WHAT SILENTS & PRE-CODES HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

[Robert Regan]

You're very welcome, Theresa. But thank YOU, dear friend for the light that you bring into the lives of all who are lucky to know you.

[feaito]

I completely agree with Robert.

[JackFavell]

ditto!

It's the LOVE of movies I look for in people's posts, the excitement, the passion or the heartfelt melancholy. The emotion. Not so much the wit, though you've certainly got that too.

[Jezebel38]

I envy you, ChiO. Being a huge Claude Rains fan, as well as a Slavko Vorkapich nut since witnessing how his art direction could transform a film after seeing I Bury the Living (1958), I've been trying to catch the entire movie of Crime Without Passion for some time.

Moira - look what I just found:
[youtube][/youtube]

[JackFavell]

oooh, Jez, thanks for posting!

And Happy Holidays!

[feaito]

Thanks for posting Jez!!

[Jezebel38]

Wendy / Fernando - what did you think of this? Margo irked me, I thought Whitney Bourne was stunning, and Claude is just stupendous! This print is really good, and impressive cinematography and other montage sequences though out the film make this so unique. Ben Hech's dialogue for Claude was cracking - loved when his "inner voice" showed up when Claude was crumbling at the end.

[moira finnie]

Jez--A pal sent me a DVD of the movie awhile ago, but I am so glad that you and others had a chance to see this marvelous tour de force by the magnificent Claude and company. I know what you mean about Margo. She has never been an easy performer to watch for me, but Whitney Bourne, who was apparently a socialite who dabbled in acting, had some real talent, based on this and a few of her other appearances in RKO movies of the '30s.

Now I have to track down a copy of Noel Coward in The Scoundrel (1935), another Hecht-MacArthur production--this time about a corrupt publisher (and based on the real life of Horace Liveright, one of the founders of The Modern Library)!

[feaito]

Jez, I liked it and I agree that Whitney Bourne is a stunning woman; she's got presence and I also remember her from "The Mad Miss Manton" (1938) an absolutely glorious (underrated) screwball-whodunit-comedy with Barbara Stanwyck. I understand what you say about Margo, because her performance at some times gets on your nerves....her hysterical delivery? But perhaps she was meant to be like that, to understand and connect with Rains' plight and sense of disenchantment and being fed-up with her...I thought the film ahead of its time, with surrealistic touches and Lee Garmes' cinematography is great. Rains, last but not least, gives a masterful performance, as usual.

[JackFavell]

I haven't had a chance to watch yet, but also agree about Margo and Whitney Bourne. Bourne is the reason I watch the remake of Rafter Romance, I think she had a good deal of talent. She reminds me of Frances Farmer quite a bit, but not as heavy, she had good natural delivery.

[Lucky Vassall]

This is one of the longest threads. A testament to the good taste of our members!

Not exactly what the original title refers to, but, by chance, over the past two weeks I rewatched "Mon Oncle" and watched for the first time "Le Bal" and "The Artist." Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that the pictures (well, at least, not ALL of them) have not "got small."

Anyway bunching these silents as I did got me to thinking about something that should be obvious but came as a surprise to me: We pay more attention to a silent film than a talkie.

When there's dialogue, especially a conversation between two characters, we often stop watching the actors and just listen to them. Sometimes, we look at their surroundings, especially if it's an open air scene filmed in a recognizable setting (try watching "Vertigo" or "Breakfast at Tiffany's" without being distracted occasionally by the setting), but often we look away from the screen completely, because we know we won't miss anything.

On the other hand, with a silent looking away even briefly can cause us to miss an important gesture or look, so we avoid allowing ourselves to be distracted.

What do you think, am I on to something?

[JackFavell]

Absolutely, you totally are. Lucky! It's so easy to look away or be busy around the house when watching a talkie, not so during a silent. It commands your full attention.

I definitely 'fall into' silents more than sound films. I get more deeply involved more often. I remember reading somewhere that the eating of snacks during a film gained popularity during the early talkie era. Many historians assume it was because Depression era theater owners were trying to draw bigger audiences. Snacking happened during the nickelodeon craze, but food was sold by outside vendors.Suddenly, the theater owners realized that inside vending would bring in more money.

During the heydey of the silent film in the 20's, snacking was looked down on, maybe because the movie theaters were getting so fancy that the owners didn't want the litter from candy and popcorn spilled all over their sumptuous movie palaces.... but I think it's mainly because you really can't look away from the screen in order to stuff your hand in a bag of popcorn. The films at that time were more complex, and had various threads of stories, so one had to pay attention. I literally cannot eat during a silent, because it takes a bit of concentration, even doing something as simple as snacking can throw you completely off. More often than not, I forget I even had a snack to eat. I find myself rewinding more often during silents as well, a luxury movie patrons didn't have back in the twenties, but I feel I need to catch every moment.

[moira finnie]

Anyway bunching these silents as I did got me to thinking about something that should be obvious but came as a surprise to me: We pay more attention to a silent film than a talkie.

When there's dialogue, especially a conversation between two characters, we often stop watching the actors and just listen to them. Sometimes, we look at their surroundings, especially if it's an open air scene filmed in a recognizable setting (try watching "Vertigo" or "Breakfast at Tiffany's" without being distracted occasionally by the setting), but often we look away from the screen completely, because we know we won't miss anything.

On the other hand, with a silent looking away even briefly can cause us to miss an important gesture or look, so we avoid allowing ourselves to be distracted.

What do you think, am I on to something?

I agree, Lucky. The experience of watching a silent movie via any medium is much more intense than seeing a talkie in some ways. I was lucky enough to see the Douglas Fairbanks' Robin Hood (1922) on a big screen once. The movie (and Doug) was a wonderful experience, but it was truly exhausting too. Even more tiring was the dramatic involvement with Louise Brooks in The Lost Girl (1929). Seeing them made me understand realize why people were so caught up in the new form of entertainment in their heyday (and among some aficionados today). I like silent films, but find that I need to carve out separate time for them--watching them at home, I can never really look away and do three things at once (what I am often doing).

[feaito]

I agree with all of you Lucky, Moira and WEN. I can't take my eyes off when I watch a Silent; I get completely immersed in it.

What you write is so pertinent Lucky, because just yesterday I put on my DVD player one of Elvis' best flicks: "Viva Las Vegas!" (1964) and in spite of the good music, dancing and gorgeous Ann-Margret I paid little attention to the images and was concentrated on doing other stuff instead.

[Lucky Vassall]

[quote="JackFavell"]Absolutely, you totally are. Lucky! It's so easy to look away or be busy around the house when watching a talkie, not so during a silent. It commands your full attention.

I definitely 'fall into' silents more than sound films. I get more deeply involved more often. I remember reading somewhere that the eating of snacks during a film gained popularity during the early talkie era. Many historians assume it was because Depression era theater owners were trying to draw bigger audiences. Snacking happened during the nickelodeon craze, but food was sold by outside vendors.Suddenly, the theater owners realized that inside vending would bring in more money.

Good to hear others agree with me. Thanks for all the comments. And shocked to learn that we can also blame talkies for the Refreshment Stand. One more cross to bear. Thanks JF.