Theory for Film Practice - Essay Example

The Number 20 June Theory for Film Practice Just as any film is perceived as an artwork, it involves theaudience through engagement of senses, as well as feeling and mind in a certain process of active perception. This is done via a specific pattern and development of the film’s own form. Similarly to forms of any other artworks that are artistically designed with the purpose of enabling the spectator to get the structured experience and create meanings, the form comes to be of primary importance in films. Film form is thought to be the overall system of particular relations that can be found among the film’s elements. While all of them are classified either as narrative or stylistic, in this paper I will focus on the latter. To stylistic elements, mise en scene, editing, cinematography, and sound are referred (Keuthan). When the sound was introduced to the silent cinema back in 1927, its integration became the subject of hot debate ranging from passionate approval to criticism expressed by film critics of the time. Indeed, as Dale observes, “sound invasion in the cinema brought about many crises”, so that the techniques used to produce silent films were subject to complete revision (Dale 637). In the centre of the continuous debate was the role and necessity of sound, if it was thought necessary at all. While the public immediately fell in love with the sound film, a lot of film directors, aestheticians and many film critics argued that integration of sound in the film “was a disaster that would destroy the cinema as a unique art form” (Fabe 59). Opposing the views expressed by the early sound theorists that sound creates obstacles to better conveying the film’s message, this paper contends that sound is crucial to conveying the film’s message through imagery. Let us first discuss the arguments by the early sound theorists against the integration of the spoken word into the cinema. In particular, the aesthetic disadvantages of the new technology need to be observed. Having done this, I will focus on pro-sound arguments developed by another set of film theorists at that time, as well as make references to the contemporary theory of film sound. One of the most passionate anti-sound theorists was Bela Balasz. He contended that the primacy of image ensures deep communicative force of the film. Since speech is far less expressive than the body language that accompanies it, the integration of the spoken word into the cinema would lead to audience’s desensitizing. To illustrate, Balasz said, “The silent film is free of the isolating walls of language difference. If we look at and understand each other’s faces and gestures, we not only understand, we also learn to feel each other’s emotions” (Balasz as quoted in Fabe 60). Similarly, the film theoretician and historian of art Rudolph Arnheim argued against the inclusion of literal voices into film supporting his argument with the claim that images themselves speak. Moreover, Arhnheim not only advocated the anti-sound position, he called for the silent film’s return. Close analysis of Arnheim’s views helps to understand the essence of most radical anti-sound views in the film theory. In his well-known essay “A New Laocoon: Artistic Composites and the Talking Film” written back in 1938, Arhneim discusses the irrelevance of spoken word in a film. One of his arguments is that the use of sound at the then level of technological development created to the feeling of uneasiness caused by the fact the attention of the audience was torn in two opposite directions. Specifically, Arnheim contends that in a film two different media are struggling with each other to express one thing rather than exerting a united effort and capture the message. The coincidence of these fighting voices results in violation of aesthetic laws by films with sound, as Arnheim posits it (Arnheim 164). Partially sharing Arnheim’s critical views on the use of spoken word in the film, the film theorist and cultural critic Sigfried Kracauer criticizes the imperfect ways of sound inclusion and dialogue use rather than disproving the very idea of sound use in the film. Regarding realism the crucial part of the art of cinema, Kracauer contends that the use of speech is cinematic despite the fact it seemingly disregards the visual medium. In his view, those voice patterns that are brought to focus in a film equally belong to the physical world and tell the film’s story. In addition, he believes that the use of spoken word sensitizes the audience (Kracauer 111). Kracauer’s reservations about the use of sound in film are as follows. First of all, he points at the fact that many directors became “speech-mad” as soon as the sound was introduced into the film. Placing dialogue in the lead is a problem since cinema’s primary medium is visual image, not the sound. Even more, Kracauer deems focus on dialogue dangerous since it, in his words, “threatens to drown the significance of the accompanying pictures, reducing them to shadowy illustrations” (Kracauer 105). Secondly, Kracauer argues against the equilibrium of sound and image defended by some directors and film theorists. He illustrates his claim with the thorough analysis of Max Reinhardt’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream” as an attempt of combining equal concern with the language and picture. Opposing Nicholl, Kracauer explains that the audience unable to grasp Shakespeare’s language was expected to appreciate the latter through the use of imagery, but that it obviously failed. The images turned out to be obtrusive and unable to compensate for lost word meanings (Kracauer 105). It seems no less vigorous defender of pure cinema than Arnheim was Germaine Dulac, a French filmmaker and feminist critic. Her essay “Visual and Non-Visual Films”, which was published in 1928, starts with expression of pity that film as, in Dulac’s opinion, a purely visual art does not look for its emotion in the visual and optic. The main idea of Dulac’s essay is each cinematic drama is obliged to be visual but not literary and create its impression by the use of optical harmony (31). Dulac goes as far as to claim that “the future belongs to the film that cannot be told”. This film has to go away from the plot as far as possible and turn to the direction of visual cinema instead. Dulac finishes her essay with the call to make cinema both visual and sincere. The views expressed by Dulac, Arnheim, Claire, Eisenstein and other film theorists in support of silence films and in opposition to the use of spoken word in cinema were opposed by some directors and film critics who highly appreciated the use of sound to convey the film’s message in a more effective way. To illustrate, Pudovkin, a well-known Russian filmmaker, stressed the role of sound in increasing the film’s semantic load. He argued that the effect of sound goes beyond primitive and non-aesthetic naturalism, but allows communicating film’s ideas in a more profound and broader way given the same period of time. Contrary to Anheim or Dulac, Pudovkin elevates the role of sound in the film for its saving the audience from the impoverished world of the client cinema and immersing it into the full-value world. The impact on the audience is stronger. In relation to this, sound is seen as complementary to the visual image (Pudovkin 329). Strong basis for disproving claims of sound redundancy is provided by Chris Marker’s experimental use of sound in “’Letter from Syberia”. Specifically, Marker showed how sound in an active manner can shape how the audience interprets the image. This was achieved through playing back a specific footage in combination with different soundtracks. As a result, the spectators perceived every version in a different way (Apprich). This example well illustrates the role of sound in conveying the film’s message in combination with imagery. However, the strongest argument to oppose the claims that “the cinema is a silent art and silent expression is its categorical rule” is, to my mind, that cinema had never been a truly silent art even in the time when there was no sound accompanying imagery in the film. Specifically, silent films from the very beginning stimulated and led their audiences to read their imagery sonically. So, they had not been really silent. This view is supported by Altman (232-240). For example, lack of recorded soundtrack was compensated by virtual soundtrack which was perceived through image, as well as action. Hence, sound had always been inseparable from the visual in the film. In the context of what has been said above, a practical example of the sound’s importance for conveying the film’s message needs to be mentioned. For example, in a short film “The Cat” directed by Apprich, sound is used in such a way that it provides the key to understanding the hidden message of the film. While one could read the imagery as an idyllic couple that lives together without any trouble, films sounds (clock ticking, music composition that repeats, as well as TV distortion) convey the idea of forgotten love and existence without any prospects (Apprich). Hence, a conclusion can be made that claims that sound is irrelevant in the film and decreases its aesthetic value have no solid background. The examples of films “Letter from Syberia” and “The Cat” clearly illustrate that the role of sound is not secondary, but that sound is crucial for conveying the message and alters the perception of imagery in a variety of ways. In agreement with Pudovkin and Altman, one may reasonably contend that sound (as a film’s form) plays a significant role in creating the film’s meaning. Works Cited Altman, Rick. The Silence of the Silents. Musical Quarterly, 1996 80 (4), pp. 648-718. Print. Arnheim, Rudolf. “A New Laocoon: Artistic Composites and the Talking Film.” Film as Art, pp. 164-189. Apprich, Fran. “Born into Sound”. Queens University Belfast. N.d. Web. 20 June 2011. Dale, R.C. “A Clash of Intelligences: Sound vs. Image in Rene Clair’s “A nous, a liberte”. April 1965, Volume 38 No 5, pp. 637-644. Print. Dulac, Germaine. “Visual and Anti-Visual Films” Le Rouge et le Noir, July, 1928. Print. Fabe, Marilyn. Closely Watched Films: An Introduction to the Art of Narrative Film Technique. University of California Press, 2004. Print. Keuthan, Mark. “Film Form: Foundational Ideas in Cinema and Television Aesthetics”. N.d. Web. 20 June 2012. Kracauer, Sigfried. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. Princeton University Press. Print. Pudovkin, Vsevolod. “The Role of Sound Cinema”. In Richard Taylor and Ian Christie. The Film Factory: Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents. Routledge, 1994. Print. Read More