I've been going back and forth between The Iron Horse and The Thief of bagdad comparing them not because they have much in common but because they're both epic's i really like and admit aren't nearly as good as their reputation would suggest.
What's interesting to me in this comparison is that they suffer from mutually exclusive problems typical for the films of the period (both came out in 1924) and they could've learned a lot from one another.
The sets in thief of bagdad, like many films of the time (even those praised for their set design) have this fake "cardboard box" look.you know, the flat walls and pillars, the plastic steels and swords, the curtain ocean, not to mention motionless monsters held up by easily observable wires. Realism doesn't matter but you should maintain some level of believability and having walls so flat and smooth you'd think they're cleaned by razors, next to normal actors doesn't work like it'd If everything was flat like in an animation.
Why The Iron Horse is such an achievement is exactly because it maintains an extremely high level of believability and realism for the whole duration (other than the first 15 minutes). It's hard to doubt anything in the film when just watching people make railroads is so enjoyable and believable even when you should be doubting what's happening.
What it suffers from is the structure and pacing of the story, once you stop feeling immersed and think about the story, you realize it's filled with irrelevant stuff (the Lincoln scenes would be an easy example) and when the film ends, you might have some appreciation for the history and the labor of workers that connected east and west but you'll have none for the characters, the romance, the revenge subplot and ... that just take you out of the experience.
On the hand in The thief of bagdad, watching fairbanks' character alone is a joy. The film is filled with interesting cultures and curios with a story so tight i couldn't believe it was around 160 minutes when i first watched it. The film simply provides a descent story with effective storytelling while still providing enough for the viewer to appreciate the history of Baghdad as well.
I've also noticed that it seems like the older the picture, the more knowledgeable it is about other cultures, there are many things in this film, even in the title cards, that show the creators actually researched/knew about the setting and that they at least looked up some arabic/persian books. This might sound counterintuitive in the age of "diversity" and "inclusion" but what i've seen is that the diverse characters of modern films are only diverse cosmetically, they don't actually possess diverse identities (cultures,beliefs,ideologies,religions) that older films include.
In conclusion, I'd recommend both of these for those interested in history, even hollywood history but i don't see how others would enjoy them.
What's interesting to me in this comparison is that they suffer from mutually exclusive problems typical for the films of the period (both came out in 1924) and they could've learned a lot from one another.
The sets in thief of bagdad, like many films of the time (even those praised for their set design) have this fake "cardboard box" look.you know, the flat walls and pillars, the plastic steels and swords, the curtain ocean, not to mention motionless monsters held up by easily observable wires. Realism doesn't matter but you should maintain some level of believability and having walls so flat and smooth you'd think they're cleaned by razors, next to normal actors doesn't work like it'd If everything was flat like in an animation.
Why The Iron Horse is such an achievement is exactly because it maintains an extremely high level of believability and realism for the whole duration (other than the first 15 minutes). It's hard to doubt anything in the film when just watching people make railroads is so enjoyable and believable even when you should be doubting what's happening.
What it suffers from is the structure and pacing of the story, once you stop feeling immersed and think about the story, you realize it's filled with irrelevant stuff (the Lincoln scenes would be an easy example) and when the film ends, you might have some appreciation for the history and the labor of workers that connected east and west but you'll have none for the characters, the romance, the revenge subplot and ... that just take you out of the experience.
On the hand in The thief of bagdad, watching fairbanks' character alone is a joy. The film is filled with interesting cultures and curios with a story so tight i couldn't believe it was around 160 minutes when i first watched it. The film simply provides a descent story with effective storytelling while still providing enough for the viewer to appreciate the history of Baghdad as well.
I've also noticed that it seems like the older the picture, the more knowledgeable it is about other cultures, there are many things in this film, even in the title cards, that show the creators actually researched/knew about the setting and that they at least looked up some arabic/persian books. This might sound counterintuitive in the age of "diversity" and "inclusion" but what i've seen is that the diverse characters of modern films are only diverse cosmetically, they don't actually possess diverse identities (cultures,beliefs,ideologies,religions) that older films include.
In conclusion, I'd recommend both of these for those interested in history, even hollywood history but i don't see how others would enjoy them.