(no subject)

[deckardcanine]

I've seen a lot of old feature films, but probably none as old as the one I saw yesterday: Intolerance, from 1916. It's certainly the longest silent film I've seen, tho I must say that Netflix's estimate of 2 hours and 58 minutes is 30 minutes too long, not counting the still-screen extras.

It also has the cruddiest visual quality of any I've seen. Whether it was always like that or got that way over time is unclear to me, but the inconsistency of the brightness and darkness (the latter of which tends to dominate the edges) is irritating. Sometimes I couldn't make out people's faces. What a shame that they had some big, fancy sets that could never be done justice now. And I hope that was the last time the studio put intertitles on anything other than a black background, because when the white text overlaps the storybook image, it's hard, if not occasionally impossible, to read.

I should mention the background music: It's all famous classical pieces, running their duration regardless of whether they're appropriate to the mood of the moment. In one case, I was even grinning at the seeming culture clash. It doesn't help that I've heard many of the pieces enough times before that I wouldn't mind never hearing them again.

Doesn't sound promising, does it? I fully expected to stop by the end of the first half and put it aside for later.

But... I was too riveted by the story. Or rather, the four stories. One of them chronicles Jesus from birth to crucifixion (and not after, I notice), but it gets the least amount of screentime; its function is primarily to illustrate parallels. Those parallels are to be found in Belshazzar's Babylon, Catherine de Medici's France, and D.W. Griffith's America. Funny thing, tho: Only the Jesus story doesn't include love qua romance. And only one other story is not ultimately tragic.

If you want to see something artistic and emotional, Intolerance may be a good choice for you. Don't be too concerned that the same director previously cast the KKK as heroes; there's virtually no racism apparent here. The message that does come across, if preachy, is sufficiently sound.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think those early nitrate prints decayed readily, some even exploded, so most of the films we have from then were transferred to a different stock later, utilizing whatever beat-up and aged copy they had a master. Most likely, the extremes of bright/dark come from aging of the original filmstock the transfer was made from.

[(Anonymous)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrocellulose

check out the part on filmstock 3/4 down

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering how much of Intolerance they were able to piece together. Some masterpieces from that era were lost forever because of the fragility of the film stock, I think Intolerance may be missing some scenes.

If you liked that, maybe check out Fritz Lang's Metropolis, if you haven't already. The story's not quite as impressive, but the special effects were quite amazing for the era, possibly some of them were used in film for the very first time.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Already seen and loved Metropolis, thanks.

[(Anonymous)]

My favorite is Dreyer's Joan of Arc - it's super emotionally intense, however, there's not too much "story", afterall, you know how it ends.