Musicology and the Presentation of Silent Film Author(s): Philip C. Carli Source: Film History, Vol. 7, No. 3, Film Preservation and Film Scholarship (Autumn, 1995), pp. 298-321 Published by: Indiana University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3815096 . Accessed: 15/06/2011 09:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Film History. http://www.jstor.org FilmHistory, Volume 7, pp. 298-321, 1995. Copyright?John Libbey& Company ISSN:192-2160. Printedin GreatBritain Ir i ilof- PhilipC. Carli Mus lusicologists, musicians and film those of my musicologicaland filmcolleagues, but scholarsare, to a large extent, un- with modernstandards of taste and scholarshipas aware of theirinteraction and com- well. My irrepressiblypopulist loves fight intellec- mon ground in silent film/music tually with my scholarly training and instinctive restoration.The aesthetic of the performeris strong sense of qualityand artisticworth, so thatwriting in both a person playing for a silent film and a thispaper has been a monumentaleffort in produc- persondescribing, restoring or presentinga silent ing a text that is both compatiblewith my pref- film, and there are points where personal aes- erences and a considered studyof the subjectat theticscollide or have differingagendas. Personal hand. taste in silent film accompanimentis as decided Thebest termfor my aesthetic approach to film and strongas a love of chocolate or a hatredof accompaniment,given the two threads I have to pickled beets, and often considered to be as un- reconcile, is 'scholarly emotionalism'. In truth, communicable;however, the passionate antipa- emotionalismdrives much historio/aestheticcriti- thies expressed to particularfilms or the music cism, as the fiction writer'sdictum 'write about associated with themoften involvespartial educa- what you know' translatesto scholarlywriting's tion. Musicologistsfeel certain films are stinkers 'write about what you care about'. In scholarly without realizing the differing culturaland aes- etiquette, however, footnotes are normally theticcriteria peculiar to differentschools of film- preferredto enthusiasticjudgements of taste. Bear making, and film scholars hate certain scores with me. This paper seeks to delineate instances withoutunderstanding their period effectiveness or where musicalscholarship, alongside of taste and theirappeal in differentperformance approaches. physical materials, may be of help in under- In termsof presentation,this conflictof educated standing,presenting and preservingsilent film. tastes can interferewith mutualagreement, to the The issue of personaltaste is becoming more detrimentof the performedproduct. importantas the numberof silentfilm presentations This article is a synthesisof many of my re- and venues for filmaccompaniment grows. Fifteen searches and interestswith a look at trendsin the years ago, silentfilm screenings were uncommon, accompanimentof silentfilms. It is notstrictly about and elaborate musical accompaniments even musicologyand film historyper se, because the two disciplineshave so manyfeatures in common, and these featuresin turnoverlap into less clearly markedterritories of musicin general and film in general. At base, historio-aestheticdisciplines that work with performancearts have muchcommon ground.As an historicalperformer, I mustadmit to personaltastes that not only conflictat times with MusicologyMuiooyadth and the presentationrsnainofsln of silent film im9 299 rarer.Now, the presentationof a silent film with the culturethat originally produced silent films, and live musicalaccompaniment is stilla 'special occa- we could be forced to overplaya few 'box office' sion', butmore on the accountof expense or venue films through sheer economics. In point of fact, than actual scarcity. Therehave been panels on there is stillno way to effectivelyconvince a mod- film accompaniment,festivals with special atten- ern general audience of the viabilityof the 'little tion to the pairingof musicand image (Cinemem- pictures'that made up the bulkof silentfilm produc- oire, Paris; the Strasbourg Film Festival), and tion and which constitutethe largestgroup of ex- festivals which make the most of special 'guest' tant materials; modern audiences not only rely accompanists(Bill Pence and the Telluridefestival; upon a certain element of star recognition(Lon the Pordenonefestival)1. Chaney, GretaGarbo, DouglasFairbanks) but on Silentfilm has resurgedto the point where it an expectationof being dazzled in some way. Itis has become verynearly a majorperformance form much easier to sell a grotesque fantasy such as again, an exercise where money, reputationsand Phantomof the Opera (1925), or even a lesser egos can be made to an appreciable extent knownadventure film like Old Ironsides(1926) or (thoughit is still hard to make a living at it). This The Sea Hawk (1926), than a smaller-scalepro- comes through in the sheer number of perfor- ductionlike SmoulderingFires (1925) or Regener- mances each year2 and in the dependence of cer- ation (1915) (questions of rarity aside). Is the tain venues on silent film presentationswith live upsurgein silentfilm presentations an encouraging musicas a noveltyor a special event. Many sym- sign of greater cultural awareness among the phonyorchestras now have one or moresilent film cinema- and symphony-going public, or will it eventseach year, a situationwhich simplydid not prove merely a novelty, to be pursueduntil the exist ten years ago. short attentionspan of the audience is sated or Some of these events take advantage of the exhausted- a situationeven more transientthan performancehalls of these orchestras,of which a that governing film presentationsin the 1920s, growing numberare revampedmotion picture pal- when the productindividually was used and imme- aces3. The special occasion natureof having live diately discarded? The collaborativeabilities of musicis not the only attraction;deeper, perhapsis film and music specialists may well bear on the the sense of seeing 'how it was done' - an extinct answerto thisquestion. format brought forward for public view again. The presentationand interpretationof silent People have a strong urge to see 'vanished' or film has been hampered by numeroustechnical obsolete activitiesthat were once everyday.Thou- problemsand inadequacies in projectionprints; sands of people attend 'living museums'like Stur- forthe mostpart, the attitudehas necessarilybeen bridge Village in Massachusetts, Greenfield 'you'relucky to see it at all'. To that end, the pro- Village, Michigan, Colonial Williamsburg,Virgi- cess of restorationhas two purposes:(a) to arrest nia, and the Genesee CountryMuseum in western decompositionand preservea filmfrom vanishing New Yorkevery year. entirely,which sometimesmeans thatthe resultant Buildinga new audience foran older medium copy is of mixedvisual quality, and (b) to preserve througha combinationof nostalgia, noveltyand the work in the formclosest to its original release supportivecreativity (in the formof liveaccompani- format. ment) is not without obstacles, however. One Restoringa film is in many ways more like danger arising fromthe new interestin silentfilm, restoringa musicalwork than restorationin other because of its new economic viability,is that the art forms. In paintingand sculpture,for the most films presentedare expected to have immediate part,what you see is what you have to workwith, audience recognitionin some capacity in orderto a matterof filling in the blanksand cleaning up fillthe theatreand pay fortheir presentation (unlike what is already present;and you have from the culturalactivities whose supportis almostentirely start an extremely limited number of physical based on sources beyond ticketsales). Therewill source materials.The difficultyin film is that you be an ever more limitednumber of filmswith this have, fromthe start,myriads of people interfering qualityas we grow furtherand furtheraway from withthe outcomeof the final product,from screen- 300 Philip C. Carli contemporarypaintings in better condition than the one you are workingon, cleaning and remov- ing varnishes,repairing deterior- ation due to chemical alteration or decompositionof the painter's materials.The means of judging the cumulativeeffect of a restora- tion, the combinationof all ele- ments mentionedthus far, is like restoringa musicalcomposition - the effect cannot