The Criterion Collection

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by diskspinner

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...

Damn...$27 on Barnes and Noble website...that's a great price.

May have to seriously consider that.

Have you seen Lady Snowblood?

What's your opinion of it?

Is it a great film?

...or just a fun exploitation-style revenge flick?

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

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.

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

Are not a great start for silents.

Easiest way to start is silent comedies since you don't need to care for the acting that much, you should at least watch City Lights or Modern Times.

There is also Keaton Sherlock Jr. which is probably my favorite of his.

Harold LLoyd is great too but I wouldn't start with him.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

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

Are not a great start for silents.

Easiest way to start is silent comedies since you don't need to care for the acting that much, you should at least watch City Lights or Modern Times.

There is also Keaton Sherlock Jr. which is probably my favorite of his.

Harold LLoyd is great too but I wouldn't start with him.

My first was Metropolis, was the newest cut and when it was re release don big screen - no regrets!

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

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.

Of the movies you haven't mentioned, I would recommend M, The General and Battleship Potemkin. These and other movies of their era are essential to understanding the vocabulary of cinema, but many of them stand on their own as entertainment even to this day. I don't find one second of The General boring. As for the acting looking silly, much of it was done in a broad pantomime, as if they were performing for deaf people, far, far away, but that was their way of (over-)compensating for the technical limitations of the time, not just the lack of sound, but lighting, lenses and cameras of the time were not as advanced as they would be later.

You, or anyone else, are entitled to like or dislike what you want, but I think you're missing out on some great films if you write off the entire silent era.

Edit: I just realized that there is actually dialogue in M. Duh. I always think of it a silent, because most of the story is told visually.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

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.

This is where the terms and logic indeed fly out of the window. I think you should care, as even you mention it's still a car, and while I truly do see what you're saying, music and film are different mediums. A silent film is a type of film, within the medium of film. The technology allowing sound of any type as a tool for the filmmaker is just that; lets say it's like power steering(). Resemblance does not change the foundation. I have a neighbor who is a different color than I am and she is in a wheelchair, but still a human being although she doesn't resemble my white great great great grandfather who didn't know what a wheelchair was. As a side note - if you're watching a silent film with a score, you're not watching a silent film . Live scores were common, but to go even deeper into this discussion I think it's a good point. One of the best silent films in my opinion is Passion of Joan of Arc, which (again in my opinion) is to be seen without sound at all.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Yes in theory, but ever since movies started adding sound they have become too different, there are still instances of movies that seem 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.

I agree, but what I was addressing was the statement that they are different mediums. It's as if saying Bach and Devo are different mediums. A ton of difference, in every facet, and years of technology between them, but still music, just of a different time and genre.

[oildude]

I can't think of a more enjoyable film to introduce someone to the wonders of silent cinema than one of the newest additions to the Criterion Collection: Harold Lloyd's last silent movie Speedy. What a riot! Laugh out loud funny, with impressively clever sight gags and skits that will tickle your funny bone, Speedy is a fast paced clown car of a film that spills across the screen for 86 minutes of heartfelt hilarity.

The premise of Speedy is pretty simple. Lloyd is a guy nicknamed Speedy living in late 1920s New York City who loves the Yankees, his gal, and her grandfather, Pop Dillon, an old man who runs the last horse-pulled trolley car in the city. Speedy cannot hold a job for long due to the mishaps that seem to continuously reach out and grab him but he is smart and resilient and quickly finds others to replace the ones just lost. Trouble is brewing, however, as a nefarious businessman tries to strong arm Pop Dillon into selling his trolley line so the businessman can then integrate it into his own system.

As these plot strands weave their way through the film, the audience is treated to incredible visuals of the bustling streets of 1928 New York City/Los Angeles (standing-in for the Big Apple in some scenes) and an extended sequence set in the amusement park on Coney Island. Much of this reminded me of the time capsule feel I got while watching other Criterion silent gems like Lonesome and People on Sunday, two films that capture an era long gone but beautifully preserved in the background of their respective films. The Coney Island sequence in Speedy is especially amazing as we soak in the rides experienced by Lloyd and his gal, the food stands, the games, and the bright lights at night. And to add to the period atmosphere - and a huge bonus for baseball fans like me - there is a hilarious cameo by Babe Ruth as himself, when the Bronx Bomber has the misfortune to encounter Speedy on his first day in a new job as a cab driver.

I think what I find most appealing about Harold Lloyd and his "glasses" character is his eternal optimism. Lloyd is the silent screen's Everyman, an ordinary guy who smiles in the face of adversity and manages to find the resources in himself and others to bounce back each time. His films are filled with common situations all of us can relate to, yet in Lloyd's world those events manage to erupt into extended bouts of absurdity. No where is this more apparent than in Speedy. Ever had an ornery car that runs fine one moment then acts up at the worst time? Lloyd turns that into comic gold. How many of us have dressed up in nice clothes only to have a dog want to jump up on our pants with dirty paws? Lloyd takes that situation and turns it into one of the film's highlights. It is not just a side splittingly funny scene but the actions established in it become a key element later on when the same annoying but loveable dog becomes his greatest ally in protecting Pop Dillon's trolley line. One inspired scene involves the dog and some shaving cream that is so funny I couldn't stop laughing.

Speedy is a wonderful film. What l have described here is but a small taste of the magic it contains. Beautifully transferred onto Blu-ray by Criterion, with a memorable soundtrack by Carl Davis, it is marvelous to behold. Unlike Chaplin and Keaton, the other two giants of the silent screen, Harold Lloyd never got the continued exposure on television over the years that allowed his contemporaries to maintain their status to modern viewers. Due to decisions made by the Lloyd estate (or so I have read), his films remained unseen by the public as the decades passed and his star faded from memory. Thanks to Criterion, Lloyd is now ripe for rediscovery, and Speedy, like its title implies, is worthy of rapidly being added to your collections.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by KillaCam

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

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
City Lights
The Gold Rush
The Kid
Metropolis
Modern Times
Nosferatu
Sherlock Jr.
Sunrise
Un Chien Andalou

[colbyw]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

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

Are not a great start for silents.

Easiest way to start is silent comedies since you don't need to care for the acting that much, you should at least watch City Lights or Modern Times.

There is also Keaton Sherlock Jr. which is probably my favorite of his.

Harold LLoyd is great too but I wouldn't start with him.

Keaton is great! Can't go wrong with The General or Steamboat Bill Jr.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Yeah, I gotcha. It does seem like a lot. Then again, Jennifer has been in some good roles/movies lately. Seems to me, at least.

But yeah, 12 nominations and 4 wins for Hepburn: I don't really see anyone ever catching her.

Actually, it could be argued that Meryl Streep has given Hepburn a run for her money, and in some ways, surpassed her. So far, Streep has acted onscreen in 52 films released to theatres (I'm not counting TV movies, short films, narrations, voice work or appearances as herself); she's been nominated 19 times to date, which means she has received an Oscar nomination for 36.5% of her work.

Hepburn appeared in 44 theatrical films (again, leaving out TV movies, short films, narrations, voice work or appearances as herself), and was nominated 12 times, which represents 27.2% of her work.

Streep is the "Oscar nominations champ" with 14 Leading and 5 Supporting Actress nominations to Hepburn's 12 for Leading Actress; Hepburn is the "Oscar wins champ" with four (all Leading) to Streep's three wins (two Leading, one Supporting).

Interestingly, Hepburn was nominated for 7 Golden Globes and won 0; Streep has been nominated (so far) for 28 Golden Globes and won 8. Streep has also been nominated for 3 Emmys and won 2; Hepburn was nominated 5 times and won once.

One thing's for sure: despite the fact that both of them have severe critics, Hepburn and Streep are each among the most respected actresses of their individual generations.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by colbyw

Keaton is great! Can't go wrong with The General or Steamboat Bill Jr.

If I was new to Keaton and wanted to get into him, the first one I'd watch by a HUGE margin would be Sherlock Jr.

[Scottie]

I just added a massive update to my Blu-ray Store and there are plenty of Criterion films and similar titles for sale. These are my lowest prices yet.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=11668788

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by jmclick

Actually, it could be argued that Meryl Streep has given Hepburn a run for her money, and in some ways, surpassed her. So far, Streep has acted onscreen in 52 films released to theatres (I'm not counting TV movies, short films, narrations, voice work or appearances as herself); she's been nominated 19 times to date, which means she has received an Oscar nomination for 36.5% of her work.

Hepburn appeared in 44 theatrical films (again, leaving out TV movies, short films, narrations, voice work or appearances as herself), and was nominated 12 times, which represents 27.2% of her work.

Streep is the "Oscar nominations champ" with 14 Leading and 5 Supporting Actress nominations to Hepburn's 12 for Leading Actress; Hepburn is the "Oscar wins champ" with four (all Leading) to Streep's three wins (two Leading, one Supporting).

Interestingly, Hepburn was nominated for 7 Golden Globes and won 0; Streep has been nominated (so far) for 28 Golden Globes and won 8. Streep has also been nominated for 3 Emmys and won 2; Hepburn was nominated 5 times and won once.

One thing's for sure: despite the fact that both of them have severe critics, Hepburn and Streep are each among the most respected actresses of their individual generations.

Streep is respected BY WHOM? The Academy? What a laugh. Nobody has ever benefited from more overrating by the Academy than Streep. I refer you to this article: https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.c...-meryl-streep/

I urge people to look at Meryl and ask yourselves how good is she, really?

[oildude]

Originally Posted by jmclick

Actually, it could be argued that Meryl Streep has given Hepburn a run for her money, and in some ways, surpassed her. So far, Streep has acted onscreen in 52 films released to theatres (I'm not counting TV movies, short films, narrations, voice work or appearances as herself); she's been nominated 19 times to date, which means she has received an Oscar nomination for 36.5% of her work.

Hepburn appeared in 44 theatrical films (again, leaving out TV movies, short films, narrations, voice work or appearances as herself), and was nominated 12 times, which represents 27.2% of her work.

Streep is the "Oscar nominations champ" with 14 Leading and 5 Supporting Actress nominations to Hepburn's 12 for Leading Actress; Hepburn is the "Oscar wins champ" with four (all Leading) to Streep's three wins (two Leading, one Supporting).

Interestingly, Hepburn was nominated for 7 Golden Globes and won 0; Streep has been nominated (so far) for 28 Golden Globes and won 8. Streep has also been nominated for 3 Emmys and won 2; Hepburn was nominated 5 times and won once.

One thing's for sure: despite the fact that both of them have severe critics, Hepburn and Streep are each among the most respected actresses of their individual generations.

Streep never had to compete with Gene Tierney

Which raises a point, actually. The sustained level of quality competition one is up against year after year.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

Streep is respected BY WHOM? The Academy? What a laugh. Nobody has ever benefited from more overrating by the Academy than Streep. I refer you to this article: https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.c...-meryl-streep/

I urge people to look at Meryl and ask yourselves how good is she, really?

I agree with many of the points made in that article. She is a technically competent actress, but she is also clinical and showy. The only time I was ever moved by a performance of hers was in The Deer Hunter, and she doesn't have much to do in that one. Perhaps that's the key.

In my view, she doesn't even come close to the emotional intensity of Gena Rowlands or the main actresses that worked with Bergman, and they are just a few actresses that immediately spring to mind.

[jw007]

I admire and respect silent films and own several in my Criterion collection (The Phantom Carriage being one of my favorites, aside from the Chaplin and Lloyd films I have too).

There is a different dynamic that comes from watching silent films and as many people have already said, its pure visual storytelling.

I feel more engaged watching silent films, and must stay alert, otherwise I'll miss the intertitles that pop up in between shots.

The intertitles in my opinion are such an essential way to tell a story. It's like watching a "video book". We, the viewer are not just watching but reading too! It's the ultimate way to "watch a book" or "read a movie"!

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by belcherman

Of the movies you haven't mentioned, I would recommend M, The General and Battleship Potemkin. These and other movies of their era are essential to understanding the vocabulary of cinema, but many of them stand on their own as entertainment even to this day. I don't find one second of The General boring. As for the acting looking silly, much of it was done in a broad pantomime, as if they were performing for deaf people, far, far away, but that was their way of (over-)compensating for the technical limitations of the time, not just the lack of sound, but lighting, lenses and cameras of the time were not as advanced as they would be later.

You, or anyone else, are entitled to like or dislike what you want, but I think you're missing out on some great films if you write off the entire silent era.

Edit: I just realized that there is actually dialogue in M. Duh. I always think of it a silent, because most of the story is told visually.

I've seen M.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

Streep is respected BY WHOM? The Academy? What a laugh. Nobody has ever benefited from more overrating by the Academy than Streep. I refer you to this article: https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.c...-meryl-streep/

I urge people to look at Meryl and ask yourselves how good is she, really?

Yeah, that guy lives on the bleeding edge.

Of his 5,000 Greatest Cinematic Accomplishments (or whatever he calls it), over 3% are Bergman, Hitchcock, Ford, Godard, Ozu, and Lubitsch. BLEEDING edge!

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

Streep is respected BY WHOM? The Academy? What a laugh. Nobody has ever benefited from more overrating by the Academy than Streep. I refer you to this article: https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.c...-meryl-streep/

I urge people to look at Meryl and ask yourselves how good is she, really?

I consider the following performances to be the work of an acting Grandmaster:

-The Deer Hunter
-Sophie's Choice
-The French Lieutenant's Woman
-Out of Africa
-A Cry in the Dark
-The Bridges of Madison County
-Adaptation
-The Devil Wears Prada (even though I'm not a big fan of the movie)
-Doubt

And those are just a few off the top of my head.

...I'm sure there are many more.

[PaperThinWalls]

Originally Posted by KillaCam

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

Since you enjoyed The Phantom Carriage, I recommend you check out other Victor Sjöström films such as He Who Gets Slapped, The Scarlet Letter, and The Wind.