Silent Films

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Madeline

One of my favorites is Greed (1924) with Zazu Pitts, Gibson Gowland, and the great Jean Hersholt.

I've been purchasing my movies through Overstock, but do you know of other places to purchase them? I would appreciate knowing.

Yoy could try Kino on Video DVD VHS Catalog

or Oldies.com : Direct Source for Collectables Records & Alpha Video - Oldies, Doo Wop, Jazz, Pop, Rock Music and Horror, Serials, Thrillers, Sci-Fi, Westerns Movies

and a very warm welcome to Chronicles

[j. d. worthington]

Has anyone out there seen the "reconstructed" version of Greed? It had to be pieced together using production stills (much as London After Midnight has been), as the footage that was cut from it no longer exists; however, it replaced the cells (dialogue and scene settings) and restored the film to something close to its intended length, and they did find many of the original film elements that used the hand coloring to capture the nuances that the director intended.

(I say "its intended length" -- from what I understand, the original cut was 9 hours long, and intended to be a literal adaptation of McTeague, page for page, but the studio had a fit and had it cut down considerably. Here's more on that:

Greed (1924)

It's an impressive film either way, one of the truly great classics of the silent era.)

[Madeline]

I guess that's what I have, is the reconstructed version. I have 4 disc, and it's over 4 hours. I watched it once, the story is great and never forgot it. I just glanced through it and the stills are very clear, but the motion is blurred. They did it the way they restore Lost Horizons, which is a talky, but very good.

[Madeline]

Thanks Foxbat, I'm going to look into those sites.

[Madeline]

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

Anyone seen The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926-7)? It's a fantasy adventure that uses paper cutout animation. It was also hand tinted, a process that (I believe) took ages.

I would like to find this animation. That would be totally different.

[Madeline]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

The recent Metropolis thread (and spirited defence of such a fine movie) made me realise that there are probably a few of us that have a hankering for the old silent classics - so I thought I'd start this thread.

Here is a place if you want to discuss or recommend movies from the silent era - me? I've just placed an order for 5 from the good ol' US of A - and here they are: Intolerance, Foolish Wives, The Cat And the Canary, Birth Of A Nation, and The Bat. Can't wait.

I think my favourite silent movie is probably The Phantom Of The Opera with Lon Chaney (man of 1000 faces!). But there are so many classics!

So, if you want to share your thoughts, loves or hates of the silent era...stick em here. If there's a decent response, I can always make this thread a sticky...if not, it can die a sad and lonely death as it plummets down the page

I don't have time right now, maybe this afternoon (after lunch) but how about making a list of all our collection? Is that too much trouble?

[The Wanderer]

Having Been A dedicated film lover for 20 years now, I'll give you my Top 10 Silent films

in no particular order

1.The Passion of Joan of Arc (Fra) - Carl Dreyer - 1928
2.Metroplis - Fritz Lang (Ger) - 1926
3.Greed - Erich Von Stroheim (USA) - 1924
4.Battleship Potemkin - Sergei Eisenstein (Rus) - 1925
5.October - Sergei Eisenstein (Rus) - 1928
6.Sunrise - Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau (USA) - 1922
7.The Cabnet of DR Caligari - Robert Wiene (Ger) - 1919
8.Intolerance - DW Griffith (USA) - 1916
9.The General - Buster Keaton (USA) - 1926
10.Napoleon - Abel Gance (Fra) - 1927

[The Wanderer]

Greed (1924)

It's an impressive film either way, one of the truly great classics of the silent era.)

I think it's a masterpeice and probably a better film on the subject than Huston's 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre', though perhaps less fun

[j. d. worthington]

Question: Did you have the good fortune to see Napoleon using the three-screen set-up, or was it projected onto a single screen?

[bruno-1012]

I was browsing in HMV last night and was looking through the DVDs at the classic black and white films.

My problem was that a lot of the DVDs were offering colourised versions.

There are not enough ****** in the world to convey exactly how I feel about those.

Mind you, it's hard enough getting some people to watch anything not made in the last couple of decades.

As I was quoted by a 20something in the office - 'I don't watch old stuff cos its all rubbish and boring.' I offered to hand over some of the great and influential movies to be told 'I you want but I will never find time to watch any of them'

At least in here there are people who will give these things a try.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by bruno-1012

I was browsing in HMV last night and was looking through the DVDs at the classic black and white films.

My problem was that a lot of the DVDs were offering colourised versions.

There are not enough ****** in the world to convey exactly how I feel about those.

Generally, I agree best to leave well alone. Some films are so important historically and culturally that they should not be tampered with (after all, who would want to paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa? )

However, some directors have gone on record as saying that they would have preferred to use colour if available. I think it's better to judge each colourised version on its own merits rather than as a generalistion (both She and Things To Come work well in colour). And, let's face it, if it gets the younger generations interested in giving these oldies a view, it might have some merit

[McMurphy]

Has anyone else had the pleasure to watch the silent 1925 adaption of The Phantom of the Opera starring Lon Chaney? I popped it in (I have it on DVD) just the other night, and I was really impressed on how good it was.

It had some great images. For example, the rooftop scene. It starts by cutting to the birds hovering around a statue. The camera switches to the attention of the dialogue. When it cuts back to the statue, instead of hovering birds, we, the viewers, are forewarned of the ramifications by the omnious whipping of The Phantom's cloak.

I also thought the make-up job on The Phantom's face was quite effective.

Thoughts?

[j. d. worthington]

McMurphy: You're kidding, right?

That is one of the iconic films of that era... and one of the iconic images of the horror genre to this day!

I first encountered images from this film when I was a very young child, and waited to see this film ... and waited ... and waited ... and waited. Finally saw it when I was in my 20s, and have loved it ever since. What is especially nice is that the newer copies have the advantage of some of the better prints they've found since, and include the two-strip technicolor sequences (oh, that masked ball, with the Red Death costume!!!).

Yes, it's stagey in spots, and overly melodramatic (something that I understand was a bit of a bone of contention between Chaney and the director, Rupert Julian). It's also quite faithful (overall) to Gaston Leroux's novel -- quite surprisingly so. And no one has managed to top Chaney's performance as the Phantom... and the almost balletic movements he gives to the character at times adds to the haunting presence.

So, yes... it has its flaws, but it is a truly wonderful film; one of my favorites (but then, I'm a big Chaney fan from a loooong way back).

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

McMurphy: You're kidding, right?

That is one of the iconic films of that era... and one of the iconic images of the horror genre to this day!

I first encountered images from this film when I was a very young child, and waited to see this film ... and waited ... and waited ... and waited. Finally saw it when I was in my 20s, and have loved it ever since. What is especially nice is that the newer copies have the advantage of some of the better prints they've found since, and include the two-strip technicolor sequences (oh, that masked ball, with the Red Death costume!!!).

Yes, it's stagey in spots, and overly melodramatic (something that I understand was a bit of a bone of contention between Chaney and the director, Rupert Julian). It's also quite faithful (overall) to Gaston Leroux's novel -- quite surprisingly so. And no one has managed to top Chaney's performance as the Phantom... and the almost balletic movements he gives to the character at times adds to the haunting presence.

So, yes... it has its flaws, but it is a truly wonderful film; one of my favorites (but then, I'm a big Chaney fan from a loooong way back).

Heh, I'm kidding how?

I agree it is a wonderful film. I am going to print heresy here, but I wasn't a fan of the whole focus-in-and-out effect, but that is one of the very few things I did not like about the film. You are correct: the Red Death moment was marvelous, just like the first unveiling of his true identity.

Sidenote (a brief one at that since I am aware that this is a silent film only thread): I just finished watching The Indestructible Man starring Chaney's son.....although it falls infinity short of The Phantom's classic status.

[j. d. worthington]

The "you're kidding" was simply a bit of good-natured teasing on my part (feeling my oats at that point....)

As for the in-and-out of focus... part of that, I know, is because some of the film elements had degenerated over the years, being of the old nitrate stock which required careful preservation (otherwise, it could do any of the following: combust, melt, become very grainy, or simply turn into dust; a good example of the last being when my then-wife was working at a movie theatre, and we came across a bunch of old silent film trailers up in the attic when cleaning it out... and -- dammit! -- because they hadn't been taken care of properly, they were either fused together or simply canisters of dust...)

Another part of that -- especially the scene where Mary Philbin's character unmasked him -- was, I think, meant to represent her shock... a near-syncope at having this walking corpse (as he would have appeared to her) approaching her.

And yes, Lon, Jr., was in both some very good films (High Noon, for instance, or The Wolf Man) and a lot of very bad ones....