goldensilents

I re-watched *Street Angel* (1928) last night, with Gaynor and Farrell, this time the print in the Murnau-Borzage DVD box set was a little sharper but still overall a bit murky. I suppose this was the best they could do. The soundtrack however was much clearer and enhanced than the one on the old Critic's Choice video. The movie has two beautiful performances by the leads, especially Gaynor. I'm still a little uncomfortable about the ending but I suppose it could be understandable since Farrell's character never really saw Gaynor's character clearly -- he only saw what he wanted to see in her, as evidence from the portrait he painted.

What is *The Legend of Sister Beatrice* about? I've never heard of it.

Aww, no, no "shame on her". It takes some people awhile. What would help is if you actually purchased some silent films on DVD and watched them on your tv, instead of watching them on the net. Because of compression the images are rarely as nice as they are on official, legit DVDs. Watch a few really good ones and she might just come around. *Four Sons* is a good silent about World War One and how it affected citizens. It's out on DVD. You can go to Amazon dot com and search for it. It has excellent visual quality and sound, too, and some beautiful performances.

I'd put Dorothy Janis first if I were a man. She was perfection.

Welcome! Black and white can be beautiful too. Robert doesn't look at the message boards. When asked he said "no". There are tons of silents about WW One. A lot of really good ones too, like The Big Parade.

Just look for some Rotate command. Then you can put in a percentage of how much you wish to rotate. A tip though, when you do that you should follow through with the Sharpen filter because the image will begin to lose some quality if you do a rotate that is less than 90 degrees.

Not too many men want to date or marry ugly women so I think appearance does matter to men, and the deeper men (such as yourself ) then on top of that look for the "nuances". I agree there are many plainer women in silents who have a sort of glow about them that the camera catches and sometimes even still photography does not quite grasp it. You have to see them in action. A good example is Mae Marsh. She can look quite plain in still photography but she has a gentle spiritual glow when you see her in action in a film.

Wouldn't you agree though that when you are making a film on the man you believe is your Savior that you are walking on holy ground and that you should tread carefully and be faithful to the Biblical account? God was the one who preserved His Word the exact way He wanted it, not any church. He promised to preserve His Word and He promised His words "will never pass away" and that they are even "written in heaven." The earth shall pass away but God's Word will last forever. Jesus Himself was called the Word of God. So I believe it is important to stick to the New Testament as preserved and when you do that you are far more likely to have a film pleasing to God and worthy of instruction and inspiration to man.

From The "Illustrated Bible Dictionary" by MG Easton of 1897: The idea that this Mary was "the woman who was a sinner," or that she was unchaste, is altogether groundless. The "International Standard Bible Encylopedia" says: *1. Mary Not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7*: As she was the first to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus, it is important that we should get a correct view of her position and character. The idea that she was a penitent, drawn from the life of the street ... arose... from a misconception of the nature of her malady, together with an altogether impossible identification of her with the woman who was a sinner of the preceding section of the Gospel. It is not to be forgotten that the malady demon-possession, according to New Testament ideas ...had none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposition popularly associated with "having a devil." The possessed was, by our Lord and the disciples looked upon as diseased, the victim of an alien and evil power, not an accomplice of it. Had this always been understood and kept in mind, the unfortunate identification of Mary with the career of public prostitution would have been much less easy. According to New Testament usage, in such cases the name would have been withheld (compare Luk_7:37; Joh_8:3). At the same time the statement that 7 demons had been cast out of Mary means either that the malady was of exceptional severity, possibly involving several relapses (compare Luk_11:26), or that the mode of her divided and haunted consciousness (compare Mar_5:9) suggested the use of the number 7. Even so, she was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict. The identification of Mary with the sinful woman is, of course, impossible... The woman of Luke 7 is carefully covered with the concealing cloak of namelessness. Undoubtedly known by name to the intimate circle of first disciples, it is extremely doubtful whether she was so known to Luke. Her history is definitely closed at Luk_7:50. The name of Mary [Magdalene] is found at the beginning of a totally new section of the Gospel ...where the name of Mary is introduced with a single mark of identification, apart from her former residence [ie Magdala], which points away from the preceding narrative and is incompatible with it. If the preceding account of the anointing were Mary's introduction into the circle of Christ's followers, she could not be identified by the phrase of Luke. Jesus did not cast a demon out of the sinful woman of Luke 7, and Mary of Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lord's feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together.

You need a better graphics program I guess. You can use the Rotate function and other filters to straighten out an awkward image. Here you go.

I never wrote anywhere that "all human history is contained in the Bible". Please show me where I wrote that. If you're a Christian like I am the Bible is your Holy Book. You believe it was inspired by God. It's your foundation. The Apocrypha was not inspired by God; that's why it was separated out and labeled as such in the original 1611 King James Bible and sandwiched in between Old and New Testaments. There is no reason to go to it when you are making a film about Jesus Christ, who is called The Word of God in John chapter one. If you are a Christian you don't want to insult your Savior. You stick to the REAL Word of God. There is so much wealth in the New Testament to draw on without inventing stuff for plot devices. In those parts of DeMille's film where he stuck to the Bible and quoted from the King James Bible in the title cards then his film became worthwhile. When he departed from it the film sinks into mire. You also have to realize that adding junk like Judas and Mary Magdalene having an affair is going to perpetuate lies and myths among the uninitiated for generations, and if you believe you are going to face judgment in the afterlife you should be FAR more careful what you put on screen for posterity. You'll be judged on it by Jesus Christ Himself. I hope DeMille passed his test.

For the screen captures you just Add Borders and then insert your consecutive snapshots into the new borders. Louise is GS's board's Silent Star of the Month. She's not my favorite actress in the world but I have to agree she was often stunning to look at. Luminous, in fact. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder so if you think other actresses are more beautiful than Louise your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

I don't know why but the cutie below reminds me a bit of one of the Duncan sisters, I think Vivian, who married Nils Asther and had his daughter. It's probably not her though, she just has a similar air about her.

I love Don Juan! It's brilliant.

Beatrice Arthur???? *LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* The long haired lady has a face like Betty Compson.

Thanks.

It's a very bittersweet tale and beautifully photographed. I remember you said the score was terrible but I thought it very appropriate and well done. They just used flutes, guitars, and a piano, but it works. Here's some screen captures I made up tonight.

The term is sometimes used as a metaphor in a non-religious context as well. So it fits.

I watched *Lazybones* (1925) out of the Borzage-Murnau box set tonight. Really enjoyed it. A nice bittersweet and gentle Victorian story. I didn't think the score bad at all. It was most appropriate for the film. I loved all the performances, especially by Buck Jones. I thought maybe, just maybe, his character would end up with Agnes (Jane Novak) after all but I guess she just lost her chance by being such a wimp about not standing up to her mother. We must ALWAYS stand up to those who would oppress us, and not let them get away with their nonsense. Man, Emily Fitzroy had one ooogly face! lol

I've had threads on my board devoted to this subject too; I was interested in what the people here on this board have experienced. Just trying to liven it up around here.

Nobody has any stories to tell of people they've turned on to silents?

Oh I love that scene from Sparrows, hauntingly beautiful. I love parts of King of Kings and absolutely hate others. The parts suggesting Judas had an affair with Mary Magdalene are absolutely shocking to me. That's not in the Bible! I usually skip right over those parts. Other sections are beautiful though including the early Technicolor section of the resurrection.

Easter will soon be here. What a beautiful holiday it is, too! Which are your favorite silent films that touch upon the story of Jesus Christ, His birth, life, death and resurrection?

Good. I'm glad this thread was cleaned up by the administrator. Now let's get back to talking about silent films.

{...} Message was edited by: TCMWebAdmin Personal Attack