Yeah, I'm going to watch too. To be honest I find silent movies a bit shallow and the format a bit limited, but early black and whites are some of the best movies ever made.
Yeah, I'm going to watch too. To be honest I find silent movies a bit shallow and the format a bit limited, but early black and whites are some of the best movies ever made.
I might be a tad biased as I worship Carl Theodore Dreyer, but you ought to give his silent film, Vampyr (1932), a try. Most of his other films are fabulous as well.
Just seen this in the listings.It seems pretty random that BBC4 is showing this.I haven't seen this movie in years so i'll try & catch it tonight.
There's nothing random about it.
They're showing it as a companion piece to their 'Sounds of Cinema' series. They are showing other films too which are relevant to the content in the series.
Easy to see them as rather primitive of form, so to speak. But as the Takae's post above shows, great artistry was very much evident.
Yes, the best silent films are as deep if not deeper than good films made today.
It depends on which films you see as some of the best ones simply don't get shown.
You could say that modern films are shallow and limited too (Especially as I just watched Battleground Los Angeles last night). And for the most part you'd probably be right. But again, it depends on which films you get to see.
Easy to see them as rather primitive of form, so to speak. But as the Takae's post above shows, great artistry was very much evident.
Very fair comments. I guess I'm biased coming from the radio side of things, but personally give me sounds without pictures over pictures without sounds anyday.
Quite understand the alternative viewpoint, so please don't flame me!
Very fair comments. I guess I'm biased coming from the radio side of things, but personally give me sounds without pictures over pictures without sounds anyday.
Quite understand the alternative viewpoint, so please don't flame me!
No worries
The point was, in cinema good art was created even in its infancy with the most basic of parts, so to speak. Yet very much forging a path others would follow. Quite an achievement.
You could say that modern films are shallow and limited too (Especially as I just watched Battleground Los Angeles last night). And for the most part you'd probably be right. But again, it depends on which films you get to see.
It does indeed. However, that the creators of Battle: LA - with the vast resources of today - should choose to make something so cringeingly banal speaks volumes more about the industry than the artform (and here its the faux-realism of modern jerky camerawork clashing badly with trite TV-movie characters, dialogue etc. A gloopy mix).
I liked the aliens though. Eerily lining rooftops and such. They deserved a better film.
Comments
I might be a tad biased as I worship Carl Theodore Dreyer, but you ought to give his silent film, Vampyr (1932), a try. Most of his other films are fabulous as well.
Easy to see them as rather primitive of form, so to speak. But as the Takae's post above shows, great artistry was very much evident.
There's nothing random about it.
They're showing it as a companion piece to their 'Sounds of Cinema' series. They are showing other films too which are relevant to the content in the series.
Yes, the best silent films are as deep if not deeper than good films made today.
It depends on which films you see as some of the best ones simply don't get shown.
You could say that modern films are shallow and limited too (Especially as I just watched Battleground Los Angeles last night). And for the most part you'd probably be right. But again, it depends on which films you get to see.
Very fair comments. I guess I'm biased coming from the radio side of things, but personally give me sounds without pictures over pictures without sounds anyday.
Quite understand the alternative viewpoint, so please don't flame me!
The point was, in cinema good art was created even in its infancy with the most basic of parts, so to speak. Yet very much forging a path others would follow. Quite an achievement.
It does indeed. However, that the creators of Battle: LA - with the vast resources of today - should choose to make something so cringeingly banal speaks volumes more about the industry than the artform (and here its the faux-realism of modern jerky camerawork clashing badly with trite TV-movie characters, dialogue etc. A gloopy mix).
I liked the aliens though. Eerily lining rooftops and such. They deserved a better film.
The 'graphic' spider pit scene.
wow never seen that. thanks!
Love this film.