MovieChat Forums > Silent > An appreciation of Silent films

An appreciation of Silent films


I don't understand why there is not more love for Silent cinema today. Granted it's quite an adjustment watching Silents if you have only seen sound films. That having been said though the visuals in Silent films are even more spectacular than many special effects used today, they cause more awe when you consider how these effects were created(no computers, no CGI.)

Images and editing were played around with spectacularly check out The Man With A Movie Camera for examples of this. All this was created by hand, quite an achievement and it looks absolutely incredible.


My first Silent film was Metropolis. I have to confess it was hard for me to get into at first. I thought I couldn't handle watching this type of film mostly due to the fact that I was so used to hearing actors speak. Then I became amazed by the visuals and got caught up in the story. I wasn't quite sure how to comprehend what I had seen but I knew I wanted to see more films like this.

My next Silent was Nosferatu and that was when I became a fan of this medium.

Why some people today say Silents are rubbish or they can't understand why anyone would want to watch them is beyond me. Do they really fail to realise that without these early films and the skills used to create them, that we most likely wouldn't have film today?

Also think of it like this, if you had lived then Silent film is all you would have known so it wouldn't seem strange to be watching it. If sound had never been invented for film then more generations would have been raised on Silent cinema. I'd say it's only really the advent of sound in films that has put some people off these films.

Maybe in 100 years from today future generations will dislike our current form of film and if we could travel forward in time we may well hate their films(if film will even exist in the future.)

Some of us do love and appreciate these films, their stars, directors and technicians. Long may our love for these films continue and hopefully more people will check out Silent cinema and the gems it has to offer.


So feel free to share your first experiences of Silent films, any titles you would recommend to new viewers and leave your opinion on Silent films.

It is my business to protect your majesty.... against all things.

reply

Well, Maddyclassicfilms, you're definitely in the right place for silent film appreciation!

My first silent film was The Ace of Hearts (1921), starring Lon Chaney, Leatrice Joy and John Bowers. It's not one of the more celebrated silents but it is very good in its own right. At first I, too, had a hard time with the fact that I was seeing the actor's lips moving but I couldn't understand what they were saying. In spite of that I enjoyed the film and I found the visuals very interesting. I also saw Metropolis and was awestruck by it. Since then, I've seen about 50 silents altogether, and I have a list with some comments here:

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059493211/

Many people don't really have much regard for any entertainment or art from before their generation. This is true of music, literature, TV shows, etc. and it causes them to feel that silent movies in particular are corny and obsolete. I have always liked older black and white movies, like from the 30s and 40s, but my perception of silent movies was shaped by similar feelings. Once I started to watch them, though, I saw how powerful they could be. The best silent films can be just as moving and riveting as any sound cinema.

As far as silents for new viewers, generally I would go with a comedy by Chaplin or Keaton. I know lots of people say the same thing, but I feel that silent comedies are generally the most accessible since most of the humor is purely visual, so that it can be easily understood without dialogue. Really, though, a lot of it depends on taste.


"Bangers and mash. Bubbles and squeak. Smoked eel pie! HAGGIS!!"

reply

There are lots of folk who think anything that came along before *they were 10 years old seems weird and can't be very good, or it's sooo old fashioned.
There's many folks who still avoid any Black and White films. "It hurts my eyes"

reply

I love silent films, but it is definitely an acquired taste which really needs some effort to get into and understand. My big moment was in 2006 when I saw the restored version of BEN HUR - A TALE OF THE CHRIST as an extra feature (!) on a 4 disc dvd edition of the 1959 version. That was quite the mind blowing experience.

Since then I have seen close to 200 silents (list here: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059133995/ ), and have really tried to learn about the era and as a consequence also about film theory.

I think your initial reaction is exactly what keeps most people from watching silents. We are used to stories with a clear narrative presented in a conventional way. Most of the actual plot information in a film comes to us by actors talking. So watching a silent film requires a different kind of attention. But when you get there, and you start paying more attention to the visual information, not just cinematography, but also mise-en-scene and montage, the silent era offers an incredible amount of pure movie magic.



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

reply

Well, Maddyclassicfilms, you're definitely in the right place for silent film appreciation!

My first silent film was The Ace of Hearts (1921), starring Lon Chaney, Leatrice Joy and John Bowers. It's not one of the more celebrated silents but it is very good in its own right.

I am indeed. I loved The Ace Of HeartsI have to say I have yet to see a Chaney film that I haven't liked.


As far as silents for new viewers, generally I would go with a comedy by Chaplin or Keaton. I know lots of people say the same thing, but I feel that silent comedies are generally the most accessible since most of the humor is purely visual, so that it can be easily understood without dialogue. Really, though, a lot of it depends on taste.

I completely agree. Physical comedy never loses it's power to entertain and be funny.





It is my business to protect your majesty.... against all things.

reply

This film may be a bit depressing, but The Last Laugh (1924) is a marvel. Only 1 title card in the whole film! Just one! The rest is told all visually. To me, it's the pinnacle of silent filmmaking. The story in itself is quite simple - the downfall of a proud hotel doorman after he is demoted - but the way that it's told shows such creativity and visual flair that it's astonishing. The camera work, the sets, the lighting, and especially the acting - all amazing. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out.

"Bangers and mash. Bubbles and squeak. Smoked eel pie! HAGGIS!!"

reply

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll have a look for it.



It is my business to protect your majesty.... against all things.

reply

It's well worth a look:

“Take away a man’s uniform - what is left?”

Appearances can be deceptive. If you were to judge by appearances, The Last Laugh would seem to be one of Emil Jannings’ ever-popular exercises in onscreen humiliation (The Blue Angel, The Last Command) - and no one did humiliation like Jannings, the man with the most expressive back and shoulders in cinema. A huge worldwide star in the silent era and the first Best Actor Oscar winner, his career and reputation subsequently marred by the Nazi films he made during the war, the film has survived its star’s disgrace to become one of the enduring greats. Its story may be simple, but the execution is absolutely extraordinary, the film still seeming extraordinarily fresh and modern even today – a film with an energy and a beating heart that makes for an invigorating piece of pure cinema.

Adapted from Nikolai Gogol’s The Coat and a Broadway adaptation by Charles W. Goddard (the film’s title actually translates from German as The Last Man, as in The Bible’s ‘the last shall be first’), it taps into both the Germans’ love of uniforms and the universal tendency to judge others by their appearance. Jannings plays the much-respected chief porter of the prestigious Hotel Atlantic. He may live in a neighbourhood not many steps above a slum, but as long as he has his grandiose military-style porter’s uniform, he has the respect of everyone in his neighbourhood. It is the uniform, not money, that is the source of his power and authority, but when he is demoted after a humiliatingly pathetic display of physical strength shows his age, he is stripped of the overcoat like a disgraced officer being cashiered before the entire regiment and sent to work as a lavatory attendant instead, the lowliest position in the entire hotel. At first he attempts to hide his dishonour, but once his secret is out his neighbours’ attitudes change almost immediately from love and admiration to contempt as he becomes a joke in their eyes. The only compassion he receives is from the night watchman in a moving drunken scene that you suspect everyone but Jannings wanted for the finale.

Yet far from this being a case of just deserts, Jannings’ protagonist is a decent man for all his surface pomposity. All he has is the respect his position bestows on him, and once that is gone it is genuinely tragic to see this huge man shrink into himself. It’s that human aspect that ultimately is the film’s greatest achievement: it’s as emotional and moving as it is technically innovative. And the film is incredibly innovative.

An attempt to make a silent film with no captions, the film tells its story with images and body language, with only a shot of a letter and a very reluctant onscreen excuse for the unbelievable epilogue imposed on him by his star breaking the flow of images (Murnau passed on the opportunity to direct The Blue Angel, fearing that Jannings would once again demand a happy ending: Jannings even suggested his Last Laugh co-star Molly Delschart for the Dietrich role!). Boasting the top talent in German cinema of the day (a screenplay by The Cabinet of Dr Caligari’s Carl Mayer, produced by Eric Pohmer, magnificent production design by future cult director Edgar G. Ulmer), a huge 1.6m DM budget that allowed magnificent sets of the grand hotel and the beautifully rendered slum, and a lavish 180-day shooting schedule that allowed director F.W. Murnau a level of perfectionism rare even now let alone in 1924, the film is the best and most groundbreaking example of what became known as the ‘unchained camera’ technique. And the camerawork is very much a star of the film. Few directors, sound or silent, understood the language of the camera as well as Murnau: Scorsese’s been openly stealing from him for decades. You could even make a case that all modern cinema flows from this source, with many of the techniques we take for granted today being tried out here. The camera is rarely still in many of the major sequences, the hotel lobby filled with crane and dolly shots (the later reputedly invented for the film), Karl Freund’s striking camerawork at times even assuming the perspective and failing eyesight of its tragic hero.

Thankfully the film has a very good UK DVD from Masters of Cinema, with a fine transfer keeping the excellent 1924 score by Giuseppe Becce, and an excellent documentary detailing the differences between the different versions (three were shot, one for Germany, the others for export overseas, with many subsequent re-edits happening to both), how the forced perspective sets were designed via production sketches and blueprints and even breakdowns on individual shots. The DVD even tells you what film stock and cameras were used! Very highly recommended.




"Security - release the badgers."

reply

Great write up as usual Trevor. 

It is my business to protect your majesty.... against all things.

reply