Tuesday, July 22, 2008

San Francisco Silent Film Festival 2008: A Series of Introductions, A Question of Communion

By Ryland Walker Knight

I picked up a friend from the airport a couple of days before the San Francisco Silent Film Festival. Newly returned from two weeks in Ecuador, he wanted a burrito because, he said, "They eat a lot of fried chicken there." We stopped in the Mission and enjoyed some pork. Hanging out the next night, we ate burritos again—easily his favorite food—and, discussing my upcoming weekend in the dark, we got to talking about why we spend so much time thinking about culture: music for him, movies for me. He said, "That's all we'll leave behind: what we give each other."


_____________________________

With encouragement from Brian Darr, I applied for a press pass to this year's SFSFF in hopes that the weekend may help me better understand, or spark a stronger interest in, silent cinema. Long have I steered clear of film's early years. I'm largely ignorant of anything outside Chaplin and Keaton and those two Murnau pictures everybody loves; and even there I'm no expert. Luckily, the enthusiastic and generous Stephen Salmons granted me a pass, saving me some coin and ensuring I would have the pleasure of seeing bright 35mm prints in the best possible auditorium with an excited crowd and live accompaniment. On top of that, local hero Michael "Maya" Guillen was to host both Girish Shambu and Darren Hughes for the weekend—even throwing them a pre-fest party—which promised some face to face with a pair of film bloggers I've enjoyed reading (and learned a lot from) in the past three years.

It proved a most worthwhile weekend, even if it distracted from other pressing duties, like laundry. I saw seven of the twelve programs and had two leisurely dinners with Girish and Darren (the first one included Michael, too) that provided all kinds of thoughtful, funny conversation about film, books, music; all our shared and differing cultural obsessions, both artistic and social. Our schedules did not completely overlap (I missed a few, so did they), but we got to share the bulk of the weekend. Talking to the two of them after Carl Theodor Dreyer's Michael (my first Dreyer film, believe it or not) helped broaden my appreciation for its plangent blocks of hurt; we shared a general uneasiness with the crowd's quick jump to derisive laughter yet we enthused that this kind of film festival is a major draw in a major city; they told me, "You deserve Ordet; you're ready; don't think you need to put it off any longer."

That Saturday evening ended for me with a walk back to BART instead of the screening of Tod Browning's The Unknown (complete with Guy Maddin translating the French inter titles; see link below) due to my anxieties of getting home to Berkeley on public transportation. I caught up with the film this week on DVD (curiosity, a killer) and this demented fable of unrequited lust lived up to Girish's understated description as a perverse film. Browning does love to look at our underbellies: the royal we, here, being us men and our capacities for monstrous acts: our evil hands, that urge to "own" our lovers, the pathologies we choose to live with to prolong pain and ignore happiness, or, more simply (and worse), how we ignore ourselves. Of the films I sampled at the festival, Michael may match The Unknown's melodrama, but only Jujiro comes close in terms of oddity. If dialectic divisions motivate The Unknown, eternal return pushes Jujiro around (into and onto itself, tracing a path always back); the illusion of one more chance as opposed to the illusion of certain sacrifice. Jujiro translates as "Crossways" and it ends at a literal intersection seen from above, but more prominent in this circus of desires (and broken promises) are spirals and circles, globes and wheels. Strange as it may sound, Jujiro was the one picture I thought could have used less accompaniment since its visual patterns are so striking and dynamic; Stephen Horne provided a virtuoso score, but it was almost too virtuoso, working too well; there was little room for the images to breath and resonate. By contrast, Donald Sosin's piano with Michael left more spaces open, let rhythms settle, forced the audience to make choices.

Surprisingly, the audience was the most curious character of the weekend. I found my reaction to the films constituted by the crowds as much as by the films and their musical accompaniment, which was kind of a bummer, but also kind of cool to think about. As mentioned above, they were quick to giggle at the possibility of camp in the melodramas (not to mention the tender negotiations of a "dramedy" like The Soul of Youth, a film I appreciated but didn't fall in love with, although its opening shot and its "animated" title cards are phenomenal), and with the comedies they were equally ready to let loose guffaws and applause. The screening of Her Wild Oat, starring proto-flapper Colleen Moore, easily garnered the rowdiest response (lots of admiration for the double entendre). The opening showcase, Harold Lloyd's indomitable Kid Brother (my first Glasses!), was greeted with ample cheer and delight; a bemused tot behind our row, for all her questions, was quite taken and absorbed (she even showed up the adults in certain situations). But my favorite of the comedies was Rene Clair's Les Deux Timides: a playful vision of silent cinema that eschewed the intertitles as much as possible in favor of visual elucidation/exposition—most impressively in its twin courtroom scenes which present the lawyers' arguments as montage, pure spectacle, the screen split in two, three, sometimes five wedges. Timides gets a bit repetitive in the middle, as the hysterics up the ante again and again, but its eagerness to break up space and time—to allow the fantastical some power—won me over completely. The second biggest crowd reaction was for the final film of the festival, a King Vidor-Marion Davies screwball called The Patsy. Like Her Wild Oat, it relies on speech titles a little too much for my taste (I kept wanting to hear the wordplay), not quite shucking its origin as a stage play, but Vidor's visual sense helps string the set pieces along and keeps the performances strong through to the close. Of course, it's hard to go wrong with Davies' big eyes and goofy mugging, and the dress-up sequence when she impersonates other screen stars of the era is brilliant, hilarious fun (even if you don't know all the references). It was a fine ending, lifting the crowd and sending them home happy, proud of themselves for paying their dues to this often neglected branch of cinema history.

In all, it was a fine weekend. On my last walk back to BART, I decided to not plug in tunes and to listen to the street. This is a loud world. Even late on a Sunday. I think that's been my problem with silent cinema so far: the sound of the world is an acute factor in how cinema constitutes its limits, how it discloses its worlds (an odd hybrid of real and virtual). If I learned anything from the weekend it was for the immediacy of silent film. It may be easier to pay closer attention to silent images. And yet, I couldn't shake the feeling that most of those odd reactions to the melodramas, and the wild ardor for the dialogue-driven jokes of the comedies, are a barometer of how most people are, for the most part, visually illiterate. The worry I had walking along Market was bearing witness to an odd belittlement of the early film form: a lot of the laughter seemed motivated by the idea that because these films are old they must be quaint, precious. I felt the opposite. Not that Her Wild Oat wasn't funny—I laughed out loud, I dug the Ferris wheel antics—but are we really that wiser? Can't we accept these gifts with humility? How will we relish our past?

I wish I could have seen the whole lot of films, just like Brian, but I did miss more than I wanted to miss. I'm sure The Unknown looked great on that imposing screen (ditto The Man Who Laughs), but I did not need to be anxious about transportation while watching them; plus, I got to enjoy that evening with Darren and Girish. I was curious to see "the first animated feature," The Adventures of Prince Achmed (which is available on Netflix), and the ethnographic film about American Indians' starvation, The Silent Enemy, but Sunday morning was a crowded affair. Again, I chose food and conversation bookended by a little homework. However: I am happy I saw what I did see and look forward to approaching next summer's event with more knowledge, more enthusiasm, and more devotion. For all my issues with the reception, it's a silly hang up when there are this many people actually attending the festival. At the least that shows there is an honest interest in preserving what little we have retained from our past, what little that's been saved.

_____________________________

[A link dump for all the local coverage I've come across.]

At The Evening Class:
At Hell on Frisco Bay:

At Six Martinis and the Seventh Art:

At Dan's Movie Blog:

At Bayflicks.net:

_____________________________

House Next Door contributor Ryland Walker Knight is the editor of the blog Vinyl Is Heavy.

4 comments:

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Sad but true, what you say about audience reaction invariably affecting one's own feelings about a movie, any movie, but particularly silent films. The melodrama aspect is especially thorny -- that alone is tough for modern audiences to stomach; it's hard to get into that groove since we see it so rarely in moving pictures, and it's even harder to get into in light of the grammar of silent films, which was (for obvious reasons) much less supple than the language that has evolved in the 80 years since "The Jazz Singer" added sound to the equation and countless new approaches to film storytelling have come in and taken root.

I used to mind the audience resistance more than I do now; today when I see an old movie with an audience, particularly a silent film, I go in telling myself that what I'm doing isn't simply attending a movie but taking part in a kind of experiment, seeing how audiences react to something that is (for some of the viewers at least) a new and unsettling experience. To be charitable, a lot of the laughter you hear is nervous laughter -- it may read as smug or superior but I think it's the natural result of not being familiar with what's onscreen and not knowing how to process unfamiliar sensations. It's probably a bit like listening to jazz or looking at 17th century religious art as a relative newcomer; it's a lot to absorb. And when you get down to it, any audience at a silent film is by definition an adventurous audience. There are a lot of entertainment options out there, most of them far less demanding in terms of having to get into an unfamiliar responsive groove and stay there for an hour or two.

The best silent film experience I had was at a screening of "Sunrise" at a Fort Worth museum about 20 years ago. The movie got a good write-up in the local papers and drew a surprisingly large crowd, and the soundtrack (I wish I could remember who did it) was a lush, crisp symphonic arrangement that hit the sweet spot between subtlety and sweeping emotion; it had a touch of John Williams to it, and I think the familiarity of that particular mode of movie score helped give the audience a bridge of sorts and made the story, situations and tone more comprehensible.

Man, I'm jealous -- it sounds like you had a hell of an interesting time.

Maya said...

Ryland, what a great write-up! All the more so for being inflected through the personal lens of your individual sensibility. I love your reference to Mikael's "plangent blocks of hurt", your "grasp" of The Unknown's predominant theme of how "our evil hands … urge to 'own' our lovers", and your poetic description of Jujiro's " circus of desires."

As for the "question of communion", I've literally grown up in the Castro Theatre, having attended film there for over three decades, and am perhaps at this juncture accustomed to the sticky wicket called audience reception. The SFSFF crowd is truthfully harmless by comparison to, let's say, some of the hissing politicized snake pits of other festivals I've tumbled into. As Matt has so cogently observed, accessing melodrama is problematic at best. Either it dives right into the emotional depths of your heart or deflects towards the edges using irony as defense. Because it's no doubt easier to ironize melodrama than it is to let its full emotional strength penetrate, I can understand the compulsion to bolster contemporary self-confidence with the conceit that current day audiences are somehow smarter, more advanced, more emotionally mature than the audiences of yesteryear. I would argue that's far from the truth; but, I understand the need for modern audiences to claim that.

I suspect I go to silent movies purposely to be emotionally plundered, to be reminded of emotional treasures buried under layers of irony and unkind history. That's perhaps why the comedies work the least for me. The Kid Brother, Her Wild Oat, The Patsy—you can have them—give me the children in peril of The Soul of Youth; the painful lack of reciprocity in Mikael; and the carnivalesque psyche of The Unknown and The Man Who Laughs. Give me the complete gestalt of the Mighty Wurlitzer aiming vibrations through the conduits of the floorboards, the fanboys in fedoras and spats, the fangirls in vintage hats and dresses from the '20s and '30s, and the overall sense that—as I've stated elsewhere—we are kissing the joy as it flies. I love silent film, precisely for everything it says about the passing of time, of fashion, of styles of understanding and how—along with noir—it seems to galvanize the communal spirit of sharing film.

I'm so glad you were able to take part in the complete weave this year. I hope you will be around to learn even more the next go-round.

Ryland Walker Knight said...

Thanks, guys, for your thoughts.

Matt: I tried to look at it as an experiment of some kind but, as a testament to the films, I was to wrapped up in the experience to simultaneously evaluate it. I also really dig what you say here: "And when you get down to it, any audience at a silent film is by definition an adventurous audience. There are a lot of entertainment options out there, most of them far less demanding in terms of having to get into an unfamiliar responsive groove and stay there for an hour or two." I wanted to get at that more. I think it's great this kind of festival does have the fans that dress up, and does sell out a number of programs. I just get anxious about the kitsch factor.

Michael: That's totally the question of communion: how, or why, do we prop ourselves up as so wise? When I say people are visually illiterate, it's a little harsh, yes, so maybe I mean that it's just too hard for most people to completely surrender to those melodramas. The perils of irony: that it can turn into sarcasm. I think I harp on this because, like you, I was more in touch with the "serious" fare of the festival. They provided more thoughtful consideration and felt more dynamic -- with the exception of the Clair and Lloyd, which use distinctly different cinematic means of arrangement and significance that are cool to talk about (vectors, splits, movement, etc).

And, yes, I do hope to look into this history a little closer and approach next summer better prepared. I mean, I should know better about the crowds at the Castro: they can't get through _Lawrence of Arabia_ without laughing at least eight times in places I find curious for wholly unironic reasons. Ditto _2001_, actually. But, it should be said, it's not a problem specific to the Castro: most instances of things that can be considered kitsch or camp or quaint period reflections get giggles. I've never seen a reference to old rent rates not get some kind of haughty snicker. Especially in New York.

whitney said...

Wasn't it amazing to see this films on a big screen with a crowd? The first time I saw Prince Achmed I was bored out of my mind. This time I realize how beautiful and fun it was. All the kids in the crowd seemed to like doing sound effects along with the film, and their enthusiastic parents didn't hurt, either. I loved this festival.

-Whitney
dearjesus.wordpress.com