As you know, monumentous changes occurred in Hollywood between the years 1927 and 1933. Of the transitions, innovations, and breakthroughs discussed in "The Introduction of Sound" (211-19), which do you find the most fascinating and why?
As always, be sure to support your answer with evidence. Furthermore, when you pull information from the textbook, do not forget to cite the page number in parentheses.
As always, be sure to support your answer with evidence. Furthermore, when you pull information from the textbook, do not forget to cite the page number in parentheses.
Actor Issues
ReplyDeleteThe aspect I find most interesting with the introduction of sound is the transition actors had to make from silent films. As Singin' in the Rain suggests, many of the actors in silent films had never been in a situation in which they had to act with their voices. The introduction of sound created a whole new world of written dialogue and microphones that many actors were simply not used to. These actors were used to a slightly more dramatic acting style with bigger gestures and movements, but with the introduction of sound this became slightly unnecessary. Just like with the transition of stage acting to film acting, a change had to be made once again. While for the most part the issues were not quite as drastic as in the movie, this did create quite a big dilemma for a large number of actors. For example, actors like Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton had little they could do if not silent comedy. Chaplin survived for a little while, but Keaton struggled and faded away with the silent film genre. Many actors became known by their voices. "The spoken word did not only enhance verbal communication in the screenplay, but an actor received a voice that would help to determine his character"(218). However, for the actors who never had a voice to begin with, this meant they no longer had a gimmick and therefore no real appeal. Thus, though sound opened a whole new world for film, it closed a door on many silent film actors.
I guess the most fascinating thing to me was how people reacted to the conversion of talking pictures. It was very surprising to me that there were people who was against the idea of films that had "vocal" sound. I don't know if the film "Singing in the Rain" over did the reaction of the actors who were against this or not (i'm thinking most likely not), but i guess that even back in the 1930's people were still in disbelief on change. It was also interesting to know that the actors themselves had a difficult time performing w/ dialogue (i guess i know why Buster Keaton's career was a downfall once talking pictures came into play). The talking picture came w/ some downfalls and some opportunities in the industry (live orchestras were canned but w/ the new technology, new jobs were made like electrical engineers - pgs. 214-217). This was a learning curve that some made it through and some did not and some still was making silent films in the talking era until it just couldn't be done any longer due to the audience and the coming of more talking pictures (Charlie Chaplin - City Lights 1931).
ReplyDeleteI though that it was interesting in our class discussion to find out that people reacted to sound with such supprise and shock. I guess it was something new that they had to get used to. All things change. Now days we hear people's voices, and can identify them soley by that; their voice.We can pick out say... Sean Connery, just by listening to his voice. Its very distinct. I believe that the real shock that people had wasn't nessisarily just due to the introduction of sound, but the whole style change in general. If we took an actor now and made him stop talking and made him act with exagerated jestures, the public would react the same way. They would say: What is this, and why am I paying for it? It was the same when voices came to the screen. Something new is always going to recieve some negative feedback, and I thought that it was interesting that the introduction of such a facinating thing (sound) could stir up so much controversy.
ReplyDeleteI always find it humorous when people panic when they think about big changes. Hearing the one quote "sound will be the death of the 7th art" or something like that, is kind of taking the whole thing to a bit of an extreme. It always seems like people whine and moan about some kind of change and when it finally happens it’s the best thing that ever happened to them. What I thought was even more funny was when some actors like potrayed in Singin' in the Rain had such terrible voices the studio’s had to get someone else’s voice recorded over theirs. Anyone remember Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first film Hercules in New York? Could you imagine if they had kept dubbing over his voice? I really don’t think the phrases “I’ll be back” and “hasta la vista, baby” would have been as amazing if he didn’t actually say it himself. (Also every person in America wouldn’t have their own Arnold impersonation). This makes me think about those actors whose careers ended right after people found out their voices were not all that appealing. Would they have had the awesome “Arnold” like impersonators everywhere, where people would quote the dumbest lines to make that actor (or imitator) sound more like a dumbass? I really bet they missed out.
ReplyDeleteI was most interested by the changes in acting. The sound of music did a good job of poking fun at the melodramatic style of the silent movie, and how those sharp sudden movements and all of those props had to be modified. Not only did companies hire playwrites, but they also had to teach many of these actors how to speak with diction and had to invent ways to incorporate the microphone. I think that cinema in the 1930s becomes more theatrical compared to vaudeville and that because of sound actors really had to expand their talents. I was surprised with how quickly this change came, and i'm happy to now be viewing films that incorporate more theatrical aspects. In just a few years the acting style of the silent film has changed in to a similar style of acting that we view in Hollywood films today.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I really like how people's view changed about the acting in films with the incorporation of sound. For example, in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, the scene that stands out most to me is the scene where Gene Kelly says "I love you, I love you, I love you" and people thought the dialog was just terrible, yet he had been saying that all along. Also, the fact that people finally saw that acting had to be toned down because of how over the top it was made me laugh on the inside.
ReplyDeleteI found the microphone the most fascinating. Because in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, I found it funny how they struggled to used the microphone correctly. From not picking up the actors/actresses voice, to too much sound picked up from them walking. Now that they could have talking in their films, I was laughing at the newbies acting (with the mic). Also, in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, I was cracking up inside, when they showed their first film with the new "microphone" technique. It was comedy at its best.
ReplyDeleteI thought the most interesting part of the transition to synchronized sound from the silent era was the technological aspect. Companies had to replace their old equipment with quieter models, they needed to hire engineers for sound recording, and had to build sound proof studios. "...the hissing arc lamps and the humming camera had to be silenced." (217) The noisy devices used during the beginning of film were clearly not a problem but in sound-on-film and Vitaphone recording while shooting all background noise had to be eliminated. In the early days of synchronized sound some used lipsync acting for then background noise did not matter. Also as we witnessed in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, silent studios had many films being shot at one time in the same room. After background noise became a factor in the quality of film new sound proof walls had to be constructed and filming many movies in the same building proved to be more difficult. Editing was also a whole new task with the introduction of sound and new equipment had to be designed for this as well.
ReplyDeleteI was really interested in the changes in theory that sound brought about. I had never realized the implications of sound on film, probably because that's all I've really known.
ReplyDeleteAfter the introduction of sound on film, the entire movie-going experience changed completely. Everything from presentation to (in the case of the Netherlands) the legislation of film had changed (214). No longer was film a multimedia experience with the film as the centerpiece, the film now encompassed the entire experience.
I was also intrigued by the loss of the cinema orchestra, which the book describes as "a social tragedy" (214). I had never really considered the negative consequences of the transition to sound.
Actions Speak Louder then Words.
ReplyDeleteIt’s tough for me as a relatively inexperienced viewer of both the silent film era and the early days of the “talkies” not to be fascinated by both. Because of the earliness of the era and its historical significance, the silent era, with its rudimentary attributes and roughness of quality, fascinates me. The silent era to me represents a time of new ideas, where humans for the first time were able to look through a new window into the world. From the basic voyeuristic films like WORKERS LEAVING THE FACTORY to the more celebrated comedic works woks of Charlie Chaplin, silent films had to be different and so did its stars.
In the silent era actors and actresses had to be more visually stimulating, not only was every action taken and every facial expression important to the narrative, but these early cinema players had to use their physicality as a source of story-telling and setting the themes for the movie. These Vaudeville veterans used there circus-like attributes to excite and wow audiences. In the feature A TRIP TO THE MOON, I was enthused and excited about the gymnastic and acrobatic moves of the small moon creatures. Likewise the amazing scale of the German Expressionist Era, with its large, costly, and artistic sets, is a historical example of the visionary filmmaking of this time. These “moving paintings” where the actors seemed to blend into the background are incredible and inspiring. I can appreciate silent films because actions speak louder then words.
The most fascinating thing to me that happened during this transition to sound was the fact that the Roman Catholic Church even tried to get in on the film industry at this time. The book quotes a Catholic newspaper (pg 214) saying that, "a gift of God to intervene in the world's mighty film industry. It is now or never." This is fascinating to me because it just shows how many different companies/organizations tried to get into the imdustry. However it doesn't really surprise me that the Catholic Church made this attempt. I just find it kind of funny.
ReplyDeleteWhat fascinated me the most during the transition to sound period was the dilemma with the language barrier. It was very tough because films with English dialogue could only be understood and therefore seen by English speaking countries or areas. This limited HW's international business very much. So what fascinated me was how the different industries dealed with this problem. Paramount, for example, built a separate studio in France to produce these multilingual films. The fascinating part is that they would shoot the film several times in different languages using the same set and costumes (pg 213). This surely ran up the budget and seems like a tedious and odd task. MGM also recruited foreign actors to HW to play in different language versions of it's films (pg 213).
ReplyDeleteOf all the changes in the period of sound, I find the addition of sound to be the most fascinating. Before sound, movies were progressing at a rapid pace. Innovations were coming along. With the invention of sound movies had to go backwards in many ways. Sound complicated the movie making process while making movies more accessible. I always wondered what would have happened if sound hadn't come along for a few more years. What innovations or techniques would have come about. Sound was both a blessing and a curse, and this has always fascinated me.
ReplyDeleteWhat is fascinating about the introduction of sound is the lack of interest or knowledge the film producer had. Alot example in the book talks about how people was suffering with out the silent movies. It was some what of a challenge. If you think about todays sound tech or sound score the poeple are paise by their art. They sit around a table dicussing shot or scenes and put the right effect in the right order. Sometimes they throw in soundtracks just because.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of the dubbing and talking pictures was more interesting for you would think the film or sound producers could just think of a way that the actors could talk or express the line-roles of each actor. I give the upmost respect for them taking the time to make it work. Today we can just pick up a mic and do voice overages to create sounds for film or use a scaner that could record sound effeects.
One ineteresting fact about the transicion into the sound era of film I found was the double filming of movies to suit different language barriers. This involved filming the same exact scenes but with actors of different cultures, that would be able to speak the differing languages. This seems interesting becasue the result would be one director and maker of a movie being able to to try to convey the same overall cinema experience. This seems like it would be difficult as many different cltures would seem to have different mindsets, as seen with the alternate endings for different countries that was already being done. Also this idea seems to show the interesting parrallels of seeing the exact same movie with the main characters swapped out. If a viewer only was familair with their own version they would certainly be perplexed by seeing a movie that looked almost identical, only with the different languages. Alongside the already strange nature of this concept, is the vertical ntegration that HW was able to accomplis by taking the stars of other nations and using them for their own profit. From this we see both a art and businees point of view. The art side being almost identical movies with slighty differning portrayals, which spwans from the businsness objective to have complete control of the differing countries backgorunds and thus able to control their markets from the herart of HW in America.
ReplyDelete