> Much of it wasnt meant to be relevant for decades
That doesn't matter though. I find silent movies interesting simply because of their age. It's a window into how people lived back then. Compare what's in the homes of the "average person" in a silent film to what you see in one of today's movies.
Is it? Often the people featured in films were.. basically only the wealthy classes. We have ample example of how they lived.
Also, often movies today do not depict an average person, they depict an idealized version of that. We have stills of the real thing, lots of them.
Bear in mind I'm not arguing against preservation - but its a limited resource, I'd prioritize early home movies and industrial films (what little there was) over the traditional A or B picture studio output.
Well I'm not claiming that they were documentaries. But the way they showed people, wealthy or average, indicates a very different standard of living. I can't think of any specific movies: just what's on TCM that catches my attention usually.
One of the most celebrated silent film characters was, "The Little Tramp", featuring their misadventures in trying to stay alive and not starve, being an immigrant, taking on terrible and often dangerous jobs, etc.
Chaplin was a brilliant filmmaker, his stuff remains watchable to this day - but no one could seriously look at his output and call it anything resembling reality - even at the time.
You're right - movies do not function as a reflection of reality. The Gold Rush is no more a documentary than Nosferatu.
But you can say the same about Michelangelo's David. An artist's output - and preserving it, is about preserving the culture, not a snapshot in time. "What did the produce, and why?" are compelling questions to ask.
That doesn't matter though. I find silent movies interesting simply because of their age. It's a window into how people lived back then. Compare what's in the homes of the "average person" in a silent film to what you see in one of today's movies.