|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 20, 2017 18:01:23 GMT
I certainly thought this year would turn out to be one of my favorites, but unfortunately a lot of the films were pretty big disappointments. My top two happened to be two big surprises for me and the only ones to really take away from this year, though the rest of the top five all have some strong merits - 3 Bad Men being the type of John Ford I was expecting when I watched his Iron Horse from a couple years before. Nice to have Sjostrom back in my good graces, Scarlet Letter and Gish are way more his speed.
Best Picture: 01. By the Law. 02. The Scarlet Letter. 03. 3 Bad Men. 04. For Heaven's Sake. 05. The Adventures of Prince Achmed. 06. Mother. 07. Flesh and the Devil. 08. Faust. 09. A Page of Madness. 10. Tell It to the Marines. 11. The Sorrows of Satan.
Best Director: 01. Lev Kuleshov - By the Law. 02. Lotte Reiniger - The Adventures of Prince Achmed. 03. Victor Sjostrom - The Scarlet Letter. 04. Vsevolod Pudovkin - Mother. 05. John Ford - 3 Bad Men.
Best Actor: 01. Lars Hanson - The Scarlet Letter. 02. Lon Chaney - Tell It to the Marines. 03. Vladimir Fogel - By the Law. 04. Gosta Ekman - Faust. 05. Harold Lloyd - For Heaven's Sake.
Best Actress: 01. Lillian Gish - The Scarlet Letter. 02. Greta Garbo - Flesh and the Devil. 03. Vera Baranovskaya - Mother. 04. Aleksandra Khokhlova - By the Law. 05. Carol Dempster - The Sorrows of Satan.
Best Supporting Actor: 01. Lars Hanson - Flesh and the Devil. 02. Emil Jannings - Faust. 03. Tom Santschi - 3 Bad Men. 04. Adolphe Menjou - The Sorrows of Satan. 05. J. Farrell MacDonald - 3 Bad Men.
Best Supporting Actress: 01. Camilla Horn - Faust. 02. Barbara Kent - Flesh and the Devil. 03. Marcelle Corday - The Scarlet Letter. 04. Olive Borden - 3 Bad Men. 05. Eleanor Boardman - Tell It to the Marines.
Best Original Screenplay: 01. For Heaven's Sake. 02. Tell It to the Marines.
Best Adapted Screenplay: 01. The Scarlet Letter. 02. By the Law. 03. 3 Bad Men. 04. Flesh and the Devil. 05. Faust.
Best Ensemble: 01. The Scarlet Letter. 02. 3 Bad Men. 03. Flesh and the Devil. 04. Faust. 05. By the Law.
Best Editing: Mother.
Best Cinematography: A Page of Madness.
Best Art Direction: The Adventures of Prince Achmed.
Best Costume Design: Faust.
Best Makeup: Faust.
Best Visual Effects: The Adventures of Prince Achmed.
Already a handful of films into 1927 and already I think this might be favorite year so far of the 1920s. Any particular recommendations? Or better yet, what to skip?
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Apr 20, 2017 18:06:32 GMT
Faust is so good.
Did you not watch The General?
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 20, 2017 19:51:56 GMT
Faust is so good. Did you not watch The General? I really liked Faust until Ekman turned into a young man, then it really lost me for a long while. I didn't understand how it went from being so good and thrilling to very droll in a matter of minutes, but I wasn't as big of a fan as I thought I would be. Visually, though, it was striking - which you can expect from Murnau. I did watch The General, but I didn't realize it was really a 1927 film (for me anyway), since it was released in Japan for some reason in 1926, but in the U.S. in 1927.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Apr 20, 2017 19:59:38 GMT
Faust is so good. Did you not watch The General? I really liked Faust until Ekman turned into a young man, then it really lost me for a long while. I didn't understand how it went from being so good and thrilling to very droll in a matter of minutes, but I wasn't as big of a fan as I thought I would be. Visually, though, it was striking - which you can expect from Murnau. I did watch The General, but I didn't realize it was really a 1927 film (for me anyway), since it was released in Japan for some reason in 1926, but in the U.S. in 1927. I did not know that about The General. Weird.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 20, 2017 20:24:47 GMT
Yeah, not entirely sure why it was shown there first, but regardless I love me some Buster Keaton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 0:01:58 GMT
I've only seen A Page of Madness out of these, I honestly wasn't that impressed. It was decent I guess, maybe a re-watch is in order.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 21, 2017 7:29:42 GMT
I've only seen A Page of Madness out of these, I honestly wasn't that impressed. It was decent I guess, maybe a re-watch is in order. Yeah, I wasn't too big on it myself. The lack of any title cards really hinders the experience I think. It's too artsy and doesn't offer enough visually to have the story make sense. But what visuals it does offer are fantastic and some of the best I've seen in silent cinema. I only wish the story was more engaging. Watching it late at night probably didn't help either. However, I will say, give early Russian cinema a chance. Everyone discusses Eisenstein, but his teacher Lev Kuleshov (known for the Kuleshov effect) and Vsevolod Pudovkin were making just as great of movies using the same techniques. Eisenstein's stories might be more cinematic, but Kuleshov's By the Law is a pretty engaging chamber piece. Other than that, I'd only really recommend The Scarlet Letter or 3 Bad Men. Possibly Adventures of Prince Achmed as well, if only for its ingenuity.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 25, 2017 19:06:51 GMT
I certainly thought this year would turn out to be one of my favorites, but unfortunately a lot of the films were pretty big disappointments. My top two happened to be two big surprises for me and the only ones to really take away from this year, though the rest of the top five all have some strong merits - 3 Bad Men being the type of John Ford I was expecting when I watched his Iron Horse from a couple years before. Nice to have Sjostrom back in my good graces, Scarlet Letter and Gish are way more his speed. Cool to see you liked By the Law so much. I looked a little into it recently and I do think it looks pretty great but I have still not seen it. Generally I'm with you on what you said about russian cinema, the non-Eisenstein's are way overlooked. I've seen 1 film from Dovzhenko and 1 feature film from Pudovkin (+ a short) and almost all of Eisenstein's films but I still think the Dovzhenko and Pudovkin film I've seen is probably better than anything from Eisenstein... I haven't seen that much from the year myself (it's the 1920's year I've seen least from) but I do like what I've seen. I understand what you say about Faust but this is quite close to how the story goes, first he's a brooding young man and then he turns into a juvenile, impulsive youngster. Some of the scenes (particularly with that far off kingdom) seemed like odd diversions from the book though. Murnau also has a thing for pastoral romances and wherever there's an oppurtunity for that... well, you know, you can count on Murnau with that. But I must say I actually like it, precisely because it is so youthful and naive and kind of nonsensical. I've also read Goethe's play and love it but in this case it's really hard to compare film and book (because the book is extremely reliant on its brilliant language while the film is almost all images). Murnau did make some changes to simplify (going so far as to change to ending) but I like the changes in the context of the film and its pastoral themes of eternal love. Scarlet Letter and Flesh and the Devil I'd say are both a little flawed because they're not 100 % consistent in pacing but they have some incredibly standout scenes and I like the general line they go with quite a lot. Especially Scarlet Letter is really serious about what it does, Flesh and the Devil is a little cheap in the story segment but I think the glooming atmosphere somewhat trandescends these flaws. Prince Achmed I think is more of a curiosity but by no means a bad film. Just out of curiosity: Did you like 3 Bad Men better than The Iron Horse? I've seen neither but maybe I feel like watching a silent Ford western sometime. Also why did you chose to watch 1 more than with the other years? As for '27 the year is quite packed. Sunrise and Metropolis are absolute essentials, for my money you could call them the 2 quintessential silent films even. But I'm sure you have them on your list already. I would also very heavily advise not to miss 7th Heaven and The Student Prince on Old Heidelberg. They're both absolutely amazing films really. Probably both among my 20 favorite silents. 7th Heaven is a grand but incredibly well balanced drama, it's incredibly touching, in fact it's so good that I'm not mad at Borzage winning best director over Murnau (I do think Murnau's direction is much better but you can't be mad with a film as amazing as 7th Heaven). I think I wrote about it in some other thread, I was incredibly surprised at how good it was when I watched it. The Student Prince of Old Heidelberg is highly different from Lubitsch other silent stuff, it's a fantasy romance (not so much a comedy although it has comedy bits) but it hits all the right notes and delivers a perfect atmosphere of the romantic era Germany. It's one of Lubitsch's best films in general, silent or not in my opinion. I would also recommend The Lodger, Underworld and Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Grosstadt. All 3 are really good films imo, there isn't that much more to say. Underworld and The Lodger are of course the first more significant films from 2 incredible directors and I think major parts of their voice were intact here already and on top of it these 2 films do feel fresh and experimental (and Underworld is a prototype of the gangster film, while The Lodger is a proto-type of the serial killer film and film noir). The Berlin film really is a symphony. It's incredible relaxing to watch those pictures from old cities - on top of it, this is quite brilliantly composed in parts and an incredible portrait of the time with a genuine poetic force (from a Berlin perspective of course). I'd say you can skip College and The Three-Sided Mirror for now. College is good and I really like the beginning and ending but the middle plays too much like a sketch series, lacking in plot. Still it's Keaton, what can you do. I do like the film and of course it has its moments of comedic bliss, there's no denying that but it shows that there are problems with the direction here (Keaton reported that the director that was hired, James W Horne, did nothing at all). The Three-Sided Mirror I doubt you'd enjoy too much because the narration is spotty as hell, conceptually it's a very interesting film though so if you're suddenly in the mood you can always reconsider. It's only like 40 min. aswell. Edit: Seems like there are quite a few typos, hope it's no problem. It seems like recently I do quite a few of those...
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 27, 2017 3:25:59 GMT
Cool to see you liked By the Law so much. I looked a little into it recently and I do think it looks pretty great but I have still not seen it. Generally I'm with you on what you said about russian cinema, the non-Eisenstein's are way overlooked. I've seen 1 film from Dovzhenko and 1 feature film from Pudovkin (+ a short) and almost all of Eisenstein's films but I still think the Dovzhenko and Pudovkin film I've seen is probably better than anything from Eisenstein... I haven't seen that much from the year myself (it's the 1920's year I've seen least from) but I do like what I've seen. I understand what you say about Faust but this is quite close to how the story goes, first he's a brooding young man and then he turns into a juvenile, impulsive youngster. Some of the scenes (particularly with that far off kingdom) seemed like odd diversions from the book though. Murnau also has a thing for pastoral romances and wherever there's an oppurtunity for that... well, you know, you can count on Murnau with that. But I must say I actually like it, precisely because it is so youthful and naive and kind of nonsensical. I've also read Goethe's play and love it but in this case it's really hard to compare film and book (because the book is extremely reliant on its brilliant language while the film is almost all images). Murnau did make some changes to simplify (going so far as to change to ending) but I like the changes in the context of the film and its pastoral themes of eternal love. Scarlet Letter and Flesh and the Devil I'd say are both a little flawed because they're not 100 % consistent in pacing but they have some incredibly standout scenes and I like the general line they go with quite a lot. Especially Scarlet Letter is really serious about what it does, Flesh and the Devil is a little cheap in the story segment but I think the glooming atmosphere somewhat trandescends these flaws. Prince Achmed I think is more of a curiosity but by no means a bad film. Just out of curiosity: Did you like 3 Bad Men better than The Iron Horse? I've seen neither but maybe I feel like watching a silent Ford western sometime. Also why did you chose to watch 1 more than with the other years? As for '27 the year is quite packed. Sunrise and Metropolis are absolute essentials, for my money you could call them the 2 quintessential silent films even. But I'm sure you have them on your list already. I would also very heavily advise not to miss 7th Heaven and The Student Prince on Old Heidelberg. They're both absolutely amazing films really. Probably both among my 20 favorite silents. 7th Heaven is a grand but incredibly well balanced drama, it's incredibly touching, in fact it's so good that I'm not mad at Borzage winning best director over Murnau (I do think Murnau's direction is much better but you can't be mad with a film as amazing as 7th Heaven). I think I wrote about it in some other thread, I was incredibly surprised at how good it was when I watched it. The Student Prince of Old Heidelberg is highly different from Lubitsch other silent stuff, it's a fantasy romance (not so much a comedy although it has comedy bits) but it hits all the right notes and delivers a perfect atmosphere of the romantic era Germany. It's one of Lubitsch's best films in general, silent or not in my opinion. I would also recommend The Lodger, Underworld and Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Grosstadt. All 3 are really good films imo, there isn't that much more to say. Underworld and The Lodger are of course the first more significant films from 2 incredible directors and I think major parts of their voice were intact here already and on top of it these 2 films do feel fresh and experimental (and Underworld is a prototype of the gangster film, while The Lodger is a proto-type of the serial killer film and film noir). The Berlin film really is a symphony. It's incredible relaxing to watch those pictures from old cities - on top of it, this is quite brilliantly composed in parts and an incredible portrait of the time with a genuine poetic force (from a Berlin perspective of course). I'd say you can skip College and The Three-Sided Mirror for now. College is good and I really like the beginning and ending but the middle plays too much like a sketch series, lacking in plot. Still it's Keaton, what can you do. I do like the film and of course it has its moments of comedic bliss, there's no denying that but it shows that there are problems with the direction here (Keaton reported that the director that was hired, James W Horne, did nothing at all). The Three-Sided Mirror I doubt you'd enjoy too much because the narration is spotty as hell, conceptually it's a very interesting film though so if you're suddenly in the mood you can always reconsider. It's only like 40 min. aswell. Edit: Seems like there are quite a few typos, hope it's no problem. It seems like recently I do quite a few of those... No problem at all with the typos, I still get a good idea of what you're trying to say As far as this latter half of the 1920s has been, Russian cinema has pretty much been gold so far. Their directors have been doing things nobody else has done before, and it's working wonders for telling stories. Granted, I still think Battleship Potemkin is as perfect as it gets, but By the Law and Mother have certainly been worthy contenders as well. Would love to finally get around to Dovzhenko's work as well. I think the reason Faust was such a disappointment for me was because the first half was so strong, I didn't even mind the change from old to young man, but once the romance plot got involved, they seemed to completely dismiss the reason Faust asked for the Devil's help to begin with. I was just kind of scratching my head until the end wondering where the story had even gone. Maybe a re-watch down the road will help change my feelings on it, but I just think the story really killed the brilliance of Murnau's direction. I can certainly agree that the pacing of Scarlet Letter and most certainly Flesh and the Devil made the films drag a bit, but at least in the case of Scarlet Letter, Sjostrom's careful build-up of mounting tension as well as the fantastic performances of Gish and Hanson helped make the film so sincere as well as emotional and intense. It just felt like exactly the type of story Sjostrom deserved to tell based on his Swedish work. Very excited to get around to The Wind where he works with Gish and Hanson once more. Flesh and the Devil could have been good had John Gilbert been anyone else and the film been paced much better, as you say. It just felt so self-serious and never earning it. Years could go by in a heartbeat, but hours felt like years. Made no sense. As I've never seen a Ford film before The Iron Horse, I can't say which one is truly his style. But I have a feeling 3 Bad Men is way more his speed based on what I do know of his films, and not to mention I find the story, acting, and direction far more compelling than The Iron Horse which feels very dated and the story/acting not that convincing. As for watching one more, I had actually seen Tell It to the Marines many years ago when I was younger with my dad, so I wanted to see a newer one - but I still re-watched Marines anyway. I'll hold off my thoughts on 1927 for another thread, but I've actually watched most of the ones you listed. Just waiting to pick up my Criterion copy of The Lodger before I check it out - as well as Hitchcock's other 1927 film, Downfall, which is also part of that same disc. I'm hoping to watch all of Hitchcock's available filmography as I go along, or at least the stuff I haven't seen before. I have College on my watch-list, but as I consider The General to be a 1927 film, I figured I already filled my Keaton quota for the year so I'll get back around to it down the road. I believe Three Sided Mirror was one you recommended before as well, and I have it on my list. I'll probably have to skip it this time around, but believe me I'm a completist so I'll feel compelled to finish all of the recommendations one day
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 15:25:32 GMT
I'm thinking of doing something similar to this, starting with 1920. So do you only watch the movies you've listed, or do you watch more and just pick your favorites? I'd imagine in these early years the selection is very limited, so my assumption would be the former.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 27, 2017 18:13:53 GMT
I'm thinking of doing something similar to this, starting with 1920. So do you only watch the movies you've listed, or do you watch more and just pick your favorites? I'd imagine in these early years the selection is very limited, so my assumption would be the former. I strongly recommend it. It's incredibly informative and also boosts your film knowledge and repertoire. I have a giant list thanks to a lot of recommendations as well as looking at the most/highest rated per year on IMDB, but I stick to just watching the ones I've listed. Either they're popular picks, game-changing films (i.e. visual effects marvels), or just personal preferences (i.e. the fact that I've seen most films up to this point starring Lillian Gish). But yeah, with such limited options from the 1920s, I tend to just stick with 10 per year - makes it a lot easier to move on to the next year.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 27, 2017 19:33:53 GMT
I'm thinking of doing something similar to this, starting with 1920. So do you only watch the movies you've listed, or do you watch more and just pick your favorites? I'd imagine in these early years the selection is very limited, so my assumption would be the former. Nah, 20's are ok. If you dig deep enough you will find a large enough selection of great films. 1910's is where it's problematic. I would recommend David Bordwell's blog posts on top 10 of the year in the 20's (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/12/26/the-ten-best-films-of-1926/) aswell as The Silent but not Forgotten list (for critics perspective), The Silent Era list (for more of an audience perspective) and perhaps to try and seek for some underdogs from various sources. 1920's top 50 from ICM is also a very good start (it's based on IMDB ratings with some formular on top of it): www.icheckmovies.com/lists/1920s/Or all the silents on TSPDT top 2000.
|
|