Just finished watching this beauty.
What are some of your favorite silents, Veeky Forums? Drop those lists, gentlemen!
Myself:
A Woman of Paris,
Sunrise: Song of Two Humans,
Metropolis,
Intolerance: The Struggle of Love Throughout the Ages,
The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari,
Haxan,
The Little Princess,
When Knighthood Was in Flower,
It (the one with Clara Bow),
And anything by Georges Melies
...
If I had made a thread about pre-WWII radio, would you have directed me to /mu/?
It's easy to do. Just copy-paste the thread into /tv/ and you're set. The thread would have to be about the history of radio to be on Veeky Forums. If it was about songs, then you'd put it on /mu/ :)
Old films are history-related. Same with the history of films. They can tell as a lot about the society.
But these movies are historic, and shows the drastic culture change from what will soon to be more than a century ago for a few of these, the rest of which are already a century old.
City Symphonies are great for historians. They show the city and people as they were in 1920s.
>What are some of your favorite silents, Veeky Forums?
hmm sounds like op is really interested in the history of silent films
The only movies from that period that that have actual historical value are westerns because there were people who actually lived through it (like Wyatt Earp) working on them. But if you want to talk about le artsy hipster bullshit like Metropolis then kindly fuck off to /tv/,
We can always discuss the films and their cultural impact or importance. History of film isn't that interesting (evolution of film, technical aspects and all that stuff).
I really like German films from before the Nazi period.
Dr. Mabuse: Der Gambler perfectly encapsulates people's feelings about the early Weimar period - criminals, inflation, gambling, drugs, villains controlling everything from the shadows, blasé upper classes, "orientalism", fascination with paranormal phenomena.
It's 10/10.
good now tell somebody who cares
You're a fool. Metropolis is much more important than any western. It shows the zeitgeist of the period. Fear of a communist uprising, humans transforming into lcattle in a capitalist system, villains manipulating both sides (Jews?), yearning for a third way.
>/tv/
>caring about films
>Metropolis is much more important than any western.
No, fuck off and kill yourself.
How are westerns culturally relevant? Westerns are entertainment. USA and Hollywood were all about producing cheap entertainment while Europe was creating timeless masterpieces.
Birth of a Nation is fun.
>posting in your own thread
Please just go to /tv/
you miserable cunt
that was meant for
It was eh for me, there were parts that were fun, but nothing that made me particularly jump with anticipation. Intolerance, which followed a year later, was much more appealing ng to me, and really showed D. W. Griffith's skill in directing and set creation.
All my opinion of course. I'm well aware civil war participants were present and had different, stronger views, so much so that southern critics were in tears.
Today, its effect is not as drastic, and it just felt like any other "arbitrary" silent film, just with far more blackface.
What does this have to do with Veeky Forums?
>history isn't interesting
>on a fucking history board
WTF?
>USA and Hollywood were all about producing cheap entertainment while Europe was creating timeless masterpieces.
*tips fedora*
Not him but lounge movies, street comedy, and vaudevillian melodramas don't really compare to the quality majority of European films. I'm not saying that Charlie Chaplin, D. W. Griffith, or some other directors were bad, but they did pander to a low budget melodrama audience. Most american movies are considered aforementioned "lounge flicks" because they were played in restaurants as background decoration. Something to look at while you waited for your food or the breaks between conversation.