I know that to the modern viewer, the silent film looks sort of. . .comical. Overacting is necessary to convey a story without sound, and the jerkiness of the film itself makes the actors look like humorous parodies of human beings.
But all that aside, watch this little story of adultery by one of France's pioneer filmmakers, Charles Pathe.
What struck me, watching it, was first of all how different people must have been back then. Today, you could hardly get anyone to sit through anything without sound, without stunning visuals, explosions, sex, and fast paced action. Much less could you get most people today to *follow* a story told purely through mime. There's something admirable in that: the silent film makes you think, and use your imagination to fill in the story. Modern film not only gives us everything on a silver platter, turning us into two hour zombies as we absorb the film, it also often shoves overdone cinematics down our throats.
The second thing that struck me was the beauty of some of the visuals. A great deal of time and effort must have gone into setting up a scene, almost like laying out the props for a painting or an artistic photograph. You could take a still shot from almost anywhere in the video, frame it, and put it up on your wall. This attention to detail in the creation of a visual moment has become well established in cinema today (although, not everyone uses it). When it is applied well, attention to detail can raise a film from pure entertainment, to art. It is interesting to see how far back this goes, but when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. In the silent film, the visual was all that was available to convey, so much thought had to be put into how each image was laid out, in order to create something in any way worth watching.
While I wouldn't want to revert to the silent film (I enjoy my vegitable time, dammit), the art form certainly seems something worth exploring further. I am curious to discover the ways in which silent film has influenced film today.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
So, it's happened again. Some celebrity snapped a bunch of photos of her naughty bits on her phone, and they got leaked to the public. Which celebrity this time you ask? None other than Blake Lively, star of "Gossip Girl", "The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants" (parts one and two), and the upcoming "Green Lantern".
I'm sure you're asking yourself the same thing I am:
Why the *fuck* can't the famous figure out this simple fact. If they take pictures of their tits, they *will* be seen by the public. It's inevitiable.
Or to quote a disturbed literary figure: "It's axiomatic."
The popular theory is that she snapped these R-Rated pics while she was filming "The Town". Having seen them, I'd have to say I concur, since the tattoo's on her body match the ones that Make-up put on her for the movie. So, here it is. I'm gonna put it out there in plain-speak for all the celebrities who think that their boyfriends need a picture of them posing like self-absorbed cunts in their bathroom mirror:
HEY. CELEBRITIES. HERE'S THE DEAL. IF YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF YOUR TITS, ASS, AND NETHERLY GIRLY BITS.. PEOPLE WILL SEE. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. SO UNLESS YOU WANT YOUR VAG PLASTERED ACROSS THE WEB, KEEP YOUR FUCKING PANTS ON.
That being said: I hope no one takes my advice, because I like watching famous people fall.
(I almost included pictures, but I'm not sure who the rights belong to, so I neglected. If anyone is desperate to see them, go to Egotastic, or What Would Tyler Durden Do?)
I almost forgot to add: her Reps vehemently deny that this is her.. but she has nice tits, and I like nice tits -- after doing a forensic examination that approaches CSI levels, I can say -- this *is* her.