Silent Era - Experimental Film Watching

[Spunkie]

I remember I was interested in watching silent era movies when my interest in cinema and its history very fresh. I read a lot about them, watched few, kept collecting some of them, but they rarely entered my watching appetite. I felt somewhat guilty about it, thought that I will be watching them sooner or later, but years went by and they became the most ignored specific set of movies for me. The problem is obvious, aside from the different state of mind they enclose (which is the first reason I'm interested in them) they are too damn slow and mute with out of fashion soundtracks.

I hate forcing myself to watch a movie since this is for my personal pleasure. So if I can't find silent movies with modernized soundtracks I tried exchanging the track with something instrumental of my liking (Philip Glass ftw). This worked partially well, renewed my interest to a certain degree, but still most of the mise-en-scenes keeps dragging on too long to make sure fresh audiences of the era -gets- what's going on. So my next step was bolder, I adjusted speed of playback to 1.5/2x and suddenly new movies emerged that at last became fully watchable for me. In the first 10 minutes my brain adjusts reading the intertitles fast enough, by 20 I totally adjust watching them this way. Luckily most of the shots are either still or done with a very orderly tracking shots, so it rarely causes dizzying shaky effects. I feel like I may be butchering or even desecrating these movies, but I fight with my consience to keep on. I don't rate them, since I don't properly watch them, maybe I should use a warning in mini review. I wondered your opinions about this and if anyone else has such practises.

[MmzHrrdb]

I've also had trouble really getting into silent films. I've only seen six or seven, with two sticking out as masterpieces (Sunrise and The Passion of Joan of Arc). There are a few I'm really interested in, but I just keep procrastinating. Speaking from that limited experience, I can appreciate them, but they just don't do it for me.

I can respect your experimentation with scores, as it's common practice these days anyway. The speed-up does seem a little like "butchering" though. Pacing is especially important in silents, and artificially speeding it up seems like it could distort the experience a bit.

[coffee]

I can't watch silent movies that much too. Sound is a vital component of a film. I think I can only finish Charlie Chaplin's silent ones without getting bored.

[Spunkie]

I've also had trouble really getting into silent films. I've only seen six or seven, with two sticking out as masterpieces (Sunrise and The Passion of Joan of Arc). There are a few I'm really interested in, but I just keep procrastinating. Speaking from that limited experience, I can appreciate them, but they just don't do it for me.

I can respect your experimentation with scores, as it's common practice these days anyway. The speed-up does seem a little like "butchering" though. Pacing is especially important in silents, and artificially speeding it up seems like it could distort the experience a bit.

Yes, it causes a distortion for sure. But to my surprise, it doesn't cause people moving extra fast effect. Since most of the silent era movies were graphically beautiful, it is a setting after another. Thus keeps me interested in whatever is told. Fair trade for me.

By the way, split screens in Napoleon is amazing. First Vance seems like he wanted to capture large battlefields in widescreen, but can't find a tool to do that, so shot it with three cameras very close to each other. Then he uses each for different topics related with eachother. This is accomplished experimental filmmaking in established mainstream, I would love to see it done today.