When approaching a silent film in 2011 I’m faced with certain apprehsensions. I’ve seen silent films before and have been a little turned off by the poor quality of the film, the music that continuously drones on and the over exaggerated acting that borders on cartoonish. Because of these preconceptions I found myself wondering if City Lights would be a rewarding experience for me or if I’d find myself checking my watch hoping that the movie would be ending soon but what I gained from this experience was the belief that, as an aspiring animated filmmaker, I’d better pay attention to these treasures from the past that are able to tell a funny and moving story in spite of any perceived technological limitations of their day.

In my research after the movie I learned that when City Lights was released, the world had already been watching talking pictures for four years. Since the sound technology was available, I found myself considering why the choice was made for this to be a silent film. One conclusion I arrived at was that it may have been an economical choice for Charlie Chaplin to make this a silent film—the technology to project a movie with sound was so new, it probably hadn’t been as widely adopted so a silent film would have a wider release and would have more revenue potential.

But I prefer to think that this movie was made as a silent film because that was the medium which he was the master. Chaplin, being first and foremost a storyteller, would no doubt have believed that the novelty of sound would have distracted the audience from his artistry much like the 3D technology in movies today imposes itself on the senses in ways that tend to distract from the drama on the screen. After so many years of telling stories that flow smoothly without the aid of the spoken word, I’m sure that he would have thought that speech and sound effects would have muddied the waters. This idea reinforces the concept that what you leave out is just as important as what you put in. As director Nicholas Meyer remarked during the audio commentary of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:

“…all the traditional artistic venues–literature, music, painting–they exercise a good deal of their impact by virtue of what they leave out. A painting does not move. Music has no image. In each case it is the willing and unskilled participation of the imagination on the part of the reader, the viewer, the listener that completes the work of art… Only movies, the 20th century art medium, has the hideous capacity to do it all for you. And in doing so it tends to render the audience passive.”

I found that as I was viewing City Lights I, and everyone else in attendance, became active participants in the viewing experience. The absence of audible dialogue did not hinder our ability to laugh, cheer, or cry as the drama on the screen unfolded. As a future animator, I realize that there is much that I can learn from these pantomime artists of the golden age of silent film. Now I know that there is an untapped—at least from my perspective—reservoir of creative inspiration just waiting to be dipped into.

[This article was a thought paper turned in for my Introduction to Film class at Brigham Young University after viewing the film City Lights]