nourishing obscurity

The movie buff might tell you that the reason silents seemed so jerky in their action was because they were shot at 16 fps and modern machines have been standardized at 24 fps.  Actually, the truth is a bit different and you can get an inkling of this from this 1923 article by one Victor Milner ASC who was debunking another supposed expert who had said:

[By Mr. Richardson] There is, and in the very nature of things can be, no such thing as a ‘standard camera speed.’ This is for the reason that light intensity varies enormously, and especially when out on ‘location,’ with an expensive company and an enormous overhead expense, the cameraman will, under adverse light conditions, use as large a lens opening as is practicable and slow down as much as he can, in order to obtain sufficient exposure. Conversely, when the light is strong the tendency is to speed up. This is something which will in all human probability be entirely overcome.”

Milner retorted:

The average camera speed is two turns per second, or one foot of film per second. There are approximately 16 images per foot, and the above speed is used invariably, and projection should be at this speed except in scenes where the tempo of the action requires speeding up of the objects, as, for example, in a fight scene. “Average” speed in this case would be too slow.

In comedy various speeds are used from normal to stop motion, in order to obtain desired effects. Of course if a projectionist speeds up to 100, where the scene was shot at 60, in order to get through with the show, no human eye will be able to stand the strain of watching objects moving at that speed. It will ruin every effort made by the producer, director and staff to put their best efforts before the public.

From that, he was was not disputing the variable speed itself [although he recommends it be kept at "approximately" 16 fps] but rather Richardson’s assertion that the light was the reason.  The bottom line though, for our elucidation today, was that films were handcranked, there were occasions when it would be sped up or slowed down for effect.

Even worse:

The Essanay Film Company of Chicago tried to beat wily exhibitors by printing the running time of the films on the posters. The exhibitors retaliated by pasting a strip of paper over the line. Some unscrupulous theatre managers could get through a full reel in six minutes! Ten minutes was acknowledged to be ‘more usual’. Yet, even today, on standard 24 fps sound projectors, 1,000 feet takes eleven minutes …

It’s fascinating reading these stories about the issues which dominated in those early days of commercial movie theatres:

‘There is no hard and fast rule that can be laid down governing speed,’ said Moving Picture World (9 May 1908, p. 413). ‘It may, however, be said that 70 feet per minute is about as fast as a film should be run under any circumstances, with 45 as the limit the other way. Slower than 40 feet would not be safe. In general, the film should be run at the speed that will produce a minimum of flicker, combined with the lifelike, natural motion of the figures…

It is as likely as not that the speed should be changed several times in different portions of the same film. With most standard machines, one turn of the crank runs off exactly one foot of film, so that normal speed is about 66 turns of the crank per minute, and by counting turns you know just how fast you are running.’

So it was by no means the case that the film and therefore the action in it ran at the speed intended by the one who shot it.  Indeed, within the one film it could vary considerably.  D.W. Griffith’s instructions for Home Sweet Home (1914) recommended:

16 minutes for the first reel (16.6 fps), 14-15 minutes for the second (17.8-19 fps), and 13-14 for each of the other reels (19-20.5 fps). ‘The last reel, however, should be run slowly from the beginning of the allegorical part to the end’ ( Moving Picture World, 20 June 1914 p. 652). ‘The projectionist,’ said Griffith, ‘in a large measure is compelled to redirect the photoplay.’

The comic effect

As most of you know and as Wiki says:

The visual quality of silent movies — especially those produced during the 1920s — was often extremely high. However, there is a widely held misconception that these films were primitive and barely watchable by modern standards.

This misconception is due to technical errors (such as films being played back at wrong speed) and due to the deteriorated condition of many silent films (many silent films exist only in second or even third generation copies which were often copied from already damaged and neglected film stock).

Forget the talkies says:

There were 3 eras of silent film, leading to a major misconception about quality. The first era was the flickers, which lasted from 1900-1915. These were one reel (10 mins or so) films that had simple plots and began very crudely but evolved with the years especially thanks to D.W. Griffith. During this time actors were thought disposable and plot as an afterthought. 1915-1923 ushered in the feature (which had existed for a few years but was really brought into its own by Birth of a Nation) which began more experimenting and longer but still slightly clunky films (mind you they were inventing this new medium at that time!).

By 1923 films began to become more refined and until the majority of silent films ended in 1928 these were some of the finest films ever made. It would take talkies several decades to reach the same greatness as these films. These films are much like watching a modern film, there is no talking but they are so refined they are easy to enjoy.

And so the quest goes on for good prints of the original nitrates, a forlorn task.

Filed under: Politics & economics