WHAT SILENTS & PRE-CODES HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

charliechaplinfan · Post by **charliechaplinfan** » July 22nd, 2008, 4:12 pm

I've just been watching Prix De Beaute with Louise Brooks made in 1930 and directed by Augusto Genina. It;s the story of a girl who works as a typist for a newspaper and enters their national contest to be Miss France. Being the beautiful Louise Brooks she wins and goes on to win the Miss Europe title. Her fiance is not happy at her participation and goes to collect her, he tells her she must return with him or never see him again. Poor Louise or Lucienne as she is returns with her fiance and leaves the trappings of her title behind her. She marries him and leads the life of a housewife whilst dreaming of the glory she could have attained. She is found and offered a film contract, she takes it and leaves her husband. The ending is quite powerful in the way it is filmed.

The film itself reminded me a little of People on a Sunday, a lot of it was shot on location. It's not quite a stylish as her films with Pabst and has poor dubbing, I could look past that, reviews I have read say that the silent version is the better, Kino has released the dubbed version. It's worth a look

Then I saw Der Von Engang or Once Upon A Time one of Carl Dreyer's first films. It's quite a departure for him, instead of the realism I'm used to this is like a Hans Christian Anderson fairytale beautifully filmed, very fitting that a Dane should make a fairytale film.

drednm · Post by **drednm** » July 22nd, 2008, 7:18 pm

PRIX DE BEAUTE was a pleasant film but nothing great..... worth a look for Louise Brooks

myrnaloyisdope · Post by **myrnaloyisdope** » July 25th, 2008, 9:01 pm

Well I rewatched couple of silents the past couple days as I picked up the Kino-Griffith set, and some of the Kino Buster Keatons.

I re-watched Broken Blossoms and was very impressed. Liilian Gish appeals to me more and more. It must be those big eyes. But she has great facial expressions. Richard Barthelmess was quite good too, although I find it difficult to take him serious as a Chinese man. His performance gets lost in mannerisms and stereotypical Chinese stoicism. It didn't occur to me upon first viewing how damn bleak the story is. A 12 year old girl beaten to death by her father? Man that's the harshest thing imaginable. Griffith handles it suitably and keeps things somewhat understated, at least by his standards. It was also a nice change of pace to see him do something pretty simple rather than an epic.

I also re-watched Sherlock Jr. and am now convinced that it is his best work. I love how fast paced it is, with no dead spots. There is little time devoted to romance, instead it is simply gag after gag for 45 minutes. What makes it so great is the ingenuity of everything. I like that Keaton plays the hero but doesn't actually save the day except in his dream sequence. The dream sequence is one of the greatest things ever filmed as Keaton falls asleep during his job as a projectionist and actually enters the movie he is projecting. It's wonderfully played out, and it is also very complex. The whole sequence asks questions about narrative, about what it means to be an audience, about the relationship between audience and film. There is just so much going on it is absolutely fascinating to watch. And did I mention that it is funny as hell too.

What a great film. 45 minutes of perfection.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » July 25th, 2008, 9:18 pm

Justin,

Keaton's. SHERLOCK JUNIOR Is much better with the Vince Giordano score, than it is with the Club Foot Orchestra one. Legend tells that two reels were cut, that Roscoe Arbuckle was greatly involved with/. The distributors got wind of it, and Buster was given no choice. Have you seen SEVEN CHANCES yet?

The score of the Kino BROKEN BLOSSOMS disc is not very good either. You can here a recent recording of the original score on the Image DVD. The best version is the Thames one, which was released on Laser-disc, but not on DVD.

Might also add that there are much better prints of THE BIRTH OF A NATION than is found on the Kino set, The Thames version is so much sharper,and clearer you wouldn't believe it. Same thing with INTOLERANCE.

myrnaloyisdope · Post by **myrnaloyisdope** » July 25th, 2008, 9:32 pm

Seven Chances is great, I happen to like the Club Foot Orchestra score, and I am not a great stickler for details. I am happy to just see this films. It would take an absolutely abysmal print or score to really affect my enjoyment of a film.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » July 25th, 2008, 10:10 pm

Justin,

I first saw SHERLOCK JUNIOR with the Vince Giordano and the Nighthawks Orchestra score in 1995. It is the music I am used to hearing with the film, and no other score will do after that. It's the same with the Carl Davis scores to OUR HOSPITALITY, and THE GENERAL.

SEVEN CHANCES (1925) is my favorite Keaton Film, The Kino print is great, and has a Robert Israel score. Did you know that is a faded Technicolor sequences at the start of the film? And SEVEN CHANCES has never been shown on TCM! I don't know why? I've asked about this over, and over too.

charliechaplinfan · Post by **charliechaplinfan** » July 26th, 2008, 3:10 am

Sherlock jnr is a work of pure genius. I have the Kino disc and it's the only time I've had to turn a soundtrack off.

Keaton and Chaplin are so different, their genius works in different ways. Sherlock jnr is one of Buster's masterpieces.

He baffled the industry with the sequence were he enters the film. Nbody knew how he'd done it.

MichiganJ · Post by **MichiganJ** » July 26th, 2008, 7:18 am

myrnaloyisdope wrote:

A 12 year old girl beaten to death by her father? Man that's the harshest thing imaginable. Griffith handles it suitably and keeps things somewhat understated, at least by his standards. It was also a nice change of pace to see him do something pretty simple rather than an epic.

I agree that it is nice to see Griffith do a film with more subtlety, and he handles it well. I must admit, though, that the film bothers me on a number of levels. Obviously the abuse and murder of the daughter (Griffith changed her age from the original 12-years old to, I think, 15) is, as you said, the harshest thing imaginable. But there is also the relationship between Lucy and Cheng to consider. It certainly appears as though Cheng not only wants to protect Lucy, but he has a romantic interest in her as well. I have not read the story, so I’m unsure if this is true or not, but Griffith’s film, and Barthelmess’ performance seems to indicate it’s so. It works, I suppose, just as all of Mary Pickford’s “little girl who grows up to fall in love with her benefactor stories” because we know that Gish and Pickford are, in fact, adults. But the fact remains that Lucy, in the story 12-years old, and in the film a few years older, appears to be the romantic interest to a much older man.

Sherlock Jr. What a great film. 45 minutes of perfection.

Couldn’t agree more. Although I think Our Hospitality is Keaton’s best feature. Which brings me to the question: Why do we consider Sherlock Jr, running a mere 44-minutes or so, a feature, when we don’t think of Chaplin’s Soldier Arms, running 46-minutes, a feature?

charliechaplinfan · Post by **charliechaplinfan** » July 26th, 2008, 8:33 am

That's a good question, I think possibly because Buster had done longer 'features' and he was seen as a feature artist having made the Saphead and Our Hospitality previously. Chaplin still had to move on to features although after The Kid he made a couple shorter length films like The Pilgrim, but that's not really counted as a feature, strange indeed.

Our Hospitality is my favorite too. The stunts he does are amazing. When I watched it the first time I didn't know of how the stunt in the water went wrong, I was astounded when I saw him going that fast in the water. Imagine what audiences of the day must have felt like.

I'm really looking forward to our Silent comedies competition, narrowing that one down will be tough.

myrnaloyisdope · Post by **myrnaloyisdope** » July 26th, 2008, 1:31 pm

Our Hospitality is great indeed. I think The General is probably his best full length film in terms of start-to-finish excellence, but both Seven Chances and Steamboat Bill Jr. have better climaxes.

The only one of I've seen that was disappointing was The Navigator, and even that had some good parts.

Keaton vs. Chaplin is a discussion that I have no idea where I would side. I think Sherlock Jr. is probably my favorite of anything I've seen from either man, but there is Chaplin films like The Kid and The Circus which I adore very much. I also haven't seen anything of Buster Keaton's later work save for Limelight, so I don't know how he held up. His critical reputation is based entirely on his silent output, whereas Chaplin's critical reputation covers almost his entire career.

Call it a draw for now.

charliechaplinfan · Post by **charliechaplinfan** » July 26th, 2008, 1:41 pm

Keaton vs Chaplin is something I can never answer. They are both too special, both tuched by genius. I can't rate Harold Lloyd as high, he's just missing that something extra, the mark of genius of the other two. It is only my opinion, I know many people on this board hold Harold in very high esteem. I do enjoy some of his comedies before people throw banana skins at me.

Watching Charlie and Buster together in Limelight is great, how I wish they'd done something else together.

I'm glad you like The Circus it's my favorite film to watch with my daughter.

bdp · Post by **bdp** » July 26th, 2008, 2:38 pm

I put Keaton and Chaplin atop a pinnacle, could never choose between the two, and Lloyd one level below them on his own. Llangdon, for me, rises above the rabble of Billy Bevans and Larry Semons and such, and Laurel & Hardy are a category all their own, having done only two-reelers in the silent days, but done them better than nearly everyone else of their time.

drednm · Post by **drednm** » July 26th, 2008, 3:06 pm

BDP I'm with you.... it's almost impossible to choose between Keaton and Chaplin... both are incredible talents. Adding Lloyd to the mix makes it even tougher, but I think Lloyd (who is great) is just a beat behind the two greats but I enjoy is "thrill" comedies immensely.

charliechaplinfan · Post by **charliechaplinfan** » July 26th, 2008, 4:25 pm

IMO Harold Lloyd doesn't translate as well for British audiences. I enjoy Safety Last, Girl Crazy and The Kid Brother but struggled to like Grandma's Boy and The Freshman. I can't take to his brasher characters. He is head and shoulders above Harry Langdon and Larry Semon.

Laurel and Hardy are in their own category, the are so funny but the humour is childlike and I don't mean that as an insult rather as a compliment. I loved them when I was a child and love them now although what I laughed at as a child and what I laugh at now are completely different. I like to watch Laurel and Hardy with somebody else to laugh out loud, with Buster and Charlie that doesn't matter.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » July 26th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Ed, Justin,

I'm a big Harold Lloyd guy, so I have to stick up for him. Kevin Brownlow has admitted himself, that best way to get people interested in Silent films, is to screen a Harold Lloyd feature! And He's British! Furthermore at least 75 to 80% of of the Silent film fans that I know got into them almost directly from exposure to Harold Lloyd's features!

To me Lloyd's influence is allot morer profound than most people realize, or He generally receives credit for. I also think that as a general body of work, H L's 11 Silent features in terms of consistent quality from film to film, are every bit as good as Keaton's are, if not better.

Speaking of Keaton, I have to defend THE NAVIGATOR, I find this film highly entertaining, and funny while THE GENERAL seems dull as a wet dishrag, and I have seen at least 7 or 8 different versions, including the Carl Davis scored one. It has never been one of my favorites, and never will be. I consider the film a drama, and not a comedy. With the Bill Frazzil score (not the one on the current DVD) Buster's GO WEST is also an underrated feature.

Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS is probably the greatest Silent comedy, though not released until 1931. I have always loved THE CIRCUS. THE GOLD RUSH has never been properly restored in my estimation in it's original form. This really makes me angry!

Not much for Harry Langdon, I perfer Roscoe Arbuckle, and Charley Chase to him anyday! I just can't embrace his character! If we are voting on the funniest Silent film, I would sorly be tempted to vote for Lewis Milestone's TWO ARABIAN KNIGHTS (1927)!

I never laughed so hard at anything in my life THE CARDBOARD LOVER comes close.

Alison,

Not meaning to get you angry with me, but I still can't imagine anyone not liking GRANDMA'S BOY? It is one of the most charming movies ever made! And THE FRESHMAN is my all time favorite! So that is difficult for me to accept as well. With it Lloyd started a new genra of College Campus comedies in the movies that lasted for over 40 years!

My late Mom loved GIRL SHY, and HOT WATER. She loved Chaplin, and Lloyd, but I could never get her interested in Buster. Apart from SEVEN CHANCES she just did not like Keaton at all. I don't know why?

The Silver Screen Oasis

The Silver Screen Oasis

WHAT SILENTS & PRE-CODES HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?