Monday, December 13, 2010

The Lost Art of Silent Film

Modern-day moviegoers may think that watching a silent film would just be watching a movie with the mute button on, but the production and performance of silent film is somewhat of an art form. The first silent film was made in the late 19th century, but the silent film era truly reached its peak in the 20s and although the first “talkies” were released in 1927, production of silent films continued on into the 30s.

Silent films have a bad reputation as being purely slapstick comedies that can only be viewed on fast-forward. This is because silent films are rarely shown at their original speeds, which could vary even within one movie because many films were hand-cranked. And while we might be spoiled as a generation of 3-D, high definition, blue-ray, where the only other advancement possible is movie holograms dancing around our living rooms, silent films had very high visual quality (especially those produced in the 20s). And yet they gained the reputation of being virtually unwatchable for modern viewers. Aside from being played back at the wrong speeds, they also may have gained this reputation because the copies that are viewed today were made from damaged film stock. Many silent film lovers in the industry are trying to restore these classic films and transfer them to DVDs, but this process is not easy and some films are so damaged they are considered “lost.”

Special techniques were needed to act in silent films, such as emphasized body and facial expressions. Some actors coming from the stage tended to overemphasize their expressions even when they were not acting in comedies, but in romances. But actresses such as Greta Garbo perfected the art of naturalism and she therefore was able to continue her long career into the sound era.

For important lines that were essential to the movie’s plot, there were intertitles or title cards that displayed a line the character would say, had they been able to. Film-tinting was another technique used in the silent era. We view all pre-color movies as black and white, but colors were used to indicate time of day or moods. Blue for night, yellow for day, red for fire or anger, and green meant mystery.

And of course, what’s a movie without music? At this time, silent movie theaters had live music ranging from a piano, to an organ that could simulate horses galloping and thunder rolling, to entire orchestras! Even after all we’ve learned about what Fitzgerald dubbed the “Jazz Age,” during this time movies (not jazz clubs) were the single largest employment for musicians in America. And they were hit the hardest by the Great Depression because “talkies” were introduced around the same time, thus depriving them of their main income. And tragically many of these original scores are also damaged and lost.

Since many silent films are damaged and their scores are misplaced, reliving the silent film experience is difficult. But we can try. Just picture a huge auditorium like the one in the picture. A silent film of your choice is on the big screen and a lone yet powerful organ is being played in the corner of the stage.

Now try watching this clip of “City Lights,” a romantic comedy starring, written, and directed by Charlie Chaplin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpeiPbjDlDs

If sci-fi is more your taste, watch this clip from “Metropolis,” a 1927 thriller about capitalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q030WNZvXrA


But of course, if we’ve learned anything from Hannah’s post and comments, this is no replacement for the live experience, even the live experience of a silent movie. So while MOMA does have screenings of silent films periodically, this cannot be called the true silent film experience. And the true silent film experience may no longer exist.

For me what makes silent films so inherently “20s” is the emotions in these films are insinuated but not flat out said (because they can’t be). Yes, there were title cards that said some key lines, but when one girl with a bob looked into the eyes of that fellow with the bowler hat, no title card need say “I love you” because it was all in her eyes.

So too, what struck me most about the 20s wasn’t a mass youth culture experiencing sexual freedoms for the first time. It wasn’t so much about what they did (even though I’m sure there was a lot of doing) but what they hinted at, flirted with, or what a casual wink or glance suggested. They weren’t just free to act, but free to not act, and yet act like they could act… I hope I’m not getting too convoluted here. All of these freedoms, the ability to insinuate without needing to act upon it, seemed to me so essentially “20s.” So too in silent films, it was all about the glances, the gazes, the smiles and therefore the silences of these films said so much more than words ever could.

What do you think? Do you think the medium of silent films with its title cards, dyed film, and subtle insinuations really captured the Roaring 20s (even though they couldn’t roar)? Do you think we’ve lost an art form with the introduction of sound to movies or have we only gained? Do you think modern actors are capable of acting movies out completely visually? Are there any examples of movies you’ve seen that have lines that “hit the nail on the head” or say too much when they should be showing it?

24 comments:

  1. Kim i loved your post and it was very informative. I never knew that they used color to signify an emotion or whether it is night or day. Also your clips were great and i actually laughed while watching the Charlie Chaplin one even though truthfully it did creep me out. But honestly i believe that movies are much better now than they were. Now, with the ability to talk and have color, movies could deliver a much more powerful message than they did before. Also the cinematography greatly improved and you could have powerful scenes without the main character talking but just the camera moving which many movies today do. Films in the 1920's had the potential to become great and more powerful but they were limited in the technology to get them there whereas now a days there are no limitations or so we think so now...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah I didn't feel like I had enough space to explain each movie plot but let me sum it up a bit:
    The Charlie character is just a poor guy who a millionaire takes a liking to. He lets him wear his clothing, use his "toys" and a girl falls in love with the dressed up version of him. But somehow they lose touch and Charlie goes back to being a poor guy. He frequents the street corner where they met but she is never there. But in this scene he finally finds her in that window of the flower shop but at first she doesn't recognize him. She tries to give this random "poor bum" a flower and some change and then she realizes who it is.
    So you think the silent films lacked the technology we have today and therefore couldn't be as good? I definitely agree that the cinematography of today is greatly improved and can create very powerful scenes. But what about the acting? Do you think the acting in the 20s was better, worse, or just plain old-fashioned?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe that the acting in the 20's was appropriate for that time. We cant really compare because they were in completely different circumstances. And also thanks for explaining the plot now i get it and it is definitely less creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that the acting in these silent films is very different from the acting of today. The actors in these films have to be more expressive than they would have to be today. I think that Charlie Chaplin did a great job acting in this film. His character should have been timid and awkward, and he portrayed his role well. The story behind the film is deep and although I already knew it beforehand, I think that I would have been able to assess it from the film's title cards.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did not know that back story! How would we know that?
    While it makes me think of the film differently, I do agree with Liz. But I have to say that I think some actors of today could be just as great in silent films because they can be expressive and evoke an emotion without any words needed.
    I like your questions, they really make you think. I was thinking about modern romantic comedies and how they've lost all meaning and have all become cliches. The overall idea of love is always amazing but we've overused the words and plots so much that they all feel fake. Maybe writers and actors can look back, as they always should, learn the history of the craft and return to some core roots of film making.
    I also agree with Liz that cinematography has come a long a way, and we've gained in that sense. While I actually hate HD TV (I think it makes shows look lik bad soap opera shows) technology has come so far and expanded the imagination that I think actors and film makers of the 20's could only dream of.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kim I really enjoyed your post it was very informative- I agree with Aliyah and Liz that modern day movies are only an improvement from the 1920's silent films in regards to cinematography , talking, and color. I think what we lost was the display of true emotion. As you said in your pose silent film required the actors/actresses to convey their emotions with their bodies, thus the emotion was genuine and realistic. Although it may have been dramatic to express the emotion it still seemed "real". In contrast, I feel todays movies, because there are so many of them, the emotions simply become trite. Furthermore, because movies today utilize such amazing technology the actors and actresses are often times not even good at displaying genuine emotion, rather they are just a pretty face and/or body. I guess I feel the craft of being an actress/actor, a person who can really convince the audience that that are sad, happy, in love etc has been lost. People just want a movie with cool graphics, intense war scenes, or overly sappy and unrealistically good looking people falling in love.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Elizabeth. It's hard to compare then and now because the technology is so different. For the 20s though, I feel that the technology for silent films was considered advanced for it's time. Just like Betty Boop, the way her cartoons were fimled were advanced for their time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kim, this post was great! I also agree with Elizabeth; with today's technology, it's hard to compare the two eras.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yael - I agree that the acting was very different from today. They had to be more expressive, definitely, but the thing I love about Charlie Chaplin is that his emotions and actions could be over-the-top for his comedies, but for his romances he can be genuine and really play the part well. It's great that you can assess the plot from the scene and title cards (even if you knew the story). Have you watched any other good silent films?

    Aliyah - I didn't really think the back-story was immediately evident from the scene either. So I looked it up and watched some more clips. It's also cool that many silent films are available on netflix. It's like using the technology of today to access the past.
    I agree that some actors today really have the talent to display emotions and really draw us in. Also agree that romantic comedies are totally cliches. But the thing is that the cliches sell, they make big money! So if the writers stopped writing such cliche material, the studios might in fact lose money. Cliche has become a genre.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jenny - I like that you think the actors of the 20s knew how to express emotions, even if some of them seem over-exaggerated. And some of today's actors just aren't as in touch with that "real"ness that 20s actors were. I sometimes watch interviews with today's actors, and they describe their characters and how they try to "become" them for the movie. But I don't think they fully get in touch with their characters. If you see a movie with Ben Affleck in it for example, you may remember the movie being good, but if you talk about it later you'll say "Ben Affleck did this.." instead of his character's name. (Not to insult him as an actor) It still feels like acting. And it is sad that our fantastic technology allows us to make a pretty face more popular than genuine talent...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Miriam and Helen - The technology of the 20s and today definitely un-comparable, two completely different animals. Maybe I should have just asked you to compare the acting not the overall movies themselves. Silent films definitely lacked technology (even though as Miriam said, they were considered advanced, in the 20s) but they offered viewers something more than special effects. I agree that good dramas today even with fantastic acting are made into masterpieces by phenomenal cinematography. But just imagine the experience of watching a movie with live music in the theater...seems pretty cool to me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kim- I actually have not seen other silent films than the ones that you posted. After finals, I would like to see a few more. Any suggestions?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yael - I actually had not watched very many silent films myself, before I started researching for my blog post. But I stumbled upon this link of "15 greatest silent films of all time" and I've been working my way through the list.

    http://listverse.com/2010/01/27/top-15-greatest-silent-films/

    This link includes "The Phantom of the Opera," Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush," and the early "Birth of a Nation" which is said to "invent movies as we know them."

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think it's interesting that there have been so many advancements in the film industry, yet we constantly learn more and more from the old way that films were made. For example, with the Betty Boop cartoons. The technology that was developed then of copying an actual woman's movements onto a cartoon have been upgraded to green screens and dots. But I do wonder how much father we can go, or if like Kim said we'll all have holograms dancing around our livingrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tami - I like your observation. It is interesting how the movie industry has become so technologically advanced and yet there's so much in the past that we can use in the present.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with the statement about the quality of our actors/actresses nowadays. Honestly, I am personally disappointed with the recent quality of movies. As was mentioned earlier, it's the technology behind modern film making that is impressive, not the acting or even plot. Avatar, for example, was such an instant hit and attracted the numbers that it did merely because of the incredibly impressive advances in animation that it depicted. Those are the things that draw audiences, not the skill of our modern day "actors." This could be because of the continuous search in the movie industry to find a new "face" and discover the next "star." In the modern era, the emphasis of instant gratification and quantity over quality has seeped into the movie making world and its result is a long line of movies that are complete duds.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Racheli - I too mourn the lack of emphasis on true acting talent and more focus on possibility for 3D/IMAX "masterpieces". I like your reasoning that this could be because of the "15 seconds of fame" trend that is becoming more and more common. It seems tragic that movies are so focused on visual impressiveness with heightened technologies and pretty faces that they have sucked the potential depth out of so many movies. Do you find any actors or movies to be the exception to this growing trend?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kim-you're totally right that cliches have become a genre in and of themselves lol. I'm gonna definitely look up the back story cause I completely did not know that! That makes a lot more sense and helps.
    To Jenny-Ben Affleck is a pretty talented actor, despite some movie role choices (can anyone says Gigli??) but he really started, and brilliantly, as a writer winning the Oscar for Good Will Hunting. But I think actor's like George Clooney, Jonny Depp, Jon Hamm and women like Tina Fey (although I only think she'd be a great comic silent actor), Audrey Hepurn and Natalie Portman.
    I have to say Racheli, you touched on something that kills me! While I do completely agree with Tami's post about how far technology has come from Betty Boop and silent films to the advancement of Avatar, which instead of animatedly replacing actors it's using their physical form, facial expression to enhance a film's quality. I disagree that the quality of film's today is poor. I love this time of the year when all the truly fantastic films come out just in time to steal every Golden Globe and Oscar nomination. Want to see some amazing recent movies? Black Swan (freaky but good), The King's Speech, The Fighter, 127 Hours. Whereas Avatar, while amazing in technological advances, was total crap in a sense of writing and I think, originality. The entire plot was a rip off of a stop that has been done 20 times over. Ever heard of the childhood animated film, Ferngully or hello: Pocahontas! If you have minute watch this video that lines up the plots of Ferngully and Avatar: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1920954 and read this amazing comparison of Pocahontas and Avatar http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:1931082 It's hard to argue with after that.

    And to Kim I do not think that actors and movies are the exception to our lack of depth. I think one could even say that our use of facebook, bbm and twitter are other examples of how one dimensional we can be in life, everyone posts their best profile pictures and only the good things. It's interesting definitely!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Aliyah - great comment to all the comments! Good defense for the individual actors you mention. I don't happen to agree that all of the actors on that list have "got it" acting-wise, but at least someone believes it's not all technology/no talent out there.
    I watched the Fern Gully comparison and read the Pocahontas one. Right on. Wow with Pocahontas, the tree and the girl showing him the ropes. Uncanny. Maybe it's not about originality now, but taking old ideas and making them flashier, you know, HD 3D!
    And as far as what I said about actors or movies having depth, I was just asking if you thought any individual actors had depth and you gave me a whole list! So I guess some are the exception. But as far as a general trend toward one-dimensionality, I take your point about social media. The fact that you can display only the side of you, the prettier one you wish to publicize, definitely robs people from witnessing your true character. So the general public likes unoriginal and hollow movies because that is what we as a whole are becoming?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kim-I think the general likes movies that are more perfect than their own lives. in a movie, every line is perfectly scripted- every actor has the perfect response. whether the movie is a comedy, love story, or tragedy the movie experience shows a life that is more perfect than what we are experiencing. there are so many times when we dont know what to say in a situation- sometimes i wish i had a script in front of me so that i could whip out the perfect line! but, alas, we dont- our lives are imperfect and we can never know that were going to have a happy ending.
    going back up to the original comments on this blog post- I think that the older silent films have more depth to them. they are more "real". because there is no set dialogue, the actors could be saying anything- the audience can decide what they think the actors are saying- as long as it fits within the basic storyline of the film. but now, were lazy, we want to go to the movie and have everything spoon-fed to us. we want to be able to turn off our brains and just soak in entertainment. if we had to think about the possibilities of what the actors are saying, we would get too frustrated and wouldn't enjoy the movie. how sad for us.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gila - Good comparison between today and the 20s, but I say we separate ourselves from the general public of today. Do you go to movies to be spoon fed? I personally don't. I like movies that I'm on the edge of my seat, the ones where I ACTUALLY don't know what might happen next, the ones that keep my attention til the very end. Yes, these movies happen to be getting rarer, but I'd like to think I still appreciate depth and don't mind thinking a little or a lot in order to appreciate it. If you say movies of the 20s had more depth than those of today, what about the 20s society made them more able to appreciate them? Is it just today's society is spoiled and lazy and if the technology were available back then, they'd be that way too? Or is there some deeper connection between silent films and 20s culture?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with Kim that today many people and I know for myself I too want to go to a movie that is stimulates my mind. That is why movies like Inception are so popular, because the ending is not spoon fed it is open to interpretation. Similarly, I just watched Black Swan last night and LOVED IT, as the critics also did! This movie is one that is so unclear and that is why it is celebrated because the viewer is not sure at the end or during the film what is truth and what is in her head. While it is true many people like simplistic films such as those the Katherine Heigl stars in, the movies that tend to get four ****'s are those that transcend simplicity and borderline on obscurity and ambiguity. I think this phenomenon is an interesting connection to the 20's because it seems that today American's like to be perceived as "high-brows" enjoying movies that are complex. I think you can argue the opposite about silent films that they are much less complex as there is nothing really to "get" or understand you can think what you want and not try to get the message the director was trying to convey. This mirrors the sweeping movement of "low-brows" in the 20's and how people wanted simple and easy- a frivolous life.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jenny - Interesting. So you're arguing the opposite of what we've been saying. That 20s silent films were more simplistic with tidy endings and this fit the low-brow society. I like that you said Americans today "like to be perceived as high-brows" and not are highbrows. Good distinction. So you think movies today (some of them) do have depth and intrigue. Do you think there was an earlier decade that produced even more stimulating movies? Do you think we're moving toward movies with a twist, ones that make you think, or away from them? Or is this just one genre to choose from today?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kim- I honestly have not seen movies from enough other decades to say if I believe other decades had movies that were more cerebral, I can say that the 80's were certainly filled with vapid movies! I believe that the movies today contain much more depth! I think for sure movies today love twists, for example all of the Mission Impossibles where they are continuously shedding masks- or where who was set up to be the villain really is innocent- I guess I'd have to say we are moving toward movies that make you think, while still producing a slew of movies that are purely entertaining.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.