Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Thrill is Gone?
We can no longer view the Lumieres Brothers first films with an "innocent eye." We no longer dive under our seats as we watch an oncoming train approach the screen. From our perspective of computer-generating special effects, early cinema can often appear "charming," but also primitive, naive and perhaps a bit boring. But is that true of all silent film we have seen in this class? Can early cinema having any intellectual or entertainment value for our times (beyond the historical value of trying to recapture the innocent eye)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have yet to see a silent film that can contribute intellectually to the same degree as modern day films. I think this is because of the difficulty conveying the same message silently as opposed to with character dialogue. We also live in a different time period in which the intelligence of the average American is a lot greater than what it was in the 1920's and 30's, so we can appreciate more sophisticated forms of film. Even though The General was released in 1927, I still found it funny. Comedy is something that is simple and can be accomplished regardless on the time period.
ReplyDeleteEarly cinema can definitely have intellectual and entertainment value for our times, because early films can reflect key social issues during their generation, which can also echo similar problems that we have in our current society. One example is the film Metropolis by Fritz Lang released in 1927. It is a silent film about a futuristic dystopian society in which the mass workers live underground and work all day to keep society functioning, while the elite few live above ground and enjoy the fruits of their labors. The movie shows many key problems of the early 20th century, especially with capitalism, growing social gap between rich and poor, and the growing influence and uses of technology. There are many symbols to reflect this such as the 24 hour clock being replaced by a 10 hour work clock, the workforce being represented as one unit, the dehumanization of individual laborers, and use of machines to exploit one’s own desires. The movie ends with the phrase “there can be no understanding between the hands and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator”. We can also see the problems in this movie in our own society as well. Issues of social rank will always be an issue with capitalistic society as well as the few rich exploiting the masses of the poor.
ReplyDeleteI really did not give a complete or really good summary of the film here’s a summary from imdb.com
It is the future, and humans are divided into two groups: the thinkers, who make plans (but don't know how anything works), and the workers, who achieve goals (but don't have the vision). Completely separate, neither group is complete, but together they make a whole. One man from the "thinkers" dares visit the underground where the workers toil, and is astonished by what he sees…
Going into watching The General, I certainly thought that it would seem outdated and dull to my hollywood tainted eyes. But quite to my surprise, I found it quite humorous. I think that this is actually due to the fact that it is a silent film. Humor is often lost as time passes, but due to the silent nature of the film, the filmmakers had to resort to physical humor rather than something like wit or verbal jokes. If the class were to watch a comedy from the fifties some of the jokes might fly right over our heads because we dont know about the pop culture of the day, but getting a pie to the face or suddenly splashed with water is humor that transcends words, and as such, is timelessly funny.
ReplyDeleteAnother film that pertains to this prompt is The Black Imp by George Melies. Sure, the editing is nothing compared to the editing the modern film-goer is accustomed to but what it creates is still pretty amazing in its own right. It may be considered primitive, but nobody can say it wasn't, and still is, entertaining. Who doesn't find dressers and chairs moving, multiplying, disappearing, and generally confusing the main character entertaining? Other people’s confusion is funny, and the ‘primitive’ editing achieves that.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree with what Frank brought up, because the films are silent they appeal to more people and more generations. Physical comedy is universal, a pie in the face is a pie in the face whether you are in the U.S., France, Japan, etc, in the early 1900s or present day.
Silent films do not trigger as much of a reaction within us of the 21st century because we are used to the action-packed, thrilling special effects that we are used to. Although these older films are not quite as exciting to us as the present-day creations, enjoyment can still be found in them. It is human nature to find another person's misfortune humorous, which is the general (no pun intended) theme of these films. This is why we can still be entertained by the silent films such as The General or the film with the Black Imp.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see how the people who grew up watching these films would have reacted to an action thriller from today loaded with special effects.
Having grown up in this new age of technology its very easy to loose appreciation for simple joys. As Kelsey mentioned, seeing someone being pied in the face never seems to get old. While having barely scratched the surface of film I have developed the opinion that humor translates through the ages better than any other genre of film. Maybe this opinion will change after seeing older actions films among other types. Having just seen The General I enjoyed the humor greatly, possibly because of its apparent simplistic nature. When examined more closely, Keaton's stunts are actually more skillful than most actors today whose stunts are performed by a stunt double or by a computer in some fashion. This aspect drew me into the film in a way that some modern day films cannot.
ReplyDeleteBeing exposed to modern day special effects could in some ways make it easier to appreciate these older but not outdated films. With some I suppose this could have the opposite effect where modern day films have ruined any chance of appreciation of old films, but for me it has made me more open to different types of film.
Andrew: Ha, we both didn't intend the same pun.
ReplyDeleteCharles: I don't think that the differences between the films of the early twentieth century and the films of today have to do with the idea that audiences are more intelligent now...I think that examining the popular literature and music of the early twentieth century disproves that. I also don't think that the differences between early and recent films lie in intellectual merit. A century of experience, technological innovation, and industry expansion has given filmmakers the know-now, tools, and money to pull off some fancy tricks and get their ideas across in brilliant new ways, but I don't think the early film are lacking in the complexity of their ideas--merely the means by which they are able to convey them, and even then only in comparison to great recent films.
I would point to Luis Buñuel's "L'age d'or." If silent film lacks the means through which to adequately convey its ideas, how could its social commentary be biting enough to inspire riots at its premiere? Dialogue isn't necessary to make a powerful film. One of the most emotionally exhausting films I've ever seen is David Lynch's "Eraserhead," which isn't silent but probably doesn't even have enough dialogue to fill five pages of screenplay. Lynch doesn't need it. The dread and desperation of his main character, his claustrophobia, his hopelessness--it all comes through the window of your mind like a brick.
Until last week, I believed that the charm of silent films was definitely gone. In the past, I have found silent films to be quite boring. Although the really early films (such as those made by the Lumiere Brothers) are very impressive for their time and may have even startled or surprised audiences, they are boring in modern day society. No one would ever even think of recording a group of people leaving a building and calling it film in the 21st century. However, "The General" came as a pleasant surprise. It was funny and entertaining, it had a decent plot, and I had a lot of fun watching Buster Keaton's stoneface and silly quirks.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with what stone said, some humor continues to transcend time, and with that humor comes the fundamental techniques behind the laughs. One thing that I think growing up today have done is that when you I watch a movie I think more into it then the basic storyline. Some thoughts on the movie may be, "wow how did they do that?" or "what if things were really like that in real life?" Its these questions which make a good movie, if everything is merely spoon fed to the viewer then the movie becomes trite and literally too easy. It is in this where the true value of even the oldest movies can be scene, any time a movie makes you think beyond what is right in front of you and it in atleast a small way a success. And we have seen even silent films can still spur thought in the viewer. A prime example is that people do in fact talk during the movies in class, meaning they are engaged in one way or another.
ReplyDeleteIn a way I think it's a bit sad that people find silent films to be boring and uninteresting. Like walters said, now days the viewer is spoon fed information. Personally I have found the silent flims we've watched to be intersting. It's cool to see what would have interested views back when the film was released, such as in The General with the train. My favorite movies are ones that you have to think about. So, in the Last Laugh, when we, the viewer had to think about things like who the girl that was getting married was, it made it more interesting and thus a better film, to me.
ReplyDeleteLiving in the 21st century we are so used to watching high-tech movies. Because of this, we typically dont accept any other forms of film. You can't judge a book by its cover. Take The General for example. I'm pretty sure majority of the class thought it was going to be a dull and boring cinematic experience; however, as the movie progressed we were pleasantly surprised. Even though the movie was completely silent, there were many other aspects that sounded it out (no pun intended)! The constant thrill of the train rides and the simple yet comedic character of Buster Keaton were definitely enough to satisfy us as viewers. The movie was definitely not highly technological, but that obviously didn't mean that it wasn't entertaining.
ReplyDeleteToday we watch films that are created for an idiot to watch. Film makers create films so that the film gives the viewer exactly what the maker is trying to prove. That is the way movies have changed drastically throughout time. Now movies are capable of telling the viewer even what a character is thinking and the way he/she reacts to a specific event. When silent films were created the actors had to use more body language for the audience to see the emotions. Actors then were more skilled. With a silent film you are able to use more of your own imagination to view the movie. The General was a great film, I thought it was hilarious, even with todays standards of movies.
ReplyDelete