Having read Eisenstein's, Pudovkin's, and Alexandrov's Statement on Sound, and using an example of a film we have screened in class, agree or disagree with the following, in 2-3 well-developed paragraphs:
We who work in the USSR recognise that, given our technical capabilities, the practical implementation of sound cinema is not feasible in the near future. At the same time we consider it opportune to make a statement on a number of prerequisite theoretical principles, particularly as according to reports reaching us, attempts are being made to use this new improvement in cinema for the wrong purposes. In addition, an incorrect understanding of the potential of the new technical invention might not only hinder the development and improvement of cinema as an art form but might also threaten to destroy all its formal achievements to date.
If you choose to use a sound film to disagree with the statement, your essay will be stronger if you include an example from a silent film we've viewed (or one you've viewed on your own). Vice versa, if you choose to agree with the statement and use a silent film as your choice, be sure to include examples from a sound film to make your point.
If you have any questions, please see me.
Due: Friday, February 4, 2011.
Despite the concerns of the Russian filmmakers Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and Alexandrov, the introduction of sound to film did not “destroy all its formal achievements” but instead added to the entire filmmaking process. Sound brought new achievements to the art of film, adding a level of drama and complexity that would have been unimaginable in the dark era of silence.
ReplyDeleteOne instance of sound that added such complexity to film was Orsen Welles’ use of deep focus in Citizen Kane. A memorable scene in which this technique is employed is a flashback to Kane’s childhood. As Kane’s parents coldly talk with Thatcher in the foreground we see and hear a young Kane playing in the background. The sounds of his laughter are ever-present, serving as a consistent reminder that the plan being discussed in the foreground will forever strip Kane of his childish innocence and happiness. Without the sound of Kane’s voice the viewer may not have been able to fully appreciate Kane’s childhood and the feeling of happiness and bliss he experienced while sledding, as such the reveal of Rosebud at the end of the film would not have been as dramatic or powerful. The ability of deep focus in sound to shape a film was certainly a revolutionary achievement that would not have been possible in a silent film. Sound also heightens drama in films through non-diegetic music, as seen each time the shark appears in Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. Such instances help to build up the feeling of suspense and anxiety in the viewer. Similarly, movies replete with sound, such as Fritz Lang’s M, can use a carefully placed moment of silence to create suspense. In this film the presence of silence makes the viewer uneasy in anticipation of another murder, a feat that would be impossible to achieve in a completely silent film.
Although silent films made many strides in cinematography, with the visual images in montages having a profound effect on the audience, this effect would have been stronger with the addition of sound. One such example is the breathtaking work of class-conscious revolutionary propaganda, Battle Ship Potemkin by Eisentein himself. Although his haunting Odessa Step Sequence is powerful on its own, the addition of anguished cries and pleas in the midst of gunshots throughout the entire montage sequence would have confronted the viewers even further. If that scene was shown with sounds of this terror, it would have pulled on the viewer’s heartstrings with greater force. In this way it would have strengthened Eisentein’s political message, not ruined it. Furthermore, the inclusion of written dialogue in silent films such as The General, broke up the flow of the film and took away from the feeling that would have been created if these same lines were spoken allowed. These dialogue cards abruptly cut shots of the action, preventing the viewer from truly getting lost in the film. As such, sound was truly a welcome addition to film, helping to develop the art of these silent works even further.
Due to the complexity of films today, it is almost unimaginable when thinking of them completely silent. Having seen silent movies and understanding the importance of visual presentation, I do not believe that sound detracts from anything shown onscreen. Rather, it adds a very powerful sense of viewer comprehension and excitement, all while bringing the art of film to an entire new level.
ReplyDeleteIn Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho,” sound is an extremely important device used to convey drama, suspense, excitement, horror, and insight. In the famous shower sequence, non- diegetic music is used to build up suspense and scare within the audience. Visually, you can see the killer enter the bathroom, and of course are able to anticipate Marion’s fate. Without the music however, you wouldn’t necessarily know or understand the context of the situation. The music sets the mood and brings the viewer into the world of the film. As Marion gets attacked, her screams and pleas (as horrible as it is) involve the viewer and make them become emotionally attached. These specific sounds heighten the drama and make for a very complex scenario. Since the shots in this sequence move so quickly and already put the viewer in deep focus, the sound only enhances the scene, despite what the critics in “Statement on Sound” believe. In films such as “Double Indemnity,” the use of voice-over is just another important example of sound. This, as mentioned before, gives the audience a much greater insight into the mind of the character, something that would be impossible in a silent film. In agreement with the article, however, an example such as Malick’s “Days of Heaven,” provides a huge emphasis on visual significance rather than sound. Granted, there is dialogue, music, and any other sound effect, this particular movie makes the viewer focus on landscape much more then anything else. In my opinion. its visual beauty is much more captivating then any other aspect, including sound.
Although silent films are clearly a monumental part of film history, and essentially began every effort in filmmaking known today, their acute affect would have been even more powerful with the inclusion of sound. One prime example is the comedy and drama of Buster Keaton’s, “The General.” Each train sequence has compelling visual effects that were astonishing for that time period. Despite being a forerunner in the silent film era, this film would be much better understood with the involvement of dialogue and diegetic sounds regardless of its interesting plot and complex sequences. Another element that detracts from the viewing pleasure of this film is the use of subtitle pages. If dialogue was included, this obviously wouldn’t be needed to tell the story. The constant shift from the actual picture to the dialogue breaks up the story in an unpleasant way. Also, the lack of dialogue and sounds makes the viewer feel as though the film is unrealistic. Sound is a crucial part of film that definitely adds to its already exquisite features.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteContrary to the opinions of Eisenstein, Pudovkin and Alexandrov, I believe that rather than hinder it, sound has helped improve the development of cinema as an art form. The invention of cinematic sound adds a completely new component to the editing and filming process that enriches the audience’s emotional reaction to a particular film.
ReplyDeleteConsider, for instance, “Nosferatu”, a German Expressionist horror film, directed by Friedrich Murnau. “Nosferatu” was released in 1922, prior to cinema’s transition into sound. While there is no denying that “Nosferatu” is certainly creepy, it lacks the spine chilling effect that sound would have undoubtedly had on the movie. As previously mentioned by Ellie, Marion’s pleading screams in Albert Hitchcock‘s thriller, “Psycho”, create a bond between herself and the viewers, heightening their emotional reaction to her plight and the film as a whole.
Eisenstein, Pudovkin and Alexandrov also express concern that sound “threaten[s] to destroy all of [film’s] formal achievements to date”. I believe this statement can be easily disproved by Terrence Malick’s film-poem, “Days of Heaven” (1978). Malick’s cinematic technique is exquisite, and his shots are diverse and well placed. The imagery displayed throughout the film is absolutely stunning. Although “Days of Heaven” contains less dialogue than the average “talkie”, natural sounds are prevalent through out the film, serving to create a nature-based atmosphere. Furthermore, Malick and Nestor Alemendros, the cinematographer, modeled the film’s cinematography after silent films through their utilization of natural light. The inclusion of sound further enhances “Days of Heaven” and most films’ artistic aspirations rather than restraining them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Russian filmmakers Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and Alexandrov all believe that adding the concept of sound to cinema ruins the visual pleasure of the film. I disagree with their statements. I believe that adding sound did not hinder cinema, but added a whole new way of conveying the story, character emotions, and even what the director is trying to get across.
ReplyDeleteSilent films were all about the visual images and the cinematography. But the thing is, that's the ONLY thing they were about. Sure movies can be shown through straight visuals, but that isn't enough. Adding sound gave directors ways to convey specific things. Music for mood, dialogue for character emotion, and even sound effects for excitement. "Battle Ship Potemkin", was phenomenal silent film, but it lacked something. Without sound, the film was just moving visuals. The visuals were suppose to covey messages to the audience, but may not have always done that. Films with sound are better at capturing the audience. Take for instance, "Blood Simple". Great movie that incorporated sound. Without the constant music playing, the audience would have never been able to the suspense the director wanted them to feel. After all, Suspense can not be shown through JUST visuals alone. Also, the dialogue helped move the story along and showed the characters emotional response to certain situations, even if they were minor. Visually, this can also be done, but it is done better through sound and comes off clearer to the audience.
The filmmakers from the USSR, like Eisenstein, believed that if not used to enhance the montage than sound would destroy all of films’ “formal achievements to date”. While montages are an important and certainly useful technique used in films sound has evolved into a entirely different use of its’ own. Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” is propaganda and a political film – and that is probably what these filmmakers feared, that sound would make these films less credible. No one can argue that the “Odessa Staircase” scene is not powerful in its silence. When the viewer sees a woman get shot down and then a baby carriage rolling down the steps it is shocking, and honestly background noises like screams and gunshots probably would have distracted the viewer from what the director was trying to show them. However, if sound had not developed at all and just been perfected for the use of montages than films would have become quite outdated. One of the most interesting things about the film industry is that it is constantly changing – and this is what keeps people watching movies and what keeps them relevant.
ReplyDeleteSilent films can have just as much impact as sound films. “Nosferatu”, a German horror film from 1922 is able to build suspense without any sound at all, only visual images. Silent comedies of the time, like Buster Keaton’s “The General” and Chaplin’s “The Gold Rush” are very accessible without sound, but that is mainly due to the fact that they employ slapstick humor, which the audience can understand even if not a single word is spoken or a sound heard. But, some films really do need sound. Take “Dog Day Afternoon” for example – which follows the troubles of a bank robber, Sonny. The film is formed so that you feel suspense and troubled as the protagonist does, as policeman surround the building, people watch and scream from the sidewalks, phones ring, hostages complain, and helicopters fly overhead. There is so much noise outside the bank at some points that the movie would not work as a silent film. Dialogue has also become essential to many movies, and you could not have films like “Citizen Kane” or “Chinatown” without dialogue, as the stories are so heavy, and they would lose some of their relevance without sound.
Sounds, like images (and montages) can be used as representations and juxtaposition. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” uses different sound effects to signify the presence of each character – “the Good” (Blondie), “the Bad” (Angel Eyes), and “the Ugly” (Tuco). Each sound gives the viewer a better insight into their characters and also helps the film comment satirically on westerns at the time and their typical good guy-bad guy formula at the time. Sound has become a tool just as powerful as images, if not more so. If the audience misses some on the screen, the director can reinforce a theme or character trait through the use of sounds. Sound has become a vital part of film history and if anything it has further advanced the artistic credibility of them.
Well.....when i first thought about this passage from the essay on sound i completely disagreed and felt that sound adds to the visual effect of film. When i thought of the many films that i have watched over time and i am just use to having the aspect of sound given to me so i never really thought of how powerful silent films truly are. When we watch sounds that have sound we tend to be spoon fed the emotion and feeling that the director wants you to feel because sound can produce feelings such as suspense, joy, happiness, and sometimes even death. The sound effects and music that goes into these films help create this image and idea in the audiences head to foreshadow what is going to happen or set the mood for the recent action. In a movie like "Blood Simple" i felt that sound was an aspect that definatly used sound to help set the mood and create suspense for the audience. Another movie that definatly took sound into full effect was "Psycho" especially the famous shower scene where there suspenseful fast pace music which leads uup to the death of the girl in the shower.
ReplyDeleteBut also on the other hand branching off of Rayna's idea i have never thought of it in this way but i do have a feeling on the other hand that silent films have more room for the audience to create thier own emotion since they are only given moving action, no sound. But i feel that sound is an important element that has been added to film and as important as lighting, composition, and the plot of a film.
I completely agree with that sound ruined film in some respect. It might not be necessarily threatening to destroy all of its formal achievements, but in essense film is not the same.
ReplyDeleteThe additiion of sounds fikm has negatively influenced the viewers and audience. For example the film Days of Heaven the sentual and Romantic aspects would have been captured event better without the addition dialougue and sound in the film. The beautiful scenery along with the scenes of her dancing and her romantic escapades could have been translated correctly by the veiwers even with music or words. The viewers would then be able to really think and imagine what the director was trying to portray and imagine what the director was trying to portray and the feeling they wanted impose on the audience. Now in the film Battleship Potemkin the viewer is able to engage with the camera and sypmthasize with the citizens. No sound or dialogue included, only visual aspects allow for a complete understand of what is happening and how the ctizens are feeling.
I understand the views of my fellow classmates and I understand how that sound offer some important aspects to a film, but I stand firm in believing that the visual aspect of film is the most important and could stand by itself.
My first shot at this was destroyed with an accidental click backwards. Here goes again...
ReplyDeleteI am pretty impressed with all of your opinions. I'm so glad that deep sound (Citizen Kane) and the shower scene from Psycho were mentioned. I could give plenty of examples of where sound enhances meaning and conveys feelings the director intends in film--if you've ever seen Apocolypse Now, the match shot of Martin Sheen watching the ceiling fan in his room that dissolves into the helicoptors is a good example. Coppola uses a helicoptor sound with the visual of the ceiling fan/helicoptor and it might not be as powerful without sound. However, if he didn't have sound, he would have figured out another way to convey the scene.
I believe that Battleship Potemkin is more powerful silent than it would be with sound. Our eyes (and minds) are able to get the meaning and are moved (almost to tears in my case) with absolutely no sound at all. I don't think that Eisenstein could have made his film any more powerful if he had had access to sound.
If sound had never been invented with film, imagine where film would be now--imagine if Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock and Francis Ford Coppola had had to convey meaning and feeling through only visuals. Creating a film with no sound and conveying meaning only through visuals is a large task, but if that is the only way you can make your film, you figure out a way. The great filmmakers were/are able to do it.