criterionforum.org

City Lights isn't a silent film. (It has a synchronized soundtrack.)

It is according to Criterion. (Not arguing the point, but germane in terms of how they view their releases.)

matrixschmatrix wrote:It is according to Criterion. (Not arguing the point, but germane in terms of how they view their releases.)

Yes, just as they considered Modern Times a silent in spite of the fact that it contains spoken dialogue and Chaplin's famous gibberish song. It was followed immediately by the release of The Great Dictator.

Feego wrote:The Great Dictator

A film, like all others, containing many moments when no one speaks at all!

movielocke wrote:Am I right in thinking there are four potential Chaplin releases left?

I'd double dip for a special edition Charlie Chaplin box that added in cut bonus footage/alternate cuts/shorts & other material not in the individual releases. It would be a great opportunity too to ditch the ugly artwork & create something worthy of Chaplin (like AK100).... If they can do it for Zatoichi, surely they can put together an amazing package for another career-spanning director box.

I think there would be rioting in the streets if Criterion trickled these Chaplin releases out over the span of years and then turned around and released a box set of same with exclusive features. They'll certainly release a box or gift set of them at some point, but they'll be the same editions they are now, if not featureless (like the AK100 set).

Feego wrote: Yes, just as they considered Modern Times a silent in spite of the fact that it contains spoken dialogue and Chaplin's famous gibberish song. It was followed immediately by the release of The Great Dictator.

Hey, I'm not making the rules, I'm just saying that by Criterion's own definition, they've stuck to the silent/sound/silent thing- Modern Times followed by The Great Dictator followed by The Gold Rush followed by Monsieur Verdoux followed now by City Lights. Since Limelight is the most prominent sound film left by a mile, I'm guessing it's next.

Matt wrote:I think there would be rioting in the streets if Criterion trickled these Chaplin releases out over the span of years and then turned around and released a box set of same with exclusive features. They'll certainly release a box or gift set of them at some point, but they'll be the same editions they are now, if not featureless (like the AK100 set).

I think I remember reading something about the Chaplin estate not allowing the alternate versions of his films or deleted material from commercial release. Perhaps they'd make an exception for a limited collector's package. Since the regular versions are already widely available, the interest in such a box would be more limited & perhaps able to sway objection over their inclusion.....and I'd love to have a box set as gorgeous as Zatoichi, but don't really have any desire to own the titles in it.....and I'd love to have a box set as gorgeous as Zatoichi, but don't really have any desire to own the titles in it

Well, keep hope alive, I guess.

A big Zatoichi-type box would actually seem to be ideal for Harold Lloyd's films, as there are so many shorts and non-tentpole features that I have a hard time envisioning in numerous mainline spines.

matrixschmatrix wrote:

Feego wrote: Yes, just as they considered Modern Times a silent in spite of the fact that it contains spoken dialogue and Chaplin's famous gibberish song. It was followed immediately by the release of The Great Dictator.

Hey, I'm not making the rules, I'm just saying that by Criterion's own definition, they've stuck to the silent/sound/silent thing- Modern Times followed by The Great Dictator followed by The Gold Rush followed by Monsieur Verdoux followed now by City Lights. Since Limelight is the most prominent sound film left by a mile, I'm guessing it's next.

Whoa there Matrix, I was agreeing with you. I was just piggybacking on your point that Criterion is classifying both City Lights and Modern Times as silents despite the presence of synchronized sound.

Re-trying (from scratch) a post that got eaten earlier today.

Transitional films (virtually no dialogue but with synchronized msuc and sound effects) seem to deserve a category of their own (short-lived as the phenomenon may have been). But, if given a choice of only two categories, lumping them in with silents seems more appropriate than with talkies (after all many silents had dedicated scores, that were supposed to more or less synchronize with the images).

Michael Kerpan wrote:Re-trying (from scratch) a post that got eaten earlier today.

Transitional films (virtually no dialogue but with synchronized msuc and sound effects) seem to deserve a category of their own (short-lived as the phenomenon may have been). But, if given a choice of only two categories, lumping them in with silents seems more appropriate than with talkies (after all many silents had dedicated scores, that were supposed to more or less synchronize with the images).

This. No one seems to consider Sunrise a talkie, to reference one example.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Re-trying (from scratch) a post that got eaten earlier today.

Transitional films (virtually no dialogue but with synchronized msuc and sound effects) seem to deserve a category of their own (short-lived as the phenomenon may have been). But, if given a choice of only two categories, lumping them in with silents seems more appropriate than with talkies (after all many silents had dedicated scores, that were supposed to more or less synchronize with the images).

If they get classified as silents, then they get the added bonus of being shown @ dedicated festivals, perhaps with a live band playing, as well as (hopefully) an alternate soundtrack on the disc release.

If they have a synchronized soundtrack, they most certainly should not be shown with a live band playing or with an alternate soundtrack.

swo17 wrote:If they have a synchronized soundtrack, they most certainly should not be shown with a live band playing or with an alternate soundtrack.

Someone should tell the San Francisco Silent Film Festival then, not to mention Philip Glass, among others.

It seems overly anal to worry too much about a rigid definition, to me; they're silent for some purposes and talkies for others. I don't really see anything wrong with replacing the soundtrack with live accompaniment for much of any movie, just as an interesting thing- it might be a different work than what was originally seen, but surely for transition period part talkies they would have existed as a number of different works in all the theaters not equipped to show sync-sound movies in any case.

If there's an original sync-soundtrack available it should certainly be attached to any disc release, but beyond that I say the sky's the limit. As Lowry points out, Philip Glass has overlain indisputably sound movies, and his Beauty and the Beast opera is one of my favorite Criterion things ever.

Alternate Lowry_Sam post wrote:

swo17 wrote:If they have a synchronized soundtrack, they most certainly should not be shown with a live band playing or with an alternate soundtrack.

You know, I hadn't really considered that, but you're right, you're absolutely right.

Actually, you might have been onto something there with your original post.

matrixschmatrix wrote:If there's an original sync-soundtrack available it should certainly be attached to any disc release, but beyond that I say the sky's the limit. As Lowry points out, Philip Glass has overlain indisputably sound movies, and his Beauty and the Beast opera is one of my favorite Criterion things ever.

...and watching Koyaanisqatsi with the San Francisco Symphony & Philip Glass playing live was definitely one of my favorite concert going experiences. Watching Sunrise at The Castro with Lambchop playing live was also up there in live music/film experiences....and if it weren't for the alternate Philip Glass soundtrack, my Dracula blu-ray would not get to see the inside of my blu-ray player as often as it does.

And then you have films like Trauberg and Kozintsev's Odna (Alone) where the synchronized score is very poorly preserved -- so hearing a live (or newly recorded) performance of the (excellent) score is very much preferable (to me) than the tattered remains of the originally recorded score.

Another curiosity -- Boris Barnet's beautiful By the Bluest of Seas, which alternates transitional segments (score with intertitles) and talkie ones.

Too bad that transitional films were especially hard hit by the ravages of time and neglect.

swo17 wrote:If they have a synchronized soundtrack, they most certainly should not be shown with a live band playing or with an alternate soundtrack.

But wouldn't these films have been exhibited silently with live music in theaters that hadn't yet been equipped for sound? The Czech print of Sunrise had no soundtrack on it, unless I'm mistaken.

For me a major factor would be if the director had any say on the soundtrack or not. If a synchronized soundtrack was something added by the studios to films that were planned as silent, then the only advantage I see of the synchronized soundtrack is its guaranteed period authenticity. But I see no reason why alternate scores and live performances should be excluded, especially if that's how some audiences originally watched them.

Michael Kerpan wrote:And then you have films like Trauberg and Kozintsev's Odna (Alone) where the synchronized score is very poorly preserved -- so hearing a live (or newly recorded) performance of the (excellent) score is very much preferable (to me) than the tattered remains of the originally recorded score.

Cases like this are fine. My concern is when transitional films are treated with the cavalier "play whatever you want over it" attitude that should only apply to silents proper. (Assuming of course that there's some effort made to match the spirit of the film.)

And it's not that one-off exceptions to this are verboten, just that they hopefully aren't coming from ignorance to the fact that the films in question do indeed have dedicated scores that are as much a part of the film as is the image.

Wouldn't that apply as much to something like Metropolis, which never had a synced soundtrack but nonetheless has a clear and designed soundtrack?

So how many unrealized new year's drawing clues are we dealing with? Scanners and Eraserhead, and maybe All That Heaven Allows, Le Samourai, The Kid? (depending on how you interpret some of the pictures)

And newsletter clues: Nashville, ...Mad World, Grey Gardens..

Criterion just posted a one-minute response from Lynch about some of his favourite films and directors on their FB page. Eraserhead in December, Mulholland Drive in January?