[Closed] So why were silent films silent?

Recording the sound was the issue. The equipment of the time was just not sensitive or directional enough to gather any useable audio without it being in shot and awful quality.

Syncing issues was a little more than minor.

How did they record grammaphone records then? Even if it was all done in studios they could have done the speach bit later, much as they would a foreign-language dubbing nowadays.

With regards to sync problems, did the films/records always play at the same speed or were projectors/grammphones a bit inconsistant?

Have you ever watched a silent movie?

Do you think people in early 1900s all walked at 10 miles an hour and with the odd pause?

On the iPhone so having to keep this briefer than I would like, but the techological reasons were just one factor. The cost and time needed to do a separate dub for the audio, which would be out of sync and sound like shit anyways, was not conducive to the way the early film industry was set up. Bang out films quick was the motto.

But back to the tech reasons, hopefully this link works:

[url= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IXZ8ROuUlBMC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq= ]Technological limitations that prevented sound in early films linky [/url]

There was no need for sound as in those days as actors could act - their expressions and body language told the audience all they needed to know. Any further information could easily be conveyed by aesthetically pleasing handwritten notices. Besides, every cinema had a piano which would have drowned out any recorded dialogue. The industry started going down the pan when the Silent Talkies were introduced [i]imo[/i].

Of course, when there is no sound it doesn't matter how much noise the cinema-goer made. This must have been when someone thought popcorn was a good idea.

andrewh, I don't know how old you are but, fairly recently, people accepted the 'magic' that was the internet and embraced it. I don't know if you ever experienced 'silent' dialup connections, or if you are a child of 'technicolor stereophonic' broadband. All pioneering technology has it's teething problems.

The grammaphone came along before the 'movie' so why not record the sound track/speach element onto a grammaphone record and set it playing at the same the projector started playing the film?
Possible minor sync issues but otherwise they could have had talkies years before.

[i]Do you think people in early 1900s all walked at 10 miles an hour and with the odd pause? [/i]

It was a different world then and no mistake. Everyone always in a rush but always with a strong philosophical thought running through their mind which would often make them stop and think, even when filming a movie.

If it's that easy, let's see you do it.

To be fair, the moment has passed...........with modern technology as it is.

I do salute you for raising an interesting topic, andrewh! 🙂

I do salute you for raising an interesting topic, andrewh!

Indeed. So much better than some of the recent bullshit threads of late.

actually the technology existed for perfectly fine audio on the films as the sync issues were sorted out as early as 1894. The problem was a lot of the aspiring actors came from either Birmingham or Newcastle, so after the Hollywood bigwigs heard the quality of the speech being recorded they said sod it, and stuck to bits of card with the writing scribbled on.
The quality/ sync issue was then just thrown up as a cover up hoping that by the time people realised what was happening, there would be the tech available to get rid of the terrible nasal whining that passed for dailogue. Unfortunately we are still waitng for this technology to be developed.

Time was being captured by these technologies. People were fearful it was their souls!

pmsl, MicArms!

actually the technology existed for perfectly fine audio on the films as the sync issues were sorted out as early as 1894. The problem was a lot of the aspiring actors came from either Birmingham or Newcastle, so after the Hollywood bigwigs heard the quality of the speech being recorded they said sod it, and stuck to bits of card with the writing scribbled on.

The advent of sound did practically finish off Buster Keaton's career fwiw.

Check out the waveform on the film! I want to know why I was still using Reel to Reel tape as late as 1999!

[img] [/img]

There also became a marketing element. Chaplin's the Tramp character was recognisable in any country as someone seen and loveable, local and almost personal. If he spoke in a certain language or way there would possibly be a reduced market. It was such a problem for Chaplin he even make a silent film when they had started to make talkies, which was quite a gamble. When the tramp did finally speak he used a made up language so he was not specific.
Here is the memorable occasion.

fantastic film too and worth a look if you've never seen it 🙂

I used to teach Film Studies you know! Lot's of folk used to say to me 'what use is teaching that subject?' Ha, idiots, I'll bet they wished they'd spent 12 hours a week for 2 years studying it now, they'd of know the answers to answer, and know the similarities between John Forn and George Lucas!

Well maybe not. But mostly It's a technology issue. As stated. Recordeig sounnd back in the day was very tough, as was syncing it with image - as both were developed exclusivley. I liked the old pionist thing, awesome. You have to also take into account the fact that photo's (still imnages) had only just been introduced to the public, adding sound to the moving images was a world away from what we know now as film today, it just had not been thought of. Sound in the day was recorded on wax cyclinders, so hard to amplify and sync with a 35mm projection, mic's/recording and the like were very rudimentary.

Good question thou, not like the usual questions like 'what tyres for The great train robery 'etc'.

am i right in thinking that howard hughes shot hells angels as a silent movie, it took so long to make that in the meantime technology had advanced and by the time it was ready for release silent movies were oboslete. he re-shot the whole movie with sound but had to replace his leading lady as she looked the part but sounded awful!

There was no need for sound as in those days as actors could act

Well that wasn't the reason at all.

It certainly [i]was[/i] the reason. In those days actors were committed to their profession. In later years actors became lazy and needed technical props such as "sound" to convey feelings and emotions to their audiences. Have you [i]actually[/i] seen a film from that period ? The audience is left in no doubt as to the fear and terror the principal female might feel, or just how villainous the villain actually is......and all that without the need of any sound. As I said, it all went pear shaped with the introduction of the
silent-talkies.

You should have seen the actors before pictures were added to film!
People would turn up to the cinema, they'd start the blank film and actors really had to be good to convey their emotions just from the billboard.

You should have seen the actors before pictures were added to film

Ah yes of course........the Hand Shadow Shows.

Before it was all spoilt with the introduction of the magic lantern 😐

Yes. I remember it well.

And proper entertainment it were too.......never were three farthings better spent.

You can poke the X Factor .....give me good ol'fashion entertainment any day.

Sound is so much part of film these days that we take it for granted, arguably its half the film now. If you watch films from even 20- 30 years ago you can be puzzled by how much stillness and silence there is. These days we're so short attention-spanned that we need the constant noise, movement and flashing lights.

In the early days of cinema people could make more of less, an awful lot of entertainment could be made from expression and action - if you'd had talking too the story would be over in 10 minutes. But in the days when people worked harder at being entertained and were happy to have one exchange stretched out the way they are in the old silent pictures.

I met a guy from the Magic Lantern Society who are reviving the art of Lantern Shows - extremely lowtech powerpoint presentations - evocative images brought to life with engaging story telling. But when Magic Lanterns were the big thing people really could tell stories - you could get 2 hours of drama out of 8 or 9 slides. But these days even enthusiast would struggle to get 10 minutes for that. Its not a skill we have anymore, either as auteur or audience.

Do you think people in early 1900s all walked at 10 miles an hour and with the odd pause?

they didn't?

IanMunro - Member
You should have seen the actors before pictures were added to film!
People would turn up to the cinema, they'd start the blank film and actors really had to be good to convey their emotions just from the billboard.
POSTED 3 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST