They are just so boring.

Which silent films have you tried so far?

(btw. Watching a film on a computer is never a good idea, especially with film so dependent on visual information as silent film.)



Icheckmovies http://www.icheckmovies.com/profile/rick220/

Battleship Potemkin but I saw that in a theater, and Metropolis and Love.

I don't know any silent film called LOVE, but these other two are obviously famous entries in the silent era. And despite all the acclaim these are in fact not the most accesible films to get into silent cinema.

POTEMKIN is a classic example of the Soviet Montage style, and yes it does have the infamous Odessa steps scene. On the other hand, typical for the Russian (socialist) approach of the time, the film does not have a protagonist, one lead character to relate to.

METROPOLIS has become one of my favorite silent films. Its designs, sets and cinematography are absolutely ground breaking, and it has a number of truly spectacular sequences. But again, I can see why you would have issues with it. Lang is not a filmmaker known for brevity, pace and nuance. It is a long film, and it does have a few long winded scenes that might be challenging.

So, maybe you want to try some other films and give it another go. I'd suggest having a look at films like Buster Keaton's THE GENERAL, Murnau's SUNRISE, John Ford's THE IRON HORSE, Niblo's BEN HUR, Von Sternberg's DOCKS OF NEW YORK, and anything with Douglas Fairbanks in it, like ROBIN HOOD or THE THIEF OF BAGDAD.

Oh, and try and see them on as big a screen as possible :)


Icheckmovies http://www.icheckmovies.com/profile/rick220/

Thanks! I was thinking of watching Queen Kelly, its story intrigues me.

Interesting choice, but realize it is an unfinished film, never completed to either director Von Stroheim or Gloria Swanson's satisfaction. Because of the 'mythical' status attached to it - a scene was included in SUNSET BLVD. - your expectations might not be met.


Icheckmovies http://www.icheckmovies.com/profile/rick220/

That is true but it's still interesting because of the story behind it.

Usually, when you watch a silent film, it helps to watch with an uncritical eye, and to understand that they were made at the beginning of the art. There was much to learn about the infant art. You must put them in an historical context and watch them for more than pure entertainment.

Put yourself in the shoes of those early audiences. They were mesmerized. No matter how boring you find them they were always excited and enthralled. Try being that audience.

I do understand the psychology of the modern viewer. Modern films have so much going on in them they really hold the attention. And if you lok away there is dialog and sound effects that keep you glued. Silent films require a greater concentration and you can never look away or go for a snack-you will lose the flow.

I agree with comments others have already made, but I'd like to add a few things.

One, you might want to try watching several shorts instead of one feature film. A 5- or 10-minute short isn't long enough to be boring! They're typically comedies, and slapstick at that, but can be a good way to start enjoying silents.

Two, focus on a genre you're more inclined to like; for me, it's definitely comedies, but not the slapstick kind. I love Buster Keaton, Marion Davies, Charlie Chaplin, and others in comedies from that era. For you it might be dramas, or historical dramas, or fantasies, etc., but whatever it is, perhaps focus on one genre and see how that goes.

And, as others have said, don't watch on a computer! 


--

Holiday gift idea:
Playing cards featuring nature photography.
Great stocking stuffers!
http://www.zazzle.com/californiadreams/gifts?cg=196579146664103480