Who Said Film Was Art Only in the Silent Era?
The Silent Moving-picture show Era was an indelible influence on the decades of movie theater that came afterward, but silent films are likewise valuable independently of sound films. These films are valuable because they employ a cinematic language very different from most sound films. Compared to afterward films, films produced in the 1920s faced many technical limitations, including the lack of sound; however, this limitation resulted in countless displays of brilliance that would non have been possible if the sound had always been a feature of cinema. Silent movie theatre is a complete fine art form in and of itself, and while the advent of sound opened upwardly many new avenues of expression in flick, this lack didn't hinder the greatest silent films.
Creative person's intent is an important factor to have into account in relation to the silent film. While the silent picture was the only method filmmakers had at their disposal until well into the 1920s, these filmmakers still created their fine art without audio and intended audiences to experience it without audio. Silent films are works of fine art specifically crafted with the lack of audio in mind, so the addition of sound does not necessarily improve a silent film. In this sense, silent films are consummate in the same way blackness and white films are consummate: non in spite of their lack of colour, but completely independently of that lack. The entire concept of colour cinema is completely irrelevant to the quality of black and white cinema, and the same thought as well applies to silent cinema in relation to sound. And while a work of art should exist judged independently of its author's intent, the writer'south intent is still the almost vital role of the creative process and cannot be completely disregarded when assessing the piece of work.
Chaplin's updated sound version of The Gold Rush (1925) is a proficient case. While most of Chaplin's changes to the film are positive ones (the romantic subplot feels much less mean-spirited in the altered version, for example), the bodily addition of Chaplin'south narration is completely unnecessary. It covers more than than just the film'due south intertitles, and it often comes off every bit Chaplin explaining the jokes, making them less funny in the process. Chaplin was one of the about successful filmmakers in terms of transitioning from silent to sound cinema (artistically, if non commercially), but that's because he fabricated his audio films with sound in heed. The Gilded Blitz, on the other manus, was a silent film with audio tacked on afterwards purely for the purpose of reigniting public interest in the film, and while it succeeded in that regard, the add-on of sound harmed the picture from an artistic standpoint.
The affair of artist's intent becomes even more relevant when it comes to silent films fabricated during the Sound Era. While I couldn't say whether Carl Dreyer would have been able to film The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) with sound if he had wanted to, he directed the moving-picture show later sound had entered the world of cinema, and he even doubled down on the moving picture's silence; he apparently never encountered a score of which he approved following the film'due south release. This is an excellent example of a thorough disregard for sound in any stage of the filmmaking procedure, even at the signal at which the audience experiences the finished product. While well-nigh every person who saw the film would have seen information technology with musical accessory, sound simply wasn't a concern for the director. The pic's lack of sound draws more attention to the visual performances, which are clearly a heavy focus given the moving picture's accent on close-ups. These solitary cemented the legendary status of Maria Falconetti's performance, fifty-fifty though she has no audible dialogue in the film. Modern filmmakers have control over a film's soundtrack; this was too the case with The Passion of Joan of Arc, and for all intents and purposes, the soundtrack that Dreyer chose was silence. Saying that lack of audio is purely a hindrance denies the deliberate creation of the filmmaker.
Non merely is the limitation of silence integral to silent films, the greatest silent films really derive their brilliance from this limitation. The lack of sound drives filmmakers to place additional emphasis on the film'south imagery, funneling all of a film's impact and staying power into the visual chemical element. While sound films are able to strike a balance with their impactful elements between audio and vision, in silent cinema the visuals are the sole method of conveying these elements, lending them a powerless common in dramatic audio films. Fifty-fifty traditional dramatic silent films receive this less naturalistic treatment, which emphasizes a certain unreality to convey story and themes. This arroyo provides more fantastical possibilities, fifty-fifty in drama films, accompanying a relatively grounded and serious story. Because of that exaggerated fantastical element, the silent drama is oft melodrama, which isn't a bad thing. Information technology's just an alternative method of displaying emotion that works especially well in silent cinema. The German Expressionists made excellent use of striking visuals to convey theme and emotion, but filmmakers accomplished information technology in various ways around the globe: the horses galloping through the sky in Sjöström's The Wind(1928); the army of the wrathful dead in Gance's J'accuse (1919) (which loses a significant portion of its energy and pathos in Gance's sound remake); the kinetic free energy of the editing in Vertov'southward Man With a Movie Camera(1929); and the pure physicality in the comedies of Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd. All of the great silent filmmakers institute means to express themselves visually, oft outside the realm of reality, partially as a result of their films' lack of sound. From special furnishings to overacting, many silent films feature an exuberance in the unabashed explicitness of their conveyance of theme that serves as a compelling substitute for the more naturalistic possibilities provided by sound.
I'd like to clarify that this drifting abroad from visual exaggeration in the Sound Era applies mostly to more serious dramatic films, the purpose of which is to nowadays their stories in a relatively realistic fashion – a purpose naturally aided by the improver of sound. The primary strength of the silent film that I'g describing here is the unrealistic approach it takes to realistic matters, which would be mostly lost past the 1930s. Obviously, the more than surreal elements of cinema remained in films that are inherently unrealistic in terms of story, such equally fantasy and horror films.
I'd also like to reiterate that this is in no way an assault on sound picture palace; on the contrary, the introduction of audio opened endless possibilities to be explored, and it was inevitable that silent cinema would fall by the wayside in light of this immense technological advancement. The use of sound does non categorically destroy the possibilities and methods that the Silent Era brought to the forefront; it simply means that the influx of new culling methods obscured the old ones. Every bit I mentioned previously, this shift away from more surreal visual elements is seen primarily in more serious drama films, rather than in genre films where exaggeration is more common (see The Wizard of Oz(1939), the fantasy films of Cocteau, or the Universal horror films). That said, at that place are enough of dramatic sound films that practise an excellent job of following in the footsteps of visually melodramatic silent films: The Red Shoes (1948) with its dreamlike ballet sequence; Ordet (1955) with its miraculous resurrection; Jean's underwater vision in L'Atalante(1934); The Nighttime of the Hunter (1955)'s expressionist sets and lighting. These films evidence that the melodramatic arroyo of silent films can, and ofttimes do, work, even in sound films.
Information technology's undeniable that the lack of sound in films produced in the 1920s is indeed a limitation relative to the possibilities opened up by subsequently technical advancements, but silent films have merit in themselves, as the lack of audio allowed them to utilise a unlike cinematic linguistic communication that is in no manner inferior to those that came afterward. Silent films aren't simply relics of the past, valuable merely as a glimpse into the early days of picture palace. Many silent films are easily comparable in technique, quality, and artistic vision to the best that audio movie theater has to offer, and we owe them just equally much love equally their more vocal successors.
Source: https://thetwingeeks.com/2019/06/17/the-art-of-silent-cinema/