 |
 |
Considering that filmmakers in the silent days probably never anticipated the longevity of their product - not least through academic discussion and scrutiny -, and also considering how much flexibility was allowed in how and in which order films and programmes were compiled and shown, I guess they would grant present-day forms of screening some leeway. I doubt exact viewing conditions could be reproduced, though students would obviously benefit from knowing in which ways cinema-going and the experience of film was different. Henry > Quoting "Frank, Michael" <[log in to unmask]>: > >> . . . if my >> purpose in this silent cinema course is to examine how moving >> images can >> work to communicate meaning in the absence of spoken dialogue, and >> if my >> circumstances [shared, i venture, by most of us] do not permit me to >> provide a benshi, how honest a representation of a film like this one >> can i offer? . . . if in some sense the film was made presupposing a >> benshi, is showing it without one a significant misrepresentation? > > I find this a highly intriguing subject, and I wonder if I might > broaden it > a bit to include other extra-textual sources of narrative > information upon > which silent-era cinema audiences might have drawn... > > I am currently working on a project that examines narrative films made > around 1916 and 1917 that dealt with birth control and/or abortion. > The > productions that I have been focusing on are the Lois Weber-Phillips > Smalley > films _Where Are My Children?_ and _The Hand That Rocks the Cradle_, > as well > as Margaret Sanger's _Birth Control_ and an unrealized but > reasonably well- > documented project developed by Alice Guy-Blache and Rose Pastor > Stokes. > One of my incidental discoveries relates to the issue at hand; it > was not at > all unusual for newspapers to publish press releases that gave away > major > details of the films' stories. These documents are loaded with what > we > today call "spoilers," and I am wondering if the expectation among > movie > companies, theater managers, and audience members back then was that > the > spectators were to have a fairly strong sense of the films' narratives > before they set foot into the theaters. > > Say, for example, that _Where Are My Children?_ was booked to play > in a > given theater for seven days. During each of those days, the local > newspaper(s) would publish a press release that would reveal key > developments in the film's story. I speculate that a typical > spectator > about to see this film would know ahead of time that a young woman > dies as a > result of a botched abortion and that the wife of the film's central > character (played by the redoubtable Tyrone Power) has had abortions > without > informing him. This latter situation is the film's *main* > revelation -- > indeed, it prompts the husband to ask the titular question -- yet it > is > "pre-revealed" in the press releases. > > Knowing that newspapers were so important as sources of information > back > then, it seems to me that audience members would have difficulty > avoiding > these press releases (if indeed they wanted to avoid them). These > items > were standard fare in the newspapers; in a few cases, they were > published on > the papers' front pages. > > I suspect that, in some instances, audiences used these documents to > help > them make sense of movies that had been severely truncated as a > result of > censorship. A city or state censorship board might demand the > excision of > several critical scenes, and the ensuing "cuts" might render some > situations > or character actions as incomprehensible. The press releases might > thus > enable spectators to "fill in the blanks" created by the removal of > certain > key moments. > > The widespread presence of spoiler-laden press releases doesn't seem > to have > diminished audience enthusiasm for the films. _Where Are My > Children?_ in > particular was an incredibly popular film -- it played for weeks if > not > months in New York City, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and many other > cities and towns. (In fact, I just learned that it played at London's > Philharmonic Hall for three solid months in 1917 but without benefit > of a > permit from the British Board of Film Censors.) The general > situation does > make me wonder, though, if audiences entered movie theaters with > something > resembling a fatalistic perspective -- i.e., they would know that > certain > "fixed" situations and events would occur in the world about to unfold > before them. > > Sorry for rambling on so, but this general topic has given me > considerable > pause. It raises some interesting questions for those of us who teach > silent-era film: Should we prepare and distribute similar documents > to our > students before the screenings? Or would such narrative summaries > distance > the students too much from the films and ruin the sense of discovery > and > engagement that we would want them to have? I would be grateful for > your > thoughts on any of the above; citations for relevant research or > theory > would be especially welcome. > > --Marty Norden > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Martin F. Norden > Communication Dept., 409 Machmer Hall norden(at)comm.umass.edu > University of Massachusetts-Amherst fax: 413 545-6399 > Amherst, MA 01003 USA vox: 413 545-0598 > Home page: http://people.umass.edu/norden > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > * * Film-Philosophy salon After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **