Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Why it's here:
I've been so excited to get to this film! First, I'd never even seen it myself and, second, it would be a perfect re-cap to our experience with the transition from silent to sound. This film consistently ranks at the very top of "all time best films" lists.

Specs:

Just over an hour and a half, color.
Set during the transition from silents to sound films, around 1927

Our family's average rating:
7.88

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film started out as pure perfection. As a perfect spoof of the silent era, filmed in a kindhearted, self-aware way, this movie hits the mark and is just golden. We knew enough of the silent era and the transition to talkies to give us great thrill of enjoyment when the film explored those themes. We delighted in the silly silent-film director and the over-the-top stars and parties. Any details that didn't ring quite true (and there were a few) were easy to forgive.

Had the film been able to stay in the mode it started in and be consistent throughout, it would have earned a '10' from me and maybe a notch or two higher from the rest of my family, but it didn't. It trailed off. It meandered into long dancy dream sequence territory that became self-important and started to fall for its own plot.

Nevertheless. It is still an amazing film.

I was expecting great things from Gene Kelly, but the true delight for us was Donald O'Connor who we didn't know. He was amazing - funny and a a talented dancer. His routine "Make Em Laugh" was a definite highlight for us all, as was the incredible "Moses Supposes". I guess it goes without saying that the song numbers are insanely good. I haven't even addressed the title number yet, which is priceless and, if anything, too short. We could have watched Gene Kelly dance forever. Debbie Reynolds (who, I got to tell the boys, is Princess Leia's mother) was also wonderful. Although Gene Kelly himself was apparently critical of her dancing skill, we found her to be a terrific addition to the cast.  Kelly may have been a bit of a tyrant, because, she supposedly said later that "making this movie and giving birth" were the two most difficult things she'd ever done! We're glad she did both.

Iconic shot:

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

Why it's here:
Technically, it's not. I had no intention of including this film. I watched because, how could I not after all the film experiences of the last few months? I knew it to be far too dark and unsettling for our family, and my husband wasn't interested in it, so I watched alone. Fortuitously, I discovered it on Netflix just as our family got to the end of the 1940s, so I watched it right in date order.  But I was so blown away by this film that I couldn't help describing it in detail to my kids. What happened next surprised me: my younger son was dying to see the film. What happened then surprised me even more: he LOVED it.

Specs:
Almost 2 hours, black and white. Not a silent film, but dealing with themes of the silent era.
Available on dvd and on Netflix.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I am feeling proud right now. Justifiably proud I think. For I doubt there are many 10 year olds who could watch and love Sunset Boulevard with a real appreciation for what that film is trying to say. To really get it and also to love it, is amazing for a modern kid. And there is no way, my son would have done so a few months ago, before this festival. He gets the deep sadness; the elated iconic status; the fast loss of the silent era and the quick way the movies changed, like a tornado blasting out old things and leaving destroyed lives in their wake. He was moved to see Buster Keaton in the short cameo as a washed up relic. He appreciated the contrasting acting styles from the overblown and slightly crazy performance of Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond, to the 1950s cool William Holden. We had seen and been to the places in LA where the 1920s movie star mansions were -- he understood about the level of fame they had attained.

The film is fantastic. Part black comedy, part film noir, part disfunctional romance, the movie is not really scary, but its definitely freaky. It is sad and depressing and shows Hollywood at its worst. It is also brilliantly filmed and acted. Swanson as Norma Desmond gives a performance so visceral and real it hardly seems possible she's acting.

One of the best lines ever spoken in any movie ever:
"You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."

And I love it when Norma speaks of the golden age of silents:
"There was a time in this business when they had the eyes of the whole world. But that wasn't good enough for them. Oh no. They had to have the ears of the whole world too. So they opened their big mouths and out came talk talk talk!"

While watching herself onscreen in one of her star roles:
"Still wonderful isn't it. And no dialog. We didn't need dialog; we had faces."

I love that line so much, because she's right. As a fan of silent film, I see exactly what she meant and I really feel that loss.

Iconic shot:

Modern Times (1936)

Why it's here:
Hailed as the last great silent film, this is an interesting piece. It is not exactly silent. There are sound effects and some minimal dialog. The film utilized "sound" but it did not showcase it. It is made like a silent film -- with a silent ethos and a visual comedic style. And it is a masterpiece.

Specs:
Hour and a half, black and white, silent (sort of)

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
First of all and most unexpected was the amazing Paulette Goddard - who is impossibly beautiful. I'd heard of her before but never seen her in anything. She has a modern look, expressions and movements, and reminded me palpably of Courtney Cox, only more beautiful. She is an extremely appealing co-star, but ultimately, the film is Chaplin's.

He is simply remarkable in this wonderful story of the down and out Tramp -- his last screen appearance as such. Chaplin was loathe to enter the sound era and did so only grudgingly. He made this film years after everyone else had given up the ghost of silents. But in holding on and in releasing this, he made me realize why everyone should have been loathe to give up the silent era. This type of comedy may not ever be seen on a large scale again, but it is superb and is still extremely watchable.

Chaplin's Tramp starts out the film as a worker in a factory assembly line on funny machinery doing funny maneuvers to the machine parts. Through various mishaps he is in and out of jail and various other jobs for the rest of the movie, linking up part way through with a spunky poverty stricken girl trying to make the best of life for herself and her little sister. Chaplin and Goddard do manage to achieve a great measure of success and togetherness, and slink off into the sunset together, but not before Chaplin performs the funniest song ever.

Interestingly, though this is a "silent" with little dialog and though Chaplin does not speak in the movie, he does sing. His song is the first time his voice had ever been heard on camera! The routine is a nonsense song accompanied by pantomime and it's hard to describe why, but is very very funny. We watched and re-watched the scene on Youtube more times then I'd care to know.

Iconic shot:
The banner image gracing the top of this website is the most iconic shot from the movie. So, for this post, I'll share one of Goddard.

Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928)

Why it's here:
Yes, OK, another Keaton film. But don't give me a hard time about it, because this is (unfortunately) our last.

Specs:
Just over an hour long and absolutely packed with wonderfulness. Black and white. Silent. We saw it on Netflix, but it is easy to find on Youtube and other sources.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
8.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This movie is the height, the absolute apex of charm. Pitting rough, river-rat dad and his dandy of a son whom he has not seen for years, Keaton has chosen a theme that has been subsequently and continually worked for laughs by many over the decades. Buster's endeavor in 1928 may not have been the first to attempt it, but it certainly has to be one of the best.

Gruff dad, played beautifully by Ernest Torrence, does not do the best job masking his disappointment at how his son has turned out, but he tries to make the relationship work. That is, if by 'make it work' you mean 'force Bill Jr. into being a more suitable son.' Buster is perfect as the foppishly cute, childishly stubborn, but basically moldable son. He follows dutifully as dad pulls him along by the hand. He gamely lets dad call the shots on mustache- and ukulele- removal, as well as clothing and hair readjustment, but when he runs into his college girl friend (who unfortunately happens to be his dad's arch-rival's daughter), he draws the line. Buster's not giving up King's daughter (played deliciously by Marion Byron) and who can blame him; She is the cutest, spunkiest, gamest costar for Buster that I've ever seen. Her talents suit his well and their scenes together are a joy.

The father/son pairing is extremely well done and forms the heart of the movie. Complications due to dad's underlying feud, disappointment with his son and eventual jailing keep the plot humming along until the final 10 minute sequence which includes the most jaw-dropping barrage of nonstop stunts I've ever seen. No expense could have been spared during scenes of the town's destruction in a fierce tornado-like storm. The insanity culminates in the stunning scene where Keaton allows a house front to fall on top of him, just gliding over him by the slimmest of margins before crashing hard into the ground. From all accounts, this was entirely real -- with a several ton house front and a upper story window designed to give just inches of clearance around our main man. Buster could easily have been killed had anything gone awry.

Iconic shot:

The Kid Brother (1927)

Why it's here:
We needed to beef up on Harold Lloyd after seeing Safety Last!. What I had wanted to include was The Freshman, but despite exhaustive search of all sources available, could not find it. This was a worthy substitute.

Specs:
An hour and 20 minutes, black and white, silent.
It isn't clear to me exactly when the film is set, but it is a Western, probably meant to be in the late 1880s or so.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):

7.75 

More about the film and our reaction to it:
How much thoroughly better a viewing experience is a movie like this -- with a plot, good acting, humour and pleasant on-location cinematography -- than a movie who's job it is to simply capitalize on the fact of sound like The Jazz Singer, also released in 1927. Here, Lloyd is a bit more nuanced and interesting a character than he played in Safety Last!. The film isn't quite so hilarious, but its value lies elsewhere.  This is a slower-paced, sweeter, romantic picture. Harold is quite an appealing romantic lead and has great chemistry with his co-star Jobyna Rawlston. Yet it's still funny and full of great slapstick moments.

Harold's "look" doesn't translate well to still photos. When you watch him in a film, he moves with a nice grace and has a fresh, attractive, modern quality to his face. Yet in stills, he usually just looks dorky. Its too bad, because this is probably not winning him scores of modern fans. But he deserves modern fans. His films are really good.

He has another big strike against him, in terms of winning popular support today, and that is a too-protective nature toward his films while he was living and too active a trust with respect to copyrights now. His films were not shown on tv when people my age were growing up (by his choice, as he didn't care for the medium); so now, though people can get them on dvd, most haven't heard of him. And because his estate has actively secured copyrights and kept a tight hold on his material, people can't easily stumble upon videos of his work online -- to get to know and appreciate him. All of this makes him pretty obscure -- I can't find his films at my library nor though Netflix; even if you were inclined to rent his work on Amazon or iTunes (which I am!), you're out of luck.

It might not happen without effort, but if you get the chance to see his work you should.

Iconic shot:

Wings (1927)

Why it's here:
I had heard of this film, but didn't chose it for our festival, for reasons I don't remember. But long after we'd passed 1927, Wings kept coming up whenever we were talking with people about our festival. At least 3 different people suggested we include it; so even though we're in the mid-40s, we took a little detour back in time to 1927 to see the film.

In addition to it's simply being a wonderful film, Wings is notable for having won for best picture in the very first Academy Awards ever! (And, until this year's The Artist, long remained the only silent film to have done so).

Specs:
Almost 2 and 1/2 hours, black and white, silent
Set in World War I

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Wow. It is hard to start the review with anything but "wow!" If you think you don't like silent film, you probably have not seen Wings. This movie, set in WWI and filmed a decade later, is riveting and action-packed, featuring two young pilots in their authentic biplanes doing amazing maneuvers. This picture had a 2 million dollar budget -- I have no idea what that would be in 2012 dollars, but I'm sure its a lot. The film has amazing biplane stunts, buildings being blown up, several plane crashes, and very cool special effects (such as drawn-in bubbles for champaign, yellow gun blasts, and trails of fire and smoke that had to have been added post-production.) The production is stunning for its time.

Buddy Rogers plays Jack and Richard Arlen, David, two young men who train to pilot biplanes in WWI. The amazing thing is that both actors took flying lessons in order to star in the film so they could be filmed in the air! The director, himself a young veteran (William Wellman)
filmed on location at an air force base in Texas, using actual troops as extras. The formation-flying scenes relied on military pilots and the stunt flying (including spins, dives and crashes) took advantage of the very best stunt pilots of the day. The film's attention to detail pays off with a very authentic feel that is absolutely transporting.

The plot is rather thin, turning on the relationship that is at first strained and ultimately very close  of two young pilots. They both think they love the same woman - and although that issue is billed as the main tension of the film, it really isn't that interesting of a plot point. Their relationship with each other and the character played by Clara Bow are what the film rests on.

Bow, who has top billing because she was by far the film's biggest star, reportedly said that she didn't like her role because the movie was a "man's" picture and she was just the whipped cream on top. Its true that the film is a man's picture and views like an early Top Gun, but I disagree with Bow about her character's relevance. She is essential to the film being as good as it is. Without her, it would have rested just on the themes of male friendship and battle and would have gotten even more bogged down in long dog fights. But Bow is sparkly, fresh, earnest and funny. She serves as the important counterpoint to all the intensity. She may not have been the centerpiece, but without her, the movie would have suffered. She was certainly one of our favorite parts. Another very cool thing is the brief appearance of Gary Cooper in a small part. It is clear that he has star power. His energy and charisma are great. And his style of acting is quite different from everyone else's -- you can see why he had no trouble making the transition to sound.

Speaking of sound, though this is a silent film, the dvd we watched had an incredible sound track. The music is very fitting and the sound effects are perfect. It enhanced the experience considerably and, it is another of those silents where you can't quite remember it not having spoken dialog. You just don't miss it at all.

As great as the film is, truly, it is too long -- especially since it is rather thin on plot -- and would have been better with a half hour shaved off, which could have been accomplished with a bit less time on the drawn-out battle scenes. Still, it was exceptional entertainment for all of us, including the boys' grandfather who watched with us and is a veteran of WWII. If there is anyone in your house who likes airplanes (or war films) they would love this film.

Some parent-notes are in order here. For starters, it really is pretty intense. It was recently re-released and assigned the equivalent of a PG-13. I think that's a very appropriate rating. For violence, there are a fair amount of bloody battle scenes, intense dog fights in the sky, graphically depicted bullet holes shattering planes, planes crashing violently, and the death of a beloved character. As to sex/nudity, there is a funny scene in the beginning where you can see a bunch of bare male behinds as the men are getting their physicals for military service. The cool thing is that, unlike modern movies, this is seriously underplayed. The men are in the next room while the main action is going on and the scene seems to be there for authenticity and not gratuitously done. A fairly long, drawn-out scene in a Paris night club is rather racy. First, we (briefly) see a poster of a woman in a skimpy costume, then a lead character is shown very drunk and in process of picking up a woman companion. Clara Bow's character (who is in love with him) intervenes and goes to his room with him instead. Although their interaction is innocent and he passes out, she is changing from her evening gown into her military one when MPs come in and see her half-dressed. Although she covers up immediately, a bit of nudity is shown. Again, it is part of the plot and downplayed. 

Iconic shot:

The Jazz Singer (1927)

Why it's here:
This is widely billed as the first talkie and we included it on our list for that reason. Also, the film is extremely iconic and is spoken of almost any time movies are spoken of, especially the musical number with Al Jolson singing "Mammy" at the end. It had to be included.

Specs:
About an hour and a half long, black and white. And, I'm sorry, but this really is not a talkie. It is somewhere in the middle between silent and talkie.

For more info about the transition from Silents to Sound, check out the page devoted to that topic.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):

3.5

More about the movie and our reaction to it:
Finally! Woo hoo! And no I'm not excited about a talkie, but rather about the first film that we get to pan! We hated this movie. I suppose it would be fairer to say that most of us hated it. I probably would have tolerated it better, maybe even enjoyed it a bit, if everyone else in my family hadn't been complaining the whole time.

The movie had two major strikes against it: first, though billed as the first "talkie," there was precious little spoken dialog in the film. The film is primarily a silent (with title cards) all the way through. Just a few key scenes were wired for sound, though all the song numbers were. My kids were seriously disappointed that after all these silents and just when they were ready to dive into "real" movies with spoken dialog, that experience was withheld from them.

The second drawback is that the movie just isn't that good -- as a silent or as a sound. It highlights one of the major problems of this transition era: When the whole point of your endeavor is the fact of having "sound!", rather than the telling of a story, the audience gets treated to second rate stories. We've seen such great silents in our festival. The story here couldn't hold a candle to most of them. It was dull and plodding and overly dramatic. My family didn't care much what happened to any of the characters, and by the time Al Jolson sang "Mammy" they had little charity left to spare for that iconic moment in cinema.

If you watch, just make sure you explain to your family first that this isn't a full talkie; then, at least yours won't have to suffer the disappointed expectations that mine did.

Iconic shot:

The General (1926)

Why it's here:
Usually considered Buster Keaton's best work. And often hailed as the best movie of the silent era.

Specs:
1 hr and 45 minutes. Black and white, silent. Available on Youtube and other free sources, though we watched it on a dvd from the Library.
The film is set in the Civil War era.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):

8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Heralded as the next best depiction of the Civil War ever recorded -- second only to Matthew Brady's photographs -- The General views like a documentary, a comedy and an action adventure film rolled together. Layered over exciting scenes of Buster chasing down enemy soldiers who have stolen his engine (the 'General'), are a sweet story of love (for his girl and for the train) and a simple story of a man who rises to the occasion that duty calls for him.

Keaton spends most of the movie running... around, in, under and atop two civil war era steam trains. The trains are so enlivened by his clear love and attention that they become movie characters themselves. But the best character is of course Keaton's -- Johnny Grey, who spends the movie alternating between doing things that show incredible strength and skill, with things that feel pitiful. He walks a balance figuratively and literally that is astonishing. In one striking example, the renegades have thrown a long heavy wooden railroad tie onto the track to derail their pursuer. Keaton runs ahead of his train in an attempt to dislodge the tie. He manages to do so at the last moment, tugging it free and falling into the cow sweep.  With barely a moment to rest, he  sees another tie lodged halfway across the track just ahead. With precision that astounds, he heaves the first down onto the other hitting it like a see saw whereupon the whole thing springs to life and off the tracks -- not without nearly smacking him dead in the face first. Shots such as this cannot have been 'faked'. Real logs. Real movie star. Real train. Moving. Real precision. Yet our hero conveys as much awkwardness as skill in having done it, takes it in stride and climbs back into the engine to stoke the fire before the next disaster. 

The stunts come fast and furious (including one so stunning it still shocks: the sight of the (real) steam train "Texas" collapsing a burning bridge and plunging into the river below). Underlying the whole is a movie with so much heart that it makes yours ache.

Iconic shot:

Tumbleweeds (1925)

Why it's here:
William S Hart was a famous early movie cowboy of the silent era. This film, his last, is also often considered his best. Somehow, its just crazy to think of an actor having had a full and famous career and reaching the end of it in 1925 -- a year that probably predates any movie most Americans have ever seen.

Specs:
An hour and 15 min, black and white. Silent film. We were thrilled that our library had a copy on dvd; but it is also easily available online.
Set in 1893

Our family's average rating:
7.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We were pleasantly surprised by this film. Though William S. Hart's work is often categorized as "melodrama," we found this film to be mostly humorous, easy to watch and not overly dramatic. Hart plays Don Carver, a good guy cowboy through-and-through who is termed a "tumbleweed" due to his roaming lifestyle. As the film opens, the cowboys in the area are finishing up their work for a ranch boss in the Cherokee strip and the area is about to be "opened up" for settlement. As a result, white people hoping to file claims are pouring in to the little town where the cowboys have been staying. The influx of people causes both our hero and his funny sidekick to meet and fall in love with a couple of them. The story is part historical drama, part standard fare good guy vs bad guy rivals, part love story. The whole is extremely enjoyable.

As far as the great Land Run of 1893, I found it very edifying. The implications to Indians of the Federal land policies are not treated in the film, but the settlement of the land, from the whites' point of view, is fascinating. The climatic scene in which the settlers are pouring onto the opened land is a stunning spectacle that must have been an incredible feat of filmmaking for its time.

In addition to Hart, who is a very likable and appealing hero, Barbara Bedford is wonderful as Molly. Many of the supporting performances are really engaging, including Molly's little brother, Don's sidekick, the sidekick's love interest, and a couple of great love-to-hate-'em bad guys. The whole thing falls together so well, with swift pacing, lots of comic relief, rich background relationships, and beautiful cinematography.  This was a satisfying Western that did not need dialog to make it complete.

Iconic shot:

The Gold Rush (1925)

Why it's here:
We needed a Charlie Chaplin feature. This one is often regarded as his best.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours, black and white, silent. We watched it on Netflix
The film is set in the California Gold Rush, around 1850

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):

7.38

More about the movie and our reaction to it:
You'd think I'd have more to say about this classic film, but I've got this weird thing going with Chaplin -- I find he brings out the silence in me. [pause for intended pun to sink in.] He brings out a lot of enjoyment too! Just not a lot of words. (And for that I'm sure people are grateful.)

In any case, this is a great film. Chaplin is wonderful and entertaining as always, and there is the extremely well-known bit where he makes the bread rolls dance.

argh. . . just watch it. Don't make me explain why.

Iconic shot:

Sherlock Jr. (1924)

Why it's here:
I'd heard of Buster Keaton but hadn't seen anything of his and wanted to include him in the festival. With a bit of research, this title rose to the top of the pile -- I thought that with its dream-theme, movie within a movie, and spy story, it ought to be perfect. I was right. But I was so much more right than I could have ever dreamed. The movie blew us away.

Specs:
45 minutes, black and white silent. Available on Netflix, you can also find it on Youtube

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):

8.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Without wanting to overstate the point, this film changed my life. My kids and husband really enjoyed it too, but for me, well, it (and Keaton) took over my head heart and soul.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we added some of his earlier work and a couple more features to our festival after encountering him in this one, but this one was the first and will probably always be my favorite. Sherlock Jr. is profoundly interesting and well made. When you have a lot of experience watching movies (as we do now) and are plumbing the depths of 90 year-old work to fill up your summer, you just don't really expect that many surprises. But Sherlock Jr. surprises. It actually astounds.

Our hero is known simply as "the Boy." He's unskilled but confident. He works as a projectionist but he has hopes of being a detective. Keaton gives a great nuanced performance -- imbuing the Boy with longing, shyness, the desire to step up and be a man, and an overarching fear of failure. He's so timid with his girl that he can't look at her when he gives her a ring. But he fearlessly tracks his suspect all around town when framed by his rival for the theft of a watch. There's great acting, great comedy touches (like Keaton's hilariously walking in lockstep with the suspect), and clever vaudeville visual stunts. The pacing is brisk and perfect, the locations transportative, and there are sweet little details like having "the Girl", played by Kathryn McGuire, actually solve the crime herself in a matter of minutes while Buster is out bumbling around.

All this comes together to make the film complete and engaging, but the real punch is packed by its technological wonders. When the Boy gets back to his projector and starts the afternoon's show, he dozes off. Several amazing things start to happen. A hazy second-self wakes up, fractions off from the Boy, and walks away. He steps through the audience and orchestra and into the playing movie, with in-camera effects that are so well done that they look beautiful, convincing and evocative even in 2012.

What makes these scenes remarkable is not that Keaton was able to achieve them, technically speaking, but that he was able to weave them, artfully, into a story where they actually matter. When the Boy enters the picture and attempts to interact, he is expelled from the action. He doesn't belong. An astonishing editing sequence shows Buster in the middle of the scene as the movie continues to shift around him -- the background becoming a garden, a rocky outcrop, a jungle, a desert and a snow bank, etc. The effort involved in piecing together this nearly seamless sequence was massive. And it's beautiful work. But what makes it mind-blowing is that it is used to further the story. Not until he finds a role he can dream himself into, can Buster enter the movie. So when the bad guys on screen concoct their nefarious plot, Buster finally enters the make believe world as smooth, suave, Sherlock Jr.

At this point the technological thrills give way to more slapstick ones, including my favorite, Buster riding on the handlebars of a motorcycle after the driver has been kicked off. Cars, puddles and men with shovels can't unseat him as he speeds along through the streets of LA and deftly past the still undeveloped hills of Southern California.

The movie, at just 44 minutes, is a fast and furious ride that we highly recommend taking.

Iconic shot:

Safety Last (1923)

Why it's here:
A friend who knew about our festival tipped me off to Harold Lloyd. She recommended this one and boy are we thankful. A must see.

Specs:
The film is 70 minutes long, black and white and silent. I hate admitting this, but, although it is copyrighted, we watched it online. It cannot generally be found on Youtube, but I found it on an obscure foreign sort of youtube. (The one problem with trying to spread the word on Harold Lloyd is that his films are hard to find).

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
8.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Safety Last!, is an amazing movie from 1923 and was a huge hit for our family. From the opening scenes we were hooked, and continued to laugh aloud throughout.

Lloyd has a surprisingly modern quality to him. (Maybe this is underscored by the exceptionally well-preserved film. I understand that Lloyd, unlike many other silent era producers, was meticulous about keeping his original prints stowed away safely). He has a very charming, nerdish appeal, a fantastic ability to express emotion with his face and had our family in stitches with silly gags like avoiding his landlady, who wanted rent, by stuffing arms in coat sleeves, hopping onto coat hooks and pulling legs up and under.

The film is famous for Lloyd's stunning feat of hanging from a clock on the side of a building. Although the value goes far beyond this iconic shot, the whole "climbing up the building" thing is fascinating. First, most basically, it is entertaining comedy. On his way up 16 stories, he encounters children who accidentally drop popcorn on him, birds that torment him in order to get said popcorn, painters stuffing a plank out the window, a mouse that climbs up his pant leg and a weathervane that has it in for him, not to mention the famous clock scene. 

Beyond the thrills of the plot, these climbing scenes give a perspective of historic downtown Los Angeles that is amazing. To anyone with an interest in LA history this would be incredible to watch. Then, there is the obvious fun of wondering "how on earth did they do that!?" Apparently, they were filming high in the air on location downtown in L.A. They built a tower for the camera and a facade/set for the building. According to Lloyd, they built platforms below him with mattresses, just in case. Safety last indeed. 

Maybe the most fascinating question is "why?" It is inconceivable to our modern minds that a major Hollywood picture would put anyone - let alone our star - in such actual peril. The idea that the scenes unfolding in front of you are not, cannot have been, 'faked' (although subject to tricks of perspective and basic editing assistance) and are basically an accurate depiction of people performing -- lends an undeniable thrill to the experience. But what caused people to film such dangerous things for our amusement? I guess, just simply, that they could. Still in in infancy as a medium, film makers were still working out what cinema was going to be, how it would be used to tell a story and what, if anything, was off-limits.

At this time in history there were minimal safety codes, controls on film content, or regulations on working conditions. What got made seems to be a function of what someone could dream up. The sky's the limit. And with this picture, that is quite literally the case.

Iconic shot:

Robin Hood (1922)

Why it's here:
We had already seen and loved the Errol Flynn version (from 16 years later) and wanted to sample this 1922 rendition with Douglas Fairbanks.

Specs:
About 2 hours. Black and white, silent. Available on Youtube or elsewhere in the public domain.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
7.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We didn't need to be convinced that Robin Hood is a story that doesn't need to be told by Russell Crow. We are huge fans of Errol Flynn's version. Fairbanks makes an appealing hero, but Flynn's version is so insanely good, that this one paled by comparison for the boys.

Still, it is very watchable for families -- an interesting telling of the story, with far more background and elements (such as the Crusades) that don't appear in the other one. The story took a while to build and take hold but ultimately was a blast. Fairbanks is incredible doing acrobatic stunts that are spectacular, brave and very real.

The massive detailed sets are just remarkable and the film is worth watching for that reason alone.

Iconic shot:

Buster Keaton's shorts (1920 - 1923)

Why it's included:
Because we collectively fell in love with Buster Keaton after watching a couple of his features and realized we needed to sample some shorts too. We ended up watching them all -- and, although we'd recommend the whole pile, we think the best ones for families are The High Sign and The Scarecrow.

Specs:
Length varies, usually about 20 minutes, all black and white silents.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
7.17 The Scarecrow
7.5 The High Sign

More about the film and our response to it:
Buster Keaton shorts are awesome -- especially the ones that were under his complete creative control. From 1920 to 1923, Keaton made almost 20 short comedies -- starring in, writing and directing them. He had the kind of creative genius that is hard to explain to modern people because we are so inclined to be condescending about the past. I don't speak of his genius in that remote, distant way people speak of things that are good for you, but in a way that honors vibrant, real, accessible brilliance that is still profoundly good.

These films make perfect family viewing because they are funny and because kids of any age can appreciate the amazing physical comedy of Keaton. Almost all his films have an upbeat positive feel, even though his characters are often down on their luck. The message, if you can call it that, is usually to keep plugging away despite adversity. His comedy is never mean-spirited and although it's called "slapstick", isn't the kind of poking in the eye, hitting with pie sort of antics we've come to associate with that word. There is a clear intelligence and subtle irony that plays throughout these films.

The two we're singling out are The High Sign and The Scarecrow. They may not be his best, artistically speaking, but they are both very funny, easy to watch, and include really cool intricate mechanical devices that will capture your kids' imagination and make them want to start building stuff.

Iconic shot:

Stella Maris (1918)

Why it's included:
We've been heavy into the comedy lately. Of course it makes sense to do short comedy when introducing kids to silent pictures, as it tends to be far more palatable, but it was time for drama and Stella Maris is here to give us a taste of the dramatic (melodramatic?). It features a powerful performance in a dual role from Mary Pickford.

Specs:
About an hour and a half long, black and white, silent. We were lucky that our local library had a copy on dvd, but it seems to be available on youtube as well. (By the way, when you have a choice, it makes all the difference in the world to view these old movies on dvd rather than a crummy low-def youtube video).

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
6.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Mary Pickford plays Stella Maris, a beautiful young invalid being raised in luxury by overprotective guardians. Pickford also plays Unity Blake, also an orphan, but plain, plucky and worldly. This is the story of their challenges in life, including how their paths eventually cross and they fall in love with the same man. The story is riveting, sad, powerful and ultimately reaffirming.

I was surprised by how well my kids took to this movie considering the serious material and heavy dark tone, but they loved it. Mary Pickford is compelling in both roles. You can really appreciate that actual talent must have played a huge role in her stardom. She is so good at  inhabiting each character completely, that you can hardly tell it is the same actress playing the parts. Had there been Academy Awards back then, she would have been a shoo-in. The film is also blessed with excellent direction and artistic filming, including the well-done shots where the two Pickford characters appear together! We love thinking about what special effects were possible back then and how they were done.

Beware of a large amount of shocking material here - including murder, a brutal beating (just off-camera) but still intense, cruelty toward Unity by the person who adopts her, substance abuse and jailing. This movie would not have been made 15 years later once the production Code set in. (I think, maybe, the fact that the movie was so shocking is part of what made my kids love it). Although the film was intense, it was not gratuitous; it was a tight meaningful story.

Iconic shot:

A Dog's Life (1918)

Why it's included:
Although we tucked a few more Chaplin films into our festival at a later date, this one was our first. With very little experience of Chaplin and no real sense of where to start, I picked this film, truth be told, because it had a "dog" in the title.

Specs:
35 minutes; black and white, silent movie. Available on youtube.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
7.13

More about the movie and our reaction to it:
Chaplin is fantastic in his little Tramp character and he spends the movie side by side with a very sweet dog ('Scraps'). I don't know about you, but for us somehow, seeing a dog from long ago starring in a film is just charming.

The film is packed with great scenes and Chaplin's relationship with the dog is very appealing. Several moments in the movie really capture the imagination -- including the one where Chaplin rolls back and forth under the fence evading a cop, and later, sneaks rolls into his mouth right under the nose of the suspicious vendor. Both are hilarious.

As with other really old movies, A Dog's Life takes a different kind of viewing to fully appreciate. Almost all old films move at a much slower pace than we're used to. Some of them (this one included) have quick-witted hilarious bits, punctuated by longer sections of calm. To best enjoy a silent movie, make sure everyone is in the right mood and willing to get into the rhythm and pace. Once  you've achieved that state, you may find that you love this film too. But don't be surprised if your kids say its boring.

Iconic shot:

The Immigrant (1917)

Why it's included:
Charlie Chaplin as the little Tramp. Nuff said.

Specs:
25 minutes, black and white, silent. We watched it on Netflix - its part of a Charlie Chaplin short films collection. I notice that it also seems to be available on Youtube.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
6.75

More thoughts about the film and our reaction to it:
Here's a primer, for people who don't do much of it, on how to watch a silent comedy, especially a Charlie Chaplin film: don't get too hung up on the plot. Just open your eyes, sit back, and enjoy whatever it is that is happening. It is primarily a visual experience. For instance, I can't tell you exactly what the card game on the boat was about, but I know that I loved watching Chaplin shuffling. Priceless.

Its hard to say exactly why the guy is so funny. He just is. For my younger child, its all about the big pants. For me, it's something about his silly smile and expressions - there's just an explosion of funniness popping out of him all the time. Its like a force of nature.

Iconic shot:

Coney Island (1917)

Why it's here:
We were looking to include something from the Fatty Arbuckle/Buster Keaton comedy team. This was a good choice because it contains incredible shots of Coney Island in 1917. Actually, this movie manages to kill several birds with one stone as it also allows you to introduce your kids to the Keystone Cops (Kops?).

Specs:
About 25 minutes, black and white, silent, and easy to find on Youtube.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):

7.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I gotta 'fess up. I stuck this film into the list at a later date. When I first put our festival together I didn't really care about Buster Keaton or Fatty Arbuckle, nor did I have any reason to want to see them together. It wasn't until after we watched Sherlock Jr. (1924) and were blown away by the talent of Keaton, that it seemed an important to beef up on his career.

By discovering Keaton, I also discovered Arbuckle -- his talent, his role in giving Keaton a start, and the true story behind Arbuckle having been falsely accused of a crime (see that story in another post). Speaking of Keaton's start in films, it came in 1917, when he visited Arbuckle's New York film studio and was given the opportunity for a small part in the Butcher Boy. Keaton was a natural. Arbuckle immediately put him on his comedy team where they made about a dozen short films together before going their separate ways (cinamatographically) though remaining close friends for life.

Coney Island, one of their earlier collaborations, is enjoyable for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is being able to see Keaton smiling, laughing, and clapping in an animated way, before he adopted his famous deadpan style. Fatty is very funny in this as well, beginning with an opening scene where he's playing with sand on the beach in such a childish way that my kids felt sure that the woman next to him must be his mom (rather than his wife.) I'd have been happy to let them persist in that belief since he subsequently ditches her and runs around after a young woman, but the screen titles told the truth.

Anyway, their onscreen pairing is charming and the whole thing fun in a juvenile way. This is s a film that you probably won't need to pull teeth, or explain the importance of, in order to get your kids to watch it with you.

Iconic shot:

Intolerance (1916)

Why it's here:
I had intended to include D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation in this film fest, because it is always mentioned as monumental cinema. But the more I read about the film's heavy violence and racism, it just did not seem in fitting with what I was trying to do this summer.  So, we went with Intolerance instead, also a Griffith masterpiece, but more focused on love. The film was inventive for its use of four interwoven tales set in four different time periods, each vignette employing similar story themes.

Specs:
3 hours. Yes, you read that right. This is an epic. Black and white (with color filters employed to distinguish among the 4 vignettes) and silent. We watched it on Netflix.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):

5.83

More about the movie and our reaction to it:
The movie was visually stunning relative to all that had come before. This was so astonishingly better quality a film that there is no question Griffith was a master of his art. His use of close-ups made the experience so vibrant we felt we felt that the actors of 96 years ago were sitting in our living room, and the depth of field was also phenomenal. I found myself obsessively scanning the background to look at details simply because I could -- the details were so sharp. Truly a grand epic on a larger scale than most of what gets made today, this film employed 1000s of extras, massive extraordinary sets and beautifully detailed costumes. (Though families should bear in mind that some of the costumes are pretty racy.)

The movie is worth watching (or I should say starting to watch) for its spectacle value alone and to help appreciate the genius of Griffith who clearly had an impressive vision and the ability to conceptualize how film could be used. But we didn't stand a chance of seeing the whole thing. That would take a special level of interest and commitment from a modern family. My 13 year old was bored after a half hour, while my 10 year old (who has a more natural affinity for silents) enjoyed it almost as much as I did, but even we only lasted about an hour and a half.

Ultimately, we recommend it, but also recognize that successful viewing of silent film drama requires a special interest and the desire to make a leap out of what feels normal and expected.

Iconic shot:

His New Job (1915)

Why it's here:
When we started our festival, I intended to share with the boys work by all the major comedians and comedy teams I could think of (Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, and on and on), but as we talked to other people and researched films to include, new names kept popping up. Ben Turpin was one of those names. We added this film into our festival much later -- after we'd already watched films through the 1940s -- because it would not only provide us with a chance to see Turpin, but almost more importantly, was available on Netflix and starred Charlie Chaplin. When in doubt, make sure Chaplin is present.

Specs:
1/2 hour, black and white, silent. We watched it on Netflix - found within a Chaplin collection.

Our family's average rating:
6.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film is really cool for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it was Charlie Chaplin's first credited screen appearance. He'd been in many films before, but was always part of an ensemble cast and not singled out for screen credit. So there's a first. Another real shocker that I did not notice until reading about the film after our viewing, but this may have been Gloria Swanson's very first on-screen appearance!  You can just make her out in the opening scene as an office worker.

Another great surprise, that ended up being my favorite part of the movie, was a wonderful behind-the-scenes glimpse of early filmmaking. The "New Job" underlying the title, refers to  Chaplin being hired as an extra/carpenter/actor to work on a film production. This is a great chance to see the back stage area, star's dressing room, hand-cranked silent film camera, and many other treats, all circa 1915!

And I suppose I should address the impetus for our film: Ben Turpin. He is very funny and entertaining, but this was not a major film for him. His scenes with Chaplin are wonderful, but he spends so much time on the floor, we didn't get much of a glimpse of his famously crossed eyes. We liked him enough though that we will look for other films by him if they come within our sphere.

Iconic shot:

And here's another pic, so you can see Gloria Swanson before she was "big"