I haven't seen the film in it's original format (obviously). What I have seen is the closest thing available, which is the reconstruction from 2002, which you can find on YouTube, based on the exceptional amounts of promotional photographs taken during shooting, documenting every scene.
So, no, in that reconstruction you do not actually see the actors moving or hear them talking. Well you wouldn't have heard them talking anyway, since the original was a silent film. ;)
But I think I can form a reasonable mental image of what the original film would have looked like based on what you do get to see:
- The story, including the title cards with dialogue and plot elements, which I assume they were able to copy from any surviving scripts, for instance and which I assume look similar if not identical to the original title cards.
- The great range of locations, atmospheres and facial expressions, makeup and costumes that you get to see in the photographs. After all, the collection of promotional photographs that exist from this film document every scene from the film from multiple angles.
- Seeing comparable films from the same genre and period
- Seeing some of the actors at work in other films
What I'm trying to say is: the quality and enjoyability of a film is determined by more than actually seeing the actors move. The story, dialogue, locations, makeup, costumes, casting also make up a big part, and you get to see all of those things in the reconstruction. I mean, some people can enjoy films by simply reading the script and nothing more. Compared to that, the reconstruction of London After Midnight is still a pretty rich experience to give you an impression of the film! :P
Also, for my own personal archive I rate every film that I see (or in this case: the closest possible thing that exists to actually seeing the film) on IDMb, so that's why I also rated this film.
-- Greetings, RagingR2
reply
share