This is copied over from alt.movies.silent. The post is part of a long series of discussions on the subject of "user comments" published at the imdb about the film "Metropolis". From reading these posts you realize that many of the folks who went out to see the new restoration of the film didn't understand it. What I am trying to point out is that we need to develop new ways to equip people with the means to relate to silent movies since traditional methods seem no longer to be working. It's a long post, but Im proud of it and wish to share it with you.
"Victor Morton"
wrote in message
> How about *explaining*
> that silent films had a range of acting styles and that while, as a whole,
> they're broader than what he might be used to, they're mostly not like
> METROPOLIS, which is at the hyper-stylized end of the spectrum? How about
> *pointing him* toward some of the other great silent dramas that are less
> off-putting in their acting styles (in my opinion anyway) -- like THE
CROWD
> or GREED -- or toward the subtler silent comedies -- like Keaton or
Lubitsch
> or SHOW PEOPLE?
Indeed, there are plenty of silents where the acting isn't terribly extreme.
Even some actors who use a fair amount of pantomime, such as Mary Pickford,
do it so well that you forget that it *is* pantomime. Chaney is certainly
engaging also, and the faces of many, many silent actresses are
unforgettable.
This reminds me of the first silents I saw all the way through, when I was
no more than six or seven; the first episode or two (I assume including "The
Leap from the Water Tower") of The Perils of Pauline on a TV show called
"The Toy That Grew Up." It didn't impress me as corny, campy or
old-fashioned. I didn't really understand the story. But I really liked
Pearl White - she was tough and could take care of herself. From then on, I
was hooked, and silent movies have become a major part of my life; I
literally couldn't live without them. So actors, and acting, are really
important in getting someone to understand what silent movies are all about.
I think what Mr. Moose did in preparing his viewers for Metropolis was
really a good way to go about it - he patiently prepared his fellow
travelers for what they were going to see and then discussed it with them
afterward. Unfortunately, you aren't going to get that kind of interactivity
from copy that is written by a distributor trying to return his or her
investment on a silent. Nor is it going to come in a five minute segment
with a dude in a suit who looks like your grandfather talking about a bunch
of stuff you don't understand before a movie is shown on cable. Not that
this is what these things are for, but in terms of tools in reaching the
public about classic film these techniques are mostly what you see in use.
I had written:
> >
> > I wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong in singling out a
great silent
> > picture, such as "Metropolis" or "Napoleon", promoting it to the hilt
and
> > proclaiming it as the "must see" masterpiece of the silent era. As Joe
> > Filmgoer has no point of reference to fall back on, you wind up with the
> > kind of idiotic and embarassing comments that have shown up on the imdb.
>
Victor wrote:
> But being told after METROPOLIS that
> I was an idiotic embarrassing Neanderthal with a small, limited mind might
> very well have led me to write off silent film completely as a snobbish
> coterie cult.
>
> But anyway, you have to start somewhere and, by definition, one "has no
> point of reference to fall back on" in the first instance of doing
anything.
> I know I've said this here before, but you can only connect with people
> where they are.
>
Indeed, I feel that in terms of interesting the great unwashed in classic
films some of us may be going in the wrong direction, and couldn't tell you who is
doing so, nor why.
There is certainly a problem of both presentation and of education. Since
the turn of the century all kinds of people, both thinkers and non-or-little thinking
"doers", are finding any number of monuments to tip over, often for no better reason than to see them hit the ground. That's a generalization I realize, but I think any one of us can relate a recent personal experience to attest to it.
Lack of relevance is a major obstacle to overcome these days, whether or not
the subject is actually still relevant or simply perceived not to be by a
majority of people, it's a major uphill battle. You're not going to finds many folks
these days who will read War and Peace, Elective Affinities or even The Holy Bible in its entirity just to see if they can get through it. Most moviegoers want to be hit hard at the beginning and held onto - they aren't interested in long-winded expositons or even basic character motivation, especially when eight dollars are at stake.
I remember a film teacher (I won't say which one) giving a class in the 1980s where
he would preface a screening of a silent film like this: "Okay, this is The
Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. It's silent, it's black and white, it's about an an
hour long and it's boring - I know. But it's an important film and you are
going to be graded on it, so sit down, shut up, and watch it." And he would
leave. As you could imagine, not long would pass before the class would
start tittering, then talking, then ultimately making a commotion so loud
you couldn't even hear the projector whirr. The prof would stick his head in
periodically and shout "C'mooonnnn peoplllle - your grade depends on this.
Watch the movie."
Okay this guy was terrible, obviously, and ironically he still teaches film
AND is a respected professor with cred. And I don't think he necessarily
disliked The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari as a movie. But his classes were too
large (mostly Communications students) and he was sick of hearing the same
feedback about the movie over and over again from them - it has no sound,
it's black and white and it's boring. So he'd tell them that he "knew it"
even before the movie started.
We need to get away from these types of presentation, trying to herd the
masses before this title or that in the hopes that, like in Reaganomics, the
rest will trickle down to them. The "top ten"-ness of our current society is
a BAD thing. A person who cares not a whit for Metropolis might be moved to
tears by Broken Blossoms. Even "ordinary" silents like "Stark Love", "The
Canadian", Keystone comedies or even my Pearl White serial might be a better
intro to silent filmmaking than the restored version of "Greed" in all of
its length and glory. You can't feed a baby filet mignon, and especially in
an era where cynicism is king, the baby is more likely to turn the plate
over and play with it than to eat the meal.
***
My wife has asked me to allow her to post something here. I've looked at it and I confess I don't really understand what it is. But I have granted her permission and it shall follow shortly.
Uncle Dave Lewis