Pre 1920s List Discussion/Suggestions (List Project Vol. 3)

[domino harvey]

I have never in the history of the lists projects seen anyone quote another member's choice for their number one pick and then proceed to tell them that they're wrong for liking that film. It's one thing to disagree with placement or to debate the artistic merit of a given film, but acting as though there are films that one is not allowed to like is absurd. Imagine this: it is my favorite film from the era. Most of us have decorum, which stops us from trashing another person's top pick and insulting the person for daring to embarrass themselves with such an incorrect choice.

But you won't have to worry about it, because I refuse to participate in any list you tabulate. I hope the rest of you enjoy your cherry-picked list of films Lubitsch deigns are worth being tabulated

[knives]

Also just for insurance I'll throw out Feuillade's Spring again, which works like a missing piece to Fantasia.

Sorry, but I'm afraid this one left me a bit cold - from what I've seen of his work, it seems to me that Feuillade works best when he has a story to tell. The Fairy of the Surf, from the same set, worked a lot better I thought. The real standout among the Feuillades on the Gaumont set, though, was La Tare (The Defect), an absolute killer with a beautifully restrained central performance, and a real tragic momentum to the narrative. There's a brilliant use of the panning shot towards the end.

Also from the Gaumont set, I wanted to mention Alice Guy's Birth, Life and Death of Christ (1906). In the accompanying documentary, there's a brief mention of the rumour that this was actually directed by Guy's assistant; the film is so many miles ahead of her other films in the set that this wouldn't be hard to believe, but it seems she made a sequence of films on the same subject around 1898. In any case, it's a masterpiece: about as long as Dreyer's version of this story in Leaves From Satan's Book, and it's not that much less good. Amazingly sophisticated use of screen space, beautiful compositions, assured control over large numbers of extras - not to be missed.

Sad to hear that, the odd thing is that The Defect is my least favorite of his so far. Gives off too strong a Kramer vibe for me, glad you managed to enjoy it though. As for the Guy's, I don't think I've been fond of any of her French films. Jesus has two nice shots, that closeup with the sheet and the resurrection, but I found there to be not much to grasp onto sadly. I have enjoyed her American films though.

P.S. I have to agree with Domino that 'the ripoff' is very enjoyable and one of the better ones of seen so far. If you can't see that majesty, than at least allow us to do so.

[lubitsch]

I have never in the history of the lists projects seen anyone quote another member's choice for their number one pick and then proceed to tell them that they're wrong for liking that film. It's one thing to disagree with placement or to debate the artistic merit of a given film, but acting as though there are films that one is not allowed to like is absurd. Imagine this: it is my favorite film from the era. Most of us have decorum, which stops us from trashing another person's top pick and insulting the person for daring to embarrass themselves with such an incorrect choice.

But you won't have to worry about it, because I refuse to participate in any list you tabulate. I hope the rest of you enjoy your cherry-picked list of films Lubitsch deigns are worth being tabulated

Look first you insinuate that I don't want to count to the shorts though I supported their individual count and wrote so in the rules. You throw a little threat in the mix that I surely wouldn't be doing this job for long. Then you suggest that I "cherry-pick" a list of films, while I tried on the contrary to compile the longest imaginable list films of films, so that nobody can overlook anything. Now you are angry because I don't think your favourite film is any good.
This list business is not only about choosing good films, in fact it is even more about throwing out the bad ones and by ranking the chosen films it's even more about weighing their strengths and weaknesses. I offered you a detailed analysis of porter's film and its weaknesses in comparison to Williamson. You don't offer anything.
Collating that with my role as master of the list finally is silly. I have my opinions and I voice them here as does anybody else. Adding up a number of lists and tabulating the results is mostly simple mathematical mind-numbing work as zedz is likely to agree with and certainly no position where you can wield any power or which gives me any position where I should and need remain neutral like a judge at ice-skating should be.

Sad to hear that, the odd thing is that The Defect is my least favorite of his so far. Gives off too strong a Kramer vibe for me, glad you managed to enjoy it though. As for the Guy's, I don't think I've been fond of any of her French films. Jesus has two nice shots, that closeup with the sheet and the resurrection, but I found there to be not much to grasp onto sadly. I have enjoyed her American films though.

P.S. I have to agree with Domino that 'the ripoff' is very enjoyable and one of the better ones of seen so far. If you can't see that majesty, than at least allow us to do so.

Hm, in the first part of your post you're thrashing 4 hours of film and in the second you suggest that I should leave these 7 minutes in peace. This doesn't fit together very well.
And how exactly can I disallow you to see the majesty of the Porter? I'd like to have that power sometimes, but that's beyond anyone's grasp to change anyone's opinion except for the building of an insight into weaknesses that you begin recognize. I wasn't too pleased to read some negative comments on The Cranes are flying in the literature, but it didn't bother me half as much as did the fact that I began to realize some of these points are unfortunately valid.

[Tommaso]

But you won't have to worry about it, because I refuse to participate in any list you tabulate. I hope the rest of you enjoy your cherry-picked list of films Lubitsch deigns are worth being tabulated

That's not a particularily good choice since Porter's film is as usual with him a copy of a superior version, here Williamson's Fire! from 1901. Even though there's considerable academic discussion and revision of the standings of Porter and Griffith (see James Card, but especially the insightful Barry Salt) pointing out that their respective achivements are far smaller than is generally assumed to be the case and that they are in fact partly inferior to some of their contemporaries, in the more popular perception the standing hasn't changed yet.

Guys...calm down. I'd find it sad if you refused to participate in creating the list, Domino, just because the tabulator doesn't like your favourite film and expressed his dislike in admittedly a somewhat condescending manner. The whole thing should have been better phrased as "That's not a particularly good choice etc. in my view", I agree, but consider that after all we Germans are popularly known to be among the most 'direct' of speakers. I occasionally forget to switch on that 'politeness module' myself (less often than Lube, though).

But after all Lubitsch backed up his point-of-view with some good arguments. However, every good argument is there to be disagreed with. And simply don't blindly believe in what the academics tell you. You yourself took a highly divergent stance, Lubitsch, from received academic wisdom in that "Sunrise"-discussion.

[knives]

Sad to hear that, the odd thing is that The Defect is my least favorite of his so far. Gives off too strong a Kramer vibe for me, glad you managed to enjoy it though. As for the Guy's, I don't think I've been fond of any of her French films. Jesus has two nice shots, that closeup with the sheet and the resurrection, but I found there to be not much to grasp onto sadly. I have enjoyed her American films though.

P.S. I have to agree with Domino that 'the ripoff' is very enjoyable and one of the better ones of seen so far. If you can't see that majesty, than at least allow us to do so.

Hm, in the first part of your post you're thrashing 4 hours of film and in the second you suggest that I should leave these 7 minutes in peace. This doesn't fit together very well.
And how exactly can I disallow you to see the majesty of the Porter? I'd like to have that power sometimes, but that's beyond anyone's grasp to change anyone's opinion except for the building of an insight into weaknesses that you begin recognize. I wasn't too pleased to read some negative comments on The Cranes are flying in the literature, but it didn't bother me half as much as did the fact that I began to realize some of these points are unfortunately valid.

Where am I 'thrashing' four hours of film? Secondly I was referring to the counting of votes. Most likely by accident you are seeming firm in your ways, without allowing people people to have an excessively differing opinion. That probably isn't true, but maybe you need to loosen up on the phrasing, less absolutes ect. It's fair enough for you to hate the Porter film, even to point out it's not as original as perceived, but to say that it is lesser by favoritism because of those things is silly. To cut through things, please be more diplomatic on your stances, it makes for a better environment.

Edit: Damn Tommaso beat me.

[lubitsch]

I'm so firm in my point because these few earliest narrative films that we all know and have easily access to were chosen for such collections as Movies Begin as being the milestones from this era and important steps forward in the development of film grammar. They are literally skeletons of film language with few instances of direction in the modern sense. As such they have merit and are studied. I personally find it impossible to include them in my favorite film list because they are like early paintings of the era betwen Gotic age and Renaissance, developing a style without yet achieving it. If there's any way in evaluating them (and that's how it was done before putting together these collections) then it's closely comparing what was contributed by whom in which way. And Porter's contribution was obscenely overrated, as with Griffith the visible success of their respective blockbusters in the USA allowed them to gain a standing as achievers of innovations which they don't deserve neither in the very old version where they invented everything from cutting to close-ups nor in the newer modified version where they still are the most important directors among other important ones. It's amazing to see the Edison set and how Porter copies European film after film and anybody who's watched e.g. Suspense will have to admit that it's crisper and better directed than Griffith' versions of the Lonely Villa theme.
If others like the film nevertheless, fine, though admittedly I'd prefer some arguments and explanations why they liked it. I have more sympathy for judged and balanced arguments than for simple statements of personal taste. It may very well be a matter of cultural difference as Tommaso put it, but if anybody would tell me that he thinks my favorite film is rubbish and explain why, I wouldn't be offended, jump at him and refuse any collaboration. I'd simply disgree.

[Sloper]

Anyone who has followed Lubitsch's posting history knows he has some pretty eccentric opinions: he dismissed Birth of a Nation as having little artistic merit, and pretty much wrote off The President and Leaves from Satan's Book (those three, along with Intolerance, would top my list at the moment). And yes, there was the Sunrise discussion; another about Joan of Arc... He's had me (and, more entertainingly, Schreck) frothing at the mouth a couple of times. But he has a comprehensive knowledge of this period, a willingness to discuss things in detail, and one or two obsessive tendencies which make him an ideal list tabulator on this round. That's what I think, and I look forward to seeing a bit of fur flying on this thread. I hope people don't get too offended to let that happen. It would be great to hear more about what the likes of Domino think of this era, since it's normally the later decades that get focussed on around here (not a complaint!).

I don't remember either of those 'fireman' films well enough to enter into that debate; but I guess if someone said they loved a certain film which was a remake of an earlier one, made in a different country, they might expect to get jumped on, especially on this forum. Like I said earlier this is a strange period of filmmaking - you can never really tell how original or innovative any given film is, but as well as being frustrating that's part of what makes it interesting. Lubitsch is being dogmatic about it, certainly, but he's also telling me (for one) things I didn't know before. That's what I spend too much time on this forum for. Just my two shillings...

[Tommaso]

Anyone who has followed Lubitsch's posting history knows he has some pretty eccentric opinions: he dismissed Birth of a Nation as having little artistic merit, and pretty much wrote off The President and Leaves from Satan's Book (those three, along with Intolerance, would top my list at the moment).

Be careful though, as imdb dates "Leaves" as 1920, and I think for once it is correct.

But otherwise I completely agree with you. This forum needs some passionate discussion again, and indeed there was a little more of that a few years ago. In a way, Lubitsch is keeping that spirit up, and indeed he is always a great source of information. Let's all stay friendly, though, and enjoy the input from various sides. I'll surely soon check out those two films in question to see with whom I agree (or not).

but I guess if someone said they loved a certain film which was a remake of an earlier one, made in a different country, they might expect to get jumped on, especially on this forum.

Ah well, I herewith declare that I like the Richard Eichberg-version of "Eschnapur/The Indian Tomb" much better than either the May or the Lang version...

[knives]

Leaves from Satan's Book

1921, thought you'd like to know.

[domino harvey]

Some things I'd like to say about Life of an American Fireman:

I never claimed it was the first of anything excepting its spot on my list. The same professor who lauded this film also stressed to me how focusing on firsts is always a losing battle, since as soon as you declare anything the first of something, someone will come along and produce their own earlier example (FYI This isn't me swallowing anything a former mentor fed me, this is me agreeing to and being glad for the wisdom a brilliant man once shared with me). I think Lubitsch came to the attack first on the grounds that I was somehow a victim of thinking it an original work. I frankly don't care if it was the fiftieth such story told on screen at that point, it is for me and many others the most exemplary example of such a story. When I watch the film, I see the history of suspense written on the screen. Perhaps others find earlier similar works more daring or creative, but not me and I dare say few others. You can think it a lesser work, but no one could argue that the Williamson film is better known or referenced in the years since. Porter's film remains alive and vital, especially in the wake of the discovery that for many years audiences were watching a re-edited version. This story too fascinates and adds to the mystique of the film for me. Hence my placement.

What's more, and this goes along with why I find actualities so fascinating (more on this at a later date), the film has several memorable moments of self-awareness that beguile in the move from actuality to fictional presentation of narrative. Though it was obviously neither the first nor last film to feature a literal stamping of the production company's name within the set dressings, the use here is particularly marvelous. The early magic lantern-esque dream sequence is already one step removed from the false reality of the screen (and a lovely bridge between the old and new elements of visual representation of narrative), but when the production company's insignia appears within the "reality" of the burning room, the removal of viewer from action is so effective that it causes great pause-- the dream is more real than the reality, and this contrast offers a preview of the audience's willingness to buy into illusion and reject Brechtian intrusions. This is the fight that even today audiences struggle with (How many times, for instance, must we hear modern viewers complain about musicals, the most filmic of all forms of cinema, as being a waste of time since "No one just stops everything and starts singing"?), and here the film challenges our conflicting desires to buy in and to stand back from filmic narrative. Life of an American Fireman is alive with the possibilities of film.

[Sloper]

I think Leaves was shot in 1919, but not released until 1920 - happy to ignore it for this exercise. Thanks for reminding me!

I herewith declare that I like the Richard Eichberg-version of "Eschnapur/The Indian Tomb" much better than either the May or the Lang version...

Point taken. (And I'm probably the only person on the forum who prefers Nolan's Insomnia to Skjoldbjaerg's.)

9) frontal view of the house again, a fireman arrives enters the door, a woman opens the window and apparently faints back. Ladders are approaching, the woman gets carried down, a child is next. Haven't we seen that before? It's apparently the same action shown from the outside with grave continuity errors because neither the woman never opened the window in 8) and got time to gesticulate wildly nor did the fireman need even a third of the time to carry down the woman in 8) as he does now in 9). With the fireman ascending the ladder the film ends...

Don't some commentators see this as a fascinating early example of trying to show the same action from more than one point of view - something akin to crosscutting? An extension, I suppose, of the preoccupation in these early films with seeing the same thing from different perspectives: the demolished wall rising back up again, the action on different sides of a fence, the objects seen through Grandma's looking glass, the man's dream of flirting with a beautiful woman before waking to the reality of his shrewish wife. So rather than seeing this as a botched attempt to imitate Williamson's cut from inside to outside action, you could see this as being quite innovative. And fair enough, there are continuity errors, but it seems absurd to criticise the film because the fireman takes longer to rescue the woman in the second shot - it would have been nice if Porter had thought to linger on a shot of the child sitting up in bed and crying for help, but it's hardly surprising or blameworthy that he didn't do this. In fact it would have been astonishing if he had. But I'll leave this until I have the Williamson film to hand...

[zedz]

I'd like to add the Winsor McCay collection put out by Milestone as being another one to check out. It has all of his surviving work and it is seminal for anyone interested in animation. The Sinking of the Lusitania is beyond words. A perfectly realized film that transcends it's propagandic origins and becomes a hauntingly beautiful depiction of the fragility of life and the suddenness of death. Just plain out of sight.

I've only seen Gertie and Hesanut Builds a Skyscrapper so far, but all of this early animation makes me giddy.

You're not going to believe The Sinking of the Lusitania. Even by contemporary animation standards it's phenomenal: an immensely detailed animated newsreel, that derives from McCay's editorial cartooning as Gertie and other films derive from his comic strips. It's pretty much out on its own in the history of the medium, and I can't imagine it not making my top ten.

Here's a YouTube link, but the whole McCay DVD is essential.

[domino harvey]

I love the exhaust of the smokestacks being pulled like ribbons into the hull's first fiery breach and the people sliding down ropes like drops of sweat after the "death blow."

[Michael Kerpan]

I'm pretty sure that I won't come up with 50 pre-20s films I love. ;~{

[knives]

I have a hard time believing that was all animation. First time rotoscope? I do agree though that it goes far beyond its newsreel origins.
Not even Broken Blossoms Michael?

[Sloper]

That was quite amazing...

For those interested in animation, here's a link to The Cameraman's Revenge (1912) - if you've never seen any of Starewicz's work before, please do take a look. And get hold of the excellent Image DVD (his films are also available in more plush and expensive editions from Amazon.fr, including the astonishing 1931 feature, the Roman de Renard, with English subs; here and here are some tantalising clips from that one).

[Tommaso]

To return to the Williamson vs Porter discussion: I've watched both films side by side now, and can't help finding the Porter film much more interesting, and mostly because of the peculiarities which Lubitsch sees as 'faults'.

While I agree that we cannot really determine the exact meaning of the opening shot, it nicely gives the whole story some sort of introduction or 'frame', which basically works to build up suspense, a suspense that is prolonged by those extended moments of the firemen waking up and preparing to do their job. We want to see the burning house, but it takes us a while to get there and suspense is created. The importance of the event is underlined, too, by the fact that there are nine carts, not just two or three. So all this works together to create audience excitement in a way that I find quite modern or at least 'hollywoodesque'. I also find the fact that Porter tells the ending twice - or at least the way he tells it, with continuity errors et al - not quite convincing from a modern point of view, but this might serve as a reminder that cinema at the time was very much still seen as 'spectacle' in the sense of what Gunning calls the 'cinema of attractions', and Porter gives the audience precisely what it wants: the most spectacular moments are shown twice. The camera trickery in the dream scene at the beginning belongs here, too.

By contrast, I can't help finding the Williamson film rather plain or at least 'matter-of-fact', even though there are no 'mistakes' in spatial arrangement and continuity. But the fact that it obeys the 180° rule not necessarily makes it more modern, and I have doubts that that rule had been formulated at the time, anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps this indeed all comes down to whether you prefer your cinema to be 'realistic' or 'cinematic', for want of a better word. Domino's point about film musicals is the best example for this.

One further example for comparison might be "Cork Fire Brigade Turning Out" (1902) by Mitchell & Kenyon. Can't find it online at the moment, but it is on the "M&K in Ireland" disc from the BFI. If I remember correctly, this contains another example of an action being shown twice, again in a not fully convincing manner, but probably motivated by the same reasoning I tried to explain above.

[zedz]

That was quite amazing...

For those interested in animation, here's a link to The Cameraman's Revenge (1912) - if you've never seen any of Starewicz's work before, please do take a look. And get hold of the excellent Image DVD (his films are also available in more plush and expensive editions from Amazon.fr, including the astonishing 1931 feature, the Roman de Renard, with English subs; here and here are some tantalising clips from that one).

Ooh yes. I need a good Starewicz collection. Does that "with English subs" above refer to all the contents of the French edition?

As for rotoscoping: there was nothing to rotoscope. With The Sinking of the Lusitania you're looking at the work of one of the greatest graphic imaginations of the 20th century. Run don't walk to the nearest collection of Little Nemo in Slumberland or Dreams of a Rarebit Fiend and watch a comics genius master, expand and deconstruct a medium that's barely a decade old.

[Sloper]

Ooh yes. I need a good Starewicz collection. Does that "with English subs" above refer to all the contents of the French edition?

Of the French DVDs, I only have (read: have so far been able to afford) Renard, which has subs for the film but sadly not for the commentary by Starewicz's granddaughter. I've sampled bits of it and she seems to be saying fascinating things about the great man's working methods. Most annoying. Here's hoping MoC or BFI pick it up one of these days...

[knives]

As for rotoscoping: there was nothing to rotoscope. With The Sinking of the Lusitania you're looking at the work of one of the greatest graphic imaginations of the 20th century. Run don't walk to the nearest collection of Little Nemo in Slumberland or Dreams of a Rarebit Fiend and watch a comics genius master, expand and deconstruct a medium that's barely a decade old.

That was just hyperbole on my part. But yes, anyone who hasn't read the great Little Nemo strips do so immediately. Those strips are the best (strips, not necessarily comics) in history. No hyperbole there.

[zedz]

Here's a link to Bitzer's 1905 Interior, New York Subway, 14th St. to 42nd St.. The quality is ropy but a gorgeous version is available on one of the Treasures of American Film Archives sets - a rental or purchase essential for this exercise, I'd suggest.

This proto-structural film is one of the most formally compelling pre-1920 films I've seen. On one level, it's just the phantom ride taken into new territory, but as it unfolds, it's all about cinema: the frame expanding and contracting, the illusion of depth, the optical effect of wooden framing approaching, the mystery of the light source and the gradual reveal of the extraordinary filmmaking apparatus that makes the film possible (and, most touchingly, those glimpses of the tiny human figures keeping the tracking shot tracking). In addition to all that food for the eyes and brain, it's also a fantastic historical record and a complete success on the visceral level. Whether or not Bitzer intended all of these levels when he shot the film is, like the intriguing oddities in the Edison Fireman film, neither here nor there: they're available to us now, and they make this single-shot film incredibly rich.

Another incredible film I'd like to mention, which might get lost by the wayside, is Frank Hurley's South, the prototypical documentary of Shackleton's ill-fated Endurance expedition. I admit I have a strong personal attachment to this material, but I'm not blind to its flaws (most notably the descent into natural history film towards the end - but this has to be taken in its historical context). The film does, however, contain some of the most astonishing (and beautiful) 'news' footage ever shot - and not just in the silent era. Plus it's one of the great stories of the century.

Ponting's record of Scott's last expedition, 90° South, is a much lesser film. He's lacking too much footage to tell the story effectively, but a comparison of the two films does effectively establish just what a gifted photographer Hurley was.

[nsps]

By contrast, I can't help finding the Williamson film rather plain or at least 'matter-of-fact', even though there are no 'mistakes' in spatial arrangement and continuity. But the fact that it obeys the 180° rule not necessarily makes it more modern, and I have doubts that that rule had been formulated at the time, anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps this indeed all comes down to whether you prefer your cinema to be 'realistic' or 'cinematic', for want of a better word. Domino's point about film musicals is the best example for this.

Also, unless a past instructor or book steered me wrong, Porter assembled much of his film from actual documentary firefighter footage to create a cohesive narrative, adding to the realism while taking away a perfect shot structure. (I have no idea about the background of the Williamson film.)

My own favorite Porter film is The 'Teddy' Bears, co-directed with Wallace McCutcheon, as much for the early fun with stop-motion animation as for the completely dated-cum-nonsensical-absurdist jokes.

[feckless boy]

Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell have posted lists of their favorites for: 1917, 1918 and 1919. Quite a few Swedish films on those lists :-"

[lubitsch]

Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell have posted lists of their favorites for: 1917, 1918 and 1919. Quite a few Swedish films on those lists :-"

Lol, this isn't in any way surprising. The Swedish cinema was blessed with two very major filmmakers and after all the really great and imprtant films define the picture of film history in most viewer's minds. In fact even one director like Bergman later can be powerful enough to force one of the smaller national cinemas into the limelight. Three of my top 6 films of the decade are Swedish and Herr Arne's Treasure is likely to be my number one and Ingeborg Holm and Berg Eyvind are not far behind. It's however rather dispiriting to see the small effort by the people at Svenska to deal with this heritage compared to the DFI's contribution or the Ukrainian publishing of the whole Dovzhenko (not for sale however). It's two directors (or three if you add af Klercker) and compared to the USA or Germany a limited number of surviving films, surely this wouldn't be asking too much to release them in a few boxes instead of putting one simple box with the greatest hits on the market.
I've seen a few films that are only floating around and a few more that aren't available at all outside of archives, but Ingmarssönerna is the one film whose unavailability really hurts the most while again the last (supposedly) important of the decade I haven't seen, Song of the Scarlet flower, is again a Swedish film.

To return to the Williamson vs Porter discussion: I've watched both films side by side now, and can't help finding the Porter film much more interesting, and mostly because of the peculiarities which Lubitsch sees as 'faults'.

Now that we have some real comments on this by you and domino, the thing gets clearer. I think it's simply a matter of different interests. You look for interesting things and I absolutely agree that Porter's film might be the more interesting one because of it's strangeness for modern viewers, while the Williamson is a bit dry. However the Williamson film is better inasmuch as it shows a clear grasp of the future grammar of film which Porter's film doesn't still being more entrenched in the older medium of lantern slides leading to isolated shots which need explanation and repetitive action.
As I already said for me none of these films which begin to develop film language are really good, I'm also a bit sentimental as most here likely are, but for me it would be a great disservice to mature artists like Bauer, Sjöström or Tourneur if I would place ahead of them a few shots of fire fighting or comparable subjects of the era. If you shift your evaluative frame towards things that are interesting then it makes sense to include these films, however that's a very subjective position where it begins to get difficult to share the appreciation your discussion partner may have for certain films.

[Tommaso]

You look for interesting things and I absolutely agree that Porter's film might be the more interesting one because of it's strangeness for modern viewers, while the Williamson is a bit dry.

I'm not sure about the 'strangeness', however. I mentioned the 'cinema of attractions'-theory not least because Elsaesser argues somewhere that this 'spectacular' form of cinema, which indeed originates in the lantern slides and fairground attraction has not only survived as an undercurrent in later years, but has gotten somewhat back to the surface in recent years. If you think of CGI and now the craze for 3-D (which I abhor), you might indeed argue that 'strangeness', visual irritation and/or sumptuousness form a major part of contemporary mainstream cinema again. In this respect, it would be difficult to say that Porter's approach is completely outdated in the long run, though I agree that Williamson's has dominated cinema in the years to come immediately afterwards. So I wouldn't call Williamson's film 'better' unless you believe in a linear progress of evolution of film language and take that as a criterion for quality, as you seem to do. My criterion of 'interesting things' of course is equally biased, obviously. And somehow I see that age-old Lumière vs Mélies-debate lurking in the background here...

All this, however, doesn't make me think that any of the two films should be anywhere near the top of my list. I agree completely that the first ranks clearly belong to Bauer, Stiller, Feuillade, Gance et al. But I don't quite see why a subjective position of finding something interesting or even loving it should preclude appreciation from a discussion partner, as you say. I find it interesting to see why somebody finds something interesting and with what arguments he or she comes up, even if in the end I cannot agree with it. I much prefer someone explaining in detail why he likes a particular Italian horror film from the 70s than someone who simply says "Murnau is the best director in the world." This, of course, is not directed against you, because you thankfully always explain why you like something and why not.