Read on Twitter
Regarding historical fiction films:
Yes, making a good movie is important and slavishly following history to the detriment of art is foolish.
BUT
90% of the myths about silent films come directly from movies about movies. It's naïve to say that these films do not influence
Yes, making a good movie is important and slavishly following history to the detriment of art is foolish.
BUT
90% of the myths about silent films come directly from movies about movies. It's naïve to say that these films do not influence
Basically, titles like SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and THE PERILS OF PAULINE (1947) have created the modern perception of silent films, not silent films themselves.
After the 1,000th "But if it wasn't true why would so many believe it?" one tires.
After the 1,000th "But if it wasn't true why would so many believe it?" one tires.
All I can do is to continue to showcase the talent and innovation of the silent era but a popular, easy, amusing lie is darn near impossible to defeat.
And so, silent movies all had damsels tied to tracks by mustachioed villains and silent stars had funny voices.
And so, silent movies all had damsels tied to tracks by mustachioed villains and silent stars had funny voices.
Will some people see this exaggerated fare and check out the real deal for themselves? Of course.
But they will be vastly outnumbered by the people who come away thinking "Silent movies, who could take them seriously?"
But they will be vastly outnumbered by the people who come away thinking "Silent movies, who could take them seriously?"
And since many people now have not seen, say, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, their perceptions are based on spoofs of copies of sendups.
It's not unlike how our perception of Elvis is so exaggerated that he bears almost no resemblance to the original.
It's not unlike how our perception of Elvis is so exaggerated that he bears almost no resemblance to the original.
That's not to say that all movies about the silent era are bad for it. HUGO and THE ARTIST both did a great job of winning people over. And they were, of course, not 100% accurate either because they still had to tell stories.
It's just... this is a complicated topic.
It's just... this is a complicated topic.
I think films should take artistic license with history, within moral limits.
So, like, don't put on a sincere SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER or something like that.
You know, basic stuff.
So, like, don't put on a sincere SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER or something like that.
You know, basic stuff.
And I am applying this to silent films because, you know, my brand. But it applies to many other topics.
Anyway, that's why I enter social media well-armed with facts and research, because I know I'm up against a solid century of fake facts.
Anyway, that's why I enter social media well-armed with facts and research, because I know I'm up against a solid century of fake facts.
Oh yeah, falsehoods about the silent era started in the silent era and some of them are still with us. Pre-feature dramatic films being worthless? That started up in the mid-1910s.
Believe me, there is so much work to do.
Believe me, there is so much work to do.
