Ramonaについてのディスカッション
ディスカッションする → 映画 → Ramona → 全般
D.W. Griffith landmark film from 1910
genplant29STAFFMODによって2023年12月29日の2:57 PMに投稿
This short (16.5 mins.) Silent film tries pretty hard to impress (which is evident and appreciated), but ultimately fails to seriously engage or emotionally much register. The broad over-acting (by great actors who pretty soon thereafter learned to dial it way back and perform otherwise) is OTT to the extreme in places, terrific actor Henry B. Walthall (who I've long been a fan of) looks, and is, by 1910, no longer young enough to seem right as young Alessandro, Ramona's precise relationship to the Moreno matriarch is never made clear (supposedly, per what I've read, is adoptive child, though the script never in any type way states that), and the ending is much too abrupt. Also, both Alessandro and Felipe are bland doormats in this film, who do little more than get walked all over.
Therefore, this short movie winds up being mainly about Ramona (who much of the time comes off looking more Turkish than Spanish or Indian) leaving one world for another, and her ensuing hardships and tragedies, as well as racial injustice.
In the plusses column, meanwhile, we have wonderful Billy Bitzer cinematography, terrific location filming, beautiful costuming, and high production values for 1910.
Griffith touted this as the most expensive film ever made up to that point. Meanwhile, it's the first film ever to pay ($100 in 1910 USD) and on-screen credit author of literary source, and on-screen identify location of where filmed (in this movie's case Camulos, Ventura Co., CA, which apparently is also where the source novel is set).
I - as do most Silent film aficionados - rate this movie 5/10, as clearly it tries, and quality's unmistakably on the screen for its production year, though ultimately the sum of the film's parts don't come together successfully or satisfyingly for 21st century viewing.
This stars 18-year-old Mary Pickford and 32-year-old (though looking 45 or thereabouts) Henry B. Walthall; their chemistry with one another is non-existent.
Nice try, but isn't a film I'll include on my Silent keepers list. (I'll of course, however, keep the complete National Film Preservation Foundation superb 48-films DVDs boxed set it's included on one of the discs of.)
The restored film (devoid of any audio at this YouTube posting)
Please check out the following list of titles and celebrities I've created TMDb threads for: https://www.themoviedb.org/list/118052
DRDMovieMusingsからの返信
投稿：2023年12月29日 3:22 PM
Is the "broad over-acting" even moreso than the average for the era?
[I'll explain what I mean below, not for yourself or those who are quite aware of the matter, but for those who may not have read or otherwise thought about it]
There's been plenty of discussion, here on TMDb and out there in wider cinefile conversations, about how the technology and paradigm shift of the talkies changed acting. Coming from theatre with no close ups and no amplification, stage actors had to "project" in order for audiences stretching to the back of the theatre to get all what was happening on stage.
Microphones, cameras and an audience that was not watching live but watching a screen, allowed for actors' subtle facial expressions and voices to be picked up, which supported much more realistic acting, since people in real life do often whisper, or speak with just subtle body language.
Babylon did a terrific job of capturing the tumult of the transition. And, in Sunset Boulevard, the grandiose posturing of femme fetale Norma Desmond satirized the silent era style to a macabre degree.
Other than that, I'll admit my disdain for D. W. Griffith far outweighs any admiration for his work, making it difficult for me to discuss his work objectively.