1920s: Movies Sorted By Tier
Submitted by jim on Mon, 06/14/2004 - 04:39
Tags:
Loved
The Battleship Potemkin (1925)
... I think all the silent movies I've seen to date have been comedies, so I was shocked at how powerful and visually arresting this 1925 (!) drama was. I don't know why, but I'm reminded of Ben Hur. Whereas that movie generally disappointed me except for the iconic chariot race, this movie is more uniformly terrific, bouying the much-copied Odessa Steps sequence to even greater heights.The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
... I haven't seen many silent movies, but this one's my new favorite, beating out a handful of Buster Keaton films and The Battleship Potemkin. There are two reasons: Dreyer's direction, which uses edits, angles, and close-ups to brilliant effect, and Maria Falconetti's lead performance, considered by many to be The Greatest Performance Of All Time (no hyperbole!). I was skeptical, but truly her (silent!) performance is one of the most captivating I've seen - she said more by tilting her head that many actors could hope to with a full page of dialog. I wasn't sure if I should watch this with no sound (as Dreyer intended it) or with Richard Einhorn's Voices of Light score. I went with the latter when I found out the vocal group Anonymous 4 was involved, since they recorded one of my favorite Christmas albums. I'm glad I did, as the score is wonderfu, but I'll watch this again with no sound someday. Oh, and how thrilling it must have been for film lovers when an original print was discovered in the closet of a Norwegian hospital in 1981, when the film's original cut had long been considered lost. Here's some further reading.Sherlock Jr. (1924)
... My favorite Buster Keaton movie. To be fair I've only seen this, Our Hospitality and The General (which I really should rewatch before passing judgement). Great pacing, very funny, and technically jaw-dropping. It was all I could do to keep my eyes in their sockets during the movie-in-a-movie sequence. Made in 19-friggin-24. Must be seen to be believed. Sorry for ruining it for you by overhyping it, but I was so impressed.Really Liked
The Kid (1921)
... The scene where they come to take young Jackie Coogan away from Chaplin's little tramp is positively wrenching. And I think Coogan just vaulted to the top of the Cute Child Actor heap (well, since this was made in 1921 he's probably been king of that hill for a very long time - I just didn't notice him up there until now). Coogan also has one of the more interesting biography pages at IMDb. I'm no Chaplin expert, but this film seems a bit light on the comedy for him, but it's none the worse for it. My favorite Chaplin so far.Metropolis (1927)
... For me the most moving part of the movie was the introduction which explains that as much of a quarter of it has been lost to the sands of time. How profoundly depressing that such an important movie can never really be seen again. Still, the remaining 75% is impressive, and hats off to the restoration folks that got it as close to its 1927 presentation as possible. Even today, the movie looks phenomenally expensive to make, with the big set pieces, the flood, the huge cast of extras. If nothing else, it's worth watching for the spectacle. But also, as I recently experienced with M, Lang can really crank up the tension, and leave you wondering if you'll be watching a happy ending or a tragedy right up to the very end. Y'know what I'd pay just about anything to see in an alternate universe? Fritz Lang directing Buster Keaton.Nosferatu (1922)
... It's not scary, so get that out of your head right now. But it is haunting, and Orlok rising from his coffin has to be one of the best shots ever. Max Schreck's supreme creepiness and the decision to make the vampire animalistic rather than suave is an excellent choice, and plays nicely with the effective use of rats in the movie. The special effects are well-done, quick, and seamless. You almost miss them and then think "wait, what did I just see?" The closing of the lid on Orlok's travelling coffin is particularly noteworthy. I can't find much to complain about except that our hero is such a schmuck. Read the damn vampire handbook, why don't you? Take advantage of a sleeping enemy, why don't you? But whatever you do, don't walk out the front door after the vampire has left and you are safe. Go out the window anyway, just so you can hurt yourself. Moron.Our Hospitality (1923)
... While this is a Buster Keaton movie and thus quite funny, I was more impressed by the stunts, and the most palpable sense of vertigo I've ever had watching a movie. Watching Keaton on the cliff edge and face gave me that same trembly feeling in the pit of my stomach I get wheneven I find myself near a precipice. Keaton was a genius - I really must see more of his films.Safety Last!
... While I enjoyed the the first two-thirds of the movie, I thought Harold Lloyd was rightly relegated to Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin shadow-land. But then the big finale starts. I looked at the DVD clock, did a bit of quick math based on the running time and figured, "there's no way he's going to be able to sustain my interest for that long." Boy, was I wrong! The tension just builds and builds and builds. Incredible. There's something about a silent film star tottering on the edge of a fall to certain death that makes me anxious like no modern movie can. If you want your fear of heights tweaked, go right to the 1920s.Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928)
... Not one of my favorite Buster Keaton movies, but still a worthy entry from the man who deserves Chaplain's cinematic reputation. It's still a nice romantic comedy, and it includes the scene where a wall falls on him and he's luckily standing where the window is. Keaton was the original Jackie Chan.Glad I Saw
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
... Another day, another abysmal appreciative failure on my part. Who am I kidding with these movie reviews anyway? I'll always be a philistine. Anyway, the set design was fantastic, and the look of the movie is quite creepy, if at times campy. And I'm glad to have seen (sort of; see below) the granddaddy of all horror movies. But fer cryin' out loud, how long did it take people in 1920 to read?! I'd read the subtitle card and then wait. And wait. Which brings me to my ugly confession: at about the 20-minute mark I started to toy with the idea of fast-forwarding. I figure I'm reading the placards in *at most* half the time they're on-screen, and temptingly my DVD player has a 2x speed. I grappled with the question of whether or not I want to sacrifice my higher artistic ideals (such as they are) for expedience. How much could the music (which wasn't really doing anything for me) and half the frames really matter? I'm kidding, of course. I understood that I'd be short-changing my experience of the movie pretty seriously. I deliberated for at least 20 minutes before, filled with self-loathing, fast-forwarding the last third of the movie. I have to admit, I was quite impressed by the twist at the end, a twist that has seen a ton of play in the subsequent 83 years of film.Nanook of the North (1922)
... Definitely a movie to be watched with hot chocolate in hand. I didn't have the emotional investment I was hoping for, but it was fascinating nonetheless. It may as well have taken place on Mars for all the exposure I've had to this particular world. The igloo building, the walrus and seal hunt, fishing with a lure... I almost feel like I could survive for a few hours out there. I'm kidding myself, of course, but that's how good these scenes were.Thief of Bagdad (1924)
... Surely an impressive spectacle, with some jaw-dropping effects. Not because they measure up to modern standards (they don't, nor would I expect them to), but because its hard to imagine how they were accomplished. For example, it's easy to guess how they shot the magic carpet flying through the sky, but it's much harder to guess how they then flew the carpet and passengers through a door, around a column, down a staircase, and then landed it near a crowd of people. However, while technically impressive and derived from rich source material, it's hard to build much emotional capital in characters that pantomime and gesticulate so wildly. I realize this may be a daunting obstacle to overcome as I explore more silent films, but the phenomenon has never been as apparent to me as it was here. Fairbanks' grandiose gestures were particularly distracting, although there's no denying the man was a great physical presence. Finally, is it wrong of me to giggle when a character is described as "the governor of Wah Hoo"?Guilty Pleasures
- None Yet
Could Have Missed
- None Yet
Should Have Missed
- None Yet
El Sucko Grande
- None Yet
Cloned From:
Wow, I'm glad you had such a positive response to "The Passion of Joan of Arc"! I thought it would just be an artsy film that I would appreciate but not really enjoy, but your review has me excited to see it!
You probably already know this, but I just wanted to share some trivia about the wall-falling-on-Buster-Keaton scene in "Steamboat Bill, Jr." that I picked up somewhere or another. That was an actual, very heavy wall that fell on Keaton. They dropped it a few times and tried to measure the safest place for him to stand. The wall missed Keaton's shoulders by a mere two inches on each side! If he had been standing two inches to the left or right, he would've been seriously injured or maybe killed.
Heh. Can you imagine discussions like this 75 years from now? "You mean Keanu was actually standing right in front of a bright green screen? My God man, it could've bright enough to blind him!"
I'm predicting you'll love The Passion of Joan of Arc, and I'm looking forward to your review!
I did know the wall stunt was dangerous, but I don't think I appreciated how dangerous until now. Man, what a marvel that guy was.
Funny Keanu comment. :-)
Man, few reviews thrill me the way your comments on The Passion of Joan of Arc do. I love the film, but I often figure its parade has gone by, only to be remembered by a few. It makes me very happy to realize others feel this film's power as strongly as I do. Sorta makes the world seem not quite so big...
And isn't that story about the print bizarre?
Thanks!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
PS - Do you realize you have now seen my three favorite films from the 20s?
Thanks! I really don't think the parade has gone by on Joan of Arc. You know how hard I have to work sometimes to appreciate older movies, but this one leapt right off the screen. Absolutely fabulous.
The story of the "hospital closet print" is bizarre indeed, but thankfully with a much happier ending than the Metropolis story, which ends with a quarter missing, if I recall correctly.
I didn't realize explicitly that I'd made inroads on your favorites from the 20s, but I'm not surprised, considering how influential you and other Listologists are on my "to see" list. Let me see, my records show I've watched Metropolis, Potemkin, Joan of Arc, and Caligari somewhat recently. I think I recall you mentioning all of them except Potemkim, so is it the odd duck out, or did you really mean four?
I believe Caligari is a 1919 release.
I wish there was some kind of industry standard for year-of-release. I use the IMDb year.
Hmm. Ordinarily, so do I. I wonder why I thought it was 1919.
Thanks for writing up The Thief of Bagdad! I was wondering what you'd think.
I was also quite aware of the wild overracting (even for their time), but it wasn't as big a problem for me as it was for you. I thought the action, comedy, and heart of the movie (the last one especially in the latter half of the movie) to be fantastic.
I enjoyed the movie far more than the 1940 version, and only less than 1992's Aladdin because of how ancient it's acting and visuals are.
:-) Definitely a good movie, just one I couldn't lose myself in. I also forgot to mention that my 6.5 year old daughter really liked it.
Your young child enjoyed a silent movie?
Now, you're bringing HER up RIGHT! :-)
:-) Thanks! She's a champ, that's for sure. But in the interest of full disclosure, we also only let her watch a movie a week, with no other TV, so since this was bonus tube time (and bonus "stay up late" time), she jumped at it.
LOL!
Your honesty re: Caligari is impressive and refreshing, and despite your initially stated concerns, it only gives me more faith in the rest of your reviews.
Or, I should say, 'in contrast to your initially stated concerns'
There's a fine line between boosting credibility by being honest, and torpedoing it by confessing blasphemy, but I'm glad I'm toeing the line in your book so far.
Woah - did I miss something? What's the Odessa Steps sequence??? Perhaps I'm just not connecting the scene to the term 'Odessa.'
The famous sequence is called The Odessa Steps sequence because that's where it takes place, I think. It's the baby carriage scene. De Palma did a homage of this scene in The Untouchables.
Oh, right. Thanks!
Since you loved the film so much, I'd love to hear your response to my thoughts on the film (both at the bottom of the review list and the discussion section).
Ha! I love the Nosferatu review!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
:-) Thanks! That whole "going out the window" thing kills me. I mean, he just WATCHED THE VAMPIRE LEAVE through that very window! He knows he's gone, he knows where he's going, he knows he's not coming back, he knows where the front door is, and yet what does he do? HE STARTS TEARING UP BEDSHEETS to make himeself a too-short, makeshift, going-out-the-window-for-the-hell-of-it rope! Argh!
Still, good movie, and now I must join the Listology throngs in bemoaning Sunrise not being available (though Netflix, anyway).
Nanook: How 'bout that scene where the family keeps climbing out of that tiny boat? Seemed like a circus trick where they kept topping themselves.
Oh yeah, I couldn't believe that either! How the hell do they breathe in there?
So glad you liked Safety Last!. You got it right: tense fun! Looking at this page, I want to watch Battleship Potemkin and The Passion of Joan of Arc again. As if I wasn't already spending too much time watching movies.