Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Silent Movies – Do They Still Have Relevance to Modern Audiences?

Let’s face it America: we are a world of dialogue. With text messages, e-mails, and instant messaging, it is nearly impossible to get a point across in a sarcastic tone. In fact, irony on the internet is very much dead. To compensate for this, we have developed a culture that relies solely on words and what they mean. No more of this verbal ambiguity that has so marred our literature and music for so long: it is time to use words literally and without any sort of complications.
This is as evident as anywhere in film. One example of film (in fact, the best film ever made), Good Will Hunting, relies almost entirely on dialogue to explain what is happening within the characters’ minds and how they feel about themselves and one another. The reason that this movie was so successful and has withstood the test of time and made celebrities of all its stars is that its use of dialogue makes it the perfect film for our time. Observe:

Consider then, the oeuvre of Charlie Chaplin. His films largely involve men in small bowlers and huge pants, whose moustaches are tight and clipped and who carry a cane. There is also no audible dialogue. Can it be said that any person alive can relate to these characters, or their stories?* The “curse of the silent film-maker” followed Chaplin into his forays into talkies: his “opus,” The Great Dictator, is mostly about an intolerant dictator and a Jewish barber—clearly, Chaplin had lost the ability to make a movie that would make sense to viewers after 1945. Observe:

It would be unreasonable, of course, for us to throw out our entire history in film (with the possible exception of Hope/Crosby Road movies, which are far from being as fantastic as you’d think). The solution to this issue is to dub dialogue into existing silent films. Include lines that apply to modern audiences, such as “I’d better check the internet!” and “O.J. is guilty as sin!” Only by doing this can we maintain a connection to our cinematic past. If we want one.

No comments: