HorrorMovieFans.com

For the last month or so, I've been working on rewatching horror movies I've seen (I am trying to rewatch every horror flick I've seen up to a certain point, in order to write reviews for them), and since I'm doing this chronologically, I've watched a bunch of silent films. Still have 1926 - 1929 to watch (basically watching one movie per year 1913+).

Once I watch these four movies, out of the 35 silent horror flicks I've seen, I'd have rewatched 17 of them. Might try to fit the rest in as I continue onto the 1930's and 1940's, so I can rewatch all of the silent movies in the span of six months or so, but thought it might be nice to make a thread on silent films.

I know that there's not many people here who go out of their way to try silent films, and if they do, it's the normal ones like Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, perhaps the 1920 Barrymore version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (as opposed to the Sheldon Lewis version from the same year), or The Phantom of the Opera, but I was wondering, if you've seen some silent horror, what your opinions on them are.

Some of my favorite silent horror films, such as 1929's The Last Warning (which plays out like a really early slasher), 1926's The Magician, 1929's Seven Footprints to Satan, 1926's Midnight Faces, and Italy's 1925 Maciste all'inferno aren't really all that known even within horror communities, so I thought I might as well bring some additional attention to them.

I will say I've seen very few non-horror silent films, so that's a failing I have. But for silent horror, there's only a few bigger one's I've not yet seen (1924's The Hands of Orlac or the French 1928 The Fall of the House of Usher), and a handful of smaller ones, so I'm generally comfortable conversing about these.

Hopefully, unlike some of these movies, this thread doesn't gather dust too quickly.

i need to try to watch more. i can't seem to get into silent movies. but the cabinet of dr. caligari seems most appealing.

I have enough problems having movies with sound hold my attention anymore. If I put on a silent movie, I will forget about it within 5 minutes and find something else to do.

Does A Quiet Place count?

Can't say I've watched that many. Not my thing. I admire your mission though!

zombie wrote:i need to try to watch more. i can't seem to get into silent movies. but the cabinet of dr. caligari seems most appealing.

Caligari is definitely worth a watch if you ever find you're in the mood to try one out.

Headhunter wrote:I have enough problems having movies with sound hold my attention anymore. If I put on a silent movie, I will forget about it within 5 minutes and find something else to do.

That's a fair critique. I sort of wonder how the audiences reacted during the silent-to-talkie transition. I know many movies were filmed in both silent and talkie versions, so I'm guessing that made it a bit easier for people as opposed to a complete and instant switchover.

And as J-mac has mentioned, the 1932 Vampyr feels a lot like a silent film (as it's the director's first talkie, and tried to use as little dialogue as possible), so movies like that helped too, I'm sure.

I know some people can't stand black-and-white movies (a position which boggles my mind), so not being able to get into silent and black-and-white films (even if they are tinted), I can understand.

Ava wrote:Does A Quiet Place count?

Can't say I've watched that many. Not my thing. I admire your mission though!

Haven't seen A Quiet Place, so I don't know.

I appreciate your admiration, at least.

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I have enough problems having movies with sound hold my attention anymore. If I put on a silent movie, I will forget about it within 5 minutes and find something else to do.

That's a fair critique. I sort of wonder how the audiences reacted during the silent-to-talkie transition. I know many movies were filmed in both silent and talkie versions, so I'm guessing that made it a bit easier for people as opposed to a complete and instant switchover.

And as J-mac has mentioned, the 1932 Vampyr feels a lot like a silent film (as it's the director's first talkie, and tried to use as little dialogue as possible), so movies like that helped too, I'm sure.

I know some people can't stand black-and-white movies (a position which boggles my mind), so not being able to get into silent and black-and-white films (even if they are tinted), I can understand.

from what i've read, there were a lot of people who felt like sound in film would take away from the acting and performance. i don't understand that position, but if that's all you had, i guess changing it up could be seen as losing something fundamental.

and i also don't really get the distaste for black and white movies that some viewers have.

zombie wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I have enough problems having movies with sound hold my attention anymore. If I put on a silent movie, I will forget about it within 5 minutes and find something else to do.

That's a fair critique. I sort of wonder how the audiences reacted during the silent-to-talkie transition. I know many movies were filmed in both silent and talkie versions, so I'm guessing that made it a bit easier for people as opposed to a complete and instant switchover.

And as J-mac has mentioned, the 1932 Vampyr feels a lot like a silent film (as it's the director's first talkie, and tried to use as little dialogue as possible), so movies like that helped too, I'm sure.

I know some people can't stand black-and-white movies (a position which boggles my mind), so not being able to get into silent and black-and-white films (even if they are tinted), I can understand.

from what i've read, there were a lot of people who felt like sound in film would take away from the acting and performance. i don't understand that position, but if that's all you had, i guess changing it up could be seen as losing something fundamental.

and i also don't really get the distaste for black and white movies that some viewers have.

On some level the point is valid insofar as you had to express your emotion for the camera in (exaggerated) detail in silent ones because you couldn’t just yell “I’m pissed off!” Or chirped “I’m so glad to see you after all these years”

But beyond that it’s a bit of a weird criticism given that plays, musicals and operas are all around and have been for centuries, and they have sound and dialogue. So hardly the most robust criticism.

showa58taro wrote:
On some level the point is valid insofar as you had to express your emotion for the camera in (exaggerated) detail in silent ones because you couldn’t just yell “I’m pissed off!” Or chirped “I’m so glad to see you after all these years”

But beyond that it’s a bit of a weird criticism given that plays, musicals and operas are all around and have been for centuries, and they have sound and dialogue. So hardly the most robust criticism.

i think a distinction was made between motion pictures and live performances. maybe it should have been seen as more akin than it seemed to be, though.

Anyone seen Murnau's Faust ? I thought it was pretty amazing they could manage to make the film so alive, with the ambitious imagery that was planned. The directors back in the day were so damn obsessed by their work they'd pour in ridiculous amounts of work and investment into making a film. True artists, although I'm no old school nostalgist or anything.
But. Nowadays, a director's worry is basically a white collar's job akin to that of a banker or office executive, it's all standardized and literally nothing is hard to achieve technology wise, there's no imagination that goes into making the stuff.

I saw Faust some years back, but haven't seen it in recent time, and won't pretend to remember a great deal about it.

That said, there are quite a few silent films that have both impressive and ambitious settings and imagery throughout (such as the more expressionist movies), and makes watching some of these older flicks quite the treat.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari though Faust was close

On a related note to my original post, I had now seen the 1928 The Fall of the House of Usher, and while I admit the print may partially have been at fault, it was not a movie I particularly had a great time with (felt far too much like an avant-garde flick).