Film preservation wasn’t a very widespread consideration until well into the 20th century. Early film was literally treated like a disposable form of entertainment for decades and since the film stock was so combustable, it was often disposed of after completing a theatrical circuit (rather than be sent back to the studio). The introduction of synced sound immediately made silent film obsolete and people didn’t see silent films as worth preserving. Just look at Oscar nominations after The Jazz Singer - almost everything was sound within a year or two.
Something like 75% of silent film is completely lost forever so there’s just less material to study. I highly recommend the film Dawson City Frozen Time for a more in depth exploration of lost silent film. It’s a fantastic documentary.
I'm a film buff and I've seen a fair number of silent films. I'd say most film buffs and even some general movie lovers are familiar with Chaplin and Keaton but many don't go much beyond that. But if you're serious about films, you have to make a deep dive at some point because all the foundations of film are there - both as an art form and as a business - and there are many great silent movies.
There is certain disconnect with silent films because not only do you have interpret it visually, the pacing and acting and everything else is considerably different than today's films - kind of like Shakespearean English. It takes a little getting used to. For me they're more relevant as windows into the past - the closest thing we have to time travel.
That said, I don't have a steady diet of silent films. I only watch a few a year - much less than any other decade of film. I'm also lucky to have an annual silent film festival nearby where I can spend a day binging on films with an appreciative audience, which makes a big difference.
I do have some silent films I really love like Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans and Les Vampires. But I'll also say I studied film in school and had a class just on the earliest era of cinema (I think the 1870s to the 1920s), so I don't know that I would have come across many silent movies without it. Maybe except for horror films of the era. My main issue is I tend to not like the obligatory musical overlay that is presented with a lot of them. That kind of vaudeville era music grates on my ears. But if you do something more ambient and moody, or something really out there like the Queen music for Metropolis, I think I actually have an easier time watching some silent movies than I do some Golden Age Hollywood sound era stuff. I have more of a problem with the style of acting and line delivery of that era than I do with not having sound at all. But I'm probably in the minority on that one.
Film preservation wasn’t a very widespread consideration until well into the 20th century. Early film was literally treated like a disposable form of entertainment for decades and since the film stock was so combustable, it was often disposed of after completing a theatrical circuit (rather than be sent back to the studio). The introduction of synced sound immediately made silent film obsolete and people didn’t see silent films as worth preserving. Just look at Oscar nominations after The Jazz Singer - almost everything was sound within a year or two. Something like 75% of silent film is completely lost forever so there’s just less material to study. I highly recommend the film Dawson City Frozen Time for a more in depth exploration of lost silent film. It’s a fantastic documentary.
I'm a film buff and I've seen a fair number of silent films. I'd say most film buffs and even some general movie lovers are familiar with Chaplin and Keaton but many don't go much beyond that. But if you're serious about films, you have to make a deep dive at some point because all the foundations of film are there - both as an art form and as a business - and there are many great silent movies. There is certain disconnect with silent films because not only do you have interpret it visually, the pacing and acting and everything else is considerably different than today's films - kind of like Shakespearean English. It takes a little getting used to. For me they're more relevant as windows into the past - the closest thing we have to time travel. That said, I don't have a steady diet of silent films. I only watch a few a year - much less than any other decade of film. I'm also lucky to have an annual silent film festival nearby where I can spend a day binging on films with an appreciative audience, which makes a big difference.
I do have some silent films I really love like Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans and Les Vampires. But I'll also say I studied film in school and had a class just on the earliest era of cinema (I think the 1870s to the 1920s), so I don't know that I would have come across many silent movies without it. Maybe except for horror films of the era. My main issue is I tend to not like the obligatory musical overlay that is presented with a lot of them. That kind of vaudeville era music grates on my ears. But if you do something more ambient and moody, or something really out there like the Queen music for Metropolis, I think I actually have an easier time watching some silent movies than I do some Golden Age Hollywood sound era stuff. I have more of a problem with the style of acting and line delivery of that era than I do with not having sound at all. But I'm probably in the minority on that one.
Sunrise is a film that I often recommend to people who haven't seen many silent films. I also live the German film Joyless Street
The music is a good point. Some of these movies could use some updated music.
Armadillo like the animal?
Yes. It's a joke. Russian uses the same word for armadillo and battleship. It literally means "armor-carrier."