Many silent filmmakers couldn't adapt to sound technology, but Vidor did. He's one of the few directors to have created significant films in both formats.
My research (and I'm by far not an expert) in silents has shown me that many actors and actors who could have transitioned to talkies were sent packing because it made getting rid of their contracts easy. Sound technology was so expensive it nearly bankrupted the studios.
“If you’re going to watch it, maybe come back and continue reading after you do. Otherwise, I’m about to ruin a lot of the story for you.”
Thanks for that, Cole. You piqued my interest, and I stopped reading right there, because order of operations. I look forward to reading the rest soon!
Okay! I just watched the movie and finished reading your post. First, let me say that it was a real treat to see Chris Noth’s and Anthony LaPaglia’s earliest work. 😂
The length of time the troops spent shoveling manure on their first night in Champillon—literally moving it from one pile to another and, I swear, back again—struck me as the *perfect* metaphor for war. I did not expect this to segue into frolicking about the French countryside, the fun little slapstick with the barrel, and for what seemed like an unbelievably long time developing Jim’s romance with Melisande. (Somewhere around the wine cellar scene, I saw my spouse, Porter, try to surreptitiously pull up the link on his phone, and then gasp and give himself away: “Whoa! I didn’t realize how long this movie was! 🤣)
I could really feel what you described about viewers’ expectations with pacing, and whether they are met or disappointed. I had to pause the movie, because our dogs needed to alert us that SOMEONE had the gall to go for a walk SOMEWHERE in our neighborhood, and it just happened to be moments before they called up the troops, so I plainly saw that it was perfectly halfway through the film.
They absolutely captured the horror of battle, as bodies were dropping at multiple focal points, all while the march forward continued. (It actually threw me off after the first casualties they showed, because I am so accustomed to Hollywood war, where soldiers seem to immediately rush to whomever we have just seen fall. I was literally opening my mouth to ask Porter, “Are they just going to leave them there?” which effectively cued the actors carrying stretchers.)
One detail that stood out to both Porter and I
was when the camera zoomed in on the (commanding officer’s?) watch. We simultaneously blurted, “It’s 4:20!” and laughed, because we are 12, and it made me curious about whatever actual symbolism was associated with that specific time, in 1925 (or 1917), if any. Perhaps it was referencing the Nivelle offensive and/or the Battle of the Hills, on April 20, 1917; or a nod to actor David C. Montgomery, who also died on that date. (Thank you, Wikipedia, and the subsequent rabbit hole of Google searches as I tried to find a project directly connecting King Vidor and Montgomery.)
Jim’s return home, and the peek behind the door where we learn about Justyn’s affair with his brother, had me worry we were headed for some more modern-day Hollywood relationship martyrdom. It was a treat to have the story resolve so quickly at that point, with Jim’s returning to find Melisande in the French countryside, which presumably also left his brother and Justyn to live out their lives à la “While You Were Sleeping”—a weird happily-ever-after in the wake of the Great War.
Thanks so much, Cole, for inspiring me to watch this with as critical an I’m-not-a-filmmaker eye as I can muster. Or maybe I got more out of 2-Day Film School, in 1991, than forever remembering that the answer to “What are you working on?” is always, “I have multiple projects in various states of development.”
I love all of this. I love that anything I wrote motivated you to engage with this film like this. And I love that you're trying your critical hat on, which I truly think makes these experiences much more satisfying. You engage more. Also, the Noth/LaPaglia joke...well done. Did your spouse enjoy the experience?
He did enjoy it, but he gave me a bit of a tired look when I asked if he wanted me to read him the post. He asked, “How long is it?” In the same spirit as his comment about the movie’s run time. I told him it was perfectly fine to be less interested in discussing story structure than I. It’s not unlike when I geek out on telling him what bit part I first remember seeing an actor in. For example, Margo Martindale, in “Sabrina” (1995), and J. Smith-Cameron, same movie. To be fair, I wear a similar expression after hearing an indeterminate number of baseball stats, despite enjoying the game.
I enjoyed this thoughtful post about a great art form that deserves much more attention than it gets. I used to teach an undergraduate course on philosophy of film, and I assigned ten films for students to watch during the semester so they would have some clue as to what the authors we were reading were talking about. Many students had never seen anything in black & white, much less a silent film. Taking those kids through the history of film was a real trip. I think we usually watched Night of the Hunter for examples of parallelism or "the familiar image" similar to what you focused on here. The Big Parade would have been very good, too, because it involves not just a repetition but a reversal of sorts.
Nice review. I like your contrast of the current three part to this mirroring thing you’re talking about. I thought what you were going to talk about was another approach where a group of people share their experience of some happening from several different perspectives. It illustrates how we are so different in our perception.
I’m working on a play about the 70s which obviously has the draft in it. But there was so much more going on during that period.
my play ideas started when I discovered that a local woman was corresponding with Vietnam soldiers. It was in one of those columns that says 50 years ago today.
I’m looking forward to watching the upgraded video of the silent movie. And of course appreciate your review. Thank you.
I will watch this. I'm writing a novel that has a significant portion set in the silent years of film. What I used to dismiss as "primitive" is so much more sophisticated than the 3-D printer remakes of our time.
Thanks, Colleen. It's a remarkable film, if you haven't seen it yet. The shot composition, given the limitations of the period, is often extraordinary. But the visual and narrative echoes...really something to study.
Many silent filmmakers couldn't adapt to sound technology, but Vidor did. He's one of the few directors to have created significant films in both formats.
My research (and I'm by far not an expert) in silents has shown me that many actors and actors who could have transitioned to talkies were sent packing because it made getting rid of their contracts easy. Sound technology was so expensive it nearly bankrupted the studios.
Yep.
You did an excellent job on your analysis. I love how you explore the story with the breakdown.
Thanks, Jen, I'm glad you dug it. It's a weird film to deconstruct, but I loved it and what it had to say about story.
“If you’re going to watch it, maybe come back and continue reading after you do. Otherwise, I’m about to ruin a lot of the story for you.”
Thanks for that, Cole. You piqued my interest, and I stopped reading right there, because order of operations. I look forward to reading the rest soon!
And please come back and chat about it when you do. I loved this film, so I'm desperate to discuss it with others.
Okay! I just watched the movie and finished reading your post. First, let me say that it was a real treat to see Chris Noth’s and Anthony LaPaglia’s earliest work. 😂
The length of time the troops spent shoveling manure on their first night in Champillon—literally moving it from one pile to another and, I swear, back again—struck me as the *perfect* metaphor for war. I did not expect this to segue into frolicking about the French countryside, the fun little slapstick with the barrel, and for what seemed like an unbelievably long time developing Jim’s romance with Melisande. (Somewhere around the wine cellar scene, I saw my spouse, Porter, try to surreptitiously pull up the link on his phone, and then gasp and give himself away: “Whoa! I didn’t realize how long this movie was! 🤣)
I could really feel what you described about viewers’ expectations with pacing, and whether they are met or disappointed. I had to pause the movie, because our dogs needed to alert us that SOMEONE had the gall to go for a walk SOMEWHERE in our neighborhood, and it just happened to be moments before they called up the troops, so I plainly saw that it was perfectly halfway through the film.
They absolutely captured the horror of battle, as bodies were dropping at multiple focal points, all while the march forward continued. (It actually threw me off after the first casualties they showed, because I am so accustomed to Hollywood war, where soldiers seem to immediately rush to whomever we have just seen fall. I was literally opening my mouth to ask Porter, “Are they just going to leave them there?” which effectively cued the actors carrying stretchers.)
One detail that stood out to both Porter and I
was when the camera zoomed in on the (commanding officer’s?) watch. We simultaneously blurted, “It’s 4:20!” and laughed, because we are 12, and it made me curious about whatever actual symbolism was associated with that specific time, in 1925 (or 1917), if any. Perhaps it was referencing the Nivelle offensive and/or the Battle of the Hills, on April 20, 1917; or a nod to actor David C. Montgomery, who also died on that date. (Thank you, Wikipedia, and the subsequent rabbit hole of Google searches as I tried to find a project directly connecting King Vidor and Montgomery.)
Jim’s return home, and the peek behind the door where we learn about Justyn’s affair with his brother, had me worry we were headed for some more modern-day Hollywood relationship martyrdom. It was a treat to have the story resolve so quickly at that point, with Jim’s returning to find Melisande in the French countryside, which presumably also left his brother and Justyn to live out their lives à la “While You Were Sleeping”—a weird happily-ever-after in the wake of the Great War.
Thanks so much, Cole, for inspiring me to watch this with as critical an I’m-not-a-filmmaker eye as I can muster. Or maybe I got more out of 2-Day Film School, in 1991, than forever remembering that the answer to “What are you working on?” is always, “I have multiple projects in various states of development.”
I love all of this. I love that anything I wrote motivated you to engage with this film like this. And I love that you're trying your critical hat on, which I truly think makes these experiences much more satisfying. You engage more. Also, the Noth/LaPaglia joke...well done. Did your spouse enjoy the experience?
He did enjoy it, but he gave me a bit of a tired look when I asked if he wanted me to read him the post. He asked, “How long is it?” In the same spirit as his comment about the movie’s run time. I told him it was perfectly fine to be less interested in discussing story structure than I. It’s not unlike when I geek out on telling him what bit part I first remember seeing an actor in. For example, Margo Martindale, in “Sabrina” (1995), and J. Smith-Cameron, same movie. To be fair, I wear a similar expression after hearing an indeterminate number of baseball stats, despite enjoying the game.
Oh, I absolutely will!
Wonderful article Cole. King Vidor is one of those early filmmakers I know of but have never actually experienced. A definite watch and soon.
Thanks for reading, Mark. I loved this film very much. I hope you do, too.
Will let you know!
I enjoyed this thoughtful post about a great art form that deserves much more attention than it gets. I used to teach an undergraduate course on philosophy of film, and I assigned ten films for students to watch during the semester so they would have some clue as to what the authors we were reading were talking about. Many students had never seen anything in black & white, much less a silent film. Taking those kids through the history of film was a real trip. I think we usually watched Night of the Hunter for examples of parallelism or "the familiar image" similar to what you focused on here. The Big Parade would have been very good, too, because it involves not just a repetition but a reversal of sorts.
It's a weirdly, but also beautifully mathematical film in a lot of ways. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts, Robert.
Nice review. I like your contrast of the current three part to this mirroring thing you’re talking about. I thought what you were going to talk about was another approach where a group of people share their experience of some happening from several different perspectives. It illustrates how we are so different in our perception.
I’m working on a play about the 70s which obviously has the draft in it. But there was so much more going on during that period.
my play ideas started when I discovered that a local woman was corresponding with Vietnam soldiers. It was in one of those columns that says 50 years ago today.
I’m looking forward to watching the upgraded video of the silent movie. And of course appreciate your review. Thank you.
Thanks for your thoughts, Greg. And for reading. I'm glad the essay spoke to you in any way. I hope you enjoy the film!
I will watch this. I'm writing a novel that has a significant portion set in the silent years of film. What I used to dismiss as "primitive" is so much more sophisticated than the 3-D printer remakes of our time.
There are so many silent films that are emotionally and sometimes even technically more accomplished than what gets released today.
Love this.
Thanks, Colleen. It's a remarkable film, if you haven't seen it yet. The shot composition, given the limitations of the period, is often extraordinary. But the visual and narrative echoes...really something to study.