# Why were there silent movies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 14, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698 "2014-03-14T15:43:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lew\_cody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e274bd/32.png) [@lew\_cody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lew_cody)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/21 "2014-03-14T23:30:51Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > I never said that. I said life has sound and color, and not having either is a lesser version of representation in movies. Movies don’t have smell, taste or touch; they’re sometimes edited in ways drastically different from the way real life plays out; there’s music playing in the background that accentuates what we see on screen. Perhaps there will be future technological developments that render all of these features obsolete and movies being made now will come to seem like antiques–but we aren’t there yet, so we accept what we have and believe that it works perfectly well. Animated films have differences from life even starker than those of silent films, but we’re accustomed to their conventions, so we regard them only as “different”–not as somehow “deficient”. Silent films may well be one method of representation that a person just has to watch to learn to appreciate. In time, one comes to accept (or at least I do) the action being punctuated by titles, which sometimes have ironic or witty commentary on the proceedings; the conveyance of emotion using gestures instead of words; and the skill of accompanists whose music can be as transfixing as the images. It may be that not everyone appreciates the protectiveness some film historians and fans demonstrate towards silent, but this is mainly a reaction against the unwarranted treatment they were sometimes subjected to in the mid-20th century. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/22 "2014-03-14T23:33:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The current debate would be over 3D. Is a 3D movie automatically better than a 2D movie? I wonder how well would a silent, B&W, 2D _Avatar_ have done? > [@](#): > > Personally I feel that the quality of the individual work outweighs the general quality of its format. A good black and white movie is better than a mediocre color movie. I agree. But a good color film is likewise better than a mediocre B&W film. I just feel that for the _same_ movie, a proper color version (not colorized) is superior to a B&W version. I also realize that is impossible to test that theory. You can’t just remake _Casablanca_ in color like you’re Vince Vaughn, you need Bogie and Bergman, and 1942, plus color film. I am in the minority in that I don’t think _Raging Bull_ needed to be in B&W. I feel the “artificial” mood of B&W is more of a distraction than a benefit. Did it work in B&W? Of course. Would it have worked in color? I suspect it would have. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/23 "2014-03-14T23:49:21Z")
> [@lew\_cody](#): > > Movies don’t have smell, taste or touch; they’re sometimes edited in ways drastically different from the way real life plays out; there’s music playing in the background that accentuates what we see on screen. > > Animated films have differences from life even starker than those of silent films, but we’re accustomed to their conventions, so we regard them only as “different”–not as somehow “deficient”. Valid points! > [@](#): > > Silent films may well be one method of representation that a person just has to watch to learn to appreciate. In time, one comes to accept (or at least I do) the action being punctuated by titles, which sometimes have ironic or witty commentary on the proceedings; the conveyance of emotion using gestures instead of words; and the skill of accompanists whose music can be as transfixing as the images. Not trying to argue against the validity of silent films, but I think a lot of the fondness form them comes from the fact that these films were good _despite_ the limitations of the medium, not because of them. A good film is a good film, but maybe these would have been better with sound right from the start. Would you argue that people should make silent films now? > [@](#): > > It may be that not everyone appreciates the protectiveness some film historians and fans demonstrate towards silent, but this is mainly a reaction against the unwarranted treatment they were sometimes subjected to in the mid-20th century. But that’s a different problem. Because of this (not incorrect) protectiveness, I feel people are unwilling to accept that the limitations of silent film are something that had to be overcome rather than a natural benefit. Ironic or witty commentary can be done in sound films, by using voice over. Conveying emotion by gesture is not prohibited in sound films, in fact it is still used. And of course as you noted the accompanying music is just as important whether it comes live in the theater or out the speakers. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/24 "2014-03-15T00:16:22Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > The film when it’s played runs jerky - the film has those sprocket holes, and a little set of fingers grabs and advances the film using those holes, then stops it and opens a shutter to flash the light through the film - that’s why you see pictures, not a continuous blur. Above and below the film are free loops that allow the smooth-flowing film to move jerkily in front of the light shutter. > > The big development was to put the sound recording offset from the picture, so that the sound pickup could be reading a dozen frames or more ahead where the film could be moved smoothly. I did not know that. That’s something I hadn’t considered before, and their solution is really quite innovative. ---
**Author:** ![salinqmind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@salinqmind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/salinqmind)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/25 "2014-03-15T00:36:53Z")
I hate to sound stupid here, but were silent movies when shown in theaters years ago ‘jerky’ back then, as we see them now on TV? I would think at present time they could be computerized or something so the movements would be normal, not herky-jerky. I like silent movies, some are truly engrossing like “The Wind” and “Greed”. Love the costumes and sets in many. But I must confess I’m not that crazy about the comedies. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/26 "2014-03-15T00:46:59Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > I wonder how well would a silent, B&W, 2D _Avatar_ have done? I can’t imagine that movie would have succeeded on just the merits of its story. ---
**Author:** ![lew\_cody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e274bd/32.png) [@lew\_cody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lew_cody)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/27 "2014-03-15T00:49:34Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > A good film is a good film, but maybe these would have been better with sound right from the start. Would you argue that people should make silent films now? Yes, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. There are a number of scenes in particular films that do benefit from the movie’s lack of dialogue. In **The Crowd** (1928), for example, James Murray’s character contemplates suicide after a string of failures and losing his daughter. His young son comforts him and tells his father that he believes in him. Having a child actor chirp out dialogue for a scene like that could turn maudlin very quickly, but the spare titles allow us to fill in the details ourselves and let the visuals stand out in our minds: a child pulling his dad from the brink, and the father embracing his son, overcome with emotion and love. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/28 "2014-03-15T00:57:26Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Not trying to argue against the validity of silent films, but I think a lot of the fondness form them comes from the fact that these films were good _despite_ the limitations of the medium, not because of them. A good film is a good film, but maybe these would have been better with sound right from the start. Would you argue that people should make silent films now? I think you’re probably right here, a few of my favourite films are silent but the vast majority aren’t. I know at least one person who mostly only watches films from that era, but I believe that’s because of the visual style, not specifically the silence. That said, if someone _wants_ to make a silent film, and has a story or, perhaps more likely, a more abstract idea that they feel would be best conveyed either without dialogue or entirely silently, they should do it. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/29 "2014-03-15T01:36:52Z")
> [@salinqmind](#): > > I hate to sound stupid here, but were silent movies when shown in theaters years ago ‘jerky’ back then, as we see them now on TV? I would think at present time they could be computerized or something so the movements would be normal, not herky-jerky. The hand-cranked movies were around 18 frames a second, and would’ve been played back at that speed, so would’ve looked around realtime speeds, though inconsistent. When played back on modern equipment they had to conform to the unalterable standards of 24 frames a second, or even 30fps for TV, so appear sped up. With current digital equipment it’s easier to adjust so they play back in real time, but there’s still a mismatch causing a visible strobing, unless you take the time to interpolate extra frames and such like, which is quite an effort and haphazard in the quality of its results. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/30 "2014-03-15T01:44:00Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > …But then, once silent films get entrenched, people don’t want to change. Why else would there be comments such as ‘no one wants to hear actors speak’? Do they not speak on the stage? _Who the hell wants to hear actors talk? – Harry Warner, Warner Bros. Pictures, c. 1927_ I’ve heard it said that Warner was referring to the voice quality of the actors currently working in the silent film industry. While many of them were legitimate stage actors who had pleasant or interesting voices, many were chosen strictly for their looks or ability to emote. Voices that sounded squeaky, nervous, unusually high, unusually low, odd, funny, etc could be worked around unless the actor would have been expect to make personal appearances. Many silent film stars didn’t make the transition to talkies. Or maybe Harry just didn’t like negotiating with whiny actors? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/31 "2014-03-15T01:59:36Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > The hand-cranked movies were around 18 frames a second, and would’ve been played back at that speed, so would’ve looked around realtime speeds, though inconsistent. When played back on modern equipment they had to conform to the unalterable standards of 24 frames a second, or even 30fps for TV, so appear sped up. > > With current digital equipment it’s easier to adjust so they play back in real time, but there’s still a mismatch causing a visible strobing, unless you take the time to interpolate extra frames and such like, which is quite an effort and haphazard in the quality of its results. Actually, printing an extra frame every now and then has become pretty standard when duplicating silent films for modern viewing. The result shows at 24 fps and has no obvious lagging or strobing. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/32 "2014-03-15T02:18:52Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > _Who the hell wants to hear actors talk? > – Harry Warner, Warner Bros. Pictures, c. 1927_ > > Or maybe Harry just didn’t like negotiating with whiny actors? I can buy that! ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/33 "2014-03-15T02:54:40Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > …And black and white films? Early films weren’t colorless because B&W films are ‘better’, but because that’s all they had. Was there ever a period of B&W painting before pigments were perfected? Then why are B&W films considered by some to be ‘better’?.. The Israeli government didn’t introduce colour television until the 1980s for a variety of political reasons. Prime Minister Golda Meir once tried to justify this by denouncing colour television as being _unnatural_. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/34 "2014-03-15T04:51:44Z")
I know that I leave the sound off when I watch hardcore porn. The fakey cries of the women ruin the experience for me. Hearing sounds so clearly faked for the viewer is the aural equivalent of seeing the cameraman and the director in the shots. So for me, silence is golden in that genre. Others, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/35 "2014-03-15T08:48:43Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SV65DFNy8&list=UUmDjt2uPVAI5duSPz0P0ACQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SV65DFNy8&list=UUmDjt2uPVAI5duSPz0P0ACQ) > > Sounds pretty good, until your eardrums burst. So loud that even Edison could hear it. It had to be, just to drown out the noise of the compressor! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/36 "2014-03-15T08:58:46Z")
> [@lew\_cody](#): > > Movies don’t have smell, taste or touch; they’re sometimes edited in ways drastically different from the way real life plays out; there’s music playing in the background that accentuates what we see on screen. Perhaps there will be future technological developments that render all of these features obsolete and movies being made now will come to seem like antiques–but we aren’t there yet, so we accept what we have and believe that it works perfectly well. There actually was something called Smell-O-Vision back in the 1950s. Tubing was strung to cinema seats and delivered odors on cue, supposedly enhancing whatever story was being told. Obviously, it never caught on. Sensurround was a big thing in the '70s—you really would feel like you were in the middle of, e.g., an earthquake when they triggered it! Of course, there have also been things like Technicolor, quadruphonic sound, and 3D meant to heighten the visual and aural experience. ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/37 "2014-03-15T13:26:00Z")
In ten or twenty years, someone will probably ask why it took so long to make those realistic hologram versions of films. After all, we have the technology to make holograms, so what are we waiting for? ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/38 "2014-03-15T13:43:00Z")
I don’t think silent movie fans (and I am one) are generally saying that silents are superior, just that there are very good silent films. And that film technology took a lot of steps back once the talkies came in (the equipment was unwieldy, etc) and so a lot of artistic “progress” was set back a few steps - compare _Sunrise_ with its fluid camerawork to the early sound films. Filmmakers had learned how to get the best out of the silent medium and had to essentially relearn a lot with sound pictures. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/39 "2014-03-15T14:02:53Z")
As far as the OP question of sound with pictures…Can you imagine the mind-blowing change in technology that the first films presented? Audiences were wowed by big, moving images, as imperfect as they look to us today. And recorded sound was almost as amazing. It took a while before silents began to look drab without it; after all, movie theaters had piano players, organs or orchestras. Why would you need to hear actors talk, fer chrissakes? You already knew what they were saying from the text on the screen. And talking would get in the way of the music! > [@GuanoLad](#): > > The hand-cranked movies were around 18 frames a second, and would’ve been played back at that speed, so would’ve looked around realtime speeds, though inconsistent. When played back on modern equipment they had to conform to the unalterable standards of 24 frames a second, or even 30fps for TV, so appear sped up. The hand-cranker got tired, and there was nothing to prevent his hand from slowing down. Slowly filmed originals become speeded-up when projected. > [@](#): > > With current digital equipment it’s easier to adjust so they play back in real time, but there’s still a mismatch causing a visible strobing, unless you take the time to interpolate extra frames and such like, which is quite an effort and haphazard in the quality of its results. You are probably thinking about the mismatch between video cameras recording directly from a movie screen, see below… > [@CalMeacham](#): > > Actually, printing an extra frame every now and then has become pretty standard when duplicating silent films for modern viewing. The result shows at 24 fps and has no obvious lagging or strobing. It’s certainly possible to make 18fps (or less) into more normal speeds that way, but when the silents were first shown on sound equipment, the operators or industry didn’t try that hard. I think the audience got used to the “Keystone Cops” antics at obviously too-fast speeds; the movie got over quicker, and it seemed to emphasize the old technology. In short, it was _expected_ that silents were too fast to be realistic. Anyone remember Buffalo Bob showing silent shorts on the Howdy Doody TV show? They were all shown in speeded-up mode, _and we liked it._ Our school projectors had both silent and sound speeds, and we would deliberately show 18fps silents at 24fps. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698/40 "2014-03-15T14:31:26Z")
I’ll chime in with: I don’t think silent films are “better,” but I think there are some brilliant silent films that have survived (and will continue to survive) for a long time. Similarly with sound films. And silent films were easily international, and not language-dependent. But remember that the vast majority of films are all dreck. Personal anecdote: a few years ago, when my mother was in assisted living, we showed classic films to the old folks every Sunday night. The biggest hit, beyond question, was Chaplin’s GOLD RUSH. When we first announced we were showing it, most of the oldsters said, “Ugh, who wants to see such an old film and a silent film?” But five minutes into it, they were laughing their heads off. There was no side conversation (“What did he say, Mildred?”), they didn’t need to strain to hear, and the comedy was absolutely universal. On black and white vs color: black and white can do things that color can’t, and color can do things that black and white can’t. The easiest example is the original PSYCHO, compared to the 1998 color version. The color just doesn’t create the same mood, not even close, and is a dismal failure as a movie. Consider the differences in WIZARD OF OZ between the B&W segments (mood is sombre and subdued) and the color segments (mood is vibrant and exciting.) It’s not that one is “better,” it’s that all film-making technologies and innovations are tools that can be used well or poorly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-there-silent-movies/683698.md?page=3)