What do you think?
Rate this book
Seductive Cinema: The Art Of Silent Film
In Seductive Cinema, James Card -- pioneer collector of silents since the twenties, founder of the motion-picture archive at the George Eastman House, and co-founder of the Telluride Film Festival -- offers an exhilarating and richly illustrated celebration of silent movies. His lively reevaluation sheds new light on the art, directors, cinematographers, and stars of the great silent films.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
1 person is currently reading
228 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
July 7, 2019
"Film historians are in grave error with their almost exclusive concentration on film directors. They have even invented the auteur theory to support their myopia--a theory that ignores the creative authority of producer, studio head, supervisor, and superstar. Even Alfred Hitchcock had to trim his sails on the insistence of David O. Selznick. Perhaps historians are afraid to acknowledge the stars for fear of being taken for fans.
Granted that in recent decades significant portions of the audience may be in the theatre because the film was directed by Ingmar Bergman or Luis Bunuel. But the silent films that lured multimillions to see them did not attract fortunes to the box office through the named of any director. Who went to see BEN-HUR because Fred Niblo directed it? Who cared in 1925 that THE BIG PARADE had been made by King Vidor? Who knew that FLESH AND THE DEVIL was a Clarence Brown production? The multitudes flocked to see Ramon Novarro, John Gilbert, Greta Garbo. Who cared that THE SON OF THE SHEIK was directed by George Fitzmaurice? Rudolph Valentino would have drawn them to see the film if it had been directed by Ben Turpin."
Granted that in recent decades significant portions of the audience may be in the theatre because the film was directed by Ingmar Bergman or Luis Bunuel. But the silent films that lured multimillions to see them did not attract fortunes to the box office through the named of any director. Who went to see BEN-HUR because Fred Niblo directed it? Who cared in 1925 that THE BIG PARADE had been made by King Vidor? Who knew that FLESH AND THE DEVIL was a Clarence Brown production? The multitudes flocked to see Ramon Novarro, John Gilbert, Greta Garbo. Who cared that THE SON OF THE SHEIK was directed by George Fitzmaurice? Rudolph Valentino would have drawn them to see the film if it had been directed by Ben Turpin."
March 19, 2014
Yes, James Card appeared egotistical ("this outrageous complaint
was like having a bank clerk accuse Albert Einstein of a mathematical
error" - I think Card was likening himself to Einstein)!!! From
the time he was a child in the 1920s and was given his first
projector (a Keystone Moviegraph) he was seduced by the silent cinema.
The first films to pique his interest were foreign made - Pabst'
"Westfield 1918", "Siegfried" and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari".
Starting with Muybridge and the Lumieres, who scored a huge hit with
the first narrative film "Watering the Gardner" - in fact Card
credits the pioneering of the above as well as Melies and James
Williamson for the creation of editing, the close up, multiple
exposures and speed alterations.
I really like opinionated critics - whatever your own view, it is
interesting to see "sacred cows" cut down to size and Card is no
exception as he tears down the Griffith myth. He espouses his view
that "The Mother and the Law" and "The Fall of Babylon" would have
done far better as single films rather than being lumped together
for the monumental "Intolerance" and in 1919 Griffith presented a
"Spring Screen Season" with "Broken Blossoms" and those two same
films realising, even then, that they played better on their own.
In fact he feels that the films made in Denmark, Germany and France
around 1913 did more to revolutionize films than Griffith's
egotistical claims, making special mention of Asta Neilson.
Card also gets his claws out after Erich Von Stroheim. His initial
film ("Blind Husbands"(1919)) took 7 weeks to shoot and 8 reels to
view but from then on his extravagant legend would begin. Card tells
some unbelievable stories - how in one film dealing with a massive
army of extras he demanded that each pair of underpants be embroided
with a royal crest, his theory being that just knowing the crest
was there would make the extras feel they were in the King's army.
Another was when Stroheim demanded real money be used in a casino
scene - so the players could really imagine that they were high
rollers.
Again there is a whole chapter devoted to "Caligari" and Card's
endeavours to find a print - even enrolling at the University of
Heidelberg and under close scrutiny from the National Socialists!!
In another chapter "Rescuing Peter Pan", the discovery of a vault
of lost films, some in a deteriorating state starts Card on his
rescuing odyssey as he stealthily "kidnaps" "Peter Pan", "Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde", "A Dog's Life" etc to be transferred on to pristine
stock before authorities are called.
Yes there is the "Star" section with all the usual suspects - Gloria
Swanson, John Barrymore, Pola Negri etc, although not mentioning them
would be like writing a book on modern movies and neglecting to put
in Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro!! But there is also special mention
made of the beautiful Norma Shearer who had such a diversity of roles
in the silent, from stagestruck secretary ("Upstage") circus girl
("He Who Gets Slapped") and even society girl and reform school girl,
both in the same film (the super "Lady of the Night") and Viola
Dana who had some meaty dramas in the 19teens and was singing in
the Sisters section of "The Show of Shows"(1929). And where would
you find a chapter devoted not only to the tragic Jeanne Eagles but
to the under-rated and stylish director Monta Bell.
One little niggle where Card gets his facts wrong - the story King
Vidor tells about trying to pull James Murray out of his alcoholic
haze happened about 6 years after his standout performance in "The
Crowd" (the movie he was trying to interest Murray in was "Our Daily
Bread" a sort of sequel) and not a few months after finishing "The
Crowd". I do agree though that a film based on Murray's life would
be fantastic if it was done well.
The book finishes with a great story to do with the "Festival of
Film Artists", an award ceremony that Card organized in the mid
1950s to honour greats of the past. Card was given the idea by the
death of Clyde Bruckman, Buster Keaton's old director who had killed
himself because he thought he was forgotten. Anyway Maurice Chevalier,
Ramon Novarro and Frank Borzage's plane had touched down at Rochester
Airport at 1.30 in the morning and they were all starving. Card took
them to a restaurant that boasted it was "just like New York - we
never close" and had to plead could they make some sandwiches for
probably the most famous guests that town had ever seen. The manager
was very sniffy, with the up shot being half an hour later they were
all sitting down to burgers in the local "White Tower" - and Card
said he couldn't control his glee when the snooty restaurant closed
down 5 months later!!
was like having a bank clerk accuse Albert Einstein of a mathematical
error" - I think Card was likening himself to Einstein)!!! From
the time he was a child in the 1920s and was given his first
projector (a Keystone Moviegraph) he was seduced by the silent cinema.
The first films to pique his interest were foreign made - Pabst'
"Westfield 1918", "Siegfried" and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari".
Starting with Muybridge and the Lumieres, who scored a huge hit with
the first narrative film "Watering the Gardner" - in fact Card
credits the pioneering of the above as well as Melies and James
Williamson for the creation of editing, the close up, multiple
exposures and speed alterations.
I really like opinionated critics - whatever your own view, it is
interesting to see "sacred cows" cut down to size and Card is no
exception as he tears down the Griffith myth. He espouses his view
that "The Mother and the Law" and "The Fall of Babylon" would have
done far better as single films rather than being lumped together
for the monumental "Intolerance" and in 1919 Griffith presented a
"Spring Screen Season" with "Broken Blossoms" and those two same
films realising, even then, that they played better on their own.
In fact he feels that the films made in Denmark, Germany and France
around 1913 did more to revolutionize films than Griffith's
egotistical claims, making special mention of Asta Neilson.
Card also gets his claws out after Erich Von Stroheim. His initial
film ("Blind Husbands"(1919)) took 7 weeks to shoot and 8 reels to
view but from then on his extravagant legend would begin. Card tells
some unbelievable stories - how in one film dealing with a massive
army of extras he demanded that each pair of underpants be embroided
with a royal crest, his theory being that just knowing the crest
was there would make the extras feel they were in the King's army.
Another was when Stroheim demanded real money be used in a casino
scene - so the players could really imagine that they were high
rollers.
Again there is a whole chapter devoted to "Caligari" and Card's
endeavours to find a print - even enrolling at the University of
Heidelberg and under close scrutiny from the National Socialists!!
In another chapter "Rescuing Peter Pan", the discovery of a vault
of lost films, some in a deteriorating state starts Card on his
rescuing odyssey as he stealthily "kidnaps" "Peter Pan", "Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde", "A Dog's Life" etc to be transferred on to pristine
stock before authorities are called.
Yes there is the "Star" section with all the usual suspects - Gloria
Swanson, John Barrymore, Pola Negri etc, although not mentioning them
would be like writing a book on modern movies and neglecting to put
in Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro!! But there is also special mention
made of the beautiful Norma Shearer who had such a diversity of roles
in the silent, from stagestruck secretary ("Upstage") circus girl
("He Who Gets Slapped") and even society girl and reform school girl,
both in the same film (the super "Lady of the Night") and Viola
Dana who had some meaty dramas in the 19teens and was singing in
the Sisters section of "The Show of Shows"(1929). And where would
you find a chapter devoted not only to the tragic Jeanne Eagles but
to the under-rated and stylish director Monta Bell.
One little niggle where Card gets his facts wrong - the story King
Vidor tells about trying to pull James Murray out of his alcoholic
haze happened about 6 years after his standout performance in "The
Crowd" (the movie he was trying to interest Murray in was "Our Daily
Bread" a sort of sequel) and not a few months after finishing "The
Crowd". I do agree though that a film based on Murray's life would
be fantastic if it was done well.
The book finishes with a great story to do with the "Festival of
Film Artists", an award ceremony that Card organized in the mid
1950s to honour greats of the past. Card was given the idea by the
death of Clyde Bruckman, Buster Keaton's old director who had killed
himself because he thought he was forgotten. Anyway Maurice Chevalier,
Ramon Novarro and Frank Borzage's plane had touched down at Rochester
Airport at 1.30 in the morning and they were all starving. Card took
them to a restaurant that boasted it was "just like New York - we
never close" and had to plead could they make some sandwiches for
probably the most famous guests that town had ever seen. The manager
was very sniffy, with the up shot being half an hour later they were
all sitting down to burgers in the local "White Tower" - and Card
said he couldn't control his glee when the snooty restaurant closed
down 5 months later!!
April 16, 2009
This book is considered the ultimate in the critique of the art of silent film. Although it is extremely well researched, I found it a bit dry but still would recommend it for the fan of pre-1928 film.
November 19, 2015
I have rather mixed feelings about this book: some parts I liked, others I hated. Unfortunately, Card chose to end with a rant that re-awakened most of my “hating,” so it’s hard for me to focus on the good parts now that I’ve finished it, but I’ll try, at least for the first part of this review.
James Card was a lifelong movie collector and silent film enthusiast before it was cool. During the many harsh years when silents were castigated and caricatured, he remained faithfully convinced that they were a legitimate art form and part of history that needed to be preserved. And he envangelized them as well, sometimes to skeptical audiences, and worked to make certain that large caches of them were not neglected, but were re-discovered and given to organizations with the money and wherewithal to keep them safe. He deserves credit for this, and moreover, his views on film history are validated by three important points: 1) He was alive, and a fan, while some of them (the last few years at least) were run in theaters, 2) He understood them as their own art form, worthy of respect on their own terms, and 3) He watched THOUSANDS of them in his time, many of them repeatedly, and his opinions are based on his observations, rather than on prevailing views or biases.
With all of that in mind, some of the best sections in this book are his discussions of his favorite movies, stars, and directors – many of whom he got to know over the years. Even better than that, I really enjoyed his discussion of how he organized screenings, festivals, and the establishment of Eastman House, one of the most important American Museums of motion pictures. Card was the director of the film collection there for many years, and, once again, his commitment to preserving early motion pictures and making them accessible is over and above what many private collectors have contributed. He was friends with Joseph von Sternberg and Gloria Swanson, and he arranged to have them, and other surviving silent era artists, present their works to new audiences.
So, what’s not to like? Well, to put it mildly, Card has very strong opinions. He appears to believe that the best way to “study” film (or any artform) is subjectively, by experiencing it directly and perhaps asking the creators a few polite questions about what they intended. He is extremely hostile towards any deeper analysis and has no understanding of or patience with historical methodologies. Even as he calls for academics to take film more seriously as an artform, he viciously derides any attempt to contextualize them through academic study. He is not even a trained archivist, and so tends to believe in “curated” collections of the “best” movies (as defined by himself and his cronies) and not to advocate efforts at representative preservation that would allow a balanced view of the past. Sometimes, when discussing the relative merits of female collectors and critics, a distinctly misogynist viewpoint creeps through, as when he discusses the work of Eileen Bowser or Iris Barry at the Museum of Modern Art.
Overall, then, I’m glad I read this book, and I appreciate what Card has contributed to the history of film, but I hope that future scholars will take what is most useful from this book and not use it as a model for methodology or opinion.
James Card was a lifelong movie collector and silent film enthusiast before it was cool. During the many harsh years when silents were castigated and caricatured, he remained faithfully convinced that they were a legitimate art form and part of history that needed to be preserved. And he envangelized them as well, sometimes to skeptical audiences, and worked to make certain that large caches of them were not neglected, but were re-discovered and given to organizations with the money and wherewithal to keep them safe. He deserves credit for this, and moreover, his views on film history are validated by three important points: 1) He was alive, and a fan, while some of them (the last few years at least) were run in theaters, 2) He understood them as their own art form, worthy of respect on their own terms, and 3) He watched THOUSANDS of them in his time, many of them repeatedly, and his opinions are based on his observations, rather than on prevailing views or biases.
With all of that in mind, some of the best sections in this book are his discussions of his favorite movies, stars, and directors – many of whom he got to know over the years. Even better than that, I really enjoyed his discussion of how he organized screenings, festivals, and the establishment of Eastman House, one of the most important American Museums of motion pictures. Card was the director of the film collection there for many years, and, once again, his commitment to preserving early motion pictures and making them accessible is over and above what many private collectors have contributed. He was friends with Joseph von Sternberg and Gloria Swanson, and he arranged to have them, and other surviving silent era artists, present their works to new audiences.
So, what’s not to like? Well, to put it mildly, Card has very strong opinions. He appears to believe that the best way to “study” film (or any artform) is subjectively, by experiencing it directly and perhaps asking the creators a few polite questions about what they intended. He is extremely hostile towards any deeper analysis and has no understanding of or patience with historical methodologies. Even as he calls for academics to take film more seriously as an artform, he viciously derides any attempt to contextualize them through academic study. He is not even a trained archivist, and so tends to believe in “curated” collections of the “best” movies (as defined by himself and his cronies) and not to advocate efforts at representative preservation that would allow a balanced view of the past. Sometimes, when discussing the relative merits of female collectors and critics, a distinctly misogynist viewpoint creeps through, as when he discusses the work of Eileen Bowser or Iris Barry at the Museum of Modern Art.
Overall, then, I’m glad I read this book, and I appreciate what Card has contributed to the history of film, but I hope that future scholars will take what is most useful from this book and not use it as a model for methodology or opinion.
October 17, 2014
really enjoyed this. a nice overview of silent films. happy to see that films and directors that are often lauded were not taken at face value and in a few cases taken down a notch or two. i could have done without the chapter on film professors, but other than that a good read which has me wanting to huntdown more classic silent films.
October 14, 2007
Card may have been a complete egotist, but film fans owe him several debts for his work preserving silent film and his help reviving interest in the career of silent film star Louise Brooks and encouraging her to write.
August 25, 2008
Mostly about his career, trying to save films over the years. Very interesting. Lots of nasty cracks about Iris Barry and MOMA.
April 1, 2023
If anything, this taught me a lesson that I should read a synopsis before requesting a book about silent films from the library. I thought that this was going to be a book about sexuality and romance in silent films. Instead, this was a collection of inane ramblings from a former preservationist with Eastman House in New York and silent film collector written on the level of a mediocre blog in the 2000s. This book is a chance for James Card to get some shots in on what appear to be longtime grudges with D.W. Griffith, Erich von Stroheim, and the longtime curator at MoMA who didn’t preserve the films he liked. While I appreciate him taking advantage of the opportunity to be petty, they often interrupt the flow of his essays and feel like digressions that whatever the point of the essay was supposed to be.
May 21, 2020
I am reading this now, enjoying learning more about silent film history as well as it’s fascinating actors. I never realized how lucky we are today that so many films survived ,or how many were lost or discarded when talkies began. It was also eye opening to learn how dangerous it was to store silent film,that as they deteriorated they often exploded or combusted due to their silver nitrate content. It must have been wonderful to have been there at the time, watching these films accompanied by live orchestras in a sumptuous theatre, as author James Card was. I’ve read other books on silent film, this one is almost Kenneth Brownlaw level. I’d love suggestions for more silent film histories, biographies.
Reading this takes you into another world, a nice feeling at present.
September 28, 2022
James Card was a real cool dude. The überChad of film fanatics. This is basically 300 pages of him gushing over how much he loves movies and talking about his huge collection of film prints and how he was friends with a bunch of otherworldly Old Hollywood celebrities (including his pal “Joe Sternberg”). He also takes the time to dunk on film academics and archivists, which brings me great joy to read. Wow, he’s literally me etc, etc. The sections of film criticism are wonderful, too. I’ve seen a number of the films he discusses, and while I’m not nearly as big a fan of them as he is, his love for silent movies is so infectious I almost feel compelled to rewatch “The Cheat” again. A one of a kind visit with the OG Film Fiend.
February 15, 2023
Fascinating introduction to silent film by a man who dedicated himself to preserving and highlighting the art form. This book provides great anecdotes about the films and stars of the era, many of whom Card knew (he probably would have said, "I knew them all!") Silent film will not be everyone's cup of tea, but this book will deepen your appreciation of it even if (like me) you continue to prefer movies with sound!
November 9, 2019
I don't know why Card's massive ego surprised me; that's showbiz, after all. Just the same, he has a marvellous sense of humour, he does spin a good yarn, and he offers his personal insight to the business end of filmmaking. Thoroughly enjoyed this book.
June 2, 2020
I like the stuff about the specific stars and their rise and fall in the movie biz.
I just went to a lake. I am exhausted.
I just went to a lake. I am exhausted.
June 14, 2024
freakin awesome, I love this guy
January 7, 2014
The Seductive Cinema isn't seductive at all, as a reader I wasn't in the least seduced. This book will be liked if you have a limited knowledge of "silent" cinema, so long as you know who Cecil B. DeMille is, Louise Brooks and John Barrymore were. The first couple of chapters the book had real potential to introduce new audiences to the pleasure of "silent" films or reintroduce audiences to it, however, it never quite comes off as it should, whether that was because the book had to be by a certain length or something else is hard to gauge. But sadly most films mentioned in here are American and also actors and actresses mentioned are the usual crowd. As if there aren't plenty of books about Gloria Swanson, John Barrymore, Louise Brooks, etc. None of those have fallen into obscurity and none were not leading stars. It is not a book that is going to with stand the times. Apart from the occasional gush about sets for Cecil B. DeMille's not so monstrous productions I can't find anything here that is remarkable about films of a bygone age. Why were the scenes so wonderful and camera techniques superb? The author doesn't mention anything that is artistic. There were moments when he did indulge the reader in spurts, like somewhat damp fireworks. It was a pity he didn't give more writing space to films made beyond the Atlantic. The author when mentioning his efforts tries to be humble, but it seems rather tongue in cheek. I was very surprised that Cabiria was not mentioned. This film, completed in 1914, supposedly influenced Griffith's Intolerance. But no mention of films that were International other than a brief mention of The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, a brief mention of a German actress and that most of Japan's "silent" films are lost.
My other objection is of course his instant dismissal of Crime and Punishment of 1934. Complaining vigorously that others disregarded films that he liked that they haven't even viewed one gets the feeling he did that with this one. Being in the admiration of films as long as he has done (I'm not sure if he has passed away?) I'm surprised he wouldn't know that most films adapted had a loose basis from a work of literature, not an all out reproduction of said book or play to be shown on screens. To complain that the leading actor Peter Lorre was pudgy compared to how the character was portrayed in the book and that another was far too big and jovial compared to the book character does a disservice to both the actors, who were part of the best of their craft, and the director. Having seen the film I don't believe it should be overlooked just because it doesn't keep to the book and the interpretation of the film on the book is remarkable and is vastly undervalued. Film, if it is seen to be an Art, is experimental, something I believe this author overlooks, tragically.
My other objection is of course his instant dismissal of Crime and Punishment of 1934. Complaining vigorously that others disregarded films that he liked that they haven't even viewed one gets the feeling he did that with this one. Being in the admiration of films as long as he has done (I'm not sure if he has passed away?) I'm surprised he wouldn't know that most films adapted had a loose basis from a work of literature, not an all out reproduction of said book or play to be shown on screens. To complain that the leading actor Peter Lorre was pudgy compared to how the character was portrayed in the book and that another was far too big and jovial compared to the book character does a disservice to both the actors, who were part of the best of their craft, and the director. Having seen the film I don't believe it should be overlooked just because it doesn't keep to the book and the interpretation of the film on the book is remarkable and is vastly undervalued. Film, if it is seen to be an Art, is experimental, something I believe this author overlooks, tragically.
October 22, 2018
I grew up on silent films and later came to love reading film books. I remember borrowing this book from the library on a whim, because it looked like what I was looking for and I liked the title very much. I found him a bit too opinionated, I remember, but it is a bit of a memoir, after all. It does have great insight and first-hand knowledge of the medium, so I would still recommend it for lovers of silent films.
April 23, 2012
The Artist
February 9, 2013
some great anecdotes in this one from Card. what a DUDE.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews