SILENT FILMS OR TALKIES????

salus · Post by **salus** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:16 pm

Can you give your opinion whether the film world should have stayed silent or is talkies for the better. Lillian Gish said that with silent films we were creating a new art form, True or not? Was there a limit how far this art form could go to tell complicated stories? I believe the most interesting comment was that when they went to talkies in English they lost 95% of their worldwide audience since they didnt understand English, very interesting, your comments

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:12 pm

Talkies had to come sometime. Not everything can be translated into visual terms. To take one obvious example, Shakespeare. I've seen silent versions of his plays and some were quite successful but you really need people speaking the lines to get the spirit of the play. There are times when dialogue is important- Lubitsch made a surprisingly fine film of "Lady Windermere's Fan" without using any of Wilde's lines onscreen- I love the movie BUT it does violence to Wilde's play.

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:02 pm

The sadness I feel over the end of the silent era is that the public could never/will never accept or comprehend that the two could have co-existed. Silent and sound films both have their artistic strong and weak points that is overlooked by popular opinion in the way that B&W vs. Color has been, and which soon Flat vs. 'Scope will be.

myrnaloyisdope · Post by **myrnaloyisdope** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:43 am

I believe King Vidor said something along the lines of "with another 10 years of silent filmmaking, it would have reached perfection". It's a fascinating possibility that another 10 years of silents and film would quite possibly look completely different today. Who knows what discoveries were never made?

That being said, talkies had to arrive sometime. I think the only real drawback to the arrival of sound was the rapid dismissal of silent filmmaking as a beautiful artform (made particularly sad by the astonishing quality of many late-era silents). This ensured that many silents were forgotten, lost, or relegated to a sort of antique/freakshow kind of status, which lingers even to this day.

moviepas · Post by **moviepas** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:12 am

Don't forget Talkies have been with us since the start of film. Producers were always trying to get a decent format and finally did like Beta vs VHS we had to have two, Laserdisc types we had two, High Quality discs had HD & Blu Ray and there was only one winner in each case and not always the best. Color the same, always experimented with until modern times then we got stuck with Eastmancolor, the great fader of all time. We even had a talking around 1900 in Australia and I have surviving remnants of this film made in the wilds of the country. Cylinders were used for the on the spot sound. The film survived by chance.

In respect of English killing the market for films around the world bears little merit. US producers got the world to the loss of many local films not produced. People tell me that the lack of dialog and more action in US films is much better than European films that tended to too much dialog and little action. British people who lived there during the war preferred US films because of their bright stories and settings against the drab films they were offered from their own studios. It was sound films that lost the advancements of the German silents in the 1920s because they could not sell their sound films very far & wide until subtitling & later dubbing(much of it poor). English may not be the biggest First Language anymore but many millions have English as a second language in one form or another.

Brooksie · Post by **Brooksie** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:52 am

The most perceptive comment on this topic comes from Mary Pickford, who said that silent film should, by rights, have evolved from sound and not the other way around.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but what she was saying is : silent films represent film art at its most rarefied, elemental and universal; absolutely a separate art form from the sound film.

I don't always agree with Mary but I'd heartily second her on that one. It's a quote I always use when confronted with friends who believe the silents were nothing but sound films with no sound, if you see what I'm saying.

Plenty of people at the time seemed to implicitly recognise this - they simply assumed that silents would continue to evolve alongside talkies, rather than being completely extinguished by them.

mmandarano · Post by **mmandarano** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:25 am

It would have been a beautiful thing had silents been able to co-exist with the creation of sound. At the heart of filmmaking is the essence that the art itself is that of the moving PICTURE. First and foremost, I feel it is a visual medium and that elements of silent film ascribed to that medium more directly than you are able to with sound. As a cinematographer, I might be a little biased, but the camera itself has to be more grounded and less free with sound production. You always have to be aware of the sound crew and the boom pole and a great shot can be ruined if the sound is no good (because let's be honest, ADR is a bitch). What's the most surprising to me is how quickly silent film was phased out when sound arrived. By the time Chaplin did "City Lights" in 1931, it was a marvel that someone was still making a silent film - just 4 years after sound arrived on the scene!!! Also, look at the early sound films up until about 1934-35 - it was such an experimental phase that many of them are god awful because of the terrible sound quality and the acting that is stunted by the presence of the microphone. Then look two years earlier to such films as "Sunrise", "The Wedding March" and "Wings" and see how much more advanced and visually beautiful they are. Sound had to come eventually, some stories can't be told well without it, but I definitely fill that silents had more left to offer and were cut out of production way too early.

Harold Aherne · Post by **Harold Aherne** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:41 am

Brooksie wrote:It sounds counter-intuitive, but what she was saying is : silent films represent film art at its most rarefied, elemental and universal; absolutely a separate art form from the sound film.

I think it's a bad idea to say that silent film is a separate art form; to me it's just a different variation of the same art. Arguing that silent film is *that* separate needlessly cordons it off from the rest of film history and ruptures the very real continuities it has with later film techniques. In terms of visual technique, acting style, set design, cinematography and direction, the average film from 1935 still has much, much more in common with a film from '25 than one from '95.

Sculpting marble and sculpting bronze require different aesthetic considerations and techniques, yet few people seem to be believe that Donatello's later David and the Pietà are "different art forms".

-Harold

salus · Post by **salus** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:16 pm

I hate to disagree with you cultural folks but back then people went to the movies for entertainment and free dishes period. The art form crowd didnt start appearing until the 1960s when the baby boom generation (spoiled) went to college and were looking for ways to avoid a life of hard work in mines, factories etc etc etc and became college professors promoting BS courses on films. Even though i like this stuff its just make believe except for the big money it makes. Thats why the country is in the mess we are in we traded in millions of manufacturing jobs making products and today we now have college degreed folks telling us how dangerous this or that product is and their buddies making a fortune sueing everyone for huge damages, destroying manufacturing and sending health care costs thru the roof. Just look at the mines every accident first thing sue, hell this country wouldnt be anything today if the legal field was like this years ago, lots of people were killed building dams, roads thru the mountains across America and other dangerous occupations, risk is a part of an advanced society.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:45 pm

Just addressing your first statement- there most definitely WAS an Art Film community during the Silent Era. There were many artistic and experimental short films made, and even some features. Do you really think that the producers of Nazomova's SALOME and Dreyers JEANNE D'ARC expecxted to make much of a profit- if any? The art aspect did not go unnoticed- a reviewer of JEANNE D'Arc wrote "You'll want to tear every image off the screen as they appear and frame them on the wall"- but he went on to say that in his opinion the film was a pictorial success but would be a commercial failure.

As to the rest of your opinions, please keep away from that sort of thing. This isn't a general chat forum and we try to keep arguments to a minimum.

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:59 pm

For a perfect demonstration of that point, look at the first Academy Awards, where there were separate and equal awards for, basically, best commercial film and best art film. And both mattered at least equally to the studios-- albeit, Louis B. Mayer pushed for Sunrise to win because he didn't want to encourage any more The Crowds at his own studio. (A Germanic love story was his idea of art, not drab depressing realism.)

The art films have always had influence on commercial cinema. Caligari's look and Potemkin's editing traveled quickly from film societies to studio productions. Slavko Vorkapich made a career out of adding a little experimental film cachet to mainstream films.

Though as somebody said, "In the movies, more great art has been made by people who were out to make entertainment than by people who were out to make art."

azjazzman · Post by **azjazzman** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 3:22 pm

Jack Theakston wrote:The sadness I feel over the end of the silent era is that the public could never/will never accept or comprehend that the two could have co-existed. Silent and sound films both have their artistic strong and weak points that is overlooked by popular opinion in the way that B&W vs. Color has been, and which soon Flat vs. 'Scope will be.

Yes, that is a great point. What is sad is not that talking pictures supplanted silents as a popular entertainment, it's that they obliterated a mature art form. It would be great if we could turn back the clock and convince the moguls to go ahead and crank out their talkies with Jolson, Cagney, etc, but also continue to make selected silents with Keaton, Garbo, John Gilbert, etc. Stars who seem made for the silent screen.

No chance of that, however. The moguls weren't that visionary, and the public likely wouldn't have stood for it. They understandably were clamoring to hear Keaton, Garbo etc talk, without stopping to consider that by doing so, they were losing something unique and valuable.

azjazzman · Post by **azjazzman** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 3:46 pm

Jack Theakston wrote:The sadness I feel over the end of the silent era is that the public could never/will never accept or comprehend that the two could have co-existed. Silent and sound films both have their artistic strong and weak points that is overlooked by popular opinion in the way that B&W vs. Color has been, and which soon Flat vs. 'Scope will be.

Last night, as I was checking out the terrific new DVD of "Chicago", I was thinking...we always hear about how 1939 was Hollywood's peak year. We now even have a Photoplay documentary that immortalizes that.

But, how about 1928? Think of the films that appeared on the nation's screens at various times throughout that year: DOCKS OF NEW YORK, THE CROWD, THE WIND, THE LAST COMMAND, THE CIRCUS, SPEEDY, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, THE CIRCUS, THE WEDDING MARCH, THE CAMERAMAN, SHOW PEOPLE, THE PATSY, SPIES, FOUR SONS, NOAH'S ARK, FOUR SONS, WHITE SHADOWS IN THE SOUTH SEAS, HANGMAN'S HOUSE, LONESOME, A GIRL IN EVERY PORT, OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS, BEGGARS OF LIFE, THE TRAIL OF '98, LILAC TIME, THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES, and A SHIP COMES IN, etc. Amazing.

And in less than a year, it was all over. This stream of unique and artistically advanced films was not just slowed, it was turned off like a light switch.

Throw in 1926-27, and you have, in my mind, the greatest 36 month period in the history of the movies,

salus · Post by **salus** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 3:51 pm

In my opinion the spectacle of putting together the great sets of "Birth of a Nation" will never be seen again , just looking at the grandeur of tyhe industry in 1915 will never be seen again!

salus · Post by **salus** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:01 pm

Why are their not filimmakers making silent films today if they were great art? At least for art since money is no regard for the artsy crowd , yeah right!!!

Penfold · Post by **Penfold** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:37 pm

azjazzman wrote:
Jack Theakston wrote:The sadness I feel over the end of the silent era is that the public could never/will never accept or comprehend that the two could have co-existed. Silent and sound films both have their artistic strong and weak points that is overlooked by popular opinion in the way that B&W vs. Color has been, and which soon Flat vs. 'Scope will be.
Last night, as I was checking out the terrific new DVD of "Chicago", I was thinking...we always hear about how 1939 was Hollywood's peak year. We now even have a Photoplay documentary that immortalizes that.

But, how about 1928? Think of the films that appeared on the nation's screens at various times throughout that year: DOCKS OF NEW YORK, THE CROWD, THE WIND, THE LAST COMMAND, THE CIRCUS, SPEEDY, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, THE CIRCUS, THE WEDDING MARCH, THE CAMERAMAN, SHOW PEOPLE, THE PATSY, SPIES, FOUR SONS, NOAH'S ARK, FOUR SONS, WHITE SHADOWS IN THE SOUTH SEAS, HANGMAN'S HOUSE, LONESOME, A GIRL IN EVERY PORT, OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS, BEGGARS OF LIFE, THE TRAIL OF '98, LILAC TIME, THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES, and A SHIP COMES IN, etc. Amazing.

Also; Dreyer's Joan of Arc, Steamboat Bill Jr., The Italian Straw Hat, The Constant Nymph, Dom Na Trubnoy, and Asquith's Underground.

I'm convinced........

Kevin2 · Post by **Kevin2** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:50 pm

salus wrote:Why are their not filimmakers making silent films today if they were great art? At least for art since money is no regard for the artsy crowd , yeah right!!!

Check out the films directed by Guy Maddin, particularly Dracula: Page's From a Virgin's Diary (2002) and Brand Upon the Brain (2006). Both art films and both silent. No idea on box-office.

Chuck W · Post by **Chuck W** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:29 pm

Kevin2 wrote:
salus wrote:Why are their not filimmakers making silent films today if they were great art? At least for art since money is no regard for the artsy crowd , yeah right!!!
Check out the films directed by Guy Maddin, particularly Dracula: Page's From a Virgin's Diary (2002) and Brand Upon the Brain (2006). Both art films and both silent. No idea on box-office.

Don't forget Milford Thomas' Claire, which holds the distinction of being the only non-vintage film screened at the San Francisco Silent Film Festival. I would also recommend Lumiere and Company as an acceptable rejoinder this (relatively flimsy) argument. And, yes, both would be classified as "art films," as would anything by Guy Maddin.

Frankly, I am a little flabbergasted by this assumption that notions of artistry -- let alone an art film community -- did not exist in the silent era. Even a cursory or rudimentary knowledge of film history would prove otherwise.

azjazzman · Post by **azjazzman** » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:39 pm

Penfold wrote:
azjazzman wrote:
Jack Theakston wrote:The sadness I feel over the end of the silent era is that the public could never/will never accept or comprehend that the two could have co-existed. Silent and sound films both have their artistic strong and weak points that is overlooked by popular opinion in the way that B&W vs. Color has been, and which soon Flat vs. 'Scope will be.
Last night, as I was checking out the terrific new DVD of "Chicago", I was thinking...we always hear about how 1939 was Hollywood's peak year. We now even have a Photoplay documentary that immortalizes that.

But, how about 1928? Think of the films that appeared on the nation's screens at various times throughout that year: DOCKS OF NEW YORK, THE CROWD, THE WIND, THE LAST COMMAND, THE CIRCUS, SPEEDY, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, THE CIRCUS, THE WEDDING MARCH, THE CAMERAMAN, SHOW PEOPLE, THE PATSY, SPIES, FOUR SONS, NOAH'S ARK, FOUR SONS, WHITE SHADOWS IN THE SOUTH SEAS, HANGMAN'S HOUSE, LONESOME, A GIRL IN EVERY PORT, OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS, BEGGARS OF LIFE, THE TRAIL OF '98, LILAC TIME, THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES, and A SHIP COMES IN, etc. Amazing.
Also; Dreyer's Joan of Arc, Steamboat Bill Jr., The Italian Straw Hat, The Constant Nymph, Dom Na Trubnoy, and Asquith's Underground.

I'm convinced........

Oops, I mentioned FOUR SONS twice. But, I think the point still holds

Penfold · Post by **Penfold** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:36 am

Kevin2 wrote:
salus wrote:Why are their not filimmakers making silent films today if they were great art? At least for art since money is no regard for the artsy crowd , yeah right!!!
Check out the films directed by Guy Maddin, particularly Dracula: Page's From a Virgin's Diary (2002) and Brand Upon the Brain (2006). Both art films and both silent. No idea on box-office.

And there was Aki Kaurismakii's 1999 feature Juha;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juha_%28film%29

greta de groat · Post by **greta de groat** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:58 am

Has anyone mentioned The Call of Cthulhu? Also the SF Silent Film Festival also played a modern silent short film. Unfortunately i can't remember the title or filmmaker, though i think the title was a play on a Latin phrase. It was a charmingly eccentric and surreal film involving, if i remember correctly, little girls and a guy in a skeleton suit.

greta

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:13 am

I have a book of essays written in like 1929. The essays come from a meeting of industry types and the subject was basically silent vs sound films.

It seems that the consensus at the time was that the two forms would coexist. Sound was seen as a boon to the new craze for musicals (and musical numbers) as well as for sound effects in comedy and drama films. Few saw that real talkies would replace drama films since no one would want to sit and listen to endless dialog.

Sound was apparently seen as an extra in a film, like color sequences. Few if any of the major film performers of the silent screen welcomed talkies. But after a year or 2 of goat gland and part-talkie films, audiences made clear their preference for 100% talking pictures.

The popularity of radio was probably a key ingredient in the craze for sound films. Time ... marches on.

mmandarano · Post by **mmandarano** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:17 am

The 1952 Russell Rouse film "The Thief" has no dialogue and is essentially a silent film as well.

Kevin2 · Post by **Kevin2** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:30 pm

Chuck W wrote:
Kevin2 wrote:
salus wrote:Why are their not filimmakers making silent films today if they were great art? At least for art since money is no regard for the artsy crowd , yeah right!!!
Check out the films directed by Guy Maddin, particularly Dracula: Page's From a Virgin's Diary (2002) and Brand Upon the Brain (2006). Both art films and both silent. No idea on box-office.
Don't forget Milford Thomas' Claire, which holds the distinction of being the only non-vintage film screened at the San Francisco Silent Film Festival. I would also recommend Lumiere and Company as an acceptable rejoinder this (relatively flimsy) argument. And, yes, both would be classified as "art films," as would anything by Guy Maddin.

Frankly, I am a little flabbergasted by this assumption that notions of artistry -- let alone an art film community -- did not exist in the silent era. Even a cursory or rudimentary knowledge of film history would prove otherwise.

I didn't mean to imply that Maddin was the only modern filmmaker who has made silent "art" films. These were two that I know are easily available on DVD (Brand from Criterion) to show salus that some silent "art" films are still being made. Along with some of the others mentioned, I also remember PBS airing Charles Lane's Chaplinesque Sidewalk Stories (1989). And, of course the recent WALL-E is silent during the first half. And I've read about, but never seen, Peter Sellars' The Cabinet of Dr. Ramirez (1991).

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:33 pm

and don't forget that Alfred Hitchcock and Ken Russell nearly always included a "silent" element in their films.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:30 pm

mmandarano wrote:What's the most surprising to me is how quickly silent film was phased out when sound arrived. By the time Chaplin did "City Lights" in 1931, it was a marvel that someone was still making a silent film - just 4 years after sound arrived on the scene!!!

It was even more of a marvel when he made another one in 1936. (Yeah yeah, I know he uses sound and bits of dialogue as an integral part of the film, but it's still BASICALLY a silent film, for all practical purposes.)

Chuck W · Post by **Chuck W** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:33 pm

Kevin2 wrote:
Chuck W wrote:
Kevin2 wrote: Check out the films directed by Guy Maddin, particularly Dracula: Page's From a Virgin's Diary (2002) and Brand Upon the Brain (2006). Both art films and both silent. No idea on box-office.
Don't forget Milford Thomas' Claire, which holds the distinction of being the only non-vintage film screened at the San Francisco Silent Film Festival. I would also recommend Lumiere and Company as an acceptable rejoinder this (relatively flimsy) argument. And, yes, both would be classified as "art films," as would anything by Guy Maddin.

Frankly, I am a little flabbergasted by this assumption that notions of artistry -- let alone an art film community -- did not exist in the silent era. Even a cursory or rudimentary knowledge of film history would prove otherwise.
I didn't mean to imply that Maddin was the only modern filmmaker who has made silent "art" films. These were two that I know are easily available on DVD (Brand from Criterion) to show salus that some silent "art" films are still being made. Along with some of the others mentioned, I also remember PBS airing Charles Lane's Chaplinesque Sidewalk Stories (1989). And, of course the recent WALL-E is silent during the first half. And I've read about, but never seen, Peter Sellars' The Cabinet of Dr. Ramirez (1991).

Oh, no! I wasn't inferring anything like that; I just wanted to add some more titles to your list in order to derail the above-mentioned argument.

But, yes, there are plenty of contemporary silent films worth checking out.

myrnaloyisdope · Post by **myrnaloyisdope** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:15 pm

I'll add Takeshi Kitano's A Scene At The Sea as a silent-esque film of the modern era. The film has minimal dialogue thanks to the 2 main characters being deaf-mute surfers. It's a lovely film to boot.

George O'Brien · Post by **George O'Brien** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:59 pm

It has long puzzled me that black and white films and color films could coexist for decades , but that the studios quickly abandoned sound in the roughly 2 years and two months between "The Jazz Singer"(1927) and MGM's last silent ,"The Kiss"(1929).

Yes, color was much more expensive, but it still doesn't explain why the public would accept black and white when color was available, but not silent films when talkies became available.

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:57 pm

The time it took to make prints and the quality of the prints are probably the answer. For Technicolor, their first process of cementing two strips was laborious, and the end result was unsatisfactory. When they started doing dye-transfer, it was still far slower than normal black and white printing (and yeah, cost way more).

For the other color processes on the market, which were almost all bipack color processes, toning each side of the duplitized film was also a slow and laborious process until Cinecolor developed toning float tanks that could handle large runs. Kinemacolor clones, short as they lasted, needed special projection equipment, needed to be run double speed, etc.

SILENT FILMS OR TALKIES????

SILENT FILMS OR TALKIES????

Silent films vs Talkies