How to Introduce People to the Wonderful World of Silent Film? (1 Viewer)

[Mark Zimmer]

On the "once a year" NBA finals argument, if it was Safety Last that was playing on TCM that you were trying to watch, then the silent film wins. Lloyd was last played on television in 1995, so it's been a long dry spell--seven years--if you wanted to see Harold Lloyd. His films aren't available on video except from bootleggers. The Lloyd estate insists that DVDs are coming, but if you pay close attention to the Harold Lloyd website, it's evident that they don't even have anyone lined up to author, compress, manufacture or distribute them---it could be years before they show up.

In any event, I've found that Buster Keaton (especially Sherlock Jr and The General) have survived best in the modern era. Classic horror like Nosferatu and Phantom are generally greeted with peals of laughter so don't bother going there.

 

[Chris Lock]

I don't see a problem. If people aren't into that kind of film, what's wrong with that? This makes it sound like people are supposed to like certain things regardless of their taste.

 

[Aaron D]

Chris, I think the gist of this thread is that most people don't know the value of the silent film because they would never choose to see it without some prompting (the bit about forcing everyone to watch before the "feature" is great!). I, for one, like to show off my 5.1 as much as the next HT nerd, but I suppose I need to branch out!
I, for one, haven't seen ANY of the films listed in this thread, or any silent films for that matter, but this is the reason I hang out here at the HTF- to learn new things about my hobby (just a general comment, not directed at you Chris).
Thanks for starting this thread, Jason, you have succeeded in getting me, at least, to invest in some Buster Keaton and Kurosowa, etc. just to see what I'm missing. I guess I'm more open to the idea of B&W/silent after seeing The Man Who Wasn't There last night.
Anyway, I ramble.
A

 

[george kaplan]

I don't think it's true. No one who watches my dvd of the Gold Rush has any problem understanding it.

 

[DonMac]

DaveF wrote:

It was this past week's show (Ebert and Roeper). It was, I believe, a top-10 DVD list. Something to the effect of their favorite movies.
Ah, here it is. They did their "American Film Festival", favorite movies about America. The list is at the official website:
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/eber...per/today.html

I saw the show and would like to add the note that Ebert listed Buster Keaton's "The General" not as a Top-10 DVD film, but as one of his Top-10 of All-Time Films!
As to the original question on how to get someone interesting in silent films. My advice is first to point out that the films really aren't "silent" because there's a full-music score and frequently sound-effects as well -- they just lack spoken language.
And then I'd try to convince him/her to simply watch a classic Chaplin or Keaton comedy first. Also, if the person likes classic Warner Bros. cartoons (and who doesn't?), point out that these movies have a lot of the same type of physical humor (and were probably an inspiration for a lot of those cartoons!)
-

 

[Patrick McCart]

Here's some easy-to-like silents:
City Lights
Modern Times (although...it's kind of a hybrid)
Nosferatu
Sherlock Jr.
Safety Last
Battleship Potemkin
The Unknown
Winsor McCay and Felix The Cat cartoons
After "hazing":
Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ
The Gold Rush
Intolerance
The Big Parade
Wings
Metropolis
The rest of Chaplin/Lloyd/Keaton silents
The Unholy Three
More advanced:
Greed (4-hour cut)
Napoleon
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
Nanook of the North
The Birth of a Nation (skip if you think your friend will have a problem with it)
The Crowd
Sunrise
The Wind
He Who Gets Slapped
Mr. Wu (not a typical racial stereotype film!)
The Last Laugh
The Penalty
Also check out www.silentera.com for titles.
I'd start with City Lights, then Nosferatu, then Intolerance, then Greed (show the extended cut...it's brilliant), and finally Napoleon.
Also try to show some silent Chaplin/Keaton/Lloyd short films...many are extremely funny (The Circus is one of the funniest)

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

The problem here is not first and foremost what people like or "should like" - it's more about making them open the door and see what's inside. But, of course, a simple thing like paying attention is going to be hard enough to some.

Almost anything silent Buster Keaton should be quite easy to digest. I haven't got any of the Chaplin shorts, but I've got the box set of "The Gold Rush", "City Lights", "Modern Times" and "The Great Dictator". They're all either silent or have "silent characteristics". I recommend them all. Apart from that I guess I'm able to enjoy quite some silents that would still not be first choice for newbies. But I'd like to suggest Dziga Vertov's "Man With The Movie Camera". To me, that was a tremendous experience - which in fact had a lot to with the music/sound effects...

 

[Jefferson]

First of all, I love the silents, one of my favorites being Broken Blossoms from 1919, I believe.
But this negative attitude toward them was always thus.
In the 50's Cole Porter wrote:
"If Ava Gardner played Godiva, riding on a mare....
the public......wouldn't even care, unless she had
Glorious Technicolor
Breathtaking Cinemascope
and Stereophonic Sound".

 

[Brad Grenz]

There is a theater downtown here in my home town called the Elsinore (yep, a Hamlet reference). They have this thing where they show silent movies with live organ music. This is the way I saw my first silent movie and as far as I'm concerned, it's the best way to see them. I think it's easier to get someone to come with you to see some Charlie Chaplin, or if it's Halloween, Phantom of the Opera or Nosferatu at a theater with live music than it would be to get someone to sit through a DVD. Salem can't be the only place where this happens.

 

[Jason_Els]

Aaron, very glad to be of service.
I think the biggest difference between silents and talkies is how you view them. With silent film you have to watch the screen or you miss stuff. With sound films we process the sound and the visuals as a unit but lose something of the intensity of the visual process because of the sound. Ever try hard to see something when someone is talking to you? You ask them to be quiet a moment so you can concentrate. That concentration is inherent in silent film and silents are staged, scripted, directed, and acted with that kind of constant visual attention the overriding concern. Most good silent movies require very few intertitles because the story flows naturally out of the staging. It may seem cracked to you but Norma Desmond is right, "We had FACES!" and the visual cues and body language you see in silent films is usually too overblown for sound acting. Yet it seems right. It fits.
We also tend to see characters of the silent era as naifs, incapable of expressing themes relevant to modern life. This is sooo untrue. If anything the pre-Hayes silent era takes long, hard looks at themes forbidden for the 40 some-odd years studio censors reigned. We can see characters faced with the same challenges, with the same intelligence and concerns we have now. Times change but people don't (apologies to Carol Brady).
I don't have the same experience with silent film as many people on this forum do because of my geographical isolation from silent film sources. If I want to see something I usually have to buy it. But if you ask me what films of the silent era are truly films that are as fresh and wonderful as anything from the modern film era then I would list the following in complement and addition to Patrick's suggestions:
Greed - Irving Thalberg personally oversaw the destruction of this film. Eric von Stroheim (Max the butler in Sunset Boulevard) directed this masterpiece and was so enraged at Louis B. Mayer's treatment of his film that he slugged him. Please see this page for the whole twisted, fascinating story of how Greed has been resurrected to what must be a shadow of its original greatness but remains amazing in spite of it.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari- This was the film that started the avant-garde film movement and to which even Welles' Citizen Kane owes a large debt. Though the film is bookended by a tacked-on plot device it really doesn't matter. It fits. It is the great film of German Expressionism and also the first. Yet once you see it you begin to see just where abstract cinema comes from and its influence on every director since.
The Battleship Potemkin - Oh wow. Echos of this and Eisenstein's other great film, October, have reverberated throughout cinematic history since and have not abated one iota. It's the Russian version of the Boston Tea Party. It rocked the world and stands as one of the films that made history. Propaganda surely but a masterwork. Check out what Ebert has to say about it in his Great Films series.
The Passion of Joan of Arc - There has been nothing like this on film before or since. Ironically, all original prints having been lost to fire, the film was reassembled from alternative takes only to be lost to fire again. Dreyer, the director, and the handful of people who saw it mourned its loss. A bastardized version composed of discarded footage was circulated but it was nothing like Dreyer had intended. And so, like Greed, The Passion of Joan of Arc was consigned to history. And then something odd happened. In 1980, in a Norwegian mental institution, a completely intact copy of Dreyer's second cut was found. This version is likely identical to Dreyer's first cut as he routinely made multiple takes of the same scene. Now restored, we can finally see Joan as it hasn't been seen for 60 years. And what we see! What is likely the finest performance by an actress ever captured on film, the stark, intense method of Dreyer is draining and uplifting at the same time. The superlatives this single film generates are nothing short of remarkable. Once again read Ebert. See this one if nothing else. Get the Criterion version and crank the sound. Forget the popcorn, you won't be able to eat. This does something to your soul.
Hope you enjoy these Aaron!

 

[Tom Ryan]

One word: Chaplin. I've only seen one silent film (so far!), and it was Chaplin's City Lights. I can't say it was the best film I've ever seen it, but it was funny, I enjoyed it, and it had an incredibly poignant ending.

-Tom