Component 2c: Essay

To what extent can it be said that your chosen film movement represents an expressionist as opposed to a realist approach to filmmaking? Make detailed reference to examples from the silent film or films you have studied. [20]

At the time of the creation of film, the world was less connected, so in each country, the new art form known as cinema developed differently. The conditions in various countries were also different and this influenced the way in which films were created; for example, Germany had experienced the loss of the First World War and this led to darker films in the style of German Expressionism. On the other hand, Russia had little access to film stock and this affected film production there, eventually leading to an editing-focused style known as Soviet Montage.

Both German Expressionism and Soviet Montage are expressive forms of cinema, but they utilise different aspects of film to achieve different effects. German Expressionism focuses on exaggerated mise-en-scéne and metaphors that the audience must interpret. It followed on from the Expressionist movements in art and poetry and became prominent in Germany after the isolation of the German film movement in 1916, when films from other countries were banned. In addition, all film companies in Germany were taken over by the government run UFA, which promoted German culture and could spread propaganda during the two world wars. The style is known for its unexpected camera angles and dramatic lighting techniques, which add to its distorted and nightmarish imagery. The Expressionists were not concerned with their work being aesthetically pleasing and the plots were often based on insanity or identity, being very dark in theme.

As opposed to the German Expressionist focus on mise-en-scéne, Soviet Montage heavily focuses on the power of editing. This initially occurred because the filmmakers in Russia had little raw film stock to work with, so instead they studied physical film, dissecting the stock in order to analyse it. One of these people was Lev Kuleshov, a teacher at the film school VGIK and the inventor of the Kuleshov effect, which alters the meaning of a shot using the surrounding shots. The montagists suggested that the ultimate meaning of film is derived from the way it is cut together: the order, duration, repetition and rhythm of shots. Soviet Montage focuses less on individuals and instead portrays collectivism, suitable for the communist country in which the films were being shown. The underlying belief of the montagists was in the power of editing, and they believed that the illusion should be obviously constructed, so the cuts should be visible to the audience. The audience must then draw meaning from the juxtaposition of the shots.

Realists, on the other hand, believed there should be no illusion, never mind an obviously constructed one. André Bazin, a critic who later wrote and categorised film styles into realism and expressionism, held a firm preference for the realist. He believed that film should not manipulate the audience; they should be allowed to see everything and choose what to focus on. Similar to expressionist film, this required active participation from the audience, but in a vastly different way. Bazin and the realists did not support cutting to focus attention and thought that a sequence should play out with as little interference from the filmmaker as possible. The realists also attempted to depict true reality, and cinema vérité was a film movement in the 1960s that placed its focus on being the purest form of realism.

Although Bazin categorised all directors from 1920-1940 into expressionists or realists because he was looking back on the history of film, the directors at the time were unaware of film in different countries and the various styles, as they were developing their styles in parallel, not in collaboration. This meant the directors were not actively aiming to produce either realist or expressionist films and, as a result, some directors ended up with elements of both in their films.

One such example is Buster Keaton, director, stuntsman and comic actor of the silent film era. His films often depict real problems that were faced at the time and he plays on these to turn them into jokes. However, part of what makes his films so entertaining is the exaggerated mise-en-scéne and other expressionist features.

A prime example of the exaggerated mise-en-scéne in Keaton’s films is the house in One Week; its jumbled and twisted nature acts as a metaphor for the husband’s incompetence at construction. At the very start of One Week, a bell is shown with ornate framing, symbolising the wedding that has just occurred and therefore acting as a shortcut to provide the audience with information more quickly.

Part of One Week seems to utilise Keaton’s experience in Vaudeville, and this is the sequence with the piano. It is very carefully choreographed and rather over-exaggerated, from the man delivering it carrying it with one hand, to Keaton being ‘crushed’ by the weight of it. Most of the performance in One Week is exaggerated for comic effect, such as Handy Hank’s villainous and angry behaviour. The calendar plays a key role in signalling the change in time to the audience and similar to the wedding bell, acts as a shortcut.

Although the house itself is an expressionist feature in the film, the concept of owning a piece of land reflects the American Dream. Additionally, pre-fabrication and flatpack housing was common at the time, as resources were not openly available in the newly settled West.

The film realistically portrays gender roles at the time, as the woman is shown to be cooking, whilst the husband builds their house. Some of the editing displays realist tendencies, as certain scenes are allowed to play out in a wide shot with no cutting, giving the audience the ability to choose what they focus on. At one point, the camera moves, not to direct the audience’s attention, but to follow the movement of Keaton down the ladder, which is again a realist feature.

Another of Keaton’s films, The Scarecrow, begins with realism, as it shows Keaton’s character to have toothache, which was a common problem faced at the time. This was due to the expense of dental care and the general lack of dental hygiene. The fear Keaton’s character experiences towards the dog is also realistic, as there was the possibility that dogs had rabies. However, although the actual problems were real, the way in which Keaton depicts them is slightly expressionist. The toothache is symbolised by sling around Keaton’s head, whilst his reaction to the dog is rather exaggerated, as is the dog’s desire to chase after him.

Similarly to the house in One Week, the house in The Scarecrow acts as a base for some of Keaton’s jokes and is expressionist in its style. The men swing food to each other on string and wheel a trolley back and forth on the table, which was not typical for households at the time. The men seem to be clever with what they have but do not have much, shown by gas meter that they put a coin into but extract again using a piece of string.

There is what would now be considered a glance object shot part way through The Scarecrow. The mother of the female love interest is shown to be reading a book, before the screen cuts to a shot of just the book, which is circularly framed. This focuses the audience’s attention, directing it towards what the mother is reading and does not fulfil realist aims to allow the audience to choose their focus without influence from the filmmaker.

The High Sign perhaps contains the least realist features out of Keaton’s films, as much of the plot and performance seems expressive. The presence of a gang is the most realist part; during the Prohibition Age, gang culture was on the rise. However, the representation of the gang is very expressionist, as the characters are rather caricature-like. They have pronounced make-up, creating a shadowy appearance, most have moustaches, they use a secret hand signal, and the leader is extremely tall, to make him seem even more intimidating and scary, especially in comparison to Keaton’s small stature.

One of the few realist features is Keaton’s use of the newspaper to find a job, because advertising in the newspaper was a common way to attract job-seekers for employers at the time. On the other hand, Keaton then turns the newspaper into a joke, as it is excessively large and his character struggles to unfold the whole paper. This is a prime example of Keaton using an everyday item and a generally realist concept and over-exaggerating it for comic effect, making it more expressionist than realist.

In contrast, Cops displays more realist features and could be considered a critique of aspects of society. As the name suggests, the film is about police officers, who are celebrated in a big parade, implying that a strict and heavily enforced society is seen as positive by the leading members of society. However, one character throws a bomb into the parade, hinting at the dissatisfaction that some members of society may have felt with the way that it was being run.

Class division is clear throughout the film: in the opening, Keaton’s character and his love interest are separated by a gate, she on the inside and he outside, suggesting that as a woman she is more confined, but also that money separates lovers in this society. Although the characters are physically and metaphorically separated, there is the possibility for social mobility, as Keaton’s character aims to earn enough money so that he can marry his lover. Unfortunately, Keaton does not ultimately succeed and instead his character dies at the end, perhaps suggesting that society believes there is potential for social mobility, but it can not actually be achieved, and the poor must eventually succumb to the will of those above them.

Adding to the perhaps negative but realistic portrayal of the rich, when Keaton’s character picks up a man’s wallet to inspect it and perhaps even return it, the man automatically assumes that Keaton was hoping to steal from him. The fact that the man drops the wallet in the first place could suggest that the rich are careless with their money, as they have an abundance of it, but are unwilling to share with those more in need.

Despite the character’s need to earn money, Keaton is never shown to work for it, instead trying to find quick and easy ways to convince his lover that he is successful. This could imply the laziness of the society and highly contrasts the American ideal of the ‘self-made man’.

Although the film seems largely realist, moments such as the chase sequence fit more within expressionism. The sheer number of police officers chasing after just Keaton’s character is unrealistic, but that is what makes it comical.

Overall, Keaton’s films do not aim to be either expressionist or realist, as these are not categories that were formed at the time of their creation. However, looking back at them, there are features of both in his films. The use of circular frames to direct the audience’s attention goes against the ideals of realism, and much of the comedy in his films is created by the exaggerated mise-en-scene, which characterises German Expressionism. On the other hand, some of his films can be said to address real social issues of the time, giving them a quality of realism. Therefore, it is difficult to cleanly categorise Keaton’s films as either realist or expressionist and the degree of realism or expressionism depends on the film. Although, as a promoter of the realist, Andre Bazin might have felt that Keaton’s films were not purely realist enough to be considered realism.

André Bazin: the Realist and the Expressionist

André Bazin was a French film theorist, who focused on the topics of Soviet Montage and German Expressionism. He was born in 1918 and began to write about film in 1943 and co-founded the magazine ‘Cahiers du cinéma’. Bazin much preferred Realism as a style and believed that film should try to accurately portray real life events. He believed that film should not manipulate the audience, they should be allowed to see everything and choose themselves what to focus on. Therefore, he did not believe in cutting to focus attention on certain things, instead the whole sequence should play out with as little interference from the filmmaker as possible.

He was a humanist, so believed that the idea precedes the invention and is therefore better than the technology used to create it. He saw cinema as inherently realistic and this places it above painting. Additionally, cinema captures the duration of an event, so is also better than photography. Each technological advancement he saw as a way for cinema to move closer to a realistic portrayal of the world. However, the jump from silent to sound cinema was not the “major evolutional point in film language”; this was the later 1940/41 aesthetic revolution.

Bazin grouped all directors from 1920-1940 into two groups: the imagists and the realists, the former basing their integrity in the image and the latter in reality. Within the imagists, there were two further groups: the ones who worked with plastics and the ones who worked with editing, also known as the montagists. The realists attempt to depict true reality by distorting neither time nor space.

With the end of the silent period, the two groups resulted in German Expressionism (the groups who worked with plastics) and Soviet Post-Revolution cinema (the montagist group). The introduction of sound changed editing by moving it from symbolic to dramatic, and thus it moved towards realism.

By 1939, most of the technical innovations had been achieved, and instead it was a thematic advancement that occurred. This was the arrival of the mise-en-scéne style. The imagists had also been overtaken by the realists, after the imagists had previously dominated prior to the 1940s.

Bazin also wrote on montage, listing only three motives for cutting. He opposed dramatic cutting to add emphasis with simplistic scenes, but also opposed expressive editing removing the freedom of the audience to choose meaning in more complicated scenes, in which multiple meanings could be taken. Overall, he felt the mise-en-scéne style should be favoured over deceitful montage.

Cops

Below are Realist and Expressive features of the film Cops (Buster Keaton, 1922).

Realist features:

• The male and female characters are separated by a gate, she is on the inside and is better off than him – the gate represents class division, but there is social mobility in the society, because she is still willing to marry him as long as he earns money
• Keaton’s character picks up the wallet of a rich man, so the film is critiquing society and the theft that takes place within it
• Alternatively, it could be said to be critiquing the carelessness of rich people, as Keaton’s character does not actively steal the wallet, he merely picks it up and inspects it
• The rich man automatically assumes Keaton’s character is stealing the wallet – he thinks badly of people below him in society
• Then the rich man gets into a taxi, expecting the car driver to be ready to serve him
• The whole film is mainly focused on money and greed from those such as the man sat on the street who ‘sells’ the furniture to Keaton’s character, much like society is
• The man on the street who gets money from Keaton’s character is also reflective of corruption, he is motivated purely by money and not morals
• A rabid dog bites Keaton without being provoked, linking to the crazy dog in The Scarecrow and the possibility of rabies in dogs at the time
• The horse that pulls the cart is dangerously thin and its ribs can be seen, this shows the mistreatment of animals and the lack of concern for their welfare – they were used as modes of transport and not treated with care, over-worked and abused
• The police parade shows a celebration and promotion of enforcers of the law – a strict and regulated society is seen to be positive
• At the parade, the more important people have better seats, showing their is still hierarchy in society
• An anarchist throws a bomb into the streets, suggesting not everyone is satisfied with society and the way it is run

Expressive features:

• Keaton makes exaggerated attempts to fit a vase in a suitcase, which is absurd
• A circular frame is placed around the ‘goat gland specialist’ sign to focus the audience’s attention on what it says
• Keaton’s characters picks up the bomb and takes a moment to light his cigarette with it before throwing it away, not a usual reaction for when someone sees a bomb
• The chaos that ensues is perhaps a tad over-exaggerated, as everyone runs and it goes crazy
• The chase sequence is also a bit ridiculous, the sheer number of police officers who chase after Keaton’s character is unrealistic
• The tilting ladder, upon which Keaton sits, acts as a see-saw as it rocks back and forth, with police officers jumping up to grab him
• An extreme number of police officers run through the double doors – not all of them would be able to fit in there
• The fact that Keaton’s character also faces his punishment by going back through the double doors, where all the police officers lie in wait for him, is perhaps more noble than one would expect and therefore a little unrealistic

Conclusion:

This film addresses more societal issues than some of Keaton’s other films; for example, the hierarchical structure and the supposed ability to move up it,but at the end, Keaton’s character never manages to marry the woman, despite his best attempts to obtain money. Animals are also used to make points in this film – the horse is mistreated and the dog is rabid. There is still some ridiculousness for comic effect, such as the number of policemen and the scene with Keaton rocking back and forth on the ladder.

The High Sign

Below are Realist and Expressive features in the film The High Sign (Buster Keaton, 1920).

Realist features:

• Keaton’s character looks for a job in the newspaper and finds an advert – this would have been a common and easy way to find a job back then
• He practises his aim by shooting at glass bottles, which would have been a popular activity
• The presence of a criminal gang in the film shows the rise of gang culture in America during the Prohibition Age – dodgy dealings were very frequent
• The wealthy man who is at risk lives in a nice house and has a butler, which was likely at the time

Expressive features:

• The newspaper is ridiculously large, so Keaton is making a joke by taking a real thing and over-exaggerating it to the point that it becomes absurd
• A close-up of the newspaper focuses our attention on what the advert says
• The man whose bottles Keaton shoots performs in an exaggerated way, by laughing and then jumping in pain and grabbing his rear-end when he has been shot
• The villain has very pronounced make-up to show that he is shadowy and evil
• He is also very large in stature, making him seem intimidating and scary
• When he points at the calendar on the wall, everyone turns and looks, before a close-up of the calendar to indicate the date that they are looking at
• All the gang wear hats and most have moustaches, they meet in a small, discreet room and use a secret hand-signal – all exaggerations of what a gang would look like/do
• The use of the skull in the initiation ceremony symbolises the death and evilness caused by the gang he is joining
• Keaton paints a hook on the wall and then hangs his hat on it, which is an impossible trick
• The trapdoors that the rich man has in his house represent his need to escape, but would not necessarily have existed in the house of someone similar at the time
• In the teacup, a horse is shown to reflect the fact that Keaton’s character has been drugged and is hallucinating
• The gang display an over-exaggerated reaction of joy to the rich man’s death and do their secret hand gesture as a group
• One of the villains gets his head trapped in a door, which is unrealistic
• The set is theatrical and like that of a doll’s house, but it can only be fully seen from a certain angle

Conclusion:

There are fewer Realist features in this film, because the story over-exaggerates the gang, making the characters seem very villainous in appearance and do actions that gangs probably wouldn’t have done at the time. However, during the Prohibition Age, there was the existence of gangs.

The Scarecrow

Below are Realist and Expressionist features in the film The Scarecrow (Buster Keaton, 1920).

Realist features:

• Toothache was a common problem at the time, as many people did not have good dental hygiene or regular access to a dentist
• A frequently suggested solution was/is tying string to a door and pulling out the achy tooth that way
• At the time, men often had pictures of women they loved and were going to marry, so as to always keep them in mind until they were together
• The gas meter shows that the two men have limited funds and cannot afford permanent central heating, which many people would have experienced then
• Like in his other film, there is a piano in this Keaton film, an aspirational object to have in the home
• The camera stays on the room in a wide shot, even after the characters have left, allowing the audience to choose what to focus on, instead of directing their attention
• Keaton’s character is scared of a dog and runs away from it, which seems comical, but dogs were likely to have rabies at the time, so his fear is justified and realistic
• Dancing was a common pastime for women and the female character is part of a dancing society
• Scarecrows were a technique used to scare away birds and had to be relied upon because there was little other farming technology to do the job

Expressionist features:

• The sun goes up to show the time of day and represent the dawning of a new day, but it is not realistic, as it moves across the sky very quickly
• The sling around Keaton’s head is a trope and symbolises his toothache
• The whole house is carefully constructed and is compact, with every space utilised and containing multiple purposes, suggesting that the two men do not have much and are just getting by, without a woman to make their house a home
• The house symbolises just living with what you need, but the multi-functions of every piece of furniture takes their minimalistic living to an exaggerated extreme
• The coin that they put into the meter is on string so they can pull it out, suggesting that they have a simple life and do not have much money, whilst also reinforcing their craftiness
• They have seasoning/utensils on string so they can throw them to each other, which is highly unrealistic
• The bigger male character shoves a whole piece of food into his mouth, implying that he is fat and greedy
• The circular framed shot of the book shows what the mother is looking at, as it is implied by the previous shot and it focuses our attention
• There are bottles with basic labels that say what they are, but their simplicity is unrealistic
• There is parallel editing of Keaton’s character and the dog so we can see what they are both doing at the same time
• One of the characters looks at the camera, breaking the 4th wall

Conclusion:

The film addresses some common problems at the time, such as toothache and dogs with rabies, but the house, like in One Week, does not accurately reflect houses at the time, as it is very specifically crafted for the comedic purposes of the film.

One Week

Below are Realist and Expressionist features of the film One Week (Buster Keaton, 1920).

Realist features:

• The film addresses the idea of the American Dream – being able to own your own piece of land and have a house
• Pre-fabrication (flatpack housing) was very common at the time as it was a quick way of building and local resources did not have to be obtained, useful if there were few resources in the area
• The film conforms to gender roles at the time – the woman makes breakfast whilst the man constructs the house
• There is a wide shot during the piano sequence, in which the whole thing plays out in a wide shot with no cuts, allowing the audience to choose what they focus on instead of being manipulated by the filmmaker
• Later, the camera movement is motivated by Keaton’s movement down the ladder, following him instead of directing the audience where to look
• There is a piano in the house, an aspirational item at the time, showing the regularity of the couple portrayed
• A glass milk bottle is shown and as the wife pierces the film, milk splashes in her face, a very common event at the time and a small everyday struggle for people to deal with
• In the bath, the wife drops the slippery bar of soap, again, a common problem that people were used to at the time
• The couple have a house-warming and invite guests round to show off their house, reflecting the neighbour rivalry at the time, in which neighbours and friends compete with each other to have better houses and possessions
• A steam train rolls along, destroying the house, and this mode of transport was very important and relevant at the time

Expressionist features:

• A bell is used at the start as a symbolic image to represent the wedding that has just occurred
• There is ornate framing around the bell and the whole shot is used as a shortcut to tell the audience what is going on without having to show them to whole event
• The whole film contains over-exaggerated theatrical performances, such as that of the jealous and angry Handy Hank
• The couple switches cars, climbing over whilst still driving – a dangerous and unrealistic action, done for comic effect
• Certain shots are framed with a circular frame to direct the audience’s attention to a specific item, thus manipulating them and not allowing them to choose what to focus on themselves
• The calendar is used as a tool to signal the passing of time in a quick and easy way
• An example of the over-exaggerated acting is when Buster Keaton’s character comically hits a nail on the head with unnecessary force and repetition to show his construction work
• There is parallel editing moving between what the wife is doing and what the husband is doing
• The house itself is an example of exaggerated mise-en-scène and its twisted, jumbled nature acts as a metaphor for the husband’s construction incompetence – the front even flips over, showing it is attached the wrong way round
• A man arrives at the house to deliver a piano, holding it up in his arms by himself, implying that he is incredibly strong, especially in comparison to Keaton, who drops the piano
• The entire piano sequence is like a carefully choreographed Vaudeville performance
• Keaton climbs up on a chandelier, showing his athleticism
• The house is unrealistic and bigger on the inside than it is shown to be on the outside
• The carpet sinks with Handy Hank still sat on the chair, it is cartoon-like
• Exaggerated heaviness of the piano is shown by the piano going through the floor
• An iris shot signals that it is the end of a day and scene; this is followed by the calendar changing to the next day
• The actress looks at the camera whilst she is in the bath, breaking the fourth wall and stopping the suspension of disbelief as she is directly interacting with the audience
• A hand, not from the world of the film, covers the screen, imply the female character’s nudity and ‘protecting’ it
• The camera cuts from Keaton’s hand holding the umbrella, to the leaky roof, shifting the audience’s attention to the cause of the water droplets
• The house swivels round in the wind, another example of exaggerated mise-en-scène
• The weather is symbolic of their misfortune – it is pouring with rain and the wind is howling
• Buster Keaton picks up a horseshoe, ironically a lucky symbol
• When the camera cuts to the calendar again, the next day is Friday 13th, a stereotypically superstitious and unlucky day
• The wreckage of the house is also over-exaggeratedly a mess

Conclusion:

The house in this film is one of the best examples of exaggerated mise-en-scène, a feature borrowed from German Expressionism. The premise of the film is largely realistic, in terms of the house construction by the male character, but the performance is over-exaggerated for comic effect, and there are other unrealistic aspects or points when the camera is used to manipulate the audience, instead of allowing them to choose where to focus their attention.

Buster Keaton: Silent Clown

Joseph Frank Keaton, better known by his stage name Buster Keaton was one of the most famous silent comedy stars. Not only was he an actor, comedian and stunt performer in front of the camera, but also a writer, producer and director behind it. He performed incredibly dangerous stunts and managed to do so with a comically deadpan expression that earned him the nickname “The Great Stone Face”.

In his younger years, Keaton formed part of a Vaudeville act with both of his parents called “The Three Keatons”. He was thrown about the stage by his father and this helped him develop his ability to land well, without injuring himself.

Keaton first appeared on film in The Butcher Boy, having met Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle in 1917. He appeared in 14 of Arbuckle’s shorts, but then moved on to starring in full-length feature films, such as The Saphead in 1920. He was given his own production unit and churned out several two-reelers, before making his own full-length features.

His stunts were extremely dangerous, and he once broke his neck during a scene in Sherlock Jr., but did not even realise until some years later. Another of his famous and dangerous stunts was in Steamboat Bill Jr., in which Keaton had to stand on a certain spot so that the front of a building fell, leaving only a small window space for him to stay stood up, with his recognisable deadpan expression.

His signing with MGM in 1928 marked the end of his creative independence along with the end of the silent era, but despite the fact that he had to use a stunt double for some of the more dangerous scenes, Keaton continued to make popular films. He started making films in France, before returning to Hollywood in 1934. He continued to be involved in the film industry for many years, and began to re-release his films in 1954 with the help of his third wife, Eleanor, and the film programmer Raymond Rohauer. He finally died in 1966, at the age of 70.

Creating Meaning – German Expressionism and Soviet Montage

Silent Cinema: Stars and Studios in the States

In 1895, cinema in a form that we would recognise today came into existence. This first majorly successful system was created by the Lumière brothers, although no single person or group was responsible for a spontaneous invention of cinema, it was a gradual process with many contributions from various people around the world. Cinema was a new art form to be experimented with and nobody had entire control over it; people were free to do with this discovery what they wanted.

Throughout the early years of film, the results were widely different from country to country; however, they were all limited in what they could do by the realities of the technology. America settled on rolls of film that were about 8-12 minutes long and chose to create narrative films that were two reels of this film, earning them the nickname ‘two-reelers’. As a result, these narrative films were around 16-24 minutes long and were largely in the form of comedy or romance. Due to technology at the time, however, they were black and white and silent, as the problems aroused by sound synchronicity had not yet been solved.

After WWI, the film industry more closely resembled today than the travelling fairs of before and film in America became viewed as what it is today: popular entertainment for everyone, not just the elite. On the other hand, in other countries at the time, film was an elitist medium, an art form that required a certain degree of privilege, rather than a popular/broad form. It had to be supported by government subsidies and was therefore without commercial interests.

Meanwhile, back in America, the early 1900s brought about the beginning of the studio system that dominated production and churned out films at a pace. The studios competed, trying to attract the best stars, make the best films and, consequently, make the most money. The movie studies wielded enormous power and, to some extent, even controlled the stars that they helped to create.

The rise of the studio system was accompanied by the rise of the ‘star system’. This was a group of actors who became powerful through the attractiveness of them to the studios: funny men or glamorous women acted in popular films, so were then paid more for their next film in the hope that it would draw crowds and be even more successful.

Names that stood out as some of these big stars were: Charlies Chaplin, the duo Laurel and Hardy, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd. These men were some of the most successful and well-remembered of their time and were early comedy actors in the USA.

In the stars, certain qualities were admired and valued, including humour, bravery and athleticism. At the time, films were often about risky but funny situations, such as climbing up the side of a building. This was a particularly common plot choice, perhaps because it reflected the urban age/environment in which the films were made.

With the lack of sound, inter-titles were used as a compromise, a way to suggest the dialogue between characters or set the scene and explain what was currently occurring on-screen. Another feature of silent cinema, which is still mimicked today, was the iris shot at the start and end, similar to an eye contracting and signalling that the film was beginning or finishing. Certain editing techniques that are commonplace now originated during this period; for example, the glance object shot.

The industries in different countries were not competing, but growing up in parallel. However, once they did move together, as cinema became more accessible across the world, the American model was favoured; although, some techniques from other countries live on.

Extra information on some of the aforementioned great comedy stars in the USA is given below:

Charlie Chaplin

Charlie Chaplin was an English actor who moved to America in order to make his name on the silent film scene. Prior to his move to America, Chaplin had lived in a workhouse from the age of 9 and then began performing at a young age to pull himself out of poverty. By the age of 19, he was signed to the Fred Karno company, and he was then scouted for the film industry, appearing in films for Keystone Studios from 1914. In 1919, he founded his own company, United Artist and had complete control over his own films. His first full film was The Kid, released in 1921, and he released numerous silent films after that. He was reluctant to move to sound, but eventually made The Great Dictator in 1940, a satire about Adolf Hitler. His decline came in the 1940s, although he continued to produce, direct and star in his own films. He died in 1977, aged 88 and living in Switzerland with his fourth wife, Oona O’Neill (36 years his junior) and their 8 children.

Laurel and Hardy

Laurel and Hardy were the slapstick comedy duo made up of English Stan Laurel and American Oliver Hardy, who first met working on the 1921 film The Lucky Dog. Then, the were both in a 1926 short film together and ended up signing separate contracts with Hal Roach. It was in 1927 that they became a team, appearing in the short film Putting Pants on Philip together. From then until 1940, they were signed to Hal Roach’s studio, but worked on films for 20th Century Fox and MGM afterwards. By 1944, they were nearly finished with the film industry and chose to focus on stage shows, touring around the UK. However, in 1950, they made their final film, Atoll K. More recently, a biopic was released about them in 2018, called Stan and Ollie, depicting the later part of their relationship.

Harold Lloyd

Harold Lloyd was an American performer and comedian, who was well-known for his thrill sequences and stunts. He was born in 1893 and moved to California with his father in 1910. His childhood acting was based in theatre, but after his move to California, he started in the film industry. He first worked with Thomas Edison’s company, before acting in Keystone Film Company comedies at around the age of 20. Similarly to Laurel and Hardy, he became friends with Hal Roach and worked with Roach’s studio. Lloyd worked with actress Bebe Daniels from 1914-1919, but once she left, he replaced her with Mildred Davis, whom he later married and had 2 children with, in addition to adopting a daughter together. In his work, he became more of an ‘everyman’ character, leaving behind his ‘Chaplinesque’ character “Lonesome Luke”. He made around 200 films in total and died in 1971, at the age of 77.