Silent Beauties

This site is dedicated to the preservation of memory of silent films. Although they were quite important in the evolution of cinema, they remain virtually forgotten nowadays. Since the best way to understand the present is taking an attentive look at the past, here you have some movies, pictures, interviews, etc. on silent cinema. Some occasional material on sound films will also be presented. I hope you enjoy getting to know a bit more about the beauty and sheer fun of these golden oldies.

Friday, January 29, 2016

What a Whopper! (USA,1921)

The best shorts by Snub Pollard are those where he is in completely insane situations and handling them as if they were completely normal. This film is one of these. He goes out with his friend without their wives, both lying to their spouses about what they were actually doing. Pollard is paired with Marie Mosquine, a very funny (sometimes underrated) Ral Roach actress. Her angry face is enough to make the audience laugh and in this case she had reasons to be angry. Pollard and his friend, on their way back home, buy a fish (Pollard) and a duck (his friend) to ground their stories. They’d tell their wives they were together hunting, although they were actually in Turkish Baths. Unfortunately a small accident made both men exchange their packages and once they opened them at home they realized they didn’t have what they thought their did. However, they had already told the false story to their wives and, without the proper hunted animal, immediately find out they were deceived and give their husbands a lesson. The gags aren’t innovative, but were skillfully handled and the plot runs quite smoothly. Simple story, but carefully devised.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Get Your Man (USA, 1927)

Typical pattern of a late 1920s comedy by a big Hollywood studio. But the film’s worst “sin” was “casting” Clara Bow’s acting and not giving her much chance to display her typical energetic acting. Both wardrobe and scenery were nice. Clara Bow’s clothes and furniture were particularly stunning.

He, Who Gets Slapped (USA, 1924)

Tension was beautifully built up, making this film subtly creepy. It also has a plenty of melodrama. The scenes were also very scenically beautiful, with a perfect composition between scenery, lighting, wardrobe and camera tricks. The scenes of clowns in the circus were very well-choreographed. As always, Lon Chaney is brilliant when it comes to his make up skills.

The end is the predictable self sacrifice of the ugly duck, but the death of some of the characters was devised in a more creative way than usual.

The film provides an interesting discussion about human nature, as the main character was laughed both at the academy of sciences and circus whenever he was slapped. The old dichotomy of the sad clown and a certain tendency of people to laugh at tragedy of others.

The Wind (USA, 1928)

Lillian Gish’s celebrated acting as a frail young woman who progressively goes crazy due to forces of nature is very worth watching.

The film’s pace is very interesting and makes the audience feel the tension of the plot. The fight to survive in a completely different environment has been the subject of many films throughout the decades.

The camera use and editing of scenes is very interesting and the wind is clearly shown a overwhelming force that makes people powerless.

MGM worked with a few noteworthy Swedish actors and directors at late 1920ies, being Greta Garbo (who wasn’t in this film) only the most famous example.

The Phantom of the Opera (USA, 1925)

This film has beautiful acting, not only by Lon Chaney, but also by Mary Philbin. However, the plot can be rather confusing, specially for those who are unfamiliar with the novel. The production of the film had some problems and filming was remade some times. Thus, despite being a carefully made film, the excessive melodrama, which was into fashion in big Hollywood studios on late 1920s, hindered the smooth flow of film.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Pohjalaisia / The Bothnians (Finland, 1925)

A rural melodrama that stood well the test of time. Indeed, the impact it causes nowadays is even bigger than in the past. This film having been made already at a time when Hollywood was at the height of its art in the silent era, reflecting transformations brought by urbanization and progress, this film remains a valuable witness of a way of life gone long ago.

Having been able to build up an unique cultural patrimony, Finland has always had a very characteristic way of life, not being so much similar to its Scandinavian neighbors. Having been part of Russia until late 1910s, back to 1925, they have been an independent country for less than 10 years. Nevertheless, despite their close cultural and political contact with Russia, they got to retain their own culture. As in neighbor countries, most people lived in the countryside and peasants had their own values and beliefs. Regardless of peaceful place, there were a plenty of political conflicts and people had their share of problems.

The film portrays the conflicts of free peasants and Russian rulers. The wounds of their recent Civil War were still very recent and political conflicts and resolution of traumas among country population were still an issue back to 1920s. Russian authorities were also displayed as disrupting the tranquil, honorable and free way of life of Finnish peasants, representing the voice of oppression over those good people, who would not allow their honor to be stained so easily.

Nevertheless, despite all suffering brought by the authorities, we can see the fields, forest and nature represent spaces where the freedom of people could not be taken by anyone. They were spaces were people could feel happy without fear, being directly connected with God, with their values, honor. The interaction with nature as a whole was perfect, almost sacred. This can be reflected even in the beautiful and strong religions ethics of people and in the solidarity among themselves. This is a somehow idealized portrait, even though it's not entirely distant from reality. Just a way to paint reality with a more beautiful paint, but a realistic one somehow.

Somehow we can remember of the "good country people" being so many times portrayed in American life and literature, but with a very important difference. The peasant and rural way of life was already changing little by little in main American cities back to 1920s, while it was much more untouched in Scandinavia at the same decade. Thus, this film, rather than being a reconstruction of a country life that was starting to face, was in fact a witness of how people actually lived. This is something that brings a realism to this film that is impossible to be ignored. The nostalgia it inspires is something that only increases the high emotional impact of the film in the audience.

However, the audience must pay attention to one thing that might be one of weakest points of the film: There are many characters, all of them are important to the development of the story. It's important to pay attention to their names and in some of their personality traits, otherwise it becomes difficult to keep track of the plot.

For non Scandinavian audiences, not only the time references are different, but also cultural references are quite different from what they are used to, which sometimes gives the impression that people are watching a "folkloric" movie.

But, once again, what makes a film like that so special? After all, back to the silent era, in many countries the majority of population lived in the countryside and rural areas. Consequently, rural values were still nationally and culturally valid, opposite to urban values that were considered alien and even somehow wicked. An example this thought can be seen even in the more-urbanized United States in its film Sunrise ― a song of two humans, directed by F. W. Murnau, which was made in 1927 at the very end of American silent era.

It has been said that urbanization has begun relatively late in Finland in comparison with most Central European countries. So, the production of films emphasizing rural values, considered legitimate among most of population members, was also a way of praising their own national values and at the same time discussing themes that many people would feel related because it was part of their daily lives. We must also not forget that manual work was still very much present in the lives of people in the entire silent era compared with subsequent decades.

Although it is a melodrama in all senses, acting is not very stagy and it is even subtle and natural at some moments, despite some other moments of acting that resemble the stage. However, the performances have a natural effect in the overall, specially in comparison with some films made in Denmark and Russia back to 1910s, which had a much more stagy acting.

All in all, this film stood well the test of time and its appeal just gets bigger. It is a must see, specially when compared with Hollywood films of the same era. Both Scandinavian and American silents are very good and it is very fun to compare them both and see their similarities and differences.