Fans of this blog know my love of the pre-1915 era—that is, the period of filmmaking swept away by the blockbuster success of D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation. Birth showcased Griffith’s mastery of the moving camera, along with many now-standard editing tactics. Though the film was less a breakthrough than a synthesis of techniques Griffith and others had been discovering and experimenting with for several years, its influence is unquestioned. Thanks to Birth, and a few others masterpieces, such as the Italian epic, Cabiria (1914), silent films of the early-teens look much different from those produced in the second half of that decade, and beyond. The older films are generally shorter; they retain the ‘staginess’ of their aesthetic predecessor, the theatre, and their cinematography, such as it is, assumes an audience fixed in place, as a theatrical audience would be. Close-ups, pans and zooms are rare in these films. Actors, for the most part, appear in medium- or long-shot, and are rarely identified. Limitations abound.
So why are these films worth watching? Well, because I think they’re cool. But more importantly, they’re unappreciated. I reject as incomplete the standard tack presenters take when showing these films today—that is, that they’re an early, naive step toward proper filmmaking. Please. All art depends in part on technology to continue its development, and while these films are certainly ‘primitive’ even by Griffith’s standards, they deserve to be defined by what they do well, not just by what they lack. They are surreal, funny, and at times, psychologically complex. They’re a glimpse into the past, yes; a view of filmmaking in simpler days, yes; but they’re also movies made according to different rules, and with different goals in mind. And if this particular branch of the cinematic tree seems hopelessly old-fashioned, remember that the YouTube generation, with its webcams and brief recording times, is bringing us right back to where it all started.
