What do you think?
Rate this book
American Silent Film
Praised as the "best modern survey of the silent period" (New Republic), this indispensable history tells you everything you need to know about American silent film, from the nickelodeons in the early 1900s to the birth of the first "talkies" in the late 1920s. The author provides vivid descriptions of classic pictures such as The Birth of a Nation, Intolerance, Sunrise, The Covered Wagon, and Greed, and lucidly discusses their technical and artistic merits and weaknesses. He pays tribute to acknowledged masters like D. W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, and Lillian and Dorothy Gish, but he also gives ample attention to previously neglected yet equally gifted actors and directors. In addition, the book covers individual genres, such as the comedy, western gangster, and spectacle, and explores such essential but little-understood subjects as art direction, production design, lighting and camera techniques, and the art of the subtitle. Intended for all scholars, students, and lovers of film, this fascinating book, which features over 150 film stills, provides a rich and comprehensive overview of this unforgettable era in film history.
472 pages, Paperback
First published June 15, 1978
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
September 13, 2015
It’s fair to say that I have mixed feelings on this book. I disagree with a lot of what Everson has to say, I find his writing style annoying, and his personality self-important and pompous. That said, I have to admit that I purposely took on the book because I knew I’d disagree with it and I wanted to see what arguments he’d make. Moreover, I have to admit that my thinking about silent film has been influenced and to some degree altered by his ideas, and I did learn a lot. Sometimes, I even enjoyed the sections where Everson sharpens his poison pen against the people he doesn’t like, because that kind of nastiness can be great fun to read.
The key point on which I differ with Everson is D.W. Griffith. According to Everson, Griffith was the only genius that ever worked in silent movies, and anything that was worth seeing was either a deliberate or an accidental imitation of Griffith. He refers to “The Birth of a Nation” as “the full flowering of Griffith’s art” argues that it “established movies as an international art and an international industry almost overnight” (p.78). His argument is not based on erroneous ideas that “Birth of a Nation” was the “first” film to include Griffith’s “film grammar;” for this he discusses the Biograph shorts and argues that Griffith perfected his art before making “Birth,” but that by putting all of his talents into an epic, big-budget feature film, he broke through the wall that had kept film simple and un-imaginative for twenty years, establishing it forever as a serious form of expression. So far as content, he claims that the film’s “controversy [is] often artificially created and sustained” (77) and has drowned out appreciation of its accomplishments. He argues that the source, Thomas Dixon’s “The Clansman” was far more racist, and that Griffith dialed back some of that racism for the screen (85), that the use of white men in blackface was standard practice at the time and necessary because Griffith didn’t know enough African American actors (86), and that Griffith’s historical perspective was supported by legitimate historians in the period he made it. He accuses the NAACP of “harassing” every showing of the film for over fifty years with “letters…indicating that the writers had never seen the film they were protesting so vehemently” (83).
While some of the above arguments are weak (especially the defense of blackface), it is still overall far more sophisticated and accurate than what many of Griffith’s defenders will claim to this day. Some people are still saying that “Birth of a Nation” was the “first feature film” (not by a long shot) and that it included the first instances of close-ups, cross-cutting, large-scale battle sequences, and just about everything else. Actually, very little about it is original, it just managed to be the first feature film including all of those elements that was widely seen in the United States, in part because the controversy it generated assured it press coverage. Apart from this, the heroism of Griffith can in part be explained by the limitations of studying film history in the 1970s and before, before the video revolution made repeat viewings of older films easily accessible, and before efforts and technology to reclaim and restore films had begun in earnest. In Everson’s day, it was actually harder to study the early film period, and most of what was available was Griffith’s movies, which contributed to making him seem more important than he was. Today, pretty much anyone can start a project to look at films from 100 years ago quite easily (Century Film Project), and can see a much wider spectrum of what was available than Everson ever could. Everson was unable to predict this, and hence he tended to be gloomy about the future of film history. At several points in his book, he predicts that there will be relatively few new discoveries in the future, due to the fragility of nitrate originals and the increasing distance in time since their production. Happily for film students today, he was completely wrong on this point. The appendix on film scholarship serves as a good introduction to the strengths and weaknesses of the resources available at the time in general, which is of definite historical interest.
That said, what I like about Everson is that he was among the first (along with Kevin Brownlow) to start taking silent movies seriously as their own form of art, distinct from the “classic” sound movies that followed them. Prior to his work, film historians often dismissed the silent era as “primitive” or even handicapped by the lack of dialogue. Everson proposed that we think of the silent film as an art form unto itself, “as different to sound film as painting is to photography,” and he was one of the first to suggest that silent film had achieved a level of art far in advance of where it would be in the early years of sound, in other words that the introduction of sound represented a serious setback for cinematography and artistry, one which took years to overcome. His erudition on the films that were available for viewing at the time is enormous, and he introduced me to a number of directors and actors I had only vaguely heard about, or not at all, before reading his book.
On the whole, then, this book remains valuable, although I wouldn’t really recommend it as a starting point for someone interested in silent movies. A more recent discussion would be a better starting point, saving Everson for a time when your ideas and opinions are already formed, when you will be less susceptible to some of his more extreme positions.
The key point on which I differ with Everson is D.W. Griffith. According to Everson, Griffith was the only genius that ever worked in silent movies, and anything that was worth seeing was either a deliberate or an accidental imitation of Griffith. He refers to “The Birth of a Nation” as “the full flowering of Griffith’s art” argues that it “established movies as an international art and an international industry almost overnight” (p.78). His argument is not based on erroneous ideas that “Birth of a Nation” was the “first” film to include Griffith’s “film grammar;” for this he discusses the Biograph shorts and argues that Griffith perfected his art before making “Birth,” but that by putting all of his talents into an epic, big-budget feature film, he broke through the wall that had kept film simple and un-imaginative for twenty years, establishing it forever as a serious form of expression. So far as content, he claims that the film’s “controversy [is] often artificially created and sustained” (77) and has drowned out appreciation of its accomplishments. He argues that the source, Thomas Dixon’s “The Clansman” was far more racist, and that Griffith dialed back some of that racism for the screen (85), that the use of white men in blackface was standard practice at the time and necessary because Griffith didn’t know enough African American actors (86), and that Griffith’s historical perspective was supported by legitimate historians in the period he made it. He accuses the NAACP of “harassing” every showing of the film for over fifty years with “letters…indicating that the writers had never seen the film they were protesting so vehemently” (83).
While some of the above arguments are weak (especially the defense of blackface), it is still overall far more sophisticated and accurate than what many of Griffith’s defenders will claim to this day. Some people are still saying that “Birth of a Nation” was the “first feature film” (not by a long shot) and that it included the first instances of close-ups, cross-cutting, large-scale battle sequences, and just about everything else. Actually, very little about it is original, it just managed to be the first feature film including all of those elements that was widely seen in the United States, in part because the controversy it generated assured it press coverage. Apart from this, the heroism of Griffith can in part be explained by the limitations of studying film history in the 1970s and before, before the video revolution made repeat viewings of older films easily accessible, and before efforts and technology to reclaim and restore films had begun in earnest. In Everson’s day, it was actually harder to study the early film period, and most of what was available was Griffith’s movies, which contributed to making him seem more important than he was. Today, pretty much anyone can start a project to look at films from 100 years ago quite easily (Century Film Project), and can see a much wider spectrum of what was available than Everson ever could. Everson was unable to predict this, and hence he tended to be gloomy about the future of film history. At several points in his book, he predicts that there will be relatively few new discoveries in the future, due to the fragility of nitrate originals and the increasing distance in time since their production. Happily for film students today, he was completely wrong on this point. The appendix on film scholarship serves as a good introduction to the strengths and weaknesses of the resources available at the time in general, which is of definite historical interest.
That said, what I like about Everson is that he was among the first (along with Kevin Brownlow) to start taking silent movies seriously as their own form of art, distinct from the “classic” sound movies that followed them. Prior to his work, film historians often dismissed the silent era as “primitive” or even handicapped by the lack of dialogue. Everson proposed that we think of the silent film as an art form unto itself, “as different to sound film as painting is to photography,” and he was one of the first to suggest that silent film had achieved a level of art far in advance of where it would be in the early years of sound, in other words that the introduction of sound represented a serious setback for cinematography and artistry, one which took years to overcome. His erudition on the films that were available for viewing at the time is enormous, and he introduced me to a number of directors and actors I had only vaguely heard about, or not at all, before reading his book.
On the whole, then, this book remains valuable, although I wouldn’t really recommend it as a starting point for someone interested in silent movies. A more recent discussion would be a better starting point, saving Everson for a time when your ideas and opinions are already formed, when you will be less susceptible to some of his more extreme positions.
July 10, 2014
Movies and studios from silent era: An historical perspective
This is one of the best surveys of the movie industry from its beginnings that covers the entire silent era which spanned from 1905 to 1928 and then the talkie movies took over from silent movies. The author discusses the work of great directors such as D.W. Griffith, Frank Borzage, John Ford, Erich von Stroheim, Josef von Sternberg, and King Vidor. The book also recognizes the work of performers such as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh and numerous others. The book also discusses the movies under categories such as; comedies, Westerns, horror movies, gangster movies, love story and family dramas along with innovation and development in the areas of art direction, production, design, camera techniques and screen writing. The book is incredibly informative for anyone interested in the history and archeology of early American cinema.
A brief summary is as follows: The American movies flourish across the globe, and it all started in the wake of industrial revolution. The industry was built on firm foundation and it evolved rapidly when the movie making was still a fantasy of few dreamers and artists in Europe. This was before the first Nickelodeon opened in United States in 1905. When European countries were in the middle of war, the European movie businesses were badly hurt. In sensing that the competition is minimized, American movie businesses were strengthened and lead over European movie industry was lengthened considerably. This was the critical period when the American cinema achieved total mastery of the art of making movies, from screen writing to production and marketing of the product. Directors like Griffith, Stroheim, and Flaherty, Murnau, and Welles were mainly responsible for the artistic progressions, and technical and artistic innovations. They often used “A” stars like Rudolph Valentino, Mary Pickford, Colleen Moore, Clara Bow and Douglas Fairbanks for making box office hits. The revenue generated helped for more artistic experimentation and variety and creativity in Hollywood. Many less known directors during the silent era also made impressive movies, but not often box office hits. This list included; William Seiter, Irvin Willat, Harry Pollard, and Emory Johnson. In 1919 D.W. Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford formed United Artists to give themselves greater freedom in making movies and greater profits for their investments, which interested other investors to invest in movie business that helped Hollywood to grow at a faster rate.
Another key step Hollywood would take is to tap into European expertize during 1910s and 20s. There was a strong presence of imported directors and actors/actresses from the other side of the “pond.” The early influences of Gustaf Molander, Ernst Lubitsch, Dmitri Buchovetski and F. W. Murnau in Hollywood were real and significant. In fact much of the important names in Swedish movie business had moved to Hollywood including Greta Garbo resulting in complete collapse of the Swedish movie industry.
The comedy films have a rich history in Hollywood. Hollywood greats such as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Mack Sennett, Harold Lloyd and Laurel & Hardy made great silent comedies. But talkie films brought new talents like W. C. Fields. It’s a gift, Duck soup, Blessed event and Love me tonight are some of the finest comedies. The ultimate end of silent era was evident in 1926 with the making of Don Juan and more significantly The Jazz Singer in 1927.The silent industry was dying with much resistance from leading directors like Borzage, Ford, Stroheim, Sternberg, and King Vidor. They thought that would lessen the commercial value of Hollywood movies in European market and it would also destroy the unique form of art. Several leading actors and actresses supported that view. Greta Garbo was the last holdout because she was afraid that her heavy Swedish accent will not be accepted by American audience. Her last silent film “Kiss” was released in late 1929. The transition also kicked-in pretty strongly with stage directors like James Whale, George Cukor, John Cromwell, and Rouben Mamoulian. New performers from stage like James Cagney, Paul Muni, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy made lasting impact on talkie movies. Lubitsch’s “Trouble in Paradise” and Mamoulian’s “Love me Tonight” restored all the elegance of silent era, but several talkie movies of 1930 and 1931 also made strong showing in keeping the artistic forms of the silent movies. It was at the end of 1931 that “Hollywood holdouts” realized that the end of silent era has just passed by.
This book contains a number of photographs about art direction, and still photographs of several stars of the silent days; they are immaculate and rare pictures to treasure. In the appendix section of the book, the author discusses several published books about the history of Hollywood, which are helpful for readers interested in American movie history. This is a great book to read and it is highly recommended.
This is one of the best surveys of the movie industry from its beginnings that covers the entire silent era which spanned from 1905 to 1928 and then the talkie movies took over from silent movies. The author discusses the work of great directors such as D.W. Griffith, Frank Borzage, John Ford, Erich von Stroheim, Josef von Sternberg, and King Vidor. The book also recognizes the work of performers such as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh and numerous others. The book also discusses the movies under categories such as; comedies, Westerns, horror movies, gangster movies, love story and family dramas along with innovation and development in the areas of art direction, production, design, camera techniques and screen writing. The book is incredibly informative for anyone interested in the history and archeology of early American cinema.
A brief summary is as follows: The American movies flourish across the globe, and it all started in the wake of industrial revolution. The industry was built on firm foundation and it evolved rapidly when the movie making was still a fantasy of few dreamers and artists in Europe. This was before the first Nickelodeon opened in United States in 1905. When European countries were in the middle of war, the European movie businesses were badly hurt. In sensing that the competition is minimized, American movie businesses were strengthened and lead over European movie industry was lengthened considerably. This was the critical period when the American cinema achieved total mastery of the art of making movies, from screen writing to production and marketing of the product. Directors like Griffith, Stroheim, and Flaherty, Murnau, and Welles were mainly responsible for the artistic progressions, and technical and artistic innovations. They often used “A” stars like Rudolph Valentino, Mary Pickford, Colleen Moore, Clara Bow and Douglas Fairbanks for making box office hits. The revenue generated helped for more artistic experimentation and variety and creativity in Hollywood. Many less known directors during the silent era also made impressive movies, but not often box office hits. This list included; William Seiter, Irvin Willat, Harry Pollard, and Emory Johnson. In 1919 D.W. Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford formed United Artists to give themselves greater freedom in making movies and greater profits for their investments, which interested other investors to invest in movie business that helped Hollywood to grow at a faster rate.
Another key step Hollywood would take is to tap into European expertize during 1910s and 20s. There was a strong presence of imported directors and actors/actresses from the other side of the “pond.” The early influences of Gustaf Molander, Ernst Lubitsch, Dmitri Buchovetski and F. W. Murnau in Hollywood were real and significant. In fact much of the important names in Swedish movie business had moved to Hollywood including Greta Garbo resulting in complete collapse of the Swedish movie industry.
The comedy films have a rich history in Hollywood. Hollywood greats such as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Mack Sennett, Harold Lloyd and Laurel & Hardy made great silent comedies. But talkie films brought new talents like W. C. Fields. It’s a gift, Duck soup, Blessed event and Love me tonight are some of the finest comedies. The ultimate end of silent era was evident in 1926 with the making of Don Juan and more significantly The Jazz Singer in 1927.The silent industry was dying with much resistance from leading directors like Borzage, Ford, Stroheim, Sternberg, and King Vidor. They thought that would lessen the commercial value of Hollywood movies in European market and it would also destroy the unique form of art. Several leading actors and actresses supported that view. Greta Garbo was the last holdout because she was afraid that her heavy Swedish accent will not be accepted by American audience. Her last silent film “Kiss” was released in late 1929. The transition also kicked-in pretty strongly with stage directors like James Whale, George Cukor, John Cromwell, and Rouben Mamoulian. New performers from stage like James Cagney, Paul Muni, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy made lasting impact on talkie movies. Lubitsch’s “Trouble in Paradise” and Mamoulian’s “Love me Tonight” restored all the elegance of silent era, but several talkie movies of 1930 and 1931 also made strong showing in keeping the artistic forms of the silent movies. It was at the end of 1931 that “Hollywood holdouts” realized that the end of silent era has just passed by.
This book contains a number of photographs about art direction, and still photographs of several stars of the silent days; they are immaculate and rare pictures to treasure. In the appendix section of the book, the author discusses several published books about the history of Hollywood, which are helpful for readers interested in American movie history. This is a great book to read and it is highly recommended.
November 25, 2013
Few people knew more about American film history than William K. Everson. This survey of the art and industry of the silent film in the U.S. is an exquisite historical artifact itself. It brings that long-ago and (to some) obscure period in American art and entertainment fully to life and makes one ready and willing to watch those great works of a different time. I highly recommend this to anyone with an interest in film.
July 27, 2017
Dear God this guy likes D.W. Griffith.
And Birth of a Nation was definitely not racist.
And female actors were treated better than male actors.
Don't get me wrong, I knew I would be reading a book by a white university professor, so I had mentally prepared myself to read all of that, but god it was still a drag. Which is a shame, because there is a lot of interesting information in this book, although sometimes it is hard to pin down. I think this might be a book better-suited to someone who's more of a film scholar than me (which, to be fair, is probably the audience it was written for). I was hoping for a little more detailed discussion of the technology side of silent films. There lots of a sentences along the lines of, "So-and-so made such-and-such film and it was brilliant [because reason here] because the technology was finally there to make it" and I just wanted to scream, "WHAT TECHNOLOGY?? PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW SOME OF THIS STUFF WORKS!" But to be fair to the author, this book did not promise extensive technological discussions, so I still got what it promised. That said, I think a better understanding of the evolution of film technology would help the reader enjoy the information here more.
I started skimming pretty fast toward the end. Past a certain point--and this is probably not the author's fault, this is how this kind of book will almost always sound--it just read like a very overexcited person explaining the plotlines of their top two hundred favourite movies. It's not very interesting when a six-year-old does it, and it's not terribly interesting now.
I am also disappointed that there wasn't a full list of all the movies referenced at the end, because I would have liked to copy that down for my own reference (YouTube is great for a silent film fan). There is the full index, but that's not quite the same thing. Anyway, something that should be considered for future editions.
And Birth of a Nation was definitely not racist.
And female actors were treated better than male actors.
Don't get me wrong, I knew I would be reading a book by a white university professor, so I had mentally prepared myself to read all of that, but god it was still a drag. Which is a shame, because there is a lot of interesting information in this book, although sometimes it is hard to pin down. I think this might be a book better-suited to someone who's more of a film scholar than me (which, to be fair, is probably the audience it was written for). I was hoping for a little more detailed discussion of the technology side of silent films. There lots of a sentences along the lines of, "So-and-so made such-and-such film and it was brilliant [because reason here] because the technology was finally there to make it" and I just wanted to scream, "WHAT TECHNOLOGY?? PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW SOME OF THIS STUFF WORKS!" But to be fair to the author, this book did not promise extensive technological discussions, so I still got what it promised. That said, I think a better understanding of the evolution of film technology would help the reader enjoy the information here more.
I started skimming pretty fast toward the end. Past a certain point--and this is probably not the author's fault, this is how this kind of book will almost always sound--it just read like a very overexcited person explaining the plotlines of their top two hundred favourite movies. It's not very interesting when a six-year-old does it, and it's not terribly interesting now.
I am also disappointed that there wasn't a full list of all the movies referenced at the end, because I would have liked to copy that down for my own reference (YouTube is great for a silent film fan). There is the full index, but that's not quite the same thing. Anyway, something that should be considered for future editions.
March 13, 2011
It isn't easy writing a survey of a film. Everson did an admirable job of trying to present the scope and innovation of silent film. However, he often trips over himself in his conviction that D.W. Griffith was the best of breed, and also in his prejudice against almost all film that has come since.
It was difficult to teach using this book, since I had to clarify to the students why Everson was so adamant in his opinions and now reads (some thirty years on) as dated and narrow-minded.
It was difficult to teach using this book, since I had to clarify to the students why Everson was so adamant in his opinions and now reads (some thirty years on) as dated and narrow-minded.
August 26, 2015
3.5.
A thorough survey of American silent film that, unavoidably perhaps, spends an awful lot of time doting on D.W. Griffith. Some interesting chapters on the financial side of the early film business and how title cards contributed to the decomposition of hundreds of prints. Drier than Monument Valley in some chapters, but well worth reading.
A thorough survey of American silent film that, unavoidably perhaps, spends an awful lot of time doting on D.W. Griffith. Some interesting chapters on the financial side of the early film business and how title cards contributed to the decomposition of hundreds of prints. Drier than Monument Valley in some chapters, but well worth reading.
January 25, 2015
Many people believe that silent films are corny, primitive, badly acted, and generally boring.......but we could say the same thing about some modern day films as well. The art of the silent film is something that has to be approached by putting the blue screen and CGI out of your mind. Some of the greatest films in history were made in the silent period......Birth of a Nation; Sunrise; Broken Blossoms, and Wings are just some examples. And there was no one better to write this book about the history of the silent film than William Everson who made a career of studying that art form. He divides the chapters into the three decades when films were all silent and also by directors and other technicians who developed those two minute films of the late teens to the full length picture with a story line and recognizable actors. Unfortunately the peak of the silent film came too late as "talkies" were on the horizon in 1927 and spelled the demise of silents.
The only negative comment I have about this history is that the author is obsessed with D.W. Griffith and connects him to almost every film mentioned. Granted, he probably had the most influence on how film looked than anyone else but he could not change with the times and his career came to a rather sad end. His presence almost took over the text but that is only a small complaint. I recommend this book to the silent film fan or a reader that wants to know what all the excitement about silent film is about.
The only negative comment I have about this history is that the author is obsessed with D.W. Griffith and connects him to almost every film mentioned. Granted, he probably had the most influence on how film looked than anyone else but he could not change with the times and his career came to a rather sad end. His presence almost took over the text but that is only a small complaint. I recommend this book to the silent film fan or a reader that wants to know what all the excitement about silent film is about.
July 8, 2020
I've read a lot of silent film books for the past ten years. William K. Everson's survey of the American silent film industry and art is still considered a good primer for newbies, but to be honest, I found the book quite dated and irritating.
Firstly, yes, the common wisdom is right: at least 70% of the book is DW Griffith worship. Any time any other director is praised, Everson has to follow it up with, "Naturally, X was very influenced by Griffith."
Secondly, Everson's writing voice is not engaging. He's a bit pompous-- no, scratch that, VERY POMPOUS (his description of Buster Keaton as some kind of elusive thing the audience has to "get" is just weird), with a holier than thou attitude that made me want to throw the book across the room several times.
That said, his analysis of the late silent film period and the transition to talkies is pretty good. And if you're interested in DW Griffith, well, then this will interest you, even if Everson's opinions sometimes come off as quite strange or even narrow-minded.
It's fascinating how Kevin Brownlow's THE PARADE'S GONE BY is just so much less dated as a text, even though it came out in the 1960s as opposed to the 1970s. But it's just so much better, with its multiple interviews with people who worked during the silent era and its enthusiastic history which comes off as far less dry and curmudgeonly than Everson's book. As it is, I can only recommend this one to seasoned silent film buffs and not novices.
Firstly, yes, the common wisdom is right: at least 70% of the book is DW Griffith worship. Any time any other director is praised, Everson has to follow it up with, "Naturally, X was very influenced by Griffith."
Secondly, Everson's writing voice is not engaging. He's a bit pompous-- no, scratch that, VERY POMPOUS (his description of Buster Keaton as some kind of elusive thing the audience has to "get" is just weird), with a holier than thou attitude that made me want to throw the book across the room several times.
That said, his analysis of the late silent film period and the transition to talkies is pretty good. And if you're interested in DW Griffith, well, then this will interest you, even if Everson's opinions sometimes come off as quite strange or even narrow-minded.
It's fascinating how Kevin Brownlow's THE PARADE'S GONE BY is just so much less dated as a text, even though it came out in the 1960s as opposed to the 1970s. But it's just so much better, with its multiple interviews with people who worked during the silent era and its enthusiastic history which comes off as far less dry and curmudgeonly than Everson's book. As it is, I can only recommend this one to seasoned silent film buffs and not novices.
August 23, 2008
William K. Everson's book The American Silent Film is a good primer into the history of silent film. A book one will gladly return to every so often. It isn't perfect. In this book, Everson is a bit given to being rather Griffith-centric. The attitude that Griffith was the only filmmaker during the silent era making films of any quality. And somehow he seems a bit grudging to give any other filmmakers credit for creating anything to equal or even SURPASS Griffith. He does give such credit, but it always seems to be with a sort of abject resignation.
Like, The Parade's Gone By, the book has dated in the thirty years since it was published, as more films have come to light since then. But, all in all a most valuable study.
Like, The Parade's Gone By, the book has dated in the thirty years since it was published, as more films have come to light since then. But, all in all a most valuable study.
December 16, 2019
While this provides a decent survey of the timeline of American silent film, and lots of really wonderful details (a full chapter on title slide writing for example), the author spends so much time defending Griffith and Birth of a Nation - that evening if you skip over the (multiple!) chapters dedicated to Griffith’s brilliance - you can’t get away from the author’s defense of him and his work, since it’s also infused in all the other chapters. So - I mean, read only if you want your history lesson to come with a heaping side course of wild logical fallacies defending Griffith and his work.
September 5, 2022
Still an essential read for anyone interested in silent films and the history of American film. Unfortunately the near constant references to D.W. Griffith make this a bit difficult at times. Griffith was one of the major developers of film style, and technique and he should not be dismissed, but according to this author almost every film and filmmaker is compared to Griffith and merely exist in his shadow. He can also be strangely dismissive of many great filmmakers to the point of it being almost comical. On top of that he goes to great lengths to downplay the racism of Birth of a Nation which seems insane to anyone who has actually watched the film. I still recommend the book, but bear in mind that you will need to take many of the opinions expressed with a grain of salt.
August 24, 2021
Don't read the comments. Just read the book.
I mean, god forbid anyone should have an opinion anymore. I don't necessarily agree with everything Everson opined about THE BIRTH OF A NATION, either, but I don't have a bird about it. The DISCUSSION (because that's what it is) is deeply interesting and worth having.
Writing without a strong point of view is rarely worth reading.
Everson still remains one of the best film writers, and his books are ALWAYS worth reading.
I mean, god forbid anyone should have an opinion anymore. I don't necessarily agree with everything Everson opined about THE BIRTH OF A NATION, either, but I don't have a bird about it. The DISCUSSION (because that's what it is) is deeply interesting and worth having.
Writing without a strong point of view is rarely worth reading.
Everson still remains one of the best film writers, and his books are ALWAYS worth reading.
September 11, 2020
An excellent exploration of cinema in the first forty years of American film making.
May 25, 2022
There’s a snobbery here that I find incredibly off-putting. Plus, there’s too much love here for old D.W. Griffith and an unwillingness to address the problematic elements in his and others’ work.
March 9, 2023
Essential film history.
August 15, 2023
The best history of early U.S. cinema I have ever read, and highly critical to boot; some of Everson’s ideas are obviously kind of unusual in the critical community now. (For example, the amount of text — nearly half — he gives to D.W. Griffith would undoubtedly be reduced today now that we know more about Griffith’s own roots.) But he’s also clearheaded, interesting, and extremely passionate about his subject. I doubt anyone past or present had a more immediate command of silent film, or maybe not even film at all. He did lose me a bit when he tried to argue that BIRTH OF A NATION — which, for those who haven’t seen it, is as philosophically and socially irksome as its reputation suggests and then some — was somehow not racist, which is an obscene notion to me. (I can buy that Griffith himself was not as racist as the movie suggests — Donald Bogle’s book on black Hollywood which I reviewed here a while back actually made that argument — but the film itself is plainly hateful. And very difficult to take seriously now.) But in any case, past the general narrative excellence of the book, Everson’s investigations of specific genres are fascinating, more extensive than anything else one is likely to find today. I also appreciated his many unorthodox opinions — he dismisses THE WIND and THE GENERAL but praises ORPHANS OF THE STORM quite highly — which set it apart from “critical mass”-style tomes. This is long out of print now, I believe, but it’s highly recommended if you run into a copy.
One of the happiest moments I had reading this book was in an afterword when Everson, writing in the late ’70s, correctly predicts a forthcoming home video revolution but argues that few if any silent films will ever be available in such a form. I’m sure that were he still alive now, he’d be as thrilled as I am about how far off the mark he was about this.
One of the happiest moments I had reading this book was in an afterword when Everson, writing in the late ’70s, correctly predicts a forthcoming home video revolution but argues that few if any silent films will ever be available in such a form. I’m sure that were he still alive now, he’d be as thrilled as I am about how far off the mark he was about this.
January 28, 2013
According to his Wikipedia page, William K. Everson led a very interesting life as a film critic, student, teacher, and more. This is the first book of his that I've read, and it covers many different aspects of the silent film era: the business, the distribution, the directors (most prominently, D.W. Griffith), the stars, the editing, the story lines, the subtitles, the set design, the locations, the technology, and of course, the films themselves. A lot of interesting stuff. Unfortunately, I've only seen a small minority of the films Everson discusses, and that often made it hard to appreciate his points. He offers many opinions on just about everything, and I enjoyed reading them even though I'm not able to know if I agree or disagree with him.
It was interesting to read accounts of Griffith that focus on his talent rather than his racism. I'm looking forward to watching Intolerance, which I have on my TiVo, and hope to one day see Birth of a Nation so that I can make my own judgment about Griffith. Everson's book also introduced me to another Griffith film, Orphans of the Storm which sounded intriguing and which I also now hope to one day see.
There were times when I wanted to give this book four stars, but there were also a few stretches that came across, to me at least, as pretty dry so I ended up settling on three stars. Although I find the silent era to be very interesting, I haven't seen nearly as many silent films as I'd like. I suspect that I'd have given this book a higher rating if I had seen more of the movies that Everson described.
It was interesting to read accounts of Griffith that focus on his talent rather than his racism. I'm looking forward to watching Intolerance, which I have on my TiVo, and hope to one day see Birth of a Nation so that I can make my own judgment about Griffith. Everson's book also introduced me to another Griffith film, Orphans of the Storm which sounded intriguing and which I also now hope to one day see.
There were times when I wanted to give this book four stars, but there were also a few stretches that came across, to me at least, as pretty dry so I ended up settling on three stars. Although I find the silent era to be very interesting, I haven't seen nearly as many silent films as I'd like. I suspect that I'd have given this book a higher rating if I had seen more of the movies that Everson described.
April 20, 2008
The ideal introduction to American Silent Cinema: entertaining, critical, insightful, and very read-able. Everson also makes a brave and wise choice to talk about the current state of silent film scholarship and how it has changed and evolved over the years, particularly in how the (re)discovery of films thought to be lost has changed our understanding of a particular era, filmmaker, star, genre, studio, etc. This is the true sign of a historian who is truly dedicated to his field of study: he never claims to be "above" the material, nor does he imply that he has an "authoritative" and "final" word on the subject, instead acknowledging both the depth and limitations of available materials, and uses them to make the most comprehensive and believable history of the silent screen.
September 1, 2008
Good, concise, sequential overview of the silent era from its earliest days to the advent of the talkies. Chapters on "The Beginnings," "The Art of the Sub-Title," "Genres," "European Influences," and more. Good reading.
January 26, 2015
I was fortunate enough to have taken some of Professor Everson's classes years ago and this book perfectly captures his teaching style: lively, encyclopedically knowledgeable, yet affectionate and down-to-earth. Possibly the best introduction to this subject ever written.
April 1, 2024
William K. Everson’s American Silent Film is a baseline text for anyone interested in that era. With more silent films than ever available for viewing on disk and at YouTube, this is the perfect guide! Everson is especially insightful on the oft-maligned D.W. Griffith.
March 4, 2009
Interesting complement to Frances Marion's Biography (Without Lying Down).
October 7, 2012
Excellent book, a little out of date & while Everson's style is clear and concise it's slightly quaint at times.
March 26, 2013
The sad thing about reading this book is knowing that most of these movies no longer exist.
July 13, 2013
Not a bad book, but includes information I've gleaned from other sources. Great addition to my library for reference purposes. Recommended for anyone new to silent films.
April 19, 2016
Amazeing. Book
Want to read
July 26, 2017When film collectors/enthusiasts talk about film, the name William K. Everson inevitably comes up. He was one of the foremost collectors of his time and his many beautiful prints outlived him to celebrate the cinema he loved.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews