"Borderline" is a bit late for a silent film, but as the British were a bit slower in converting to sound AND this appeared to be made by folks who didn't have the slightest idea how to make a film, it's not surprising it lacks sound.
Had it not been for Paul Robeson being in this film, I really don't think any one would care about this experimental film today (even with its interesting plot idea about interracial sex). It's just a badly made art film--very badly made. And, because there is no sound, you don't get to hear Robeson's gorgeous voice--making me wonder if there is any reason to see the movie? For me, the answer is an emphatic NO! Here are some of the MANY problems I had in watching the film. First, as the film lacked a real narrative and had very few captions, it was often hard to tell what was happening. And, in some cases, it looked as if the actors were in the same boat! Several times, they moved about--as if aimlessly wandering in front of a camera with no instruction from the director (if there even was one). This was intensified by bad editing. Second, the acting was bad--and it's obvious the folks didn't know the first thing about acting. While Robeson had already appeared in a couple silents, he wasn't terribly experienced and lacked his later screen presence. Third, the soundtrack provided by Criterion is god-awful. It's a cacophonous jazz track that is intense and quite loud--and dominates the film. It would be better to see this one with the sound turned all the way down--it's that bad.
The bottom line is that I love Paul Robeson films but this one is among the 'not read for prime time' films he made. It's definitely a film for the cinemaniac and those who adore his movies and don't mind seeing a terrible film--and this is a terrible movie.
FYI--That's Robeson's wife in the film!
Had it not been for Paul Robeson being in this film, I really don't think any one would care about this experimental film today (even with its interesting plot idea about interracial sex). It's just a badly made art film--very badly made. And, because there is no sound, you don't get to hear Robeson's gorgeous voice--making me wonder if there is any reason to see the movie? For me, the answer is an emphatic NO! Here are some of the MANY problems I had in watching the film. First, as the film lacked a real narrative and had very few captions, it was often hard to tell what was happening. And, in some cases, it looked as if the actors were in the same boat! Several times, they moved about--as if aimlessly wandering in front of a camera with no instruction from the director (if there even was one). This was intensified by bad editing. Second, the acting was bad--and it's obvious the folks didn't know the first thing about acting. While Robeson had already appeared in a couple silents, he wasn't terribly experienced and lacked his later screen presence. Third, the soundtrack provided by Criterion is god-awful. It's a cacophonous jazz track that is intense and quite loud--and dominates the film. It would be better to see this one with the sound turned all the way down--it's that bad.
The bottom line is that I love Paul Robeson films but this one is among the 'not read for prime time' films he made. It's definitely a film for the cinemaniac and those who adore his movies and don't mind seeing a terrible film--and this is a terrible movie.
FYI--That's Robeson's wife in the film!