It was parodied quite well in Singin’ In The Rain by Gene Kelly and Jean Hagen, when they’re being filmed but actually telling each other off (with romantic and dramatic looks on their faces, of course). So what did the silent movie stars actually speak while being filmed? It’s obviously more dialogue than what appears on the show card dialogue - I’ve often seen them speak several sentences in a scene, but the card only has a few words. Are they reciting an actual script? Are they relying on the old stage standby “peas and carrots, peas and carrots?” Are they responding to the director’s instructions? Are they telling each other what they had for breakfast? Are they making up stuff along the way that actually relates to what they’re supposed to be acting about? Or are they actually telling each other off?
I wonder if Eve would know. Heck, I wonder if Cecil would know!
The only thing I can offer is that sometimes you can lip read, and they seem to be saying stuff that’s relevant.
I’d think it would take a lot more concentration to be telling each other off, or talking about something irrelevant, while remembering exactly where you’re supposed to be in a scene.
I would imagine that a lot of it was improvised, especially since Chaplin used film as his ‘rough drafts.’
Generally, they stuck with dialogue that the characters would have said in that situation, though not necessarily what was said on the cards. There are two main reasons:
It keeps them in character. It’s much easier to emote when you’re saying dialogue that match the emotions you are portraying. If you say “I love you,” it’s much easier to portray the emotion than if you say “peas and carrots.”
Lip readers went to movies, too. In fact, there was a minor brouhaha at the time when the romantic lead picked up the leading lady and she said what the title cards indicated was florid romantic dialogue. Lip readers protested, since what she was actually saying was “If you drop me, you son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.”
As #2 illustrates, actors did diverge from the script and it wasn’t unknown for them to say something irrelevant to what was going on. But mostly they stuck with what their characters would have said in the situation portrayed.
I cant provde a cite for this so I will post this as just my opinion.
Silent movie actors and actresses were given a plot and told what to do by the director. They have a sense about what is in a particular scene and what they have to do. When the director says “action” the actors and actresses improvised. This may seem implausible but you have to consider that most silent movie scenes are very short. Movie film wasnt in large rolls then. If you look at the old camera equipment then you’ll see small black boxes being cranked manually. There might have been some dialogue in the “script” but since there was no sound, the actors and actresses just made up certain lines to be “in character”
Its actually fun to try to lip read these old films. It makes the scenes more interesting and real. Reading the censored prim and proper lines on screen is just dry. Sometimes its also funny because you can actually tell that some of these actors or actresses do not have full command of english or were just yammering something and then the subtitles come and it had nothing to do with what they actually said.
There is a scene in 2001: a space odyssey where the two lead characters enter a soundproof room to have a private conversation, but the computer can see through the window and eavesdrop by lip-reading. The camera shows the computer’s point-of-view looking at the lips but hearing nothing. From context of the movie you know the subject matter, but never know exactly what words they are saying.
A deaf friend once visited me, so I played that part on the VCR and asked her if she can lip-read it. She pointed out that the movie filmed them in profile only, and that is much more difficult to lip-read than when looking at the front of the face. She said that the dialog seemed to be a normal mix of consonants and vowels, but was unable to get any further.
I figured the actors’ position onscreen would affect whether you can adequately lip-read them or not. Plus silent films always seem to be so choppy and/or go so fast that it would be difficult anyway. (I dunno - been a while since I dated a deaf guy. )
Some of 'em did, some of 'em didn’t. Depended entirely on the director. Most silent films had scripts and the actors stuck pretty close—they actually did get complaints from lip-readers if they got smart.
Some performers went so far as to speak in a foreign language if they were playing a foreign character—Antonio Moreno gave an interview explaining that he spoke French or Spanish when playing those nationalities. On the other hand, some foreign stars (Garbo, in her early films; Lars Hanson, Emil Jannings) spoke no English, so they spoke their own language while their costars spoke English.
Some directors—especially in the very early films, say, pre-1915—went in for improvisation. But by the mid-1920s, performers were given scripts and were expected to stay close to what they were supposed to say.
I can lip read a little (I’m not hearing impaired, just thought it was a useful skill and practiced), and what I could make out from the few silent movies I’ve seen was always relevant dialogue that matched up with the general sense of the title cards pretty well, if rarely the exact words.
Those were serious movies, too. Part of the “funny” look about early fims is that they were shot at 16fps. When played at today’s standard of 24fps, it looks silly. Because jumping it up like that speeds up the action.
When a theatre actually shows them at 16fps, they look normal and become serious works. Just as they intended to be.
If I have the actual fps numbers wrong, it’s because I can’t find a cite and am going by film class memory. Correct me if I am, ok?
BTW, when you see Chaplin or Keaton at regular speed, their comedic genius shines!
I’ll add to the concensus that none of this was standarised and varied from director to director and place to place.
Of course, one way of answering it in individual cases would be to look at actual surviving scripts. As an example - it happens to be the only one I have to hand - Ballard and Brownlow published an edition of Gance’s script for Napoleon (Faber and Faber, 1990). This is actually the version of the script Gance published in book form in 1927. It mixes dialogue for intertitles with dialogue that will not have them. More interesting, however, is the appendix with an extract from the shooting script that had been published in several magazines at the time. This follows a similar practice. For example (from p213)
[QUOTE]
279 Interior, Ramponneau. Danton chants as if the flames in the hearth were speaking:
I’ll add to the concensus that none of this was standarised and varied from director to director and place to place.
Of course, one way of answering it in individual cases would be to look at actual surviving scripts. As an example - not a typical one, but it happens to be the only one I have to hand - Ballard and Brownlow published an edition of Gance’s script for Napoleon (Faber and Faber, 1990). This is actually the version of the script Gance published in book form in 1927. It mixes dialogue for intertitles with dialogue that will not have them. More interesting, however, is the appendix with an extract from the shooting script that had been published in several magazines at the time. This follows a similar practice. For example (from p213)
The bolded line is for an intertitle, the next line not. But given Gance’s pernickityness in giving a cite for the line (way to go, Abel), I’d presume he got Koubitzky, who was playing the part, to say exactly this. Though, since the particular scene doesn’t survive, we’ve no way of knowing for sure.
Incidentally, RealityChuck example is paralleled by the story told about the Douglas Fairbanks picture The Habit of Happiness from 1916. The script required him to crack up a bunch of down-and-outs with a series of jokes. However, they used real ones rather than actors and all they’d respond to were dirty gags. To get the required reaction, that’s what Fairbank’s was filmed telling. Lip-readers duly complained and some of the scene had to be reshot.
On speeds, yes, you’ve got it roughly right NoClueBoy. The problem is that this is another issue where there isn’t a standard rule in silents. But, since this issue makes a difference in how they should be screened today, it leads to endless debates amongst enthusiasts and historians. A very messy issue.
)