Silent films
This week we are watching a silent film, The Kid (1921).
We think of silent films as an archaic form, but Mel Brooks made a silent film, Silent Movie, in 1976. More recently in 2003, Les Triplettes de Belleville, was released as essentially a silent cartoon. What are the advantages of a silent film over a sound film? What are the advantages of sound? What benefits would making a current day silent film have over "talkies" (if any)?
We think of silent films as an archaic form, but Mel Brooks made a silent film, Silent Movie, in 1976. More recently in 2003, Les Triplettes de Belleville, was released as essentially a silent cartoon. What are the advantages of a silent film over a sound film? What are the advantages of sound? What benefits would making a current day silent film have over "talkies" (if any)?
posted by cmartin at 1/17/2006 10:25:00 PM
33 Comments:
Silent films didn’t have to deal with language barriers. It didn’t matter where films were made, audiences all over the world could experience them in the same way. With the introduction of sound and dialogue, the intended audience becomes smaller and more specific. If the film is made in English, the majority of its audience will speak English. Captions and dubbing do allow people who do not speak the particular language to view and understand the film, but these people do not experience it in the same way. Reading the dialogue of a movie, even if the movie is great, is different than listening to it. Making a silent film calls more of the audience’s attention towards physical acting, and there is no room for subtlety. The actors need to look and act the part, but they do not necessarily need to talk the part. Their voice doesn’t matter, and casting for this type of film is much different than casting for a sound film.
I’ve actually only seen parts of silent movies, and they’ve all had Charlie Chaplin in them.
Today when a movie is made, if the producers tend to have it shipped to another country, they must first dub it or subtitle the movie so that the people in the other country understand what is going on. In silent films there was no need for this. Body language is universal. Sound can give you a better idea as to what is going on though, in silent film it is up to you to properly read their expressions for what they truly mean. I silent film today would mostly benefit from the fact they cinematography is greatly improved, the picture would be clearer and the actors easier to understand...movement wise that is. Other than The Kid the only silent movies I've really seen are just a few other Charlie Chaplin flicks.
Ryan - well I just noticed that we basically said the same thing...lovely.
The audience perceives sound in different ways, making it harder to safisfy everyone's tastes. In silent films, our imagination or interpretation of the sound will not be interrupted by what's being produced in the film. I think silent films gives the audience an advantage to be creative with what they percieve to be the sound. They'll be more attentive as a result.
However, the sound in films will give the audience the ability to not just watch the image but to listen to it as well, which will initiate an audience's reaction and add value to the image as well.
A current day silent film would definitely remind us of the value of drama in films. I believe it will bring back the challenges in the techniques that were used at the time in making silent films as entertaining as "talkies" today. I have never seen a silent film, but I truly enjoyed watching "The Kid" by Charlie Chaplin.
Ryan and Jonathan,
I totally agree with you guys. I also think the languange barrier is one of the issues in sound films. In a world like this, it wouldn't hurt to play a silent film where everyone could understand.
I'm not sure there are advantages to silent film over sound film. The one good thing about silent film would be that your audience will have to pay close attention to the film. Without words, the viewers need to be watching and putting the pieces of the plot together. On the other hand, with dialogue, if a viewer doesn’t understand something, sometimes a character will explain it during the film. If you really wanted to draw the viewer in to a particular story, someone might want to make a silent film today. I thought “The Kid” was okay. Silent movies aren’t really my thing, but it managed to hold my interest for the most part.
I agreed with ryan’s comment when he said, ” The actors need to look and act the part, but they do not necessarily need to talk the part.” I think the emphasis is definitely on the actors’ appearances and expressions.
What are the advantages of a silent film over a sound film? What are the advantages of sound? What benefits would making a current day silent film have or "talkies"? What other silent films have you seen, recent or otherwise?
I think that silent films are more of a raw art form. They are more black and white (figuratively) and are more direct in the point that they are trying to drive home, as opposed to being concerned with details or complexity. Sound, at least music-wise, helps extract a heavier sense of emotion from a the silent film to compensate for its lack of dialogue. Silent films use a dramatic score to help overexagerate anything that the audience is intended to feel. Talking movies rely more on implied emotions through dialogue with a more subtle score to help convey the tone and mood. The benefits of making a silent film today would be the sheer novelty of it and the challenge it would provide for the directors or film artisans. It would also provide a possibly refreshing alternative to audiences who would like to explore more thetrical or artistic forms of film. When I was little I saw a foreign silent film called My Uncle. It was French and I didn't understand it much, I was only about 7 or 8 though.
I agree with you guys about the fact that silent films would help overcome some language barriers and it is interesting to think about the fact that the actor would have to have a different kind of talent. Instead of being able to convey vocal sincerity and a believable depiction of reality, they would have to be more like stage performers and be over-the-top. I believe this aspect could possibly outweigh the benefit of silent films to cross language barriers. The mass market of movie consumers are less concerned with theatrical or artistic film and are more inclined towards something they can easily understand "without thinking".
My comment is tangential to the original blog post, but relates to class discussion today.
I have been mulling over the question of why have the glass breaking be the only "sound" in The Kid all afternoon (geeky academic that I am). After some more contemplation, I want to alter my original explanation. Before the kid breaks the windows we have never seen him commit a crime (correct?). And even though Charlie Chaplin is poor, we have never seen him commit a crime either (right?). The breaking glass could be the literal "breaking" of the law. This breaking of the law, followed by the fight scene could help socially justify the need to either take the child away from Charlie (since he was teaching him criminal acts) or to reinforce the need for the mother figure to come back into the picture and rescue the child.
Just thought that I would share.
I am glad that most of you had a pleasantly surprising experience with silent films!
I agree with everything said so far, so i'll try not to be too repetitious. It's hard to pick one advantage over another in comparing these two vastly different types of film, because a weakness can also be a strength in either styles. For instance, one "advantage" in sound films is that there is more room for a complicated plot line to develop (because we are not relying solely on body language and facial expressions.) But complicated isn't always better. The down side is that it loses the simplicity, confusing the base, raw emotions with new ideas and information. Having no dialogue is a weakness and a strength for silent films, while having dialogue is a weakness and a strength for sound film; quite a paradox.
A current silent film would have most all of the advantages that other new films have, namely greater technology to more accurately represent special effects, picture, sound (score and sound effects), among other things. I'd like to see one, know of any?
I saw a really weird silent film on tv once. Every character was played by a dog. And even though it was extremely old, whoever made it did a great job of humanizing the animals. A female poodle and a male bulldog (or something like that) were drinking at a night club when the poodle's husband came in and had a showdown with the bulldog. Weird, wild stuff. Any one heard of this film? I'd like to see it again.
As most others (it seems), I thoroughly enjoyed The Kid. The best part was the music (I was amazed to find out that the score was written by noneother than Charlie Chaplin) and how it furthered the plot and matched each scene. When the tramp first came across the baby, and was trying to get rid of it safely, the music is very lighthearted, almost clownish. When he reads the note written by the woman for the first time, the music changes to a more sentimental, romantic style (slowed down, less bouncy, melodic harmonies). And in the next scene, the music stays the same as the woman pensively looks at skyline on top of the bridge. She picks up the woman next to her's baby, and when the other woman takes the baby away from the woman, the music changes from romantic to depressing, dirge-like quality.
Silent films have many advantages. I've made a few films in the past and I am currently working on a film for the UF Film Festival in March; and from past experiences it is much simpler to make a silent film as opposed to a "talkie" film. For one, you dont need a full dialogue script! For most silent film dialogue, a general idea is discussed and most of the actual "talking" is impromptu. (This makes the writers job i.e my job ALOT easier) Also, no sound means no talking, no talking means no translating into other languages...thus silent films can be understood universally. Thirdly, as we all know, silent films avoid the "dubbing effect." Although it is more enjoyable to watch a sound film in this day and age, it is much simpler for the average person to make a silent film.
comment on Ryan's post:
"voice doesnt't matter" in silent films.
i would just like to point out that FRAN DRESCHER should think about a career change to silent films
I've read stuff in magazines before that says anytime we lose our ability to use one of the five senses, our other senses become more heightened. I think this is the case in viewing silent films. We don't use hearing, so instead the viewer uses sight to become more aware of the physical interactions between the actors. We notice more subtle actions and reactions that might be missed in a film with sound that spells it out for us. The advantage that a film with sound has is that it enables the plot to become more developed and have intracacies that maybe couldn't happen with silent films. A modern day silent film might have the advantage that we now have much more sophisticated sets and technology, so the film could really focus on things like great natural scenery. Whereas back in the old silent films, everything was done on very concrete stages and sets.
I actually slightly disagree with Ryan a little on the comment that silent films leave no room for subtlety. Whereas the physical comedy and interactions are very important, without sound, a small look or gesture can often convey alot of meaning to i think.
There are not enough silent movies being made these days. I think that physical comedy is very entertaining and these types of films are being made less and less. Silent films place a large amount of importance on the actor and his/her ability to communicate emotion through body language. It is sometimes difficult for every viewer to fully grasp the intentions or direction of the film because silent films leave interpretation of the movie up to the audience. "Talkies" use a direct form of communication in which the objectives and goals of the movie can be outwardly expressed. Jim Carrey, Bill Murry, and the late Chris Farley are actors that I could see doing a silent film. Also, films without dialogue have a greater possibility of losing the viewers attention. For this reason, I think it would be very difficult to produce a silent film that wasn't a comedy.
I definetly agree with Jonathan about silent films benefiting from the progression of technology and cinematography.
Doesn't seem like the only major silent films involve Charlie Chaplin? The only other silent film star I have heard of is Buster Keaton. Any others?
When you first look at silent films it is hard to think that they could be as good as or better than films with sound. Sound brings an intense emotion to movies – when you see and hear your favorite character in a movie crying, you probably start to tear up too. I had never seen a full length silent film before last week. I wasn’t sure how they would compare to “talkies.” After watching “The Kid,” I can definitely see that there are advantages to silent films. Silent films can be understood by anyone, anywhere at anytime. It doesn’t matter how young or old you are or what language you speak when you are watching a silent film. Making a current day silent film would be interesting because it would so different from everything else out there. Most people in our generation have probably never seen a silent film and it would definitely be cool to see how young people would react to one.
Jason - I definitely agree with your comment that it would be difficult to make a silent film that was not a comedy.
Sam - I think we probably all agree on your new career path for Fran Drescher.
Silent films have several advantages that many people do not think about. SIlent films open the range of people who can watch the film. As other people have mentioned there is a language barrier and silent films break that barrier. Though this may not be an advantage, I think that silent films are able to express more emotion without making it cheesy. The veiwer can almost make up what they think the actor is trying to express. Silent films also put a bigger emphasis on the use of music. The perfect song can bring more emotion than words. After making my own silent film, I learned it is just as hard or even more hard to make a silent film than a film with sound.
well it looks like most people were on the same page for this one.. the first thing to stand out is the fact that there are no language barriers in silent films. you dont even have to read subtitles as fast as you can during the film, because there arent any. an advantage is that the movies can almost be shorter because they feel longer.. but thats a catch 22. the silent movies can also feel like theyre going on forever because the theme music in the background is almost always the same except for moments of plot twists, etc. atleast silent movies would open up more jobs for deaf and mute people as well as means of entertainment and as funny as that might be i mean that in a totally serious way. sound is obviously important in a film as far as music goes and there werent as many choices of genres other than classical or "the entertainer" type vaudeville stuff back then. the lack of sound in THE KID made me focus on the scenery and lighting a lot more so that was somewhat of an advantage, as much as i ended up liking the movie, maybe i was trying to make time pass more quickly. I saw one silent movie once, and it was called THE BAT featuring Vincent Price who i love. it was really cheesy andi fell asleep the first time but i own it because it was 5 dollars at HEAR AGAIN. the music was the same the ENTIRE TIME. i guess that has no relativity to what this blog is about. other than that is the only other silent movie ive watched. i think a silent movie today wouldnt gross too much at the box office and would be seen as an 'indie' flick shown only in ny,miami, and la. it would be interesting to see if there are any differences at all between the original silent movies and silent movies present day.
i completely agree with laura on the fact that our other senses are hightened when watching silent films, although they arent completely silent because of the background music. but point being that we do tend to notice scenery, motion, expressions, lighting, and background objects more because we arent trying to hear every single word.
Advantages of silent film: I agree with the idea that silent films cross language barriers, but I don’t think that they are necessarily “universal.” There might be cultural contexts that apply to a film which might not be readily understood internationally. I, like most you, find that silent films focus the audience’s attention on the visual/technical aspects of the production. I also think that silent films encourage viewers to use their imaginations in order to fill in the blanks and draw conclusions. Advantages of sound: Obviously you get dialogue and more complexity in the plot. Vocal intonation of the actors also affects the way viewers interpret a scene. A given line can have completely different meanings, depending on how it is spoken. Overall, I think the advantages of both types outweigh the disadvantages. If a modern day silent film were to be made, I think it could have great success. I think that if a film was made with matrix-like special effects and a carefully designed plot-line, I think audiences would be able interpret what’s going on and enjoy it. (There are lots of movies out there that have great special effects and could probably be made better by cutting out the cheesy dialogue).
I guess what I really wanted to say was exactly what john g said. Silent film have advantages becuase they are less concerned with complexity. The music expresses more emotion along with the over exagagerated movements made. John G also mentioned how silent movies could be important today just to act as a challenge for film makers. That was the exact reason why when my teacher in film making class made me make a silent film
Laura – I agree with you about the fact that silent films do allow for subtlety. The over-the-top physical movements do contribute greatly to humorous scenes, but subtlety can be found in facial expressions and through symbols… I believe the theory reading discussed montage – the pairing of unrelated images to create symbolic connections which might not otherwise be there… I watched a silent film by Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali “Un Chien Andalou” which was entirely symbolic (and you don’t necessarily have to understand the film completely to enjoy it)… I’ve also seen Chaplain’s “City Lights” and Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis.” All very good.
Sam – I know what you mean. I’ve tried writing scripts before and it gets quite difficult.
Laura, I think I may have been a little too general in my statement earlier. I think that there is LESS room for subtlety in silent films. I really didn’t notice anything in The Kid that I would call subtle, but I need new contacts, and I probably didn’t view it as critically as you did.
Silent films really make the audience pay attention. It allows the actors to truly "act" out what is going on in the story, almost like a mime would. This allows for not only individual interpretations of things but also gives the audience more personal enjoyment of the story. I find it to be really interesting when you think about it in a present day context. What kind of praise/criticism would a full-length non-animated silent film get these days? Obviously, with technology today, sound is no problem; but it would be interesting to see a present-day silent film. Reminds me of the middle part of the Tom Hanks movie "Castaway" when there was no talking for a good 45 minutes. Silent films really deserve a revival and I would love to watch some other silent films.
Everyone did a really good job of covering all the bases on silent films. There were many things that I read that I hadn't even thought about.
Ray - I keep meaning to watch "Metropolis" but always forget about it. From what I hear, it's fantastic.
got pink eye, will contact when i am better. Hope to see you soon.
Bobby,
this isnt really a silent film...there is dialogue (well subtitles because it is from finland) and sound and all that fun stuff but i think the movie Ariel by Aki Kaurismaki is awesome. like i said its not a silent film, but there is little to no dialogue in it and it has the same "breaking the language barrier" feeling because of the lack of dialogue
^ oops i forgot to sign my name
Some very insightful comments! Great job class.
Sam,
keep us infomed about the UF Film Festival in March and be sure and add it to the wiki films around town calendar.
Jon S.,
I am assuming that you are the other Jon. Let me know if this is incorrect. Sorry you have pinkeye.
Post a Comment
<< Home