Donald Crafton and the Jazz Singer - Essay Example

Donald Crafton and the Jazz Singer Introduction In 1927, the Jazz singer film was produced, which is an American musical film, which among other outstanding features being the black and white feature length motion film (Gabbard, 2014, para 1-4). Its most defining feature in comparison to the movies produced within the era was the synchronized sequences of dialogue. This film goes historical in marking the end of silent movies and the start of the talkies. In fact, one compares the ‘silent’ films of the tradition and the modern motion films, which are characterized of sound/voices. Modern day people would find silent movies quite archaic as they are used to films that feature motion on the screen as well as sound. The analysis of the Jazz Singer is intended to evaluate the perceptions and reception of the film among the audiences as historical evidence from media as well as office box collections would present. It features the main character as Al Jolson who among other outstanding things he does is performing during the atonement day as presented in Samson Raphaelson’s play. The film attracted a history of many reviews both criticisms as well as commendations. In such a review and comment, Donald Crafton writes on the phenomenal performance of entertainer who later turned to be very popular in the industry. However, much of Donald’s writing is on the contra view to common perceptions that people had on the reception of the movie as was with the audiences in the time (Spadoni, 2003, p. 8). It was most perceived that historical collection on journalistic records as well as records from office boxes on the audience perceptions towards the movie would be sufficient to analyze the reception. Nevertheless, contra opinions from such a film historian as Crafton Donald point otherwise. In fact, this paper evaluates the concerns raised by Donald on the historical reception of the film ‘Jazz Singers’ where he questions the validity and reliability of the factual information gathered through such sources as against the actual audience. The question under analysis is on how the historical information would be relied upon in the analysis as against use of factual data collected from live audience alongside the historical data as recorded and stored. In the modern day, analysis of the Jazz Singer’s film shows that filmmakers faced a challenge in the introduction of ‘voice’ in the industry as against the contemporary silent films that dominated the industry. Donald presents quite a panoramic view on the jazz singers (as a representation of the talkies) receptions and presented an in-depth analysis of the design, practices, issues of race as well as censorship as were presented within the films (Crafton, 1999, para 1). Film studies as a discipline came about later in the 20th century and this has presented a platform where many reviews of films and motion theatre work have been done. However, there have been established a wide gap between reader-response theories as they are applied within the film discipline to illustrate the gap existing between practice and the theory (Piturro, 2002, p. 21-22). Practical criticism was more profound by such critiques as Donald Crafton who wrote in question of the reception of the films in classical history. Historians in the field have had to deal with historical data that in many instances lack authenticity or capacity for verification and thus the reviews holds potential of errors. For instance, the reliance of media recordings and data kept in office boxes presents the challenge of biasness. One lacks effective mechanisms of establishing the correctness of the data as retrieved. Nevertheless, despite the discrepancies shown, reviews on most of traditional films such as the Jazz singer rely on the data recorded and preserved through media and office boxes as time would not allow one to collect primary data regarding such old times. However, there is the reasoning that primary data can be collected through primary means by having live audiences view and comment on their perceptions on the movies in order to compare the modern audiences as well as the perceptions of the traditional audiences. These are among other mechanisms that would be employed in establishing the reception of the films where the perceptions of the individuals involved would explain how they receive the film. In a writing on ‘The Jazz Singer’s Reception in the Media and at the Box Office’ (Piturro, 2002, p. 21-22), Crafton evaluates and compares the reception that the film received in the media then as well as within the box office. He raises concerns on the reception in that the film’s success is perceived differently in both (the box office and media). The comparison presented is between the performances of the film (regarded as a sound film) as against the contemporary silent films of the time. However, in Crafton’s writing, he avoids to rely wholly on the media and box reception to carry out the analysis of actual reception of the film. On the contrary, he opts to have other source of information on the actual reception of the film by the audience as against relying only on the accounts of the media as well as the office box as other of his peers would rely on. This therefore points to the actual concern of this paper on how the film historian Donald Crafton questioned and revised the received history of the Jazz Singers reception. Through this, he is widely termed as historical in the field of film analysis as he touches on the reception and or response of analyzing films especially such historical ones. Live audience perception and reception of the film present more reliable information in comparing and understanding how the film received acceptance within the society then. However, the data on how the film received acceptance or otherwise in the traditional contemporary world in the film industry would not be collected through such live audiences. It would only be collected from the journalistic excerpts and such other formats of information stored through media platforms. The office boxes also provide records of data collected over the time and hence are used for the analysis and comparisons. Nevertheless, it would be acknowledged that live audiences would present more reliable information as would be useful in determining the reception such a film would receive within the society. According to Crafton, relying on the reported evidence on the reception of the film would be erroneous and he advocates for use of much of material evidence from past while at the same time examining live audiences. This is supported by the fact that audiences would exhibit relatively similar characters when it comes to reaction towards viewed films. It would therefore be expected that comparing traditional audiences as well as the modern day audiences would be possible through such information recorded from the past as well as the information that would be collected currently. The evidence by journalists as well as the past records as compiled by the media presents oblique evidence in the issue of film reception and perceptions by audiences. Besides, his concern equally covers the reliance on live audiences, which he equally questions because they equally present possible errors. Among other errors that are likely to accrue with information from live audiences is the problem of biasness. Besides, the effect of changing times as we compare the traditional times as well as the modern times has the capacity of influencing the data collected as well as the findings of the audiences perceptions. According to his argument therefore, the analysis would be effective if the sources of evidence by the media records as well as live audiences would be used concurrently. Crafton therefore observes that just as in historical writing, it is possible to view the reception theory as form of fiction and thus advocates for incorporation of direct documentation references as well as direct audience reference. According to Crafton, legitimacy in reading would only be realized while using external materials including figures from office box, accounts from past journalistic entries, written reviews as well as letters. Moreover, it is necessary that one should incorporate these facts with what is known concerning the audience during the time of analysis to have effective conclusions on meanings made by audiences as they watch the films. Validity is therefore dependent on the effective incorporation of such facts as revealed by the data collected through the various means explained. This according to the reasoning of Crafton would be effective in aiding the analyst overcome the challenges presented by use of information from live audiences as well as that collected and stored from the past. Relying on either of the methodologies in collecting information would constrain the effectiveness of the results of the analysis. Among other advantages of using the recorded data from media and such records is reliability of presenting past information. On the other hand, live audiences present the advantage of comparing perceptions as directly observed from the audiences. This therefore minimizes effects of manipulation of the data as would be possible with the stored data. As a fact, by taking cumulative results as shown by Crafton evaluation of films through the reception theorem would be legitimate and effective other than utilizing the conventional, means of relying on received history as would be presented through office boxes as well as the journalistic records of the media. Donald Crafton therefore raises a fundamental concern among the historians in the film industry in that evaluation of the perceptions and reception of the film would not be effective while relying on recorded data only. He argues that the shortcomings that are associated with use of secondary information would make the findings illegitimate and hence fail to present the desired results. However, his concern was raised from the historical perceptions presented by other such film historians who would only rely on the information derived from the media and such records as would be found from the office boxes (Hunter, nd, p. 1-7). He would therefore reason that by the historians presenting reviews on films based on such recorded information, authenticity of such analysis would be in question especially over the truthfulness and reliability of the information. Besides, Dalton thinks that incorporating such information from recordings as well as the information collected from live audiences would be more factual and reliable as pertains to film reviews in film studies. Conclusion In conclusion, Dalton Crafton raises a fundamentally important question while analyzing the history of film reviews. The focus of the paper has been on the issue raised concerning the early 20th century movie the Jazz Singer as perceived by Crafton. The issue raised in concerning the use of information gotten from the media as well as office boxes concerning the reception of the movie by audiences in the traditional times as well as in the modern times. He compares using such data collected from the traditional audiences as well as the information collected in modern times through live audiences. The contrast in the paper is how other traditional film historians would rely on information gotten from office boxes and the media for analysis of film receptions and perceptions among the audiences. In comparison, Dalton raises the question of reliability of the information in presenting factual analysis and reasons that such information faces a myriad of shortcomings. He therefore considers the use of live audiences in collection of such information as would be relied upon in the analysis. However, critical analysis of either of the two sets of information reveals distinct shortcomings which would only be overcome in among other ways through use of the two concurrently. Complementing the data collected from the audiences as well as the information collected from the media and office boxes has presumed capacity, according to Dalton, to present more reliable finding than use of either of the information solely. This analysis therefore presents the main question that Dalton raised concerning the history of films as presented by historical perspective of the film ‘Jazz Singer’. This thus shows how classical historians would influence the field of motion film industry with positive critics as presented in the discussion being pointed as healthy. Bibliography Crafton D., 1999. The Talkies: American Cinemas Transition to Sound, 1926-1931. Available at < http://books.google.co.ke/books/about/The_Talkies.html?id=KFB_oT-jupQC&redir_esc=y>[Accessed 19 February 2014]. Gabbard K., 2014. The Jazz Singer. Available at < http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199791286/obo-9780199791286-0069.xml>[Accessed 19 February 2014]. Hunter R., nd, A Reception Study of the Films of Dario Argento in the UK and Italy. Available at < http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/3516/Russ%20Hunter%20thesis.pdf?sequence=1>[Accessed 19 February 2014]. Piturro V., 2002. The Audience and the Film: A Reader-Response Analysis of Italian Neorealism. Available at < http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/1500084941/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=wARUJQqjBAbEky7E36DE4cdWiIQ%3D>[Accessed 19 February 2014]. Spadoni R. 2003. The uncanny body of early sound film. Available at < http://www.case.edu/artsci/engl/Library/spadoni-uncanny-bodies.pdf>[Accessed 19 February 2014]. Read More