https://silentfilmquarterly.com/2018/08 ... ost-films/
It's wrap-up message is basically, "if it ain't on Youtube, it ain't worth seeing".
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Here's a really stupid article about silent films
-
- Godfather
- Posts: 2922
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm
-
- Cugine
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:37 pm
Re: Here's a really stupid article about silent films
Wow...just, wow. This is maddeningly contradictory and ill-informed all at once. Where do I begin? I don't argue that every missing film is a lost classic. There's a lot of extant junk out there. Also, the standards of box office and, God help us, AMPAS awards recognition, are hardly indicative of quality. Does anyone seriously think THE BROADWAY MELODY is "better" than THE CROWD?
Also, while it's wonderful that so much classic comedy HAS survived, who can know for sure if what's missing is merely "interchangeable"? Films survive due to a combination of luck, commerce, and popularity. Popular films were duped and copied to a fare-thee-well, so it's entirely possible that other good lost films were simply worn out from use, and that's why they're gone. What he deems worthy of seeking is astoundingly arbitrary (missing DeMille, Griffith, etc.), and I've no idea why he champions certain titles and not others. Also, while we can be armchair critics of the studios mishandling of its heritage, his attitude is, "Well, they didn't save films because it was too much trouble, and that's that."
Is everything worth saving? Probably not. Is everything worth seeking? Certainly. If we adopt his approach that what we have now is good enough, so there's no need to keep looking, we're condemning films to the same fate they had before we started to care.
Also, while it's wonderful that so much classic comedy HAS survived, who can know for sure if what's missing is merely "interchangeable"? Films survive due to a combination of luck, commerce, and popularity. Popular films were duped and copied to a fare-thee-well, so it's entirely possible that other good lost films were simply worn out from use, and that's why they're gone. What he deems worthy of seeking is astoundingly arbitrary (missing DeMille, Griffith, etc.), and I've no idea why he champions certain titles and not others. Also, while we can be armchair critics of the studios mishandling of its heritage, his attitude is, "Well, they didn't save films because it was too much trouble, and that's that."
Is everything worth saving? Probably not. Is everything worth seeking? Certainly. If we adopt his approach that what we have now is good enough, so there's no need to keep looking, we're condemning films to the same fate they had before we started to care.
-
- Cugine
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA (Western Suburbs)
Re: Here's a really stupid article about silent films
So then basically all those Marvel superhero movies with all the CGI automatically better then anyting we seek out. The Marvel movies are everywhere and all the Millennials love them so does that make them better?
Polio and diphtheria used to be pervasive too, but it doesn't mean I want them either.
Polio and diphtheria used to be pervasive too, but it doesn't mean I want them either.
Agnes McFadden
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests