iCM Forum's Favourite Silent Movies, 2nd edition : Nomination - Closed - Processing Results

[St. Gloede]

But at least let's agree that it's about the silent era and not about movies without sound. Don't leave that to the voters discretion. Carmel already voted for Revelateur and Meshes for example.

Strongly disagree, and there is a big difference between "films without sound" and silent films - especially as sound is often such an important element of many silent films.

Of course, there is a grey area. I would not vote for Brakhage for instance, but I can understand including Deren.

[St. Gloede]

Maybe because some prefer polls with restrictions and don't trust voter discretion

I disagree but sure, that's reasonable... but why would this poll break the norm all of a sudden? What's different this time that the rules should be different?

I have absolutely no idea why this would be restricted to the silent era, that makes no sense to me.

Every poll has restrictions. A poll about the 60's is restricted to movies from the 60's. A poll about shorts has a runtime restriction. We don't leave everything to the voter's discretion.
Maybe we shouldn't decide on a year, like I asked earlier, but at least be clear whether it's a poll about the silent era or a poll about movies without sound. Don't leave that open. This is no different from other polls. The scope should be clear.

Yes, a poll about the 60s should be restricted to films from the 60s.

A poll about Silent Films should be restricted to silent films.

Restricting it to "silent era" or putting a cut-off when silent films are still made, makes no sense to me.

[joachimt]

I do understand the difference between "silent movie" and "movie without sound".

So you're discussing the scope of the poll and not the rules. Let's be clear about that.

[Lonewolf2003]

Maybe because some prefer polls with restrictions and don't trust voter discretion

I disagree but sure, that's reasonable... but why would this poll break the norm all of a sudden? What's different this time that the rules should be different?

I have absolutely no idea why this would be restricted to the silent era, that makes no sense to me.

Every poll has restrictions. A poll about the 60's is restricted to movies from the 60's. A poll about shorts has a runtime restriction. We don't leave everything to the voter's discretion.

Indeed others poll always have had restrictions, it's just that it rarely/never been needed to enforce them very hard, cause clearly questionable entries never made the final list. Only genre polls are less restricted and very open, cause coming up with a clear restricted, along agreed on, genre definition is near impossible.

Maybe we shouldn't decide on a year, like I asked earlier, but at least be clear whether it's a poll about the silent era or a poll about movies without sound. Don't leave that open. This is no different from other polls. The scope should be clear.

Totally agree, that should be clear. Personally I'm okay with either option; restricting it to Silent Era or going with all Silents ever. But it should be decided what the scope is.

[Onderhond]

I'm not sure what's so wrong about people being "reminded of The Artist" aside from you not liking it (presumably)

It's not about what I like/don't like really, it's about what I think are the general expectations of people looking at the results. And when you're hoping to see/discover a bunch of films from the silent era, films like The Artist taking up spots is irritating. It's a problem most genre polls have (here), making them virtually useless to actual fans of the genre.

Also, the "no sound" restriction is a little ironic as the soundtracks on most silent films are usually quite overwhelming (not to mention constant).

[Lonewolf2003]

I'm not sure what's so wrong about people being "reminded of The Artist" aside from you not liking it (presumably)

It's not about what I like/don't like really, it's about what I think are the general expectations of people looking at the results. And when you're hoping to see/discover a bunch of films from the silent era, films like The Artist taking up spots is irritating. It's a problem most genre polls have (here), making them virtually useless to actual fans of the genre.

Also, the "no sound" restriction is a little ironic as the soundtracks on most silent films are usually quite overwhelming (not to mention constant).

Yes, but the top 50 or so will anyhow consist of movies most users will already know (about). Plus it could lead to people discovering lesser known Silents made after the Silent Era.

[Onderhond]

Ah yes, the lesser known Cannes winner

I understand the arguments and possibilities for allowing more films, but I've seen so many disappointing poll results that I think the potential just never really materializes.

[St. Gloede]

Yeah, exactly, The Artist is the only recent silent that made it into the mainstream. There are a few other big ones like Juha and Blancanieves, as well as Call of Cthullu, which has a bit of a cult following, but beyond that there are others to discover. Like Sol's consistent recommendation Dr Plonk, as well as Le révélateur, the Indian 80s film in colour (which I really should seek out), or hell Five Filosophical Fables (which i won't vote for, but can see would appeal to many).

[pitchorneirda]

We have a 1920s poll, and may soon have a "pre-1920s" poll. I don't see the point of a Silent Era poll then.

I agree with you. But the move would be not to vote for the pre-1920s polls then, instead of trying to jeopardize this one.

[Tim2460]

@Tim: It's poll, not pool

I do have an problem with that ... does that pronounce the same btw ?

[Onderhond]

@Tim: It's poll, not pool

I do have an problem with that ... does that pronounce the same btw ?

Pool = Louvre.
Poll = sommet.

[Torgo]

I'm not sure what's so wrong about people being "reminded of The Artist" aside from you not liking it (presumably)

It's not about what I like/don't like really, it's about what I think are the general expectations of people looking at the results. And when you're hoping to see/discover a bunch of films from the silent era, films like The Artist taking up spots is irritating. It's a problem most genre polls have (here), making them virtually useless to actual fans of the genre.

Also, the "no sound" restriction is a little ironic as the soundtracks on most silent films are usually quite overwhelming (not to mention constant).

I even liked The Artist very much back then but agree 100% with Onderhond.

It's so weird to me that this even spawns a discussion. (Did we have it 2014? Or didn't we? Haven't read up the old thread now)
"Silent Movies". Everybody would be thinking of all the greats of the 1920s +Griffith, Sjöström, Feuillade, Demille, Lubitsch, Lumieres of course etc.; how completely unappropriate to crash into the silent era with a notion of "Yeah but Pushpak is a silent movie too, I'll give my #1!"

[Torgo]

@Tim: It's poll, not pool

I do have an problem with that ... does that pronounce the same btw ?

Told you!

[Teproc]

That film you mentioned, Torgo, is summarized on IMDB as "A silent movie about an unemployed young man."

Is that inaccurate? If not, why would it be weird to see it in a list of silent movies?

I'm not sure why it's so weird to argue that silent movies should be eligible for a poll about silent movies...

[Torgo]

Now I'm even giving them ideas.

[Tim2460]

But at least let's agree that it's about the silent era and not about movies without sound. Don't leave that to the voters discretion. Carmel already voted for Revelateur and Meshes for example.

For me Alison was already clear enought on her OP (that i pasted in this OP as well).

"Films should be from the silent period"

It's not written "Era" but "Period" witch is quite the same concept....

It's already written that The Brakhage films & "The artist" are excluded.

Starting to Read the old threads it seems to me the end of the "Period" was decided to be the late 30's for the Late Japanese Silent Films.

[St. Gloede]

It's so weird to me that this even spawns a discussion. (Did we have it 2014? Or didn't we? Haven't read up the old thread now)
"Silent Movies". Everybody would be thinking of all the greats of the 1920s +Griffith, Sjöström, Feuillade, Demille, Lubitsch, Lumieres of course etc.; how completely unappropriate to crash into the silent era with a notion of "Yeah but Pushpak is a silent movie too, I'll give my #1!"

It's funny, I find the opposite completely inappropriate, as the idea that silents belong to an era just feels demeaning and insulting (granted, they are films and do not have emotions, but still ). Silents should not be seen as a limitation or a part of the best but as a legitimate art form/genre. I really wish people were still creating silents and that they had lived on and developed at least to the extent B/W films did after the 60s.

Thanks for the link though, that was the film I was looking for. If allowed I'll catch it before the end of the poll, and hopefully include it in my list.

[Wonderful Rainbow]

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls059061716/ ranked!

[Onderhond]

Just a few more stretches and I'll be able to submit Angel's Egg

[Torgo]

Just a few more stretches and I'll be able to submit Angel's Egg

I got La Tortue Rouge (2016) up and ready! Fantastic stuff, every fan of silent films should see it.

[St. Gloede]

I really don't get it. Is your argument that silent films aren't silent films? And that if silent films get included, sound films should/would be next?

[Onderhond]

I really don't get it. Is your argument that silent films aren't silent films? And that if silent films get included, sound films should/would be next?

I'm saying that once you start stretching definitions, there's really no end to it.

I mean, we ended up with Jurassic Park in the ICM Top 250 Horror because "there was a scary kitchen scene". If that's the kind of stretch that's acceptable, a film that's "mostly silent" should very well be acceptable here.

[St. Gloede]

But we are not suggesting that we should stretch any definitions.

All we are suggesting is that a poll of silent films should be a poll of silent films, as opposed to placing a specific rule to purposefully exclude the few silent films that were made after the 30s.

It would be like having a musical poll, and decide that musicals made after the 60s or 70s aren't musicals.

[Teproc]

I'm not sure how "silent films should be eligible in a silent film poll" is the start of a slippery slope.

I do think films like The Artist or Modern Times are questionable because they do use sound in some scenes, so maybe they shouldn't be eligible (or people should think twice before including them). But that's not the same thing as making it about the era.

[Onderhond]

It would be like having a musical poll, and decide that musicals made after the 60s or 70s aren't musicals.

Except that there were still quite a few musicals made after that period and people never coined that genre as a era-specific niche. Which is completely different for silent cinema. There's just a couple of exceptions in almost 90 years of film. I get you'd love to see it more as a genre/style than the way it is coined now (and I don't even disagree), but that doesn't change the way it is coined/thought of by most people

I also don't understand how the "sound" criterium works btw. I'm assuming very few people watch silent films without some sort of soundtrack?

As for the slippery slope, it comes from doing semantic dissections rather than accepting what is commonly understood under the term.
I mean, want to be very specific & semantic about "silent" movies, are people really going to discard all the film they've seen with some sort of added soundtrack?

[Teproc]

I mean sound as in everything that's not a musical score, yeah. Obviously "silent" is a bit of a misnomer from the start. You could make the distinction about diegetic vs non-diegetic sound, but scores for silent films also often straddle that line, like when someone is playing music in the film and the score reflects that.

I strongly disagree with your point about what most people think about when they think of silent films. I'm pretty sure most people think of The Artist as a silent. To me, drawing a distinction between the "silent era" and what came after is exactly what you think I'm doing: arguing semantics contrary to what the simple,obvious definition is.

[Onderhond]

I mean sound as in everything that's not a musical score, yeah. Obviously "silent" is a bit of a misnomer from the start. You could make the distinction about diegetic vs non-diegetic sound, but scores for silent films also often straddle that line, like when someone is playing music in the film and the score reflects that.

Mkay, then let's hope the silent mafia doesn't invade this poll

I guess I could enter Umfeld. Should be great for everyone looking for a bit of black and white early 20th century fun!

[St. Gloede]

Completely agree re: sound. Essentially all late-era silents, came with a synchronised soundtrack, sound effects and even elements of natural/added sound (i.e. the sound scene in Sunrise), etc. and in the early days music is a massive part of the experience. I think almost every silent film, even if not made with a specific soundtrack was made to have music - many (Japan) were made to have a narrator.

(I'm not sure if most people naturally think silents = silent era. They are different terms for a reason. I never knew this was even a thing, honestly, though it clearly is. I agree with Teproc, at least intuitively, that most people would think of The Artist as a silent - and I think almost everyone would certainly consider Dr Plonk and Blancanieves silents, etc.).

[Torgo]

I just fundamentally disagree with Teproc & St. Gloe. For me, it's devaluating the concept of a silent (era) poll.

But we are not suggesting that we should stretch any definitions.

All we are suggesting is that a poll of silent films should be a poll of silent films, as opposed to placing a specific rule to purposefully exclude the few silent films that were made after the 30s.

It would be like having a musical poll, and decide that musicals made after the 60s or 70s aren't musicals.

First: Musical is a genre. Of course they never stopped, except maybe they stopped being cool for a while (or they never were ). (Opposed to film-noir, which in my eyes isn't a genre due to its random timely limitation)

With silent film, it's a totally different thing, it's not a genre.
It was the only technical possibility to make films for the first 3 decades of their existence. The moment sound film was invented, silent film was dead and eradicated within a few years and it never came back. Except for 0,001% of experiments and gimmick stuff.
Producing a film with no use of dialogue is a deliberate decision these days, one the filmmakers of the 1910s and 1920s didn't have. And it clearly and absolutely shows in their style, which is why silent film is so unique. There's literally two periods of films: pre-sound and everything after. (The invention of color comes close, but doesn't change the game completely like that)


Speaking of all that .. sure it would be fun and interesting to collect "silent films" made after 1935, things that somehow resemble the early age of films or which decide to omit dialogue. Could give a funny novelty list.
But please don't mix them up with Caligari and Sunrise

Oh, and by the way, trick question: How many silent films did filmmakers who were active during the silent period produce after 1935, especially if they already had been exposed to the making of talkies? Has Fritz Lang ever been quoted with "Man, I'm sort of satisfied with The Big Heat and Scarlet Street, but what's it with all this talking? Imma head out for Metropolis 2, see ya later, jabberers!"

[pitchorneirda]

Completely agree re: sound. Essentially all late-era silents, came with a synchronised soundtrack, sound effects and even elements of natural/added sound (i.e. the sound scene in Sunrise), etc. and in the early days music is a massive part of the experience. I think almost every silent film, even if not made with a specific soundtrack was made to have music - many (Japan) were made to have a narrator.

(I'm not sure if most people naturally think silents = silent era. They are different terms for a reason. I never knew this was even a thing, honestly, though it clearly is. I agree with Teproc, at least intuitively, that most people would think of The Artist as a silent - and I think almost everyone would certainly consider Dr Plonk and Blancanieves silents, etc.).

The thing is that the title of the poll says it's a "silent movies" poll but the rules say it's a "silent ERA movies" poll. The problem comes from the ambiguity in the wording of the rules, not because people consider silent movies are the same as silent era movies

[Onderhond]

(that most people would think of The Artist as a silent - and I think almost everyone would certainly consider Dr Plonk and Blancanieves silents, etc.).

I actually agree with that, but I (personally) believe it's a different thought process than wouldn't be ideal for a poll.

For me it's not about whether film X could belong to category Y (which is how genre polls often end up with many outliers/few core genre films), but what typical category Y films stand out. But I recognize that might be personal bias and personal frustration regarding the outcome of these polls.

But then, do you really want to have a bunch of experimental (non-dialogue) films entering the poll? What disqualifies them from entering?

[insomnius]

Completely agree re: sound. Essentially all late-era silents, came with a synchronised soundtrack, sound effects and even elements of natural/added sound (i.e. the sound scene in Sunrise), etc. and in the early days music is a massive part of the experience. I think almost every silent film, even if not made with a specific soundtrack was made to have music - many (Japan) were made to have a narrator.

(I'm not sure if most people naturally think silents = silent era. They are different terms for a reason. I never knew this was even a thing, honestly, though it clearly is. I agree with Teproc, at least intuitively, that most people would think of The Artist as a silent - and I think almost everyone would certainly consider Dr Plonk and Blancanieves silents, etc.).

With your definition, are there films from the 1920's or earlier you don't consider silents?

[Opio]

...Has Fritz Lang ever been quoted with "Man, I'm sort of satisfied with The Big Heat and Scarlet Street, but what's it with all this talking? Imma head out for Metropolis 2, see ya later, jabberers!"

jabberers...true LOL for me

[St. Gloede]

Completely agree re: sound. Essentially all late-era silents, came with a synchronised soundtrack, sound effects and even elements of natural/added sound (i.e. the sound scene in Sunrise), etc. and in the early days music is a massive part of the experience. I think almost every silent film, even if not made with a specific soundtrack was made to have music - many (Japan) were made to have a narrator.

(I'm not sure if most people naturally think silents = silent era. They are different terms for a reason. I never knew this was even a thing, honestly, though it clearly is. I agree with Teproc, at least intuitively, that most people would think of The Artist as a silent - and I think almost everyone would certainly consider Dr Plonk and Blancanieves silents, etc.).

The thing is that the title of the poll says it's a "silent movies" poll but the rules say it's a "silent ERA movies" poll. The problem comes from the ambiguity in the wording of the rules, not because people consider silent movies are the same as silent era movies

As Torgo explained above - he does. And Onderhond seems to hold this position as well - or at least that this is the position most people hold.

It is fine to fundamentally disagree though. I do understand the perspective.

-

Though yes, that is the issue for me. If it was simply called "Silent Era Poll" I wouldn't have had a problem with the exclusion of later silent films.

[St. Gloede]

Completely agree re: sound. Essentially all late-era silents, came with a synchronised soundtrack, sound effects and even elements of natural/added sound (i.e. the sound scene in Sunrise), etc. and in the early days music is a massive part of the experience. I think almost every silent film, even if not made with a specific soundtrack was made to have music - many (Japan) were made to have a narrator.

(I'm not sure if most people naturally think silents = silent era. They are different terms for a reason. I never knew this was even a thing, honestly, though it clearly is. I agree with Teproc, at least intuitively, that most people would think of The Artist as a silent - and I think almost everyone would certainly consider Dr Plonk and Blancanieves silents, etc.).

With your definition, are there films from the 1920's or earlier you don't consider silents?

Well, of course, all the early talkies.

In case there was any confusion about the above paragraph I don't think synchronised sound goes against the concept on silent films at all, nor individual moments of audio. I would understand if people wanted to disqualify Sunrise, but I'd disagree (on the same principle as the artist).

[Torgo]

The thing is that the title of the poll says it's a "silent movies" poll but the rules say it's a "silent ERA movies" poll. The problem comes from the ambiguity in the wording of the rules, not because people consider silent movies are the same as silent era movies

As Torgo explained above - he does. And Onderhond seems to hold this position as well - or at least that this is the position most people hold.

Yep, for me, it's synonymous, really. And I do believe that virtually all people in general will see "silent film" and "silent era" as identical, and most of film fans, too

In Germany, it's called Stummfilm, which includes a small, yet important semantic difference, since stumm translates to mute, making this type of film sound (..) even more dialogue-less to the common speaker. So, if you're having some small talk at the train station and tell your buddy that your hobby is watching Stummfilm, they will naturally ask "Ah, I see. Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Nosferatu, Birth of a Nation Intolerance? I love to see some historical Stummfilm, as well!" and if you replied to that "Huh?, oh, yeah, these are the common ones, but I'm more interested in Juha, Pushpak, Tuvalu, avantgarde installations, maybe The Artist but that's really stretching the definition of a Stummfilm with its dialogue in the end, isn't it?" the guy would rightfully go " "

At least that's how I see it ..

[insomnius]

Completely agree re: sound. Essentially all late-era silents, came with a synchronised soundtrack, sound effects and even elements of natural/added sound (i.e. the sound scene in Sunrise), etc. and in the early days music is a massive part of the experience. I think almost every silent film, even if not made with a specific soundtrack was made to have music - many (Japan) were made to have a narrator.

(I'm not sure if most people naturally think silents = silent era. They are different terms for a reason. I never knew this was even a thing, honestly, though it clearly is. I agree with Teproc, at least intuitively, that most people would think of The Artist as a silent - and I think almost everyone would certainly consider Dr Plonk and Blancanieves silents, etc.).

With your definition, are there films from the 1920's or earlier you don't consider silents?

Well, of course, all the early talkies.

In case there was any confusion about the above paragraph I don't think synchronised sound goes against the concept on silent films at all, nor individual moments of audio. I would understand if people wanted to disqualify Sunrise, but I'd disagree (on the same principle as the artist).

Well, yeah.

I was thinking of films by Man Ray, Oskar Fischinger, Walter Ruttmann, Hans Richter to name a few. Some of their films are pretty similar in style to, say, Norman McLaren and Len Lye. So what I'm asking is, is Ruttmann's 'Opus I' a silent film for example?

[St. Gloede]

With your definition, are there films from the 1920's or earlier you don't consider silents?

Well, of course, all the early talkies.

In case there was any confusion about the above paragraph I don't think synchronised sound goes against the concept on silent films at all, nor individual moments of audio. I would understand if people wanted to disqualify Sunrise, but I'd disagree (on the same principle as the artist).

Well, yeah.

I was thinking of films by Man Ray, Oskar Fischinger, Walter Ruttmann, Hans Richter to name a few. Some of their films are pretty similar in style to, say, Norman McLaren and Len Lye. So what I'm asking is, is Ruttmann's 'Opus I' a silent film for example?

Yes, I understand what you mean. Certain avant garde/experimental films from the silent era could be viewed as being in the grey zone as well (if we collectively agree Brakhage is in the grey zone).

[St. Gloede]

The thing is that the title of the poll says it's a "silent movies" poll but the rules say it's a "silent ERA movies" poll. The problem comes from the ambiguity in the wording of the rules, not because people consider silent movies are the same as silent era movies

As Torgo explained above - he does. And Onderhond seems to hold this position as well - or at least that this is the position most people hold.

Yep, for me, it's synonymous, really. And I do believe that virtually all people in general will see "silent film" and "silent era" as identical, and most of film fans, too

In Germany, it's called Stummfilm, which includes a small, yet important semantic difference, since stumm translates to mute, making this type of film sound (..) even more dialogue-less to the common speaker. So, if you're having some small talk at the train station and tell your buddy that your hobby is watching Stummfilm, they will naturally ask "Ah, I see. Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Nosferatu, Birth of a Nation Intolerance? I love to see some historical Stummfilm, as well!" and if you replied to that "Huh?, oh, yeah, these are the common ones, but I'm more interested in Juha, Pushpak, Tuvalu, avantgarde installations, maybe The Artist but that's really stretching the definition of a Stummfilm with its dialogue in the end, isn't it?" the guy would rightfully go " "

At least that's how I see it ..

I don't, not at all.

But it is fine to disagree.

(It is the same in Norwegian btw, i.e. "stumfilm", but The Artist was still labelled a "stumfilm", and if it was to be placed on the same standard as silents from the 30s and earlier the one line of dialogue should not be an issue. Even Sunrise would be disqualified on that standard).

[St. Gloede]

But then, do you really want to have a bunch of experimental (non-dialogue) films entering the poll? What disqualifies them from entering?

If that is a concern it is quite easy to disqualify soundless films. They are in an odd grey area (IMO), but a note that experimental films which are simply without sound do not qualify shouldn't be too difficult - and it is quite intuitive.

That said, if the majority want a silent era poll (which it seems they do), I don't mind - it was mostly the issue of calling it a silent movie poll (and how the later films are actively excluded, when I think they should be championed as much as possible).