>considers himself a patrician
>hasn't seen at least 50 silent movies
Why are people even doing this?
>>63182788
>considers himself patrician
>isn't well-read
but silent movies are shit
>>63183579
>He hasn't seen The Passion Of Joanne Of Arc
>>63183579
>Or The General
>Or Seventh Heaven
>Or Ben-Hur
>Or Intolerance
>Or Faust
Starting with the silent films is an equivalent of ,,starting with the greeks" on /lit/
>>63184287
Intolerance is a boring, preachy, three hour piece of shite
>>63185177
Been years since I've seen it, I remember being entertained and surprised by the level of violence (there were some decapitations IIRC).
>old = good
When will this meme die
Have you ever heard of "evolution"? Every past time was worse, even more when we are talking about technology
>>63185245
Old =/= good
Hovever, how you can only truly enjoy your cinema experience when you know what hidden structure your movie is built on, how it evolved and what influenced it. Silent films were the start of everything and the way there were made were made is a base on which every movie today is built on. It defines the moving-picture genre.
>>63185245
>>63185333
If you consider all that shit, you aren't rating the movie ipsum but the circunstances
You don't like cinema, you like paraphernalia
>>63185333
This
It's stupid to believe that contemporary films hold every single aspect of the past. Not every new generation is a total improvement on the last, and by not even glancing at older films you are crippling your experience.
>>63182788
>posting images of comedy silent movies with animals
>the most pleb kind of movies
FUCK OFF PLEB
>>63185369
All the best books come from the last ten years too. No reason to ever read Lady Murasaki either since novels are better than ever and you shouldn't care about the development or evolution of the form.
>>63185586
And who needs Dante when we have slam poetry?
>>63185789
Saul Williams confirmed for being superior to Dante in every way.
>>63185245
>when we are talking about technology
We're not. We're talking about art, which doesn't really date at all. In certain circumstances it may lose its cultural relevance, but if you make the effort to try and understand the context in which any particular piece popped up, that too becomes a non-issue.
>>63185946
>cinema is not technology
ok
>>63185963
Are paintings obsolete because photography exists?
Are books obsolete because audio recording is possible?
Are audio recordings obsolete because video recording is possible?
How do I into silent films?
>>63186064
>Are paintings obsolete because photography exists?
Yes, pretty much. Modern paintings and sculptures don't try to copy reality anymore
>Are books obsolete because audio recording is possible?
>Are audio recordings obsolete because video recording is possible?
No, because these are different
>>63186083
Victor Sjöström or the soviet montage-style directors of the mid-late 20's. Eisenstein would be a good one to start.
>>63186083
Sit and watch some, start with Chaplin, Keaton, Murnau, Griffith and Eisenstien.
>>63186186
Also G.W. Pabst and pretty much anything starring Mary Pickford or Lillian Gish.
>>63185118
doesn't make it wrong tho
>>63185963
Technology is used to make film, yes. So what? One era of filmmaking isn't inherently better or worse then another simply because of the equipment used.
Would you make the same argument about music?
>>63186323
>Would you make the same argument about music?
It's not the same. We've had quality instruments for centuries
You must compare modern instruments to these fromt he XIII century to see my point
>>63186323
I'd argue that the restrictions in place due to lack of technology in early film (no sound) allowed for the visual aspects to flourish further than they would had sound been available in the very beginning. The visual storytelling techniques developed for the silent era are still with us today because they are so successful.
>>63186165
>Yes, pretty much. Modern paintings and sculptures don't try to copy reality anymore
And that's a real loss of art.
>No, because these are different
Same difference as new technology driven movies and silent films.
>>63186536
>Same difference as new technology driven movies and silent films.
No mate, it's not the same
Movies were invented about 100 years ago. Music exists since forever
>>63186391
Exactly. It is almost a different medium. For example, acting was way different, something more theatre-acting-like because they had to exagerate emotions to make people understand what was happening without a sound.
>>63186606
Movies do borrow heavily from the other visual arts and the world of design though. The elements of a captivating image are the same whether the medium is oils, a photographic plate, or a moving film.
>>63183579
>hasn't seen l'age d'or or even haxan
>>63182788
I-I've seen about 35 feature length silent movies plus a bunch of shorts.
>>63186386
I disagree. Instruments would in this case be comparable to everything needed to produce what is then captured by cameras and mics. The technological aspect should be compared to the technological aspect, which in both cases has come so, so far since the 1910's or 20's.
