September 21, 2007
This week we moved on into the sound age, the “talkies” and all the beauties and difficulties thereof. True, none of the “silent” movies were really silent. Every theatre had at least a piano or organ, and the bigger ones featured a live orchestra. But it wasn’t until 1927 that audiences could actually hear the actor’s voice coming from the screen (or speakers behind the screen). At first, studios thought this might be a passing fad. But millions flocked to see Al Jolson in the Jazz Singer and his immortal line, “Wait a minute… wait a minute. You ain’t heard nothin’ yet.” So the rest of the studios joined in and embraced the new technology.
Download the worksheet here: music and sound handout
The answers are as follows:
As we saw in a clip from “Singin’ in the Rain,” this was a tricky transition. Performers had to huddle around microphones hidden in plant pots. Noisy cameras had to be placed behind glass in an immobile soundproofed booth. Crosscutting was all but prohibited by the difficulties of matching sound and vision. Not to mention many of the actors whose voices didn’t match their appearance. “The subtle imagery of the silent era had been replaced by illustrated radio.” (-John Naughton) You probably won’t see many more boring films that those made in 1928-29 (except the few that were still silent, like Carl Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc. Check it out, y’all, it’ll blow you away.)
But by 1930 the technical hitches had largely been ironed out and the masterpieces began to flow. If you’re curious, check out Alfred Hitchcock’s Blackmail, Lewis Milestone’s All Quiet on the Western Front, or Josef von Sternberg’s The Blue Angel.
For the most part, the sound effects in these early movies were pretty straightforward. They used whatever sounds were made on set during production. But in 1933, with King Kong, sound designers started getting more creative. They used their imaginations for what a dinosaur and a giant gorilla might sound like. And not just what they might actually sound like, but what they should sound like, what sounds would add the best effect to their movie. Rather than recording a real gorilla, they used sounds of a lion for King Kong’s voice, and used another lion played backwards for the T-rex. When Kong breaks the dinosaur’s jaw, we don’t hear a real bone breaking, but more like a tree trunk cracking. Thus was born the classicist tradition of sound effects.
See, with classicism, we don’t want the actual sounds, we want heightened impact, we want what it should sound like. We don’t want to hear real punching sounds during a fistfight. You can’t hear real punches, they aren’t loud enough. We don’t want to hear real laser sounds in star wars. Real lasers don’t make any sound. We want the ideal sound for the moment. And we want the sounds recorded in a studio where there’s no airplanes or trucks or babies crying in the background to distract us.
Realists on the other hand are happy to use the sounds of real life. If you’re filming an interview in a backyard, and the neighbor is mowing their lawn, no problem, it adds to the environment. Realists want to show how it actually sounds
September 14, 2007
“Ask a German moviegoer of the late 1910s to name their favorite movie and the chances are it would have come from either Hollywood or Scandinavia. The dark, brooding dramas directed by Danes such as Carl Dreyer and the Swedes Victor Sjostrom and Mauritz Stiller left an indelible mark on the German film psyche. Shadows, symbolism, and the supernatural were the truest expression of the defeated nation’s postwar despair.” -John Naughton, Movies, a Crash Course
The industrial revolution was in full swing, with one man in a tractor doing the work of fifty farmers. So what did all these ex-farmers do? Well, there were plenty of new jobs in the modern factories. What did these factories do? Assemble pots and pans, automobiles, or maybe ammunition, lots of ammunition. What did they need so much ammunition for? To put in the newly invented machine guns and warplanes and tanks. Yes, technology can make things very convenient, but it has always had a dark side. In just a few years, more people died in World War I than any previous war. So after the war things were looking pretty bleak in Europe. So bleak, that painting pictures of beautiful people doing beautiful things just didn’t seem to cut it anymore. Instead artists like Edward Munch went more in this direction:
Now, if he went out and painted a man standing on a bridge with a lake and hills in the background, and tried to do it as realistically as possible, it wouldn’t look like this. But instead he was trying to paint how this man (or he, the painter) felt, and that requires manipulating reality. That’s what expressionism is all about: an outward expression of inner emotions (that’s the answer to one of the questions!)
Pretty soon this caught on in the film world as well. Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari set the tone. A tale of murder and madness, it used distorted sets, sinsiter backdrops, and stylized acting to convey its narrator’s tnnuos grip on reality. To some it was “painting in motion.” Many later directors incorporated some of these stylistic elements, such at Fritz Lang in Die Nibelungen or Metropolis, G.W. Pabst in The Joyless Street, and F.W. Murnau in Nosferatu and Faust.
Some characteristics of expressionism:
1. Purposefully unrealistic, dreamlike or nightmare quality
2. exaggerated sets, costumes, acting
3. dark/ominous subject and tone
4. Lots of darkness and shadows
5. main character has some kind of unfulfilled spiritual hunger.
6. a search for meaning in an industrial world (often ends in failure).
7. fear of being overwhelmed or taken over by technology
8. Christ figure hero whose sacrifice goes unnoticed.
Download this assignment, and get working!
September 9, 2007
This week we all signed up for directors to do presentations on. We’ll start these on Monday, Sept. 24th. For more info, click on the “Director Presentations” tap at the top.
September 8, 2007
Here’s what the AllMusicGuide has to say about the Beatles: “Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did.”
It’s true. Any other artists you can think of that were both the best and the most popular? In class was mentioned Alfred Hitchcock and Steven Spielberg (maybe not right now, but when he made Jaws, E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Schindler’s List). But it’s hard to think of others. But back in the 1910’s and 20’s the world had not one, but three filmmakers that fit this description.
So this last week we’ve been watching short films and clips from Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd. 80 years later, and their genius is still unmistakable, and they can still make a roomfull of jaded media-gorged teenagers laugh.
Here’s some online films:
Buster Keaton: “Sherlock Jr.”
There’s plenty of other clips out there, so check ’em out. On monday we’ll be writing a response comparing and contrasting the three comedic giants.
September 4, 2007
I bet most of you, whether you know it or not, are fans of silent comedies. Tom and Jerry? Roadrunner and Coyote? It doesn’t get better than that. And all those guys were inspired by the early comedians like Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and Lauren and Hardy.
First we watched a couple Tom and Jerry shorts to get in the right mindset.
And a little gem from Westphal/Riekena: “Happy Best Friend Day”
Then we moved back in time to 1929 with Laurel and Hardy in “Big Business”
More to come…