There hasn't been a decent, honest to goodness silent film since Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times" in 1937, so the method of silent film making has been almost forgotten. I, too, don't know how films were made in the silent era, but I have developed a method, which I doubt is much different from theirs.

Obviously, there is no sound. This is both a plus and a minus. It makes the acting easier and harder at the same time. The actor has to speak his/her lines through his/her eyes and body.

THIS WILL CONTINUE LATER!!! Okay now it's later, and much MUCH later. The Dingbat is finally complete and I have a better understanding of silent comedies now. I am at the point of thinking that pacing and humor are the key factors. You can have a funny movie without good pacing but it will look amatuer, and you can have a fast movie that's stupid and it will look amatuer. But I suppose this is true of all movies, not just the silent ones.
My method of shooting differs from most people because I have nothing other than a camera and a small cast. While Chaplin and Keaton could close city streets and run trains for their films, I have to run around avoiding cops (cops have gotten involved in both of my movies so far). Guerrila filmmaking is unfortunately the path that I have to take, but it's fun and adds a little excitement, so that may be good.
But how do I make films? Well, to be honest, I go vigilante more or less. I do whatever is neccessary to make sure that I have people to help me and that it's organized. Well, that may be a glorified version, but more or less that's it. It starts with an idea, then branches into an obsession, and then the movie begins.
Once we all get to our location and start shooting, it seems to just flow. With no sound I can tell directions instead of reciting lines (which I often do. When it looks like I'm talking to somebody, look at my lips, I might be saying "now move to the left".). I normally like to do at least 5 takes of each shot, though in both movies specific shots may easily have passed 50 takes.
I guess there's really not much to it. What you see is what you get. There's no real 'art' to it that I can discern. The acting has to be more flamboyant and the direction more precise (precise meaning encompassing as much in every shot as possible). I'll give you an example of bad directing: in the Dingbat, after I have hung from the balcony, climbed back up and dodged Dylans fist, I meet the Cop, Nate. There's a pause and I push Nate's hat over his head and make my escape. This would have worked from a different angle, but from the angle I used it didn't work as well.
At the moment I am writing this I am very frustrated, because the movie I so badly want to shoot will take a lot of people, and sadly not many want to help. Such is my story. My friend, colleague and rival Shawn Nelson over at Nelson Entertainment has all the equipment, all the sets and all the cast. It's really quite incredible what he's strung together. I, on the other hand, am lucky to get 5 dedicated people. Which is fine and I should be grateful for the five (which I am).

So I suppose my method for shooting silent comedies is more madness. Work as hard as you can to make sure it happens, then when you get the chance, do it like you've never done anything else. I try as hard as I can to be creative and make people laugh, and do my best as an editor to make sure it all comes together. I guess I have shown myself phenomenally stupid by writing this utterly pointless essay that shows no insight into filmmaking and has utterly no recognizable merit. If you got something out of this drivel,