Old Movies’ Reviews: ‘The Easy Street’, ‘The Immigrant’, ‘The Cure’ and ‘A Dog’s Life’ (I)

by Laura Lai/Review

I googled the other day the words ‘silent movie’, in order to learn some theoretical and technical things and to make even more properly the old films’ reviews. What do you think it resulted? ‘The Silent Movie’ – an American satirical comedy made by Mel Brooks in 1976! I’ve said myself to try again, this time with ‘silent film’. And I’ve got luckier: it was what I was searching.

It is not difficult to realize that ‘silent film’ means a film without a synchronized sound of the dialogues. Otherwise, it would not be called ‘silent’. Instead it makes use of intertitles – the ancestor of the modern ‘sound dialogue’ or ‘subtitles’.

            Some countries prefer dubbed films, others prefer to use subtitles. I personally favor subtitles, because I like to hear actors’ voices. Another reason why I favor subtitles concerns the positive implications that subtitles may have in pushing people to practice reading, particularly in those countries with a high rate of people leaving school, or although in school still less capable to read and write. And what a better motivation than to read the subtitles of the film genre one is passionate about? – I should not have asked, because it seems that there may be a stronger motivation: the driving license written test! J

            I am a great, great film lover in general. When I was a child, in primary and gymnasia school, the cinemas were state owned. Pupils were having free entrance particularly at the morning representations. I watched many movies starting with 10 a.m. They were western, Indian, Soviet films, comedies, dramas…you name it! I think that what I was enjoying then is the same with what I still enjoy, since I would watch a film at any time of the day: I think I have been enjoying watching stories.

A film is a story. There are all kinds of stories. Some embrace detective film stories, others romance film stories, etc. I like them all. The silent film is also a story. I have recently watched on YouTube films made by Charlie Chaplin – the most representative of the silent film: ‘The Vagabond’ (1916), ‘The Pawnshop’ (1916), ‘The Easy Street’, that was not easy at all (1917), ‘The Immigrant’ (1917), 'The Cure' (1917),  ‘A Dog’s Life’ (1918) – all of them around 25 minutes and black and white.

            The plot is usually simple in silent movies. They all have as mandatory scene a chase scene or a fighting one, or both. Although without sound, the silent movie succeeds in communicating even the slightest thought or emotion of the character. Besides the fact that I find that fascinating, I wondered how it succeeds in doing this.

            First and foremost, the lack of sound needed to be compensated by something even greater. This something I am convinced that is the talent of the actors: Charlie Chaplin, as well as Edna Purviance, Eric Campbell, etc. – regular actors in Chaplin’s movies. The actors use their great talent to communicate the whole plot of the film, their thoughts, their feelings regarding other characters and create an enjoyable atmosphere in the middle of the WWI. This reminded me of pantomime (lat. ‘pantomimes’), which means telling a story with the use of hands and it was a beloved genre practiced in the Ancient Rome. The pantomime is a genre in itself with its own requirements: a main actor and several second actors – one of which is the most laughable or the most ridiculous. It was usually played at the end of classic tragedies, in order to improve the mood of the public, which it usually did as it was also accompanied by music.

            The silent film makes also use of a … ‘back stage’ music. Sometimes is a violin, some other times a piano, a whole small or large orchestra, etc. I would argue that for me, as viewer, the music also engages me in being part of the plot and share characters’ emotions and thoughts.

            The third element through which the silent film succeeds in communicating without any word different thoughts and feelings of the characters is, from my point of view, the type of shot. I am not by far the greatest expert in camera shots – I actually think that this is a very technical thing. I can assume that at the beginning of the cinema, when the camera itself was not too old, film directors (like Charlie Chaplin, for example) use it intuitively to tell the public a story and to bring in that personal note of theirs. To me, the hat, the cane and his walk are symbols of Chaplin’s identity of ‘vagabond’ character in the silent film. But in all his movies there is one constant idea that he tries to inculcate in our minds through his art: the gentleman issue with women by helping them, supporting them, understanding them (and when the film allowed animal lover, too). This is the ‘personal note’ of Charlie Chaplin’s movies. Alfred Hitchcock is a super-fine psychologist and he used that in making his scenes – I think that is about 20-25 years ago when I had this great chance to watch on TV a whole series of movies signed by Hitchcock. Quentin Tarantino actually plays with camera, in order to keep our focus more or less consciously on a point where he wants us to get. Charlie Chaplin entertains and silently shows how men should treat women.

            At the beginning of the cinema, in silent films, we have either long shots – in order to have a full picture or close-ups (I think that’s the way they are called). By putting the camera on one of the characters that is actually a very talented and expressive actor, the film director of the silent film succeeds in communicating thoughts and feelings. (to be continued)