From: navigareNOSPAM at (no spam) cox.net
(Lloyd Fonvielle)

I rank it above "Sunrise" -- which I know isn't a
common view, but I really think it's that good.

Agreed. At least there's no drunken piglet in it (that was Hollywood's
idea, not Murnau's).

Take away that and I see them as equals.

From: (Lloyd Fonvielle)

Are you sure about that?

It still seemed an unusual scene for such a serious drama (with
enough comic relief already in the film). Can't think of anything else
Murnau did that was quite like that.

I guess I also need to remember that for some, this is their favorite
part in "Sunrise." Not me; it ruined the mood IMO.

BigMovieFan at (no spam) webtv.net (Old Movie Fan) wrote:

If it's Murnau that interests you, don't miss "City Girl."
It's more modern and not a Gothic story like most of the others, but
it is a classic IMO.

Hm, OK. Don't know much about that one...I'll look it up.

It's not quite a silent, but I saw "L'Atalante" for the first time last
night and thought it was absolutely wonderful.

What happened to this newsgroup, anyway? It was thriving a couple of
years ago...look at the incredible drop-off in volume:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.silent/about

Fell off a cliff at the beginning of 2008, for whatever reason. And
still falling.

There were a number of people here who simply loved to argue and wanted
to have the last word over and over again even though the topic had
long since been exhausted.

It was maddening to sift through threads of "you're an idiot," "you
don't understand film," "he was a genius," "he was evil," etc.

The amount of real discussion vs. the amount of personal attacks became
so dilute that it became hard to find useful information here. There
were a few people who were at the root of the 200-post long snipes. I
am not going to name them here (since it will only inflame a war), but
I note that those people are mostly still here.

I would respectfully submit that the discussions are now more civil
here because those people who have insisted upon having the last word
have had it. Everyone else left. I'm not sure they realize that THEY
THEMSELVES are the reason for the decline. It was really going
downhill before Nitrateville hit, and Nitrateville was the final nail
in the coffin.

I'm not sure that Nitrateville is the answer. I commend its creation.
Most of the silent film experts who had departed this group have come
back there. It doesn't render well on my system, and I fear that its
group structure is so fragmented that it takes a little more effort to
find everything pertinent than most will put in it.

The worst problem with the sniping is that it often revolved around
ideas that cannot be proved or disproved. It's like arguing the
existence of God. We can't prove it or disprove it, some believe in
it, some don't, and that's really it. You can discuss details about
it, but it's not like proving that there is air. Air is tangible and I
can prove it exists.

I can't prove that Irving Thalberg was evil or a saint; I can't prove
that Leni Riefenstahl was or was not a Nazi sympathizer; I can't prove
that Erich Von Stroheim could have made brilliant pictures because most
of them were butchered by the studios. I wasn't there with a
stroboscope to measure the speed of silent films being projected in
1924, so I can't say what the proper speed is on some of these (if
there even was one).

It's sad that a few people who were dedicated to having their opinions
heard (and heard... and heard... and heard... and heard...) unwittingly
conspired to ruin what was once a really great place to come discuss
silent films and share information.

Eric

Old Movie Fan wrote:

If it's Murnau that interests you, don't miss "City Girl."
It's more modern and not a Gothic story like most of the others, but
it is a classic IMO.

One of the greatest of all silent films.


--



Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog

This is not, in my opinion, an accurate picture of what happened to this
group. The problem was never the subjects discussed, or how often they
were discussed -- this is a public forum, after all, where people are
free to discuss whatever they want at whatever length they want. The
problem was the gratuitous ad hominem insults that people felt free to
direct towards those with whom they disagreed, or who were discussing
things that didn't interest them.

The group is more civil because those who enjoyed insulting others have
moved over to Nitrateville and accepted adult supervision, apparently
very happily.

You keep bringing up the name of Thalberg, for example, in almost every
post, even though the subject hasn't been broached here by anyone else
for a couple of years -- it just isn't on the radar of the group as
presently constituted -- but no one has attacked you personally for
this. That's the difference.

Eric Grayson wrote:

There were a number of people here who simply loved to argue and wanted
to have the last word over and over again even though the topic had
long since been exhausted.

It was maddening to sift through threads of "you're an idiot," "you
don't understand film," "he was a genius," "he was evil," etc.

The amount of real discussion vs. the amount of personal attacks became
so dilute that it became hard to find useful information here. There
were a few people who were at the root of the 200-post long snipes. I
am not going to name them here (since it will only inflame a war), but
I note that those people are mostly still here.

I would respectfully submit that the discussions are now more civil
here because those people who have insisted upon having the last word
have had it. Everyone else left. I'm not sure they realize that THEY
THEMSELVES are the reason for the decline. It was really going
downhill before Nitrateville hit, and Nitrateville was the final nail
in the coffin.

I'm not sure that Nitrateville is the answer. I commend its creation.
Most of the silent film experts who had departed this group have come
back there. It doesn't render well on my system, and I fear that its
group structure is so fragmented that it takes a little more effort to
find everything pertinent than most will put in it.

The worst problem with the sniping is that it often revolved around
ideas that cannot be proved or disproved. It's like arguing the
existence of God. We can't prove it or disprove it, some believe in
it, some don't, and that's really it. You can discuss details about
it, but it's not like proving that there is air. Air is tangible and I
can prove it exists.

I can't prove that Irving Thalberg was evil or a saint; I can't prove
that Leni Riefenstahl was or was not a Nazi sympathizer; I can't prove
that Erich Von Stroheim could have made brilliant pictures because most
of them were butchered by the studios. I wasn't there with a
stroboscope to measure the speed of silent films being projected in
1924, so I can't say what the proper speed is on some of these (if
there even was one).

It's sad that a few people who were dedicated to having their opinions
heard (and heard... and heard... and heard... and heard...) unwittingly
conspired to ruin what was once a really great place to come discuss
silent films and share information.

Eric


--



Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog

And now, to rile things up a bit, I'll make the bold statement that
"DVD is Dead!!" (check back on a.m.s archives for threads about VHS
being killed off by DVDs several years before that happened. I'd like
to think that DVD production and releases will continue for another
decade or two, but for home "theatres" BluRay discs are pushing out
DVDs faster than DVDs killed VHS among those who look for picture
quality, and live internet streaming or downloads are supplanting DVDs
among those who don't give a at (no spam) #$% about picture or audio quality but
prefer convenience and instant gratification. Okay... discuss amongst
yourselves...

christopher_jac... at (no spam) und.nodak.edu wrote:
And now, to rile things up a bit, I'll make the bold statement that
"DVD is Dead!!" (check back on a.m.s archives for threads about VHS
being killed off by DVDs several years before that happened.  I'd like
to think that DVD production and releases will continue for another
decade or two, but for home "theatres" BluRay discs are pushing out
DVDs faster than DVDs killed VHS among those who look for picture
quality, and live internet streaming or downloads are supplanting DVDs
among those who don't give a at (no spam) #$% about picture or audio quality but
prefer convenience and instant gratification. Okay... discuss amongst
yourselves...  :-)

Just to be contrary . . . well, I can't.  I agree with you totally.
O.k., not totally.  A decade or two is probably way too optimistic for
the survival of the DVD.  I'll be happy if it lasts another five years.

Speaking of picture quality, I recently had to watch a bunch of films on
VHS which aren't available on Laserdisc or DVD and I was shocked at how
bad they looked -- like watching movies today on YouTube, relatively
speaking.

--

Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com<http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog

We live in the throw away society today. I must say that I am quite
happy with my DVD's which my equipment upscales and projects at
1080dpi. I did not invest in a Blue-Ray machine as the discs are too
expensive compared to DVD's.

I still have my 78's and LP's and a gramophone to play them on too. I
suppose that in a few years I can open my house up as a museum to
recording?

Also, now that we have paid out money to get one of these new HD
Digital television sets - 3D Television is set to be launched....

When will it all end...

There's already a backlash of sorts. Any number of my 30-something
friends are totally into LPs and *typewriters* . . .

not to mention digital effects which make digital photos look like
Kodachrome prints.

It's one of those cases where you really can say the end of an era is in
sight, because future generations will associate the "look" of the past
fifty years or so with the look of Kodachrome and similar film stocks,
the way we associate a part of the 19th Century with the Daguerreotype.

And the downside is what? Eras end. The same lament could be said for

"Lloyd Fonvielle" <navigareNOSPAM at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in message
news:sF9Gm.40404$cL1.1933 at (no spam) newsfe20.iad...

There's already a backlash of sorts. Any number of my 30-something
friends are totally into LPs and *typewriters* . . .

Both of those had always remained in production, but in very limited
numbers. Vinyl LP's are making a fairly big comeback.

not to mention digital effects which make digital photos look like
Kodachrome prints.

Which of course you'll have to do soon since Kodachrome film has ceased
production, and processing ends in fall of 2010.

Wasn't suggesting that there was no upside to the new technologies, or
that I'd trade them for the old ones -- just offering a little "ave
atque vale" to something I'll miss.

Didn't mean to seem to put words in your mouth.