What would be the one film?

lokkeheiss RemoveThis @yahoo.com filted:
>
>We've had this question about shorts (Winner: One Week) but now:
>
>If you had to show one feature film to a group of possibly bored,
>possibly hostile, group of people who have never seen a silent film
>before, a group of people with hands in their pockets fidgeting with
>their cell phones, waiting, just waiting to escape...what film would
>you show them to "win them over"?

The hell with winning them over...they come in with *that* kind of attitude, I
say run SALT FOR SVANETIA....

But seriously, I agree that you're probably looking for a comedy again...THE
CAMERAMAN, or SPEEDY....r
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

On 25 Sep 2005 17:45:20 -0700, lokkeheiss.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:

>If you had to show one feature film to a group of possibly bored,
>possibly hostile, group of people who have never seen a silent film
>before, a group of people with hands in their pockets fidgeting with
>their cell phones, waiting, just waiting to escape...what film would
>you show them to "win them over"?

Certainly not a Chaplin unless it was 'City Lights'.
I'd probably go for a Keaton like 'Sherlock Jnr'.
But, whatever, I'd lock all the doors first before screening it.
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

<lokkeheiss DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127695520.452849.187310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> We've had this question about shorts (Winner: One Week) but now:
>
> If you had to show one feature film to a group of possibly bored,
> possibly hostile, group of people who have never seen a silent film
> before, a group of people with hands in their pockets fidgeting with
> their cell phones, waiting, just waiting to escape...what film would
> you show them to "win them over"?

The two that I've had the most success with are:

Keaton's "Sherlock Jr."
Chaplin's "The Circus"

And that's probably the order I'd recommend them in too. Sherlock is very
short and starts up pretty quickly (though it might be considered slow-going
for some people until it gets to the dream or at least shadowing the
suspect).

But for God's sake don't show a drama.

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

FredT filted:
>
>But for God's sake don't show a drama.

No?...we could probably come up with a few that would work...ORPHANS OF THE
STORM, WINGS and TUMBLEWEEDS come to mind....

Probably want to save the German expressionists for later in the series
though...CALIGARI's tough sledding even when you *want* to see it....r
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

"R H Draney" <dadoctah DeleteThis @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dh9r2j02l44@drn.newsguy.com...
> FredT filted:
> >
> >But for God's sake don't show a drama.
>
> No?...we could probably come up with a few that would work...ORPHANS OF
THE
> STORM, WINGS and TUMBLEWEEDS come to mind....

T'OLABLE DAVID.

Frederica
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

THE NAVIGATOR and WHY WORRY? are good bets and don't waste time getting
started.

Mike S.
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

I agree with Frederica, "T'olable David" is an easy story to follow
as would be "The Love Light" or two Hitchcock films, "Manxman" and
"Blackmail". None of these films would insult their intelligence like
many silent comedies seem to.
If you're looking for comedy with a heart, don't forget about Clara
Bow's "It". Many of my (none silent film) friends enjoyed it.

Rich Wagner
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

"R H Draney" <dadoctah RemoveThis @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:dh9r2j02l44@drn.newsguy.com...
> FredT filted:
> >
> >But for God's sake don't show a drama.
>
> No?...we could probably come up with a few that would work...ORPHANS OF
THE
> STORM, WINGS and TUMBLEWEEDS come to mind....

Maybe Wings, but just maybe. The thing is that the Keaton films just feel
much more modern and will be far more accessible than dramas, no matter how
good we might think the drama. It's just my opinion, of course, but it's a
solid opinion, not an off-the-cuff whim.
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

In article <11jel977r9tvjd4 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>,
Stott <estott RemoveThis @localnet.spamcommode> wrote:
>lokkeheiss@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>We've had this question about shorts (Winner: One Week) but now:
>>
>>If you had to show one feature film to a group of possibly bored,
>>possibly hostile, group of people who have never seen a silent film
>>before, a group of people with hands in their pockets fidgeting with
>>their cell phones, waiting, just waiting to escape...what film would
>>you show them to "win them over"?

>I wouldn't start with anything dramatic. I'd show something like Lloyd's
>SPEEDY or SAFETY LAST- not necessarily the very finest silent films ever
>made, but designed to grab an audience and hold them. I'd also try
>MODERN TIMES- even with the bits of talk I'd call it a silent.

There were a lot of newcomers in the audience yesterday for
The Freshman - at the Tampa Theatre. A lot of young people too -
and whole families. I'd guess the house was at least 2/3s full -
but I couldn't see all of downstairs as I was in the balcony.

Audience response was fantastic - reminded me of watching movies 50
years ago.

Lloyd would be a good choice.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

Lee and Kath 9/26/05 2:12 AM

> On 25 Sep 2005 17:45:20 -0700, lokkeheiss.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> If you had to show one feature film to a group of possibly bored,
>> possibly hostile, group of people who have never seen a silent film
>> before, a group of people with hands in their pockets fidgeting with
>> their cell phones, waiting, just waiting to escape...what film would
>> you show them to "win them over"?
>
> Certainly not a Chaplin unless it was 'City Lights'.

Actually I would start with The Circus. That goes over splendidly with an
audience of uninitiated. For Keaton, I would probably use short films that
have easy laughs like One Week, Cops, or The Haunted House

However there are some people (usually late twenties thru thirties) who
insist classic means Desperate Housewives, and would not sit still for
anything at a higher level. Younger people are more impressionable and
easier to win over with vintage cinema (I have had success showing these
films to at-risk youth in my classroom for years).

JN
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

FredT wrote:
> But for God's sake don't show a drama.

I disagree, but you have to show the right drama. One of my first
dramatic silents was BEAU GESTE, which gets off to a smashing start
right out of the block, and BEGGARS OF LIFE has an opening that simply
can't be beat and uses a technique that is intrinsically "silent" -- it
wouldn't work in talkies. We generally get crowds for FOUR HORSEMEN OF
THE APOCALYPSE because Valentino dances the tango, but people generally
leave thinking they've seen a significant, important film.

I'm biased, of course, but when introducing a newbie audience to
silents, make sure the music is good and well-publicized. That's one of
the big charms of a group like the Alloy Orchestra -- it gives a new
audience a connection to modern, creative art that helps bridge the gap
to old films. Here's a thought experiment -- imagine a university's
independent film series running BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN with no music.
Imagine the Program Council running BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN with the Pet
Shop Boys playing along. Which will draw more silent film newbies?
(Mind you, I don't think B.P. is necessarily the best film to get
audiences to come to the NEXT silent film.)

Rodney
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:06:31 GMT, James Neibaur <jneibaur RemoveThis @wi.rr.com> wrote:

>> Certainly not a Chaplin unless it was 'City Lights'.
>Actually I would start with The Circus.

Yep. I forgot about the Circus. It is one that makes the transition really well.

Funnily enough, I have a 'never seen a silent' person of a friend coming round tonight and I've
pulled out 'A Day's Pleasure' by Chaplin to show my friend as I think it might go down well. I also
have Valentino's 'The Sheik' up my sleeve just in case I can sneak it in there.

This lady is not very 'refined' - so he tells me - and normally falls asleep during films. That's
why my choice. I would love to play 'Sunrise' but I just don't think she'd go for the build up of
suspense.

Lee
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film? 

<rodney DeleteThis @mont-alto.com> wrote:

[Fred said "no dramas"]

> I disagree, but you have to show the right drama. One of my first
> dramatic silents was BEAU GESTE, which gets off to a smashing start
> right out of the block,

The problem with dramas (again, this is merely an opinion) is twofold.
Actually it's probably more than twofold but I'll restrict it to two for
now.

1) Comedies are a bigger draw than drama even today. To use an extreme
example, how well did "Cinderella Man" do compared to "The Wedding
Crashers." An awful lot of the most well-known classics are pretty heavy.
Not that there's no comic relief or light moments at all, but not enough,
I've found, to keep a newcomer's attention. With Keaton films the
situations feel much more modern and today's audiences can identify with
them. Dramas tend to be much less timeless and much more open to titters
from the audience.

2) I'm going to make an even more HUGE generalization here but hopefully the
basic point will come across OK. The acting in dramas tends to play more
into the negative stereotypes of silent acting. Silent acting is very
different from acting today and from what I've seen its easier for audiences
to accept the style in the great comedies rather than the dramas.

As an example of both of these "issues," I took two people to see "The
Circus" (with live orchestra) at the Motion Picture Academy back in 2002.
Then I took two other people to see "The Big Parade" (also with live
orchestra) there earlier this year. Both couples were in the same age
range, 26-30, same profession (actors) and had never seen a silent film.
Both films are tops in their field and the prints and music were great
(note: I like the Carl Davis score better than the original score, but that
could be because I'm more used to it). The couple who saw The Circus had a
wonderful time and were practically in tears during the tightrope/monkey
scene and they still talk about the film (usually still laughing about it).
The couple who saw The Big Parade liked it OK but didn't have the same "I'd
like to see more" response that the other couple had. And they haven't
mentioned it since.

Now, I know that's not a scientific sampling, but over the years (since the
80's) I've always seen a better response both in the theater and afterwards
outside the theater with comedies than with dramas.

I haven't seen the silent Beau Geste but I love the Gary Cooper version and
I know it's extremely close to the original. It's possible that it might be
a good one to use, but until I see it, I'll stick with The Circus and
Sherlock Jr. (or almost any Keaton feature or short).

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: What would be the one film?