The Criterion Collection

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by llj

(I'm looking at you, Jennifer "I hate silent movies" Lawrence)

Anyone have a link to this statement?

The thing is, it really depends which silent movie you pick. Everyone has a different personality and tastes.

I personally found Birth of a Nation to be an absolute slog and chore to get through, not to mention completely disgusting in every way, but I can say all of that while still admiring the artistry and technique of the film.

Chaplin's Modern Times is awesome, wondrous, and I think would entertain anyone.

I'm also partial to Keaton's Seven Chances, which I think is the perfect choice to introduce people to silent movies. It's not too long, not too complex, and it's a lot of fun.

I suppose The Jazz Singer doesn't really count because it's technically a "talkie" even though it's mostly silent from what I remember.

The Artist from a few years ago was great fun IMO, but I think it requires some prior context - even if that's just seeing one or two other silent films before it.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Anyone have a link to this statement?

The thing is, it really depends which silent movie you pick. Everyone has a different personality and tastes.

I personally found Birth of a Nation to be an absolute slog and chore to get through, not to mention completely disgusting in every way, but I can say all of that while still admiring the artistry and technique of the film.

Chaplin's Modern Times is awesome, wondrous, and I think would entertain anyone.

I'm also partial to Keaton's Seven Chances, which I think is the perfect choice to introduce people to silent movies. It's not too long, not too complex, and it's a lot of fun.

I suppose The Jazz Singer doesn't really count because it's technically a "talkie" even though it's mostly silent from what I remember.

The Artist from a few years ago was great fun IMO, but I think it requires some prior context - even if that's just seeing one or two other silent films before it.

I don't like silent movies.

They're so dramatically different than sound movies in almost every way--it's like they're a completely separate medium unto themselves.

I remember liking The Gold Rush when I was a kid.

And I thought The Passion of Joan of Arc was very moving.

...but overall silent films do nothing for me.

[Ray Jackson]

What do you guys think...if you had a $50 gift card and you could buy Persona or Tokyo Story...which one would you buy?

Taking into account the films themselves, as well as packaging and special features.

I've seen them both, but it's been a while.

I suppose I could use the card to get Lady Snowblood, which I haven't seen.

But I'm not sure I want to spend $40 on an exploitation-style film that inspired the Kill Bill movies.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I don't like silent movies.

They're so dramatically different than sound movies in almost every way--it's like they're a completely separate medium unto themselves.

I remember liking The Gold Rush when I was a kid.

And I thought The Passion of Joan of Arc was very moving.

...but overall silent films do nothing for me.

I like silents, but you and I are on the same page as to the two being more or less a different medium.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I don't like silent movies.

They're so dramatically different than sound movies in almost every way--it's like they're a completely separate medium unto themselves.

I remember liking The Gold Rush when I was a kid.

And I thought The Passion of Joan of Arc was very moving.

...but overall silent films do nothing for me.

Since you're addicted to buying Criterions, not liking silent movies gives you more money to buy the rest of the Collection.

Seriously though, like the person you quoted said, everybody is different. I know I'm the only person in my house that likes silent movies. I didn't watch them either until a couple of years ago when I bought Modern Times and now the rest is history. Also, I actually prefer the silent version of The Gold Rush.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I like silents, but you and I are on the same page as to the two being more or less a different medium.

Every time I look at your avatar I'm reminded that Gal Gadot may be the most beautiful woman I've ever seen.

Every one here debating Jennifer Lawrence's hotness.

...Gal Gadot is on a completely different level of beauty imo.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I like silents, but you and I are on the same page as to the two being more or less a different medium.

I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I think the statement lacks logic at every angle. Silent films are the foundation on which sound films are built. I fail to see where it becomes a different medium because one makes noise and the other doesn't. One only needs to watch some of Bresson's films to see a convergence. A filmmaker using the tool of sound is doing just that - adding a tool to the craft, in a toolbox molded by the silent greats that came before him/her.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Since you're addicted to buying Criterions, not liking silent movies gives you more money to buy the rest of the Collection.

Seriously though, like the person you quoted said, everybody is different. I know I'm the only person in my house that likes silent movies. I didn't watch them either until a couple of years ago when I bought Modern Times and now the rest is history. Also, I actually prefer the silent version of The Gold Rush.

(Long time lurker)

For me, silent films best represent the true purpose of cinema as a visual medium. Even today, I'm still in awe of the beautiful and creative imagery in Sunrise, La Roue, Battleship Potemkin, The Last Laugh, The Phantom Carriage, Pandora's Box, The Passion of Joan of Arc, The Crowd, Greed, and some many others. People really ought to give them a chance; rant over.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

What do you guys think...if you had a $50 gift card and you could buy Persona or Tokyo Story...which one would you buy?

I'd get Persona. TS is nice, but Persona has a mesmerizing quality for me. TS has a more stacked extras plate, though, with huge amounts of material on both Ozu and his favorite male actor.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I like silents, but you and I are on the same page as to the two being more or less a different medium.

Silents are the essence of cinema, though. The epitome of visual storytelling. You can't have a stage play without words, but you CAN have a film without dialogue - which is why the over-reliance of dialogue on so many filmmakers today has resulted IMO in a lot of bad to just average movies. Look at The Last Laugh - not even one title cars until the very end. It's pure cinema, a story told entirely visually.

I get why some people might have a hard time watching them nowadays. But you have to learn HOW to watch them.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I don't like silent movies.

They're so dramatically different than sound movies in almost every way--it's like they're a completely separate medium unto themselves.

I remember liking The Gold Rush when I was a kid.

And I thought The Passion of Joan of Arc was very moving.

...but overall silent films do nothing for me.

Well, which ones have you seen?

You already listed two that you liked.

What did you dislike?

It's possible you just didn't like those movies. Not every silent film is good, and even the so-called "classics" may not work for you. Like I said, it depends on your personality and tastes.

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I suppose I could use the card to get Lady Snowblood, which I haven't seen.

But I'm not sure I want to spend $40 on an exploitation-style film that inspired the Kill Bill movies.

I'm sure you already know this, but a lot of Criterions are on Hulu. Lady Snowblood is definitely there. The reason I'm mentioning this is that it may be a recent addition - it was highlighted when I was flipping through Hulu last night.

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Silents are the essence of cinema, though. The epitome of visual storytelling. You can't have a stage play without words, but you CAN have a film without dialogue - which is why the over-reliance of dialogue on so many filmmakers today has resulted IMO in a lot of bad to just average movies. Look at The Last Laugh - not even one title cars until the very end. It's pure cinema, a story told entirely visually.

I get why some people might have a hard time watching them nowadays. But you have to learn HOW to watch them.

A great post!

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Every time I look at your avatar I'm reminded that Gal Gadot may be the most beautiful woman I've ever seen.

Every one here debating Jennifer Lawrence's hotness.

...Gal Gadot is on a completely different level of beauty imo.

She truly is beautiful. And FIT!

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I think the statement lacks logic at every angle. Silent films are the foundation on which sound films are built. I fail to see where it becomes a different medium because one makes noise and the other doesn't. One only needs to watch some of Bresson's films to see a convergence. A filmmaker using the tool of sound is doing just that - adding a tool to the craft, in a toolbox molded by the silent greats that came before him/her.

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Silents are the essence of cinema, though. The epitome of visual storytelling. You can't have a stage play without words, but you CAN have a film without dialogue - which is why the over-reliance of dialogue on so many filmmakers today has resulted IMO in a lot of bad to just average movies. Look at The Last Laugh - not even one title cars until the very end. It's pure cinema, a story told entirely visually.

I get why some people might have a hard time watching them nowadays. But you have to learn HOW to watch them.

Yes, but while concrete may make up the foundation of my home, that doesn't mean that my house is concrete or that concrete is my house.

And look how important sound design -- forget dialogue, for a second -- just sound design itself has become. Or how important it can be in some films. Sometimes just the clicking of a beetle that sounds behind you, or a F-16 fighter jet taking off, or the sounds of sex or violence or sudden silence can help tell a story in a very strong way. Again, we're not even considering dialogue or the score or the soundtrack here.

My only point -- and don't forget that I am a big fan of silent films -- is that silent films and sound films contain such different elements that I can see where someone like Ray (and myself, for that matter) is coming from when he considers them different media. I'm not arguing which is better or more important or more artful. I'm only saying that it's at least rational to consider them different.

[PaperThinWalls]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Anyone have a link to this statement

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/mo...book.html?_r=5

[diskspinner]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

What do you guys think...if you had a $50 gift card and you could buy Persona or Tokyo Story...which one would you buy?

Taking into account the films themselves, as well as packaging and special features.

I've seen them both, but it's been a while.

I suppose I could use the card to get Lady Snowblood, which I haven't seen.

But I'm not sure I want to spend $40 on an exploitation-style film that inspired the Kill Bill movies.

I would say go for online ordering, price is normally less online...and should be lesser for newer releases...for eg:- Lady Snowblood is $27.55 now...coupons are not applicable for pre-orders, but will be applicable on or after release day...I received 2 $10 GCs from their GC promotion today and the wife is threatening to give me (may be) a $50 GC (B&N or Best Buy) today...

[KillaCam]

Originally Posted by classicman

(Long time lurker)

For me, silent films best represent the true purpose of cinema as a visual medium. Even today, I'm still in awe of the beautiful and creative imagery in Sunrise, La Roue, Battleship Potemkin, The Last Laugh, The Phantom Carriage, Pandora's Box, The Passion of Joan of Arc, The Crowd, Greed, and some many others. People really ought to give them a chance; rant over.

I recently purchased The Phantom Carriage and really enjoyed it. I'm planning to look into more silent films now.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I think the statement lacks logic at every angle. Silent films are the foundation on which sound films are built. I fail to see where it becomes a different medium because one makes noise and the other doesn't. One only needs to watch some of Bresson's films to see a convergence. A filmmaker using the tool of sound is doing just that - adding a tool to the craft, in a toolbox molded by the silent greats that came before him/her.

The cinematography is completely different in silent pictures.

The style of editing is very different.

The style of acting is very different--for obvious reasons.

The use of music is different--there's very few scenes in the silent films I've seen that don't have music.

I don't really care if you think my opinion lacks logic.

Trying to compare a silent film to a modern sound film is like comparing a Model-T to a Ferrari.

Technically, they're both cars with a steering wheel, an engine and four tires.

...but that's as far as the resemblance goes.

[Scottie]

You haven't truly lived if you've never seen Sunrise.

[KillaCam]

Originally Posted by iScottie

You haven't truly lived if you've never seen Sunrise.

Going to check that out. Do you have any other suggestions for someone new to silent films?

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Well, which ones have you seen?

You already listed two that you liked.

What did you dislike?

It's possible you just didn't like those movies. Not every silent film is good, and even the so-called "classics" may not work for you. Like I said, it depends on your personality and tastes.


I'm sure you already know this, but a lot of Criterions are on Hulu. Lady Snowblood is definitely there. The reason I'm mentioning this is that it may be a recent addition - it was highlighted when I was flipping through Hulu last night.


A great post!

Silent films I've seen:

-The Gold Rush
-Nosferatu
-The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
-Birth of a Nation
-Metropolis
-Passion of Joan of Arc

The only one I could really see wanting to own a copy of is Joan of Arc.

I have nostalgic feelings about The Gold Rush because of seeing it as a kid, but don't feel the need to watch it again.

I can pick out certain elements of all those films that I liked--mostly mise-en-scene.

But as a whole, I found them all to be somewhat boring to sit through. A lot of the acting just strikes me as silly.

But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate their place/importance in the annals of cinema.

...I actually have a framed Metropolis poster in my bedroom.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I think the statement lacks logic at every angle. Silent films are the foundation on which sound films are built. I fail to see where it becomes a different medium because one makes noise and the other doesn't. One only needs to watch some of Bresson's films to see a convergence. A filmmaker using the tool of sound is doing just that - adding a tool to the craft, in a toolbox molded by the silent greats that came before him/her.

Yes in theory, but ever since movies started adding sound they have become too different, there are still instances of movies that mix the two very well but then there are some that are completely driven by the dialog and plot without enough emphasis on the visual aspect other than the basics.

Maybe my problem is that the standard film-making rules are so taken for granted that the films I say don't have enough visual impact is because they are just adhering to that standards which we are so used to, so there is no distinction between most modern movies anymore.