Silent Reels, by Rodney Schroeter Column #0: Introductory notes In recent years, I have become very interested in silent movies. I discovered that they are more than quaint curiosities from the past, good for a few contemptuous laughs. I found silent movies that are good enough to stand along side, and hold their own against, any sound film that is considered a classic. I decided to write a column about silents. I did not know where it would appear, or if I could find a source of publication at all. But I didn't want that to stop me. Having made some initial, cautious connections with the Internet and with computer bulletin boards, I have several options. My goal in writing these columns is not a modest one. I intend to develop a significant interest, among people who enjoy good movies, in the silent era--an interest that will grow to such proportions, that there will some day be a Silent Movie Channel, a special Silents section in the video rental shops, and film restoration will become a multi-billion dollar business (financed completely by the free market; I do not consider the arts a proper concern of the government). To write these columns, I intend to enjoy watching and re- watching a huge number of good films. In the course of my writing and viewing, I intend to take pleasure in learning about actors and other movie-makers of the silents. I am not an authority on silent movie history, but I plan to become one. As I see it, this will be a life-long project, though I doubt it will ever become a full-time one. All right, so why should you take an interest in silent films? First, for your own enjoyment. I hope to convince you to pick up and try viewing some of the movies I write about. (Statement of policy: I will not discuss a specific film at length, unless I know it is available on video. What good would it do to excitedly describe some masterpiece, only to end with, "Oh, yeah, I saw this at the local revival theater. It was the only print in existence. Guess you'll never see it!") Second, to share that enjoyment with others. Believe it or not, back when all movies were silent, families and couples attended them in large numbers and actually found them entertaining. But why watch a silent movie, today, by choice? Precisely because it is silent. Without dialogue, you're free to ask what just happened, or to make comments on an event or camera technique. By the nature of silent films, you are able to interact more with your friend or loved one, than with sound films. This is especially true when watching with children. All other things being equal (subject matter and pacing, for example), I believe a silent movie will hold their attention as well as, or even better than, a sound film. A kid can pick up on a look or a gesture (especially the overly melodramatic movements that turn some people off), more easily than a string of fast, high-class verbiage. And most rewarding, you and the child will be interacting much more. Talking about a sound film when it's in progress can be impossible. Answering all the "What did he just say?" questions only leads to missing subsequent dialogue, leading to further questions, sometimes building up to an angry and regretted "Just shut up and watch it!" You might be surprised by how perceptive the kid you're watching with is. I was. Half-way through Buster Keaton's "Sherlock Jr." (1924), my five year old niece turned to me and said, "He's still dreaming." The other kids in the room, ranging in age up to eleven, continually made comments that indicated a deep understanding and enjoyment of the movie. Asking questions like, "Why is she doing that?" or "Can you tell what he's thinking?" or "What does she have to do now?" can bring some very perceptive answers from children. Try this with the kids: Get a copy of Keaton's "The General" (1927). (I'll be writing about Keaton in my first column.) The first few minutes establish the story and might not hook a young person's interest. Have them do a puzzle or something in the same room. When the action starts, get their attention and say, "Those men stole his train." The kid is not likely to know or care about the Civil War, but will understand that Buster's train has been stolen, and that he's trying to get it back. Prepare yourself for a great film, where the kids won't have to maintain an unnatural silence. Third reason... this might sound like the ravings of a madman, but if you continue reading my column, you'll find out about it eventually. I believe our culture is in a state of decline. (However, I do not believe this is inevitable--beyond human control to reverse--and am cautiously optimistic about the future.) Now, cranks who claim this are a dime a dozen, so I won't ask you to take my word for it. The burden of proof would be on me, anyway, to explain what "culture" is, what a "decline" would consist of, and what evidence indicates it is happening. And I might be able to convince you. But it's best if you can decide for yourself. To do that, you need to know about more than just the culture of your lifetime. If you don't know what the past was like, you have nothing to measure today's culture by. Yeah, I thought that was a bunch of baloney, too, at one time--something made up by teachers in a feeble attempt to get kids to study. But it's really true. If you're only familiar with the TV shows and movies of your recent lifetime, it's like trying to look at the big wide world through the confining field of view of a toilet paper tube (gee, was that metaphor by accident?). Just as, if you limit your familiarity with politics to your own lifetime, you might think that moral blandness and lack of principle are inherent in politics, and you might share the average person's tired cynicism for the subject. But suppose you read some of the work of the Founding Fathers, like John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson. You might find yourself wondering how things could get as bad as they are today; if so, you might also realize that things don't have to stay as they are. Asking "Why watch silent movies?" is like asking, Why take an interest in literature written in the past? Art work created in the past? Political or economic theories that were established in the past? Are any of the above relevant? Yes, if you consider the present and future to be relevant. If you're interested in putting the present into perspective, look into the past. But don't think it has to be some dull, full-time academic course of study. One (but only one) indication of the role of philosophy in individual lives, and in a culture, is to look at the arts. You can learn what you can, and enjoy it at the same time, by reading popular literature of the time, becoming familiar with the art of the time, or... watching silent movies. Now, a warning. If you consider yourself firmly entrenched in today's intellectual and political mainstream, and cannot tolerate challenges to your views, spare yourself the frustration and rage--don't follow my column. I am a student and advocate of Objectivism, the philosophy originated by Ayn Rand. If you detest her philosophy (and are truly familiar enough with her work to have formed that evaluation), I don't think I'll have anything constructive to offer you. The focus of this column is on silent movies, not on philosophy. But philosophical issues will come up. One can't write about art in a vacuum (unless, of course, like much of modern "art," it has no content; in which case, it is not art). It's not enough to arbitrarily claim a film is good. The basis for my evaluation is also important. While such remarks cannot be avoided, I won't go into great detail on them. Philosophy is a serious matter to me, which cannot be properly dealt with via insults, counter-insults, one-liners, etc. Believe it or not, I have confidence in my views, and do not go to pieces with every disagreement I meet. Some disagreements are based on willful dishonesty; they don't merit my time. On the other hand, genuinely honest questions would deserve more time than I can devote to them. Most often, my best answer and recommendation will be, "Read _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand." A few other statements of policy. Part of this project involves research. An enormous amount. I always welcome additions or corrections to the factual information I include. I most sincerely appreciate being told about sources of information (books, articles, etc.). And then, there is the ultimate source. Now and then, I am saddened to read the obituary of a star of silent films. If any reader knows the address of any person still living, who has worked in silent films, on whatever modest or spectacular scale, and that person would not mind being contacted, I would greatly appreciate that information. I won't have much to say about movies I _don't_ like. If I ever run out of good material, I'll write about some other subject. Take a look at the copyright notice at the bottom. I wish to retain ownership of my columns, but for the time being they may be freely distributed. Just don't change them to be politically correct. If you would like to use them for your newsletter, magazine, or bulletin board, go right ahead, but please extend me the courtesy to let me know. Ready? Are you open to my challenge? If so, while the rest of the family is watching the latest sit-com, where the most honored form of intellectual exercise is to come up with the most vitriolic insult, and scream it out in the most psychotic fashion, you can calmly seclude yourself in the back room, fire up the VCR or disk player, select a promising silent candidate, pick up or get on the exercise device of your choice, and get set for some top-quality entertainment. Rodney Schroeter / Box 37766 / Milwaukee WI 53237-0766 579-1716@mcimail.com 12-18-94 Entire contents of this column copyright 1994 by Rodney Schroeter. Permission is given by the author to freely distribute this article, if kept intact & unchanged. Such permission may be withdrawn in the future--from specific individuals, or from the general public.