Re: default silence versus intended silence

From: Tony Conrad (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Oct 28 2009 - 18:27:08 PDT


Barnouw┬┤s great book on magicians and the early cinema might suggest that the
earliest silent use of cinema would have been as a special staging effect. That
would have been VERY early. And of course pre-cinematic movies were more often
silent than otherwise.

----------t0ny

On Wed 10/28/09 12:58 PM , Myron Ort email suppressed sent:
> It is often mentioned that "silent" films were meant to have live
> performed sound tracks, organ, piano, orchestras, etc. Were any
> early films actually meant to be shown truly silent by their
> creators? What is known about this? Melies, Griffith, Eisenstein etc.
> did they all prescribe music/sound for their film showings? If not,
> what is the earliest known film truly meant to be shown
> intentionally silent?
>
> When, where, and how prevalent was it to show films in silence.
> Obviously, as a film students for the most part we saw early silent
> films without any soundtracks, live or otherwise. This was
> widespread. How misleading was this typical experience? Now that I
> recall, most all of the shows I attended in my youth at that little
> movie theater across from my high school that showed Chaplin, Keaton,
> etc. were always silent. I am thinking I was mislead......
>
> default silence versus intended silence
>
> Myron Ort
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at om>.
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.