Of course, being silent films, there was no audible dialogue. Instead Titles (also called Intertitles) were used for dialogue, character intros and exposition. Most of the silent films I own have two separate writing credits, usually listed as “Continuity” and “Titles,” usually by two different people.
Most of the time an actor will be shown speaking, and the title card will pop up after he begins speaking, stay on screen long enough to be read, then we’ll cut back to him as he finishes speaking. But not always. There is one hell of a lot of speaking that is not titled. Or, like a bad comedian imitating Japanese dubbing (a minute of mouth movement followed by an English dub saying, “Yes,” or something short and humorous like that), there will be a lot of mouthing but a title card showing only a word or three of dialogue.
So, who told the actor what to say? I have never seen an actual script for a silent film, and have always heard (though I may be wrong) that the “Title” writer wrote his intertitles after the film was finished and cut. I’ve always assumed the “Continuity” writer simply wrote the plot, the stage directions, camera shots, etc.
Did a silent film script also contain dialogue for the actors to speak, even though they would not be heard? Or did they just get a page of script telling them the gist of the scene and they winged the dialogue just to get mouth movement? Could they have really been standing there moaning and bitching about Fairbanks and Pickford’s party or whatever, but smiling and over gesturing as if they were declaring undying love for each other?
Hope you get what I’m getting after?
Sir Rhosis
AFAIK, they weren’t called scripts; they were called “scenarios.” I’m sure there wasn’t a hard and fast rule, but many of them didn’t include much in the way of dialogue, though of course (here goes the hard-n-fast thing again) some of them did.
I think the main thing to remember is that the dialogue, whether heard or only lip-read, wasn’t really the focus; it was an almost entirely visual storytelling medium. Think of how when you read a novel, you don’t need sounds or images; you supply them with your own imagination, without considering that a shortfall. Watching a silent film is much the same, in that the story you’re being told seems complete; whatever is “lacking” takes place in your imagination as you watch. This is why, in my understanding, contemporary audiences wouldn’t really have been paying too much attention to the question you ask. Not that it isn’t an interesting question; only I wonder if it’s a question that comes more naturally to a modern moviegoer, who’s come to depend upon spoken dialogue to carry the bulk of a story.
In general, the actors generally knew the situation and ad libbed somewhat on the set, except for certain lines that might be essential. The director or a member of the crew would shout out lines that they needed to say (no one would hear him).
They also didn’t have to say anything that had anything to do with the movie. There was one example of one actor carrying an actress in his arms and the titles showing her professing her undying love. Lip readers, however, complained when they realized that the actress was saying, “If you drop me, you son-of-a-bitch, I’ll kill you.”
Oh, I understand and that is why I really do appreciate silent movies. They truly are a visual medium, but as you note, here in 2008, I’m just wondering who or what told them what to say while the camera was rolling? And yes, sometimes it is obvious that they haven’t actually said what the title says they said. Stuff like “I love you,” which we’ve all heard and seen spoken a million times, is fairly easy to lip read.
Great overview of silent films, though, lissener.
Sir Rhosis
Great anecdote, Chuck. What film was that?
Posted to lissener before I saw Chuck’s reply, btw.
I’m afraid I don’t have the reference (I tend to pick up facts and forget where I got them, other than "it was in a book I read 20 years ago: :)), but I think it may have been Three Weeks or some other Elinor Glyn film.