The Kansas Silent Film Festival is back for its 14th year Friday night – February 26th and all day Saturday – February 27th, 2010 at White Concert Hall on the campus of Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas. As with all previous events, admission is free and open to the public. Kansas City film historian, Denise Morrison will provide introductions for the films to be presented, providing an overview of the silent film era and the artists who created them.
Schedule and more info HERE
I love those moments where having never intended to watch a movie, you get sucked in by accident. Flipping through the channels one night with my mother, this film was the only thing on. She’d seen it, I hadn’t.
Directed by the infamous John Ford and based off a 1939 novel by the same name, this film paints the tale of a coal mining Welsh family, the Morgans, during the turn of the century. Their struggles are told in retrospect through the eyes of the Morgans youngest son, Huw.
It could be thought of as a “coming of age” story in a way, watching Huw go through dramatic changes in his life and the way it matures him. But it’s main focus is on that of the family, and how they can pull together or completely fall apart through different circumstances. There are many sub-plots that give you an idea of who these people are and what they strive for.
Over all, I’d say it’s a character-driven piece, one of my personal favorites. One of the many reasons I love classic film is because of their focus on people, not incidences. Though so many powerful, heart-breaking and sometimes humorous things happen to these people, you’re more interested in how they deal with it on a personal level and not the out-come of the actual situation.
I was entranced from the very moment the movie began, pulled in with its tides. It’s imagery is striking; dark and gritty when it needs to be and light and beautiful when it also calls for it. The only warning I’d give is that it’s definitely a tearjerker and something that will send you on an emotional roller coaster.
“the spirit of poetry broke her blossoms all about his odorous chamber.”
This silent piece by director D.W Griffith (Most well-known for his controversial film Birth of a Nation) takes an intriguing look at the short-lived relationship between an abused young girl and a Chinese shop-keeper in London.
Cheng Huan is a Buddhist missionary from China, living in London with the initial goal of teaching peace and love to his fellow man. His dream doesn’t quite pan out and he finds himself instead as a lowly shop-keeper. He watches young Lucy (Lillian Gish) from his shop window wistfully, thinking of her as a beauty that the rest of the world has overlooked. Unbeknown to him, this frail girl is frequently abused by her prizefighter father.
One night after a terrible lashing, Lucy stumbles into the streets and through Cheng’s shop door where she collapses on the floor. After realizing what has happened, Cheng brings her upstairs and nurses her back to health, while doting upon her by dressing her up in Chinese robes and sitting by her bedside. Lucy is taken aback, never having known affection before. Unfortunately, their bonding time is disrupted as Lucy’s father gets wind of where his daughter has been, which leads to a series of heartbreaking events which eventually end in tragedy.
Although the lead male role was played by a Caucasian man, Richard Barthelmess , thus making it “yellowface”, they handle his character well and stay clear of many obvious stereotypical traits. Which is not to say they don’t exist, but could have been far worse then it was, especially given D.W.’a earlier portrayals of non-whites in a film. In the original story that the film was based off, Cheng is a sordid drifter with an addiction to Opium and whorehouses. D.W. instead turned his character into a kind, softhearted missionary. While there is racism in the film, it is usually only the “bad guys” that utter the word “Chink” in reference to Cheng.
Overall, it seems the films main focus is on tolerance and how hate in men’s hearts often leads to disaster. No matter the circumstances, Cheng’s love for Lucy remains pure. And though we are not given enough time to see what may have been, it does seem as though Lucy could have become equally affectionate for him.
Artistically speaking, the cinematography is gorgeous in the way only silent films can be. It has been described by many as having an ethereal quality, casting over your mind like some kind of enchanting fog. I believe the film was very daring for its time and therefor very important, as it is with many D.W Griffith films. It is hauntingly beautiful, somber, and a must-see.
From personal experience, I know it takes a lot to get people to watch a silent film. There is certainly an aversion to it by most people, being that it lacks dialogue one can hear. In a world with booming soundtracks and epic speeches, it’s hard for many to imagine a world in film without sound.
If there is anything that people will at least try, it is the comedies. After all, humor is universal and you don’t always need words to understand it. Everyone the world over laughs when someone trips over their own feet.
It is no question who the giants of silent cinema comedy were. There has been a lifelong debate over who was better: Chaplin or Keaton. Of course, one can not forget the lesser known yet equally talented figures like Harold Lloyd and Roscoe ‘Fatty’ Arbuckle, but I’ll save those for another day.
Most people in my personal life know I have a certain affection for Charlie Chaplin, but when it comes to the argument I really can’t take sides. They both had amazing yet very different styles.
Charlie Chaplin
Born in England in 1889 , Chaplin’s parents were both stage performers. After his drunken father was out of the picture and his mother slowly began to lose her mind and was committed to a asylum, it was Charlie and his half-brother Sydney who carried on the family name in Vaudeville.
He joined the Karno Troupe in his early 20’s and embarked to America with 25 dollars. While touring the country, he hooked up with Mack Sennett of Keystone and started making films. His iconic tramp character first appeared on film in a short called “Kid Auto Races at Venice” in 1914.
From there, his career started a steady climb. After leaving Keystone he worked a short time with Essanay and Mutual, then eventually started writing, directing, producing, editing, and starring in his own films.
Chaplin was so flawless as the tramp that most people didn’t realize (and still don’t) that he was just a character. The tramp was a fellow often down on his luck, trying to make ends meet by working odd jobs and often getting himself into trouble.
Some of his best gags were the ones that were more subtle. They were “blink and you’ll miss it” situations, because Charlie was so smooth, quick and precise. Despite being a mangy tramp, he was always very graceful and some things he managed to pull off so seamlessly still amaze modern audiences.
Chaplin was also known for bringing genuine heart into his work. They were not simple slapsticks without substance, there was often an underlining message that was more apparent the longer his career went on. In the beginning of film, most pictures were pigeon holed into exact genres, while Chaplin blurred the lines and was probably the first to make romantic comedies and dramatic comedies.
In all of his career, Charlie never had the tramp speak a single line in a film even after sound was introduced. With the coming of sound, he retired the tramp and went on to make films in different roles. His reason for this being that he knew the tramp was a character loved world-wide, and he felt that having him speak would ruin that magic. He never wanted to alienate any of his fans by making the tramp only understandable to people who spoke English. To him and all others, the tramp was an “every man”, and was quoted as describing him as “A tramp, a gentleman, a poet, a dreamer, a lonely fellow, always hopeful of romance and adventure.”
Suggested viewing:
Buster Keaton
Born in 1895 in America, Joseph Frank Keaton received the nickname Buster from Harry Houdini as a child, after he had fallen down a flight of stairs without injury.
He traveled with his family in a stage act growing up, and was known by an act he did with his father in which the older man would toss Buster around. Sometimes even into the orchestra pit or audience. He was rarely if ever injured, and would actually laugh gleefully during it. He noticed that his enjoyment of the fake abuse drew fewer laughs from the audience, and was the reason he adopted his deadpan expression while performing.
While Chaplin was agile and lithe, Buster appeared clumsy and erratic. Despite a look of chaos, every one of his movements was calculated with techniques he had learned while performing as a child.
He was also extremely daring, pulling off stunts that would surely hurt or even kill someone less skilled. It’s nearly impossible not to wince while watching some of his films, and wonder aloud how the man is still breathing.
Also in comparison to Charlie’s expressive face and body language, Buster was probably best known for being stoic. No matter the situation at hand, he managed to keep a serious face. Yet while you would think this would retract from his performances, it only enhanced them. And even without every emotion displayed plainly across his face, there was still something about him that told you exactly what he was feeling.
He, unfortunately, did not do very well in his later career, resorting to alcoholism. In an interesting turn of events, Chaplin, feeling sorry for the ailing Keaton, gave him a cameo in his film Limelight, where they did a wonderfully hilarious scene together as misfit musicians.
Suggested viewing:
I love a good circus, don’t you? Granted I haven’t been to one since I was 5, but I remain a big fan of anything circus related, making this movie a must-see.
This is the second time I’ve viewed it, the first I hadn’t seen it in its entirety. It’s got an amazing cast which includes Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, Dorothy Lamour, Cornel Wilde and Jimmy Stewart.
It was also interesting that the film was made with the help of the actual Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Baily circus, featuring its actual performers and clowns (including Emmett Kelly) the actors were trained in their characters professions and did the acts themselves.
There are movies I’ve seen in the past on the subject of Circus or Carnival life that fall short, simply because they lack the realism of what the circus is about, especially behind the scenes. This movie felt genuine, like I wasn’t watching actors in costume.
That being said, the movie is a bit of a Soap Opera. The circus, especially in the past, was a very gritty and often crooked lifestyle. While they managed to squeeze a little bit of that in, it was still very idealistic and romanticized. However, that seems to be a trend in most films made in the 1950s.
I can’t say I enjoyed the over-acting, either. Some of the characters were a little too much for my taste and I felt like rolling my eyes or laughing at some serious moments. Melodramatic would be the right word, I think. It’s complete with love-triangles, life-altering injuries, murder suspects, and train wrecks.
I have to point out that Jimmy Stewart was amazing for a minor character, as Buttons the clown. Although he did have his own side-story, he wasn’t billed as a star in the film. In fact, the only time you see him out of clown make-up is for a brief moment in a photograph. Still, with such a small part, he managed to steal the audience’s attention every time he was on screen. He worked personally with Emmett Kelly to perfect the act of the clown, and did a fantastic job. And in the more serious moments, really made you feel for his character.
I was surprised to hear that this film won the academy award for Best Picture. While enjoyable and interesting, I never thought it ranked quite that high. I do, however, think it’s worth a watch. It’s purely entertaining, so don’t look for too much beyond the surface.
Bygone Films 