7. Broken Blossoms (1919)

Title: Broken Blossoms
Genre: Drama, Romance
IMDB User Score: 7.8/10 Stars
Year: 1919
Language: English
Format: Black & White, Silent
Length: 90 Minutes
Director: D.W. Griffith
Producer: D.W. Griffith
Screenplay: Thomas Burke, D.W. Burke
Photography: G.W. Bitzer
Music: D.W. Griffith
Cast: Lillian Gish, Richard Barthelmess, Donald Crisp, Arthur Howard, Edward Peil St. George Beranger, Norman Selby
Oscar: No
Oscar Nomination: No
Budget: $88,000
Revenue: ?
Reason it’s Significant:

- Considered by many to be the best film D.W. Griffith ever made, and if not, then certainly his most beautiful
- Went to extreme measures to utilize every method of photographic enhancement available at the time, resulting in a picture quality that is uncharacteristically good for the time period
- Contains the infamous “closet scene” which was so dramatically acted that people had to be restrained from barging onto the set, after hearing the screams, and caused Griffith to be sick on the set.
- Selected for preservation in the National Film Registry


Of the D.W. Griffith films I have seen, this is hands down his best. Broken Blossoms (1919) is a film that takes the accepted limitations of the silent era and throws them all out the window. Everything from the acting, the story, and the photography is done with a sort of simplicity that makes it deeper and more heartfelt than almost anything that has ever been done with a computer.

The first thing you’ll notice upon viewing Broken Blossoms is the film quality. This film is GORGEOUS (which is saying something given how much of the movie takes place in dusty shops and opium dens). The cinematographers of this film used EVERYTHING at their disposal to make this film stand head and shoulders above the competition at the time; powder makeup, specialized lighting equipment, oil smeared lenses, etc. They even used sheets of diaphanous gauze hung from the ceiling to create primitive light filters. The comparison between this and what was typically being done at the time is impossible to accurately describe in words; the film is just something that needs to be experienced to understand it. This is real art.

Also of note is the acting and storytelling. Lillian Gish collaborates with Griffith once again to great effect, continuing to show that she has a natural affinity for the screen. She really carries the film effortlessly. The story itself is a simple but effective one. Nothing about it tries to be revolutionary or ground-breaking, but I think that is to the films credit. Without spoiling the plot, I will say this is a very Shakespearian love story, lending it a sort of timeless appeal. Be cautious if you’re a person who cries during movies, because not only is the storyline tragic as all hell (on multiple levels), but Lillian Gish also has a ridiculously emotive face. Oh yes, there will be tears. Griffith’s recurring theme of bad things happening to innocent people is present once again in this film with vigor. The emotional simplicity of this film secures its place in movie-making history and is something that demands to be experienced by all.

6. Das Kabinett Des Doktor Caligari (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) (1919)

Title: Das Kabinett Des Doktor Caligari (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari)
Genre: Fantasy, Horror
IMDB User Score: 8.1/10 Stars
Year: 1919
Language: German
Format: Black & White, Silent
Length: 71 Minutes
Director: Robert Wiene
Producer: Rudolf Meinert, Erich Pommer
Screenplay: Hans Janowitz, Carl Mayer
Photography: Willy Hameister
Music: Alfredo Antoini, Giuseppe Becce, Timothy Brock, Richard Marriott, Peter Schirmann, Rainer Viertbock
Cast: Werner Krauss, Conrad Veidt, Friedrich Feher, Lil Dagover, Hans Heinrich von Twardowski, Rudolf Lettinger, Rudolf Klein-Rogge
Oscar: No
Oscar Nomination: No
Budget: DEM 20,000
Revenue: ?
Reason it’s Significant:

- Directly influenced the works of Tim Burton and Rob Zombie
- A key movie in the development of expressionistic film-making, and most likely THE most influential German expressionistic film.
- Introduces fundamental horror elements to cinema that have now been used to the point of cliché (mad scientist villains, sideshow settings, women-abducting monsters, etc)
- Considered by many to be the first “true” horror film

Aaaaaaah yeah. Here’s the juice. I LOVE this shit. Movies like this create an atmosphere of creepy mystery and wonder that just cannot be topped. And I’m glad that I’ve finally seen the father of the genre, because it delivers on every level. The moment you step into this movie, you’re stepping into a different world. One based in the mind of a mad man. Anyone with eyes can see Tim Burton’s inspiration overflowing from this movie. Sets are made out of cartoony cardboard clumsily glued together, platforms slant and zigzag in awkward and nonsensical directions, and there is a thick, creepy atmosphere in every scene, aided by the film’s carnival setting. Simply put, this is a world that would have both Batman and Jack Skellington feeling right at home. In fact, the “monster” of the film reminded me a lot of the protagonist of Edward Scissorhands (1990) in his appearance.

The imagery of the film is fantastic and the plot, while not too groundbreaking for today’s audience, is very good. To spoil the film would be criminal, but suffice to say, there is one hell of a twist here. The basic idea of the film’s final moments has been replicated in years since, but I have never seen it done better than it was here. I was genuinely shocked. The great thing about it though, is that the movie leaves the truth up to interpretation. It lets the viewer decide just what the ending is supposed to mean, and how it affects the characters involved. It’s bound to leave a chill up your spine, no matter which way you interpret it. This movie is a key figure in the expressionistic movement for very good reason.

And this IS a creepy film. The titular character of Dr. Caligari is one scary bastard. The fact that the filmmakers painted shadows on peoples faces to add to the surrealism doesn’t help. It makes even the most normal people in the film look like they could be the walking undead. The sense of ever-present dread and uncertainty mixed with disturbing and bizarre villains serve to create unsettling experience that most modern horror movies only wish they could rival. Believe me when I say that this one was appearing in my dreams the next night.

5. Intolerance (1916)

Title: Intolerance
Genre: Drama
IMDB User Score: 8.1/10 Stars
Year: 1916
Language: English
Format: Black & White, Silent
Length: 163 Minutes

Director: D.W. Griffith
Producer: D.W. Griffith
Screenplay: Tod Browning, D.W. Griffith
Photography: G.W. Bitzer, Karl Brown
Music: Joseph Carl Breil, Carl Davis, D.W. Griffith
Cast: Spottiswoode Aitken, Mary Alden, Frank Bennet, Barney Bernard, Monte Blue, Lucille Browne, Tod Browning, William H. Brown, Edmund Burns, William E. Cassidy, Elmer Clifton, Miriam Cooper, Jack Cosgrave, Josephine Crowell, Dore Davidson, Sam De Grasse, Edward Dillon, Pearl Elmore, Lillian Gish, Ruth Handforth, Robert Harron, Joseph Henabery, Chandler House, Lloyd Ingraham, W.E. Lawrence, Ralph Lewis, Vera Lewis, Elmo Lincoln, Walter Long, Mrs. Arthur Mackley, Tully Marshall, Mae Marsh, Marguerite Marsh, John P. McCarthy, A.W. McClure, Seena Owen, Alfred Paget, Eugene Pallette, Georgia Pearce, Nilly Quirk, Wallace Reid, Allan Sears, George Siegmann, Maxfield Stanley, Carl Stockdale, Madame Sul-Te-Wan, Constance Talmadge, F.A. Turner, W.S. Van Dyke, Geunther von Ritzau, Erich von Stroheim, George Walsh, Eleanor Washington, Margery Wilson, Tom Wilson
Oscar: No
Oscar Nomination: No
Budget: $2,000,000
Revenue: ?
Reason it’s Significant:

- Revolutionary structure of cutting between many different parallel stories, rather than following a single story. This was unheard of at the time of the film’s release.
- So expensive to produce that it caused the Triangle Film Corporation to go bankrupt.
- Features an unheard of number of hired extras (up to estimated 3000 people on screen at some points)
- The ultimate D.W. Griffith film in terms of screenwriting and shot design. Taking the time period into consideration; the scale of this film has never been equaled.
- Selected for preservation in the National Film Registry
- Lead to the invention of false eyelashes

The next Griffith film on the list is a direct response to the criticism he received for his part in making The Birth of a Nation (1915). After being accused (probably wrongly) of being a racist and a bigot, Griffith answered in grand style by creating a film that is the ultimate testament to human understanding and acceptance. And he went BIG. The scale of this film is incredible to behold, even by today’s standards. The film is split into 4 stories, each from different time periods of history. The film jumps between each story at random intervals, increasing in pace as the film reaches its climax, and each story is chock full of thousands upon thousands of extras and HUGE set pieces. Of particular note are the Babylon sequences, which are just gigantic. There is no way you would ever see crowd scenes this large today without CGI assistance. One scene in particular stands out in my mind: A massive Persian army marches upon the gates of Babylon and all the audience can see is a wave of people stretching as far as the eye can see. It reminded me immensely of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), but instead of an army of CGI orcs it was an army of real life people

In fact, you can really see the effects in general really starting to come together for the industry in this film. I was quite shocked when, during one of the battle scenes, a soldier ran up and decapitated another man right in front of the camera. Yes, it looked fake, but it didn’t look TERRIBLE as I would have expected a film made in 1916 to look. There were no sudden jump cuts or other sloppy editing methods to safely remove an actor from the shot, just well made prosthetics and a cleverly maneuvered camera. The acting in the film was also quite good, particurally in the “modern” story, and you could tell that a sense of pacing was beginning to be established for directors during this time period. This movie in general flowed much better than the narrative of Birth of a Nation.

However, I am not without complaints when it comes to this movie. My biggest complaint is the framing story that connects the four tales in the film. Every time the narrative jumps from one time period to the next we are treated to this shot of a woman rocking her baby in a large cradle. Now, I’m not really sure if Griffith was trying to create some deep symbolism here or what the hell that is, but there is absolutely no explanation for it. At all. The exact same shot flickers into few during every scene change, and, towards the end (when the scene changes begin to ramp up in frequency) the shot is so fast that it looks like a subliminal message. I don’t know what it means, but its really, really creepy and comparatively random. Several times towards the end I had to stop and ask just what the hell was going on. There was just much better ways, to transition between stories like that, and I do not blame 1916 movie goers for their confusion and the resulting lack of revenue.

My second complaint is how self-righteous this film is. Towards the end it’s literally just cramming moral lessons down your throat. I know Griffith was combating accusations of racism, but he didn’t have to be so incredibly blatant about it. Good movies will leave the moral message up to the viewer, allowing the audience to decide what they want to take away from the film. Griffith’s approach here lacks all subtlety, and frankly, becomes a bit annoying. I came here to watch a movie, not attend church.

While the film is not without its problems, it certainly is worth watching for the artistic merit alone. Some people have called this the most ambitious film ever created. They may be right. The final product certainly reflects a level of ambition that is almost extinct in modern cinema.

4. Les Vampires (1915)

Title: Les Vampires
Genre: Horror
IMDB User Score: 6.9/10
Year: 1915
Language: French
Format: Black & White, Silent
Length: 440 Minutes

Director: Louis Feuillade
Producer: Gaumont
Screenplay: Louis Feuillade
Photography: ?
Music: Robert Israel
Cast: Musidora, Edouard Mathe, Marcel Levesque, Jean Ayme, Fernand Herrmann, Stacia Napierkowska
Oscar: No
Oscar Nomination: No
Budget: ?
Revenue: ?
Reason it’s Significant:

- A landmark step forward for both the surrealist movement and thriller movies in general
- Musidora’s break out role
- Showcases some absurdly dangerous stunt-work, that is essentially unheard of in this day and age

Coming in at roughly 8 hours and taking me 3 days to successfully watch, this 10 part movie serial was a titan of a film to get through. But believe me when I say that it was VERY well worth it. Before having started this list of movies, I would have been hard pressed to believe that a silent film could keep me as on the edge of my seat as this one did. This is a movie full of so many plot twists, cliff hangers, trap doors, hidden passages, booby traps, re-emerging “dead” characters, and INGENIOUS villains, that I was kept constantly wondering what was going to happen next throughout the entire series.

Contrary to what the title may lead you to believe, this is NOT a movie about paranormal vampires. The plot essentially revolves around a huge underground criminal organization known as “The Vampires” who arise in Paris to spread anarchy by killing, robbing, and kidnapping the upper class citizens and important political figures of the city. A young journalist named Philippe and his bumbling side-kick Mazamette make it their personal mission to help the police bring down the shadowy organization, while competing with a more stereotypical criminal ring lead by Philippe’s arch-nemesis, who also have an interest in destroying the vampires. Along the way, they cross with the vampire’s most dangerous member; a femme fatale named Irma Vep (An oh so clever anagram for “Vampire”. Hur dur) who, while not the leader of the vampires, uses her seductive abilities to be a puppet master of sorts behind the organization, making her the most dangerous of the many villains Philippe encounters on his quest, and the true antagonist of the story.

The two main protagonists are great fun to behold. The character of Mazamette is HILARIOUS and literally had me rolling at some parts. Clearly inspired by Charlie Chaplin, he provides a much needed element of comic relief in what is otherwise a fairly dark tale. He really steals the show here, and for good reason. The sense of comedic timing in his performance is shockingly modern. As for Philippe himself, he is a very likeable protagonist and is a spitting image of Sherlock Holmes. Using truly ingenious tactics, he is always able to keep one step ahead of his deadly adversaries, preferring to use his mind rather than violence to outwit them, but able to rely upon either. This is a good thing, because the villains in this film are just insane. They pull off ingenious plots and take daring risks that never ceased to keep me wondering what was going to happen. I literally gasped at a few parts, particurally at one scene where I genuinely thought the protagonist was going to die. They just never lay off the surprises. And speaking of dying, the stunt work in this film is incredible! People climb up buildings like spiders, leap across roof tops, stow-away on the top of moving cars, swing out of windows on ropes, jump onto moving trains and much, much more without ANY safety equipment or (in most cases) stunt actors! You can really tell that there are no ropes or wires keeping these guys in place, they are in genuine danger 9 times out of 10. This is stuff you just won’t see anymore.

But if I have one complaint with the movie, it’s this: The lack of a single strong villain. Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of great villains in this movie, most all of them with a cool James Bond-esque gimmick or special ability that makes them unique, but none of them are around throughout the entire serial, as they are dispatched, appear, and re-appear at different intervals throughout the story. The only absolute constant is Irma Vep. But, without giving anything away, she doesn’t really get a satisfying conflict with Philippe. Essentially, I think I would have liked to see a Moriarty to Philippe’s Sherlock. But that’s a fairly minor complaint against a serial that is a truly entertaining from start to finish.

3. The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Title: The Birth of a Nation
Genre: Drama, History, Romance, War, Western
IMDB User Score: 7.1/10 Stars
Year: 1915
Language: English
Format: Black & White, Silent
Length: 190 minutes

Director: D.W. Griffith
Producer: D.W. Griffith
Screenplay: D.W. Griffith
Photography: G.W. Bitzer
Music: Joseph Carl Breil
Cast: Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Henry B. Walthall, Miriam Cooper, Mary Alden, Ralph Lewis, George Siegmann, Walter Long, Robert Harron, Wallace Reid, Joseph Henabery, Elmer Clifton, Josephine Crowell, Spottiswoode Aitken, George Beranger
Oscar: No
Oscar Nomination: No
Budget: $110,000
Revenue: $10,000,000
Reason it’s Significant:

- Simultaneously one of the most revered and reviled films ever made
- The first really important film by D.W. Griffith, signaling an end to an era of cinema, and the start of the “Griffith period”
- Is directly responsible for the re-formation of the KKK, and caused the KKK to have it’s largest estimated membership in history the year of the movie’s release
- The first historical epic ever made
- Features the first use of dramatic close-ups in history
- Features the first use of a tracking shot
- Features the very first orchestral score in a movie
- First use of parallel action scenes
- First use of crosscutting
- Features the first scene ever filmed at night
- One of the most controversial American films ever created, both for its message and the fact that it was so commercially successful. Upon release it sparked riots, one of the earliest NAACP protests, and was banned in many places.
- The first successful “feature length” film
- The highest grossing film of it’s day
- Has been chosen for preservation in the National Film Registry
- First film containing the iconic Lillian Gish/G.W. Griffith actor/director combination
- First film to be shown in the White House
- Had the largest budget of any film up to that time
- Launched a massive counter-culture of African American filmmakers
- One of the most powerful pieces of confederate propaganda (and, propaganda in general) ever created.
- Considered by many to mark the birth of modern American cinema

OH WOW. There is not enough room within this blog to discuss all that deserves to be discussed about this movie. Simply put: this movie will make your jaw drop. First, a preface: I have seen a lot of racist things in my life. I have met a lot of racist people, and I have heard a lot of outrageous racist remarks. And typically, racism doesn’t faze me. In fact, I have a tendency to get annoyed with those who overreact about racism, as I believe the reaction is what gives racism such power.

That being said, this film is RIDICULOUS. I always knew KKK members did what they did under the belief that they were performing a holy duty, but the level of delusion seen in this movie is hands down one of the most eye-opening things I’ve ever beheld. I lack the vocabulary to properly convey just how warped this movie is. It is truly something that needs to be seen to be believed. The movie essentially shows the civil war and the following abolitionist movement from the point of view of the deep southerners. It exists within its own bastardized version of history in which black people were crazed animals who took over the house of representatives, the military, and society in general after the conclusion of the civil war. Of course, the KKK is formed and rides in LITTERALLY portrayed as white knight cavaliers to save the oppressed white people who are being raped, lynched, and murdered in the streets by the crazed niggers. There is a special kind of insanity portrayed here that you will be hard pressed to find anywhere else, especially in a venue as mainstream as this. By the end of this thing, I was beginning to sympathize with the KKK. Yes, an 18 year old boy living in the 21st century, in the northern-most tip of America, with liberal political leanings was beginning to see the point of view of the KKK. I think that speaks volumes about the power of propaganda like this. I can only imagine the reassurance felt by southerners after this seeing this movie at the time of its release, especially when you keep in mind that most civil war veterans were still alive when this film came out. And the powerful effect this film did have on that audience is plainly evident in the massive boom of KKK membership that occurred that very same year. It is no coincidence. This movie is a look into the delusion of unbridled evil that may never be equaled again. The level of understanding that one gains about the nature of evil by watching this film is an enlightening experience that NEEDS to be experienced by all. You will be absolutely floored, I guarantee it.

But as ridiculous as this movie is in its message, it’s equally ridiculous in its technical and artistic merit. This movie is BEAUTIFUL. As a film student, it was a huge thrill to see dozens of some of the most common film techniques being utilized for the first time here. The budget for this film was astronomical for the time period, and it shows. The action scenes are massive, and the acting is intense. Of particular note would be the massive civil war battle scene that happens towards the end of the first act. Griffith staged this scene masterfully. With the use of hundreds of explosions and smoke bombs he is able to make a few hundred extras look like a few thousand. The pan shots are breathtaking to behold. One shot in particular that stands out in my mind is the shot of one of the protagonists rushing across the front line of the battlefield and clogging an enemy cannon by shoving a confederate flag down the barrel of it. Come on, that is just epic. Basically, this movie needs to be experienced on every level. Just, do it, see this movie. If you sit through it, you’ll come out the other end a more enlightened human being. Just don’t let the culture shock kick your ass in the process.

2. The Great Train Robbery (1903)

Title: The Great Train Robbery
Genre: Short, Crime, Western
IMDB User Score: 7.5/10 Stars
Year: 1903
Language: English
Format: Silent, Black & White
Length: 12 Minutes

Director: Edwin S. Porter
Producer: Edwin S. Porter
Screenplay: Scott Marble, Edwin S. Porter
Photography: Edwin S. Porter, Blair Smith
Music: ?
Cast: A.C. Abadie, Gilbert M. “Bronco Billy” Anderson, George Barnes, Walter Cameron, Frank Hanaway, Morgan Jones, Tom London, Marie Murray, Mary Snow
Oscar: No
Oscar Nomination: No
Budget: ?
Revenue: ?
Reason it’s Significant:

- The first western film ever made
- The most commercially successful film of the pre-Griffith period of American cinema
- Has spawned hundreds of imitations
- The first movie featuring Gilbert M. Anderson, the actor who portrayed famous “Bronco Billy”, who has appeared in over a hundred different films
- One of the first “narrative” movies, featuring a level of narrative sophistication almost unheard of at the time of its release
- The final scene is one of the most infamous in movie history, and caused 1903 movie going audiences great distress and alarm upon first experiencing it
- Most likely the direct inspiration for the James Bond opening “gun barrel” credits
- First cinematic instance of the “make someone dance by shooting at their feet” cliché


This is a great little movie. It’s very basic, but very effective at what it does. The plot is simple: A small group of bandits rob a train. But the way it’s done is what makes it revolutionary. The movie has an excellent sense of narrative. Unlike prior movies of the time, such as A Trip to the Moon (1902), every scene in this movie serves to further the plot. This makes it feel a lot more like what we as a modern audience consider being a “movie”, as opposed to most movies of the time which were really more like random skits.

The action scenes are what make this movie, and I found them to be surprisingly engaging. In fact, while watching this I was thoroughly reminded of the opening sequence to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989). The film is filled with intense gunfights and harrowing rough-and-tumble melee combat, as people throw each other from train cars and dodge bullets. Most of this is fairly engaging although, this high action combat is where my one major complaint about the movie derives from. This was before the time of sophisticated safety precautions and stunt actors. So, to avoid killing the actors, they had to slow the train down A LOT during the scenes that involved people falling off the train. This is especially noticeable during a fight sequence on top of the coal stack. You can see the trees in the background moving along at a snails pace compared to how fast the train should be moving. I know its kind of nitpicky to critique the special effects of a movie made in 1903, but this REALLY threw me out of the experience.

Despite all this, the real show stealer is of course the very final shot of the movie. The scene of the bandit unloading his six-shooter directly into the camera is still one of the most famous in cinema history. While it may seem laughable to us today, this shattering of the fourth wall scared the hell out of some older movie goers, many of whom were attending a movie for the very first time when they went to see this film, as they thought they were really being shot at. Even today I found it to be a little creepy. The sudden drop out of the ever-present whimsical black-and-white movie soundtrack to replace with the cold dull pounding of the bullets is definitely jarring. I’m not sure if there is some moral message meant to be attached to this shot, but whatever its purpose is, it’s definitely unnerving. This movie is not only the father of all western movies, but it is a credit to the genre, standing as a testament to the ingenuity of the earliest film makers.