastisement and apparent reeducation. NitrateVille is devoted to many old ideas, now out of fashion, and among them are that people should be allowed to say what they think and should be grown up enough to take the consequences when there are any, within bounds of civility (which is far more about how one is allowed to say it, than what one is allowed to say). If this does not suit you, the internet has many other places to go, and I never have any hard feelings if someone finds somewhere else more suited to their taste— but further self-promotions will, at least, be moved to The Exchange where commercial offers belong.

Thank you, Bob, for the user's view, articulately expressed.

[Danny Burk]

What Bob said.

We try to stick to the principle of "moderation lite". If a situation is getting out of hand in obvious trolling, name-calling, or other kindergarten behavior, we'll step in. Conversely, we don't see nit-picking every word as a plus for NitrateVille. It's a given that there are going to be differences in opinion, in writing style, and in perception of written rather than verbal communication. Hopefully, most readers understand this and don't get bent out of shape by the occasional passing remark that might rub them the wrong way.

Edit: I see that Mike has already posted appropriately as I was writing the above, having been interrupted by the doorbell and phone.

[wich2]

>people should be allowed to say what they think and should be grown up enough to take the consequences when there are any, within bounds of civility (which is far more about how one is allowed to say it, than what one is allowed to say).<

Ditto to the above. (Italics mine.)

I've been around the Interwebs long enough to see that Moderation is a tough dance to do well; it's easy to lay too heavy a hand on the tiller, but yes, too light can cause the ship to take on water, too. (The latter being the only reason I've ever left a site; over-tolerance of trolling can be a very toxic thing.)

But in the time I've been here, I've found this site to thread the needle pretty decently.

-Craig

[silentfilm]

When moderating on Nitrateville, I try to remember the famous Abraham Lincoln/Mark Twain quote, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." We let participants say something that is possibly stupid, and let the rest of the members agree or disagree with them. We don't ban or remove anything unless it is a personal attack or it is something like politics that has no bearing on films or film history. Of course if you post a similar message over and over, then you are trolling.

I'm OK if someone doesn't like Charlie Chaplin, Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane. If you are going to say so on a forum full of classic film fans and historians, you better expect some pointed responses.

[oldposterho]

I'm OK if someone doesn't like Charlie Chaplin, Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane. If you are going to say so on a forum full of classic film fans and historians, you better expect some pointed responses.

Eek. Having already admitted a distaste for GWTW (although, to be fair this thread has made me extract a promise to myself that I, once and for all, am going to sit down and watch the whole thing) I was just going to add that Chaplin does absolutely nothing for me.

I watch his films, I laugh, but they leave me absolutely cold (and not just The Gold Rush). It's one of those inexplicable things. To throw further fuel on the fire, Night of the Hunter leaves me absolutely mystified. I know I should like it, I watch it every time it's on, but it completely eludes me.

Citizen Kane is a masterpiece though, so there you have it.

--Peter

[Donald Binks]

I think that one really needs a sense of humour. Unfortunately I sometimes find humour in just about everything and people will often tell me that I don't take anything seriously. They say this as if it is a problem. Likewise with postings to Nitrateville - we all need to realise that every human being is different (Really?) and what a boring world it would be if we all thought alike.

So, in a nutshell I echo what Mike said.

[westegg]

And I echo Mr. Binks's endorsement of humor being a wonderful balm, rather than opting for pouty self-righteousness among the PC-set.

I find this forum a classy, mature place compared to other sites where lazy illiteracy and texting-speak rules. Oh, and I like NIGHT OF THE HUNTER!

[Brent]

Hmm. Interesting that a brief opinion, politely expressed, draws swift and lengthy rebuttals from all three active moderators, when so many instances of rudeness have, for whatever reason, gone unchecked...

I too, favour certain old fashioned ideas, though to me they're new fashioned too. Namely: good manners, respect for others' opinions and relative politeness at all times. Humour is always good in my book! My basic rule has always been that I express myself online in exactly the same way I would if I were addressing someone in front of me. If certain posters – thankfully the minority – speak the way they do here at all times, they must have very few friends. Good.

Lastly, I must clarify a stated misapprehension. I'm no one's "competitor". My mission is to enlarge the audience for silent films, not somehow dominate its current too-small one. As far as I'm concerned, I'm on the same side as anyone who also loves or supports silents and film preservation. Apart from the rude ones. They can fuck off.

[boblipton]

I believe we should show respect to others until they demonstrate they don't deserve it. That includes their opinions. Particularly, it includes people who make snide remarks, then when the people who are attacked respond in kind, raise their eyebrows and sanctimoniously talk about how all human beings deserve respect and then suggest that some of them fuck off.

Bob

[Danny Burk]

Hmm. Interesting that a brief opinion, politely expressed, draws swift and lengthy rebuttals from all three active moderators, when so many instances of rudeness have, for whatever reason, gone unchecked...

Since no one else has brought this up, I will. Consider the thought that the mods might think it a tad inappropriate that a non-mod repeatedly suggests moderation that should have been carried out (another example being within this very quote), along with implying that he would do a better job.

Helpful suggestions are welcome, but I'll point out that we have indeed seen the instances that you've referenced quite a few times, and had already decided that action on our parts wasn't necessary.

[wich2]

>I believe we should show respect to others until they demonstrate they don't deserve it. That includes their opinions.<

Hear, hear, Bob. That last part seems to be a tripping point for some, when it comes to Interwebs behavior. I've seen this sorry habit at several sites:

A poster will wear a badge of honor, declaiming, "I would NEVER call another person an idiot!" But then that same poster will - with great ease! - write about another's post, "That idea is idiotic!", or, "People who think like that must be idiots."

Now, the defense of that kind of behavior that is pretzel-twisted logic, if ever there was such!

-Craig

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Eek. Having already admitted a distaste for GWTW (although, to be fair this thread has made me extract a promise to myself that I, once and for all, am going to sit down and watch the whole thing) I was just going to add that Chaplin does absolutely nothing for me.


--Peter

As is often the case, seeing "classic" films on a big screen with an appreciative audience often times makes all the difference.

Gable's sardonic humor doesn't really come through on the small screen. Without the humor (and its epic, grand "bigness"), at 4 hours, GWTW is a long slog.

Ditto Chaplin (also Keaton and, especially, Lloyd.) They sparkle with a crowd. Alone, they remain (for me) more of an academic exercise.

[Smari1989]

I'm not surprised that silent comedy, and thus also Chaplin, isn't to everybody's liking, and I can also understand how someone who likes Keaton in particular, but not much else of silent comedy, may not care for Chaplin (as they're so different in many ways). What still does surprise me, however, is when someone who really likes silent comedy in general doesn't care at all for Chaplin. All the hype and historical importance aside; to me it seems to be a given that anyone who cares at all for silent comedy, should find the mischievous-and-opportunistic-but-not-psychotic (as opposed to, say, Ford Sterling in the Keystones) Tramp of the Mutuals quite easy to laugh at. It's not just the well-known "iconic" gags (Dance of the rolls, etc), but also how he does a quick spontaneous move with his bowler and gives Eric Campbell a stern look in THE COUNT to signalize that the next dance with Edna belongs to him. To me, it's hysterical.

That said, of course it's perfectly all right that not everyone cares for Charlie (as long as most do ).

[Donald Binks]

I suppose what irks me, if I don't have a bit of a laugh about it, is when someone who has been to University and studied film and probably 'written a paper', will talk down from his or her lofty tower of academia to us mere plebs. It's a bit like reading some critiques of films which seem to be the writing of an essayist given over to flamboyant English expression rather than an inkling of what a film may be about.

I am not overly concerned with "oeuvres" (I had one once, but the wheel fell off it) - neither am I much interested in what the director was really trying to say - the film merely being a metaphor for some dark, strange political intrigue. What does concern me is whether the film entertains as I believe that is the primary reason anyone goes to the pictures - to be entertained.

Those in their ivory towers should recognise that the regular film-goer has had the chance over the years to accumulate some degree of knowledge of films - perhaps not constrained to the disciplines of formalised learning institutions, but nevertheless their opinions are just as valid.

(Donald Binks does not bring into question the reputation of those of academia who have majored in film studies per se - only those who are dismissive of the opinions of others whose opinions they consider inferior to their own. Donald Binks also wishes to state that the above is only his opinion and should not be considered a definitive statement of fact.)

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

I'm OK if someone doesn't like Charlie Chaplin, Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane. If you are going to say so on a forum full of classic film fans and historians, you better expect some pointed responses.

Eek. Having already admitted a distaste for GWTW (although, to be fair this thread has made me extract a promise to myself that I, once and for all, am going to sit down and watch the whole thing) I was just going to add that Chaplin does absolutely nothing for me.

I watch his films, I laugh, but they leave me absolutely cold (and not just The Gold Rush). It's one of those inexplicable things. To throw further fuel on the fire, Night of the Hunter leaves me absolutely mystified. I know I should like it, I watch it every time it's on, but it completely eludes me.

Citizen Kane is a masterpiece though, so there you have it.

--Peter

I played NIGHT OF THE HUNTER for my late partner Deirdre some years back and recalling her not liking it much, but like many films, it depends on the circumstances as I have seen it twice in the days of 16mm and 35mm rep showings. In addition if someone you are with isn't enjoying the show, that can spread to one's own reaction. With some films, if you don't 'get it' after two or three goes, it may be best to throw in the towel...

Certainly if you don't care for GWTW or KANE, it's a good idea to have a reasoned argument on the matter, although to repeat, it depends on circumstances. One friend who didn't care overmuch for KANE then admitted he had only watched it on TV, so his take was bound to be different to mine...

[BrianG]

I'm just some old guy in his mid-70s, who's out of my league on this site. Far be it from me to criticize anyone’s taste in film. I think the 1933 King Kong was the greatest film ever made, the last great Hollywood film was On The Beach (1959), and my favorite silent film is the 7 hour La Roue. That said, here are some of my least favorites.

CITIZEN KANE, and every other Orson Welles film. I must have dvr’d Kane from TCM countless times over the last 20-30 years thinking it must be me. Nah, not me, it’s Welles. I also don’t like any of his other films, I just find Welles too pompous and annoying. The same can be said for his “mimi-me”/”wanna-be” Leo DiCaprio. After watching one of Leo’s films (not Titanic) I was thankful that I was working 2 jobs when Titanic came out, My wife and daughter went without me, so even as a Titanic fan, I was able to avoid it.

As for silent “masterpieces” I don’t care for:

Modern Scores: There are so many bootleg films with scores I love, that I hoped to one day upgrade to DVD or Blu-ray. However, I’d sooner watch a darker, unrestored film with a score I like than upgrade to one with a better picture. The General is one example. While Davis and Israel are favorites of mine on other films, I prefer the Mont Alto score. I bought the Blu-ray for the extras, but usually watch the film with Mont Alto. While I love Brand’s score of House of Mystery, I hated his Piccadilly score and never upgraded my old bootleg.

Pandora’s Box: I have the 2006 Criterion box. I watch it every 5 to 10 years, because I can’t remember why I don’t like it. I rewatched it last year and finally jotted down some notes. While I liked the picture quality, Brooks and the score, apparently I found the film tedious with no likable characters. I much prefer Diary of a Lost Girl.

Mary Pickford: . Other than Little Annie Rooney, I’m not really a fan. I have a couple of Image DVDs, which I haven’t watched in years. I don’t know if the new score on Annie Rooney is the same I saw on TCM a couple years ago. If it is, I may upgrade.

D.W. Griffith: As I remember, Orphans of the Storm was favorite. If it gets upgraded to Blu, with a good score, I may consider it. I found the MoC blu-ray of Intolerance recently at a good price and bought it on a whim, although my old notes said, “fell asleep, need to rewatch”. Picture quality and sets are impressive, and I love Constance Talmadge, but the point of the whole picture was lost on me. There’s too much bouncing around. I counted at least 50 switches between the 4 stories, and that didn’t include those in-between with Mary rocking the cradle.

[wich2]

Intolerance ... Mary rocking the cradle.

Lillian.

And pretty big difference, actually.

- Craig