Essential Silents
Matt Barry
era-films at their peak. This is not supposed to be a "Top 100" list
or anything like that, just a general summary of the silents that
really are above average.
I personally list:
THE BIRTH OF A NATION
INTOLERANCE
GREED
THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC
BEN HUR
BROKEN BLOSSOMS
THE CROWD
THE BIG PARADE
SUNRISE
THE THIEF OF BAGDAD
METROPOLIS
THE GOLD RUSH
THE GENERAL
THE STRONG MAN
Sorry if this seems like a waste of time but I'm trying to put
together a collection of the great silent films and this would be a
big help.
Thanks,
Matt
William Hooper
This issue is addressed at
http://www.vex.net/~emily/film/amsfaq/films.html#required
It is weighed and posted at:
http://www.usps.com/
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Article poste via Voila News - http://www.news.voila.fr
Le : Fri Jan 24 14:48:55 2003 depuis l'IP : host-209-214-44-84.mob.bellsouth.net [VIP 9946225]
Jon Parker
Gone By" with a near-mint first edition hardback that I got for $33 from an
Amazon seller. Sadly, it doesn't appear to have ever been read.
Feuillade
> I'm trying to compile a list of films that
> really represent the silent era-films at
> their peak. This is not supposed to be a
> "Top 100" list or anything like that, just
> a general summary of the silents that
> really are above average.
Its been done, my friend:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran10.index.html
Tom Moran
Michaeljosefpaul
he is to silent film for over 35 years now !! I picked up a copy for 8 bucks at
Strand bookstore in NYC. They always have a few copies sitting on the shelf at
a low price !!!
Roxor2
> really represent the silent era-films at
> their peak. This is not supposed to be a
> "Top 100" list or anything like that, just
> a general summary of the silents that
> really are above average.
ones you like the most. See as many silents as you can, keep an open mind, and
decide for yourself. Nothing, not BIRTH OF A NATION or GREED or THE BIG PARADE
or anything else, is "essential" if you don't like it. "Top 100" lists are fun
to make, but useless for collecting purposes.
Ed Hulse
Frederica
"Jon Parker" <jond...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e315575$0$160$45be...@newscene.com...
It may not have been, but that doesn't mean the person who owned it never
read The Parade's Gone By. Book collectors often purchase a first which
remains untouched, and another copy for reading.
Frederica
Stephen Cooke
> > Speaking of essentials, I just replaced my paperback copy of "The
> > Parades's
> > Gone By" with a near-mint first edition hardback that I got for $33 from
> > an Amazon seller. Sadly, it doesn't appear to have ever been read.
>
> It may not have been, but that doesn't mean the person who owned it never
> read The Parade's Gone By. Book collectors often purchase a first which
> remains untouched, and another copy for reading.
That's like me, I have a dog-eared paperback copy and a hardcover copy of
The Parade's Gone By. I bought the hardcover version because I saw it
somewhere for $5 and it was too good a deal to pass up.
swac
Bill Vermillion
Matt Barry <mattb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm trying to compile a list of films that really represent the silent
>era-films at their peak. This is not supposed to be a "Top 100" list
>or anything like that, just a general summary of the silents that
>really are above average.
>I personally list:
>THE BIRTH OF A NATION
>INTOLERANCE
>GREED
>THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC
>BEN HUR
>BROKEN BLOSSOMS
>THE CROWD
>THE BIG PARADE
>SUNRISE
>THE THIEF OF BAGDAD
>METROPOLIS
>THE GOLD RUSH
>THE GENERAL
>THE STRONG MAN
I've only missing two of the above. Pretty good list IMO.
I think Napolean should be in that list however. So many things
there that had not been done before.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Tony Spadaro
The real problem with Top 100s and/or ESSENTIAL etc, is that human taste
is completely different. I recognise that "Birth of a Nation" is an
important film, but it's not something I put myself through more than once
every other decade - and after 3 viewings I may never watch it again. I'm
not a "student" of film, why put up with the abysmal story and overworked
grimaces?
"Intolerance" is a complete mess. Whoever knocked together the short
version did us all a favour.
Dreyer's Joan of Arc - strikes me as a miserable failure - making a movie
based on the transcript of the trial as a silent was a truly bad idea. Long
lingering shots, even from clever camera angles are the final nail in the
coffin. The movies should move - that is what distinguishes them from oil
paintings. Pretty pictures can be in a book where you don't have to put up
with the clatter of a projector to read it.
Most of the rest on your list I would consider to be good candidates for
essential but for many "Broken Blossoms" would be pretty hard to take. In
the Meller catagory I would find "Way Down East" more impressive - if only
for the ice.
I suspect a lot of people would want "Hunchback" and Phantom of the
Opera", but I would rather see some of the more interesting things the
Russians were doing, and more films about mood -- "The Wind" comes to mind.
As a dedicated Lloyd fan I would put "Safety Last" in the mix -- in fact I
can think of a half dozen others too but then it would be the Essential
Harold Lloyd plus a few other guys list.
This about a list of essential talkies - doesn't the idea seem a little
"off"? The movies are to wide and varied to do that and one man's "High
Noon" is another man's "Ace Bigelow". Perhaps silents can be lumped together
since they are all old (save for a couple experiments), far enough into the
past that there are few who have seen any when they were the dominant art
form, and we can (and most certainly do) compress that 30 year history into
one catagory with no discrimination between "The Great Train Robbery" and
"The Gold Rush". The early and mid period silents are mostly of interest to
film history buffs. The later films reveal an art form that was killed off
in the prime of life.
One could even argue that silents died at exactly the right moment
though. Radio was growing fast in the late 20s -- it might have done the
same damage to the movie industry that tv did in the 50s had the movies
remained silent. Sound, it could be said, was the CinemaScope of the jazz
age.
Enough rant
Any list of "essential" silents that does not include "Potemkin" and
"October" is definately not definitive, so here are a few suggestions:
Potemkin
October
Earth
Mother
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligary
The Last Laugh
Joyless Street
Pandora's Box
Way Down East
The Wind
Safety Last
Gotta be a Valentino or it ain't essential. I find all his movies to be
awful though so can't suggest any, save "Son of the Sheik" which most people
would put outside the essential catagory. I simply find it to be the only
one that has any self awareness about it. I'm not a soap fan.
What about animation?
Koko the Clown
Gertie the Dinosaur -- what little exists of the lovely lass.
The first Mickey Mouse cartoon - essential as it's the only one that is
not a sound cartoon.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"William Hooper" <w...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:b0rg87$rc2$1...@news.x-echo.com...
Gene E. McCluney
Michaeljosefpaul <michaelj...@aol.com> wrote:
I actually wore out my first copy of this book. Had to purchase
another one. Read it over and over and over and over.
Easily the best book on Cinema I have ever read.
Gene McCluney
Bill Anderson
Matt Barry wrote:
Not only are "City Lights" and "Modern Times" not on your list, but
neither has been mentioned in any of the responses. So I'm curious. Are
they too "modern" for this newsgroup to consider them silent films? Does
the alt.movies.silent crowd consider them unworthy? Just a couple of
oversights? What's the story?
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
They're two of the best movies I've ever seen in my life.
ChaneyFan
ones you like the most. See as many silents as you can, keep an open mind, and
decide for yourself. Nothing, not BIRTH OF A NATION or GREED or THE BIG PARADE
or anything else, is "essential" if you don't like it. "Top 100" lists are fun
to make, but useless for collecting purposes.
This is the most intelligent thing I've read in a long time on the need for
"lists."
People ask me what kind of films I collect and I respond, "Stuff that I like."
Which explains why I don't have 16mm prints of GREED or INTOLERANCE or THE
BIRTH OF A NATION, but I do have things like THE BUSHER and GUARDIANS OF THE
WILD (thank you Chris & Ed) and LAZYBONES.
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Pat Conolly
"Roxor2" <rox...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030124141525...@mb-ml.aol.com...
In my case, though, I don't see them unless I buy them, and since I'm not
going to buy all the available silent films in one fell swoop (whatever
"fell swoop" means), I do find the various lists helpful when deciding what
to get next. I use the UMDB Top 250 list for example.
Pat Conolly
"Matt Barry" <mattb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfc02ffc.03012...@posting.google.com...
Rodney Sauer
> In article <bfc02ffc.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> Matt Barry <mattb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to compile a list of films that really represent the silent
>>era-films at their peak. This is not supposed to be a "Top 100" list
>>or anything like that, just a general summary of the silents that
>>really are above average.
>>I personally list:
>>THE BIRTH OF A NATION
>>INTOLERANCE
>>GREED
>>THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC
>>BEN HUR
>>BROKEN BLOSSOMS
>>THE CROWD
>>THE BIG PARADE
>>SUNRISE
>>THE THIEF OF BAGDAD
>>METROPOLIS
>>THE GOLD RUSH
>>THE GENERAL
>>THE STRONG MAN
The problem with the above list is that the "really are above average"
criterion distorts your list towards artsyness, so that it cannot
possibly claim to "represent silent era films." These are very big,
important, great films; but they're outlying points. With the exception
of THE STRONG MAN, THE GENERAL, and debatably THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, they
do not "represent" silent films well at all. Sort of like choosing THE
TWO TOWERS, TALK TO HER and FRIDA to represent 2002. If you walked into
any random heater in the 1920s, you would have been unlikely to see
INTOLERANCE, THE CROWD or SUNRISE. For representative, you'd need at
least one light romantic comedy, a Western or two, and some comedy shorts.
I'm not arguing the merits of the above films. They're great. But if
someone saw just those films, they would have a distorted idea of what
silent films were like.
Oh, and replace THE STRONG MAN with THE KID BROTHER anyway ;-)
Rodney Sauer
rod...@mont-alto.com
The Mont Alto Ragtime and Tango Orchestra
and The Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra
http://www.mont-alto.com/
Rodney Sauer
ACctually there were two silent Mickey Mouses, but both were released as
soundies with musical scores. I'm surprised THE GALLOPING GAUCHO hasn't
been mentioned here, as it has a direct parody of Fairbanks' THE GAUCHO,
down to the elaborate cigarette lighting tricks.
Dr. Giraud
I'd like to suggest my favorite silent Western THE COVERED WAGON >>
It has grit. There are fun performances from Ernest Torrence, Tully Marshall
and Lois Wilson. And it's better than the many ripoffs (The Big Trail).
Shawn Stone
Bobbyharron
>neither has been mentioned in any of the responses. So I'm curious. Are
>they too "modern" for this newsgroup to consider them silent films? Does
>the alt.movies.silent crowd consider them unworthy? Just a couple of
>oversights? What's the story?
I can't speak for everybody, but I doubt that there would be many on AMS who
disliked Modern Times and City Lights. Are they silent films? I would say City
Lights is definitely a silent. It has a few sound effects, but it would still
play well even if it was only accompanied by a piano. Modern Times is more
debatable, but I would argue that for the most part it is essentially still a
silent film. The few talking sequences it has are not what make it a memorable
film. Chaplin's silent method of comedy is still intact. I would place both
films in my group of favourite silents.
Pete George
Patrick McCart
Birth of A Nation
Intolerance
The Last Laugh
Battleship Potempkin
The Kid
City Lights
The Circus
The General
Speedy
Safety Last
The Strong Man
Nosferatu
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
Metropolis
Ben-Hur
The Cameraman
The Unknown
Greed
The Wedding March
Napoleon
The Crowd
Wings
The Lodger
The Phantom of the Opera
Sunrise
A Woman of Affairs
The Wind
SHORTS (or shorter films)
Big Business
The Luck of the Foolish
One A.M.
The Tramp
The First 100 Years
Two Tars
Cops
The Electric House
The Playhouse
Sherlock Jr
Coney Island
Out West
The Garage
The Great Train Robbery
Voyage To the Moon
I'd put more, but I have yet to see or research many silents.
"Matt Barry" <mattb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfc02ffc.03012...@posting.google.com...
Neil Midkiff
"Fell" is an almost-archaic adjective remaining in the language from
Middle English (when it was spelled "fel"). It's related to the word
"felon". Its meaning takes on various shades of "cruel, fierce, lethal,
sinister, biting" depending on context.
"One fell swoop" is popularly used for anything that happens "all at once"
but I think this loses the effect of the word's history. It really should
only be used for sudden calamities and tragedies, not for shopping sprees.
The phrase may have been coined, and was certainly popularized, by
Shakespeare in MACBETH. Macduff learns that his wife and children have
been murdered by Macbeth's men, and exclaims "What, all my pretty chickens
and their dam, at one fell swoop?"
-Neil Midkiff
Roxor2
but I think this loses the effect of the word's history. It really should
only be used for sudden calamities and tragedies, not for shopping sprees. >>
Yawn....
Bob Birchard
I'm going to respectfully (and only partially) disagree with Ed on this point.
I definitely think there is some value in having a "Rosetta Stone" to point the way
for those new to silents. Joe Franklin's "Classics of the Silent Screen" serves
such a purpose with 50 "essential" titles. I'm not sure that going to the local
DVD store and pulling a random silent title is necessarily the way to become
familiar with silents--nor do I think that comedies or horror titles necessarily
offer a broad sense of what the silent screen was all about. That said, once
you've seen the 50 titles in the Joe Franklin book, there are so many more types of
films that can be seen. I am constantly surprised by films like "The Last Card"
(Metro, 1921) or "The Golden Chance" (Lasky-Paramount; 1916) or "Smoldering Fires"
(Universal, 1924) that would never make anyone's list of "essentials" but add so
much to one's appreciation of the medium.
Collecting is one thing, you may not want prints of "The Birth of a Nation" or
"Intolerance" or "Greed" to revisit on a regular basis (although one collector very
close to me has all of these titles); but what one collects should not limit what
one sees.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Donna Hill
> Roxor2 wrote:
>
> > > I'm trying to compile a list of films that
> > > really represent the silent era-films at
> > > their peak. This is not supposed to be a
> > > "Top 100" list or anything like that, just
> > > a general summary of the silents that
> > > really are above average.
> >
> > Don't pay any attention to other lists. The only "essential" silents are the
> > ones you like the most. See as many silents as you can, keep an open mind, and
> > decide for yourself.
<snip>
I am constantly surprised by films like "The Last Card"
> (Metro, 1921) or "The Golden Chance" (Lasky-Paramount; 1916) or "Smoldering Fires"
> (Universal, 1924) that would never make anyone's list of "essentials" but add so
> much to one's appreciation of the medium.
>
Well, Smoldering Fires is one of my essentials, I have to confess. I
think Pauline Frederick is just marvelous in this film (as is Tully
Marshall)
Donna Hill
Frederica
"Neil Midkiff" <nmid...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E3389DC...@earthlink.net...
> "One fell swoop" is popularly used for anything that happens "all at once"
> but I think this loses the effect of the word's history. It really should
> only be used for sudden calamities and tragedies, not for shopping sprees.
Obviously you've never been on a Daughters of Naldi shopping expedition.
Frederica
Pat Conolly
into my head again.
"Neil Midkiff" <nmid...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E3389DC...@earthlink.net...
Gene Savage
Golem? The Unknown? Wings?
London After Midnight? (whups!)
Gene Savage
Tulsa, Oklahoma USA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Do not write below this line.
Bob Tiernan
Gene Savage wrote:
> How about adding Nosferatu to the list? From The Manger To The Cross? The
> Golem? The Unknown? Wings?
>
> London After Midnight? (whups!)
Comments like this ceased being amusing long ago.
Long, long ago.
Bob t
Gene Savage
being new(er) to the group, I haven't gotten in my quota of LAM references.
:)
There's one that occurred to me in just recent days... The Hunchback Of
Notre Dame '23! Can't believe I didn't think about it sooner!
My dad last night just recommended the '39 version, which I'm ashamed to say
I didn't even know existed. It's not silent, but I'll watch it anyway. :)
Also, I'm a huge fan of silent horror, so my list is going to be quite
slanted.
Gene Savage
Tulsa, Oklahoma USA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The word "cheese" is not funny in and of itself.
"Bob Tiernan" <zu...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.33.030214...@shell.pacifier.com...
>
> Gene Savage wrote:
>
> > How about adding
> >
Frederica
"Gene Savage" <deadlet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E8x4a.37733$K71....@news1.central.cox.net...
> The word "cheese" is not funny in and of itself.
(!) (???)...yes it is.
Frederica
Glamour Studios
Gene Savage wrote:
> My apologies, Bob... I am king of the over-used running gag... besides,
> being new(er) to the group, I haven't gotten in my quota of LAM references.
> :)
>
> There's one that occurred to me in just recent days... The Hunchback Of
> Notre Dame '23! Can't believe I didn't think about it sooner!
>
> My dad last night just recommended the '39 version, which I'm ashamed to say
> I didn't even know existed. It's not silent, but I'll watch it anyway. :)
It's quite a lovely film, fabulous production design, photography and
performances, and William Dieterle's use of crowds as architecture rivals Lang's
in Metropolis.
And Mr. Laughton WILL make you weep.
Archie Waugh
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
Glamour Studios <glam...@gte.net> wrote:
> It's quite a lovely film, fabulous production design, photography and
> performances, and William Dieterle's use of crowds as architecture rivals
> Lang's
> in Metropolis.
> And Mr. Laughton WILL make you weep.
I think the '39 HUNCHBACK is the best of all the movie versions I've
seen. None come even slightly close to the power and scope of the novel,
unfortunately.
-J
Glamour Studios
Jeremy Bond Shepherd wrote:
And they never will, until someone effectively films that epilogue scene where
Quasimodo's and Esmiralda's skeletons are discovered...lordy, how I wept over
that!
Tip for anyone (or at least non-literary lazy types like me) reading the novel
for the first time...skip the first couple dozen pages until you start hitting
character names, then begin reading. Hugo's descriptions of medieval Paris are
staggeringly boring. Once characters show up and the actual narrative beings,
it's a ripping yarn!
Archie Waugh
Gene Savage
drink) described as "rivaling Metropolis," for ANY reason, moves to the top
of my must-see list!
...have I mentioned to this group before that I'm a monstrous Metropolis
fan? :)
Looking forward to the DVD,
Gene Savage
Tulsa, Oklahoma USA
-------------------------------------------------------------
No other warranty expressed or implied.
Glamour Studios <glam...@gte.net> wrote about Hunchback '39:
ChaneyFan
seen.
I'll second that. As much as I like the Chaney, the 1939 is the definitive
HUNCHBACK.
J. Theakston
Yes, but some of us still have that reflex chuckle whenever the title
is mentioned, which could be implied as "amused".
-J. Theakston
Christopher Jacobs
> Jeremy Bond Shepherd wrote:
>
> > In article <3E52D711...@gte.net>,
> > Glamour Studios <glam...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It's quite a lovely film, fabulous production design, photography and
> > > performances, and William Dieterle's use of crowds as architecture rivals
> > > Lang's
> > > in Metropolis.
> > > And Mr. Laughton WILL make you weep.
> >
> > I think the '39 HUNCHBACK is the best of all the movie versions I've
> > seen. None come even slightly close to the power and scope of the novel,
> > unfortunately.
>
> And they never will, until someone effectively films that epilogue scene where
> Quasimodo's and Esmiralda's skeletons are discovered...lordy, how I wept over
> that!
But isn't that how the Anthony Quinn/Gina Lollobrigida version ends? I
haven't seen it since I was about 11 or 12 (and on TV in black &
white, non-letteboxed, not realizing it was originally a color and
CinemaScope Italian-French production) but as it was the first version
of the story I was exposed to, I found that ending quite moving at
that age. I would rather like to see it again sometime in color and
scope. All four major versions (even the Disney cartoon) have their
moments, although the Chaney and Laughton remain the definitive. Now
if only someone would turn up the Theda Bara version!
--Christopher Jacobs
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/DigitalMovies.htm
Your Pal Brian
> > My dad last night just recommended the '39 version, which I'm ashamed to say
> > I didn't even know existed. It's not silent, but I'll watch it anyway. :)
>
> It's quite a lovely film, fabulous production design, photography and
> performances, and William Dieterle's use of crowds as architecture rivals Lang's
> in Metropolis.
> And Mr. Laughton WILL make you weep.
Plus some just plain brilliant cutting from Robert Wise, and one of Cedric
Hardwicke's best-ever villains.
Harry Davenport's great too.
Brian
J. Theakston
> All four major versions (even the Disney cartoon) have their
> moments, although the Chaney and Laughton remain the definitive. Now
> if only someone would turn up the Theda Bara version!
The same could not be said for Turner's TV-Movie of Hunchback.
Whoever casted Mandy Patinkin as the hunchback should be severly
punished.
Does anyone know of what became of the French 1911 version of the
film? I've seen numerous print references to it, but was it an actual
film or a figment of some historian's imagination?
-J. Theakston
Foto28
>> performances, and William Dieterle's use of crowds as architecture rivals
>Lang's
>> in Metropolis.
>> And Mr. Laughton WILL make you weep.
I agree, the '39 Hunchback is THE version...blasphemous as it sounds, I much
prefer it over the silent.
===============
Danny Burk
www.dannyburk.com - fine art photography
If you wish to email me, make an obvious correction to the address posted
above.