Sound the Alarms!

One of the things that struck me in Andre Bazin's writings was his description of the coming of sound as a new, feared era in film. While it certainly changed films and the way they were made, as well as aroused suspicion within the filmmaking community, I was always a little amused at the surprise surrounding its development; since it seems that sound was always a part of film. Most (if not all) films had live musical accompaniment, and some films, such as "Trip to the Moon," had scripts that someone was supposed to read as the film ran. Even if nothing accompanied the film (as FW Murnau desired for The Passion of Joan of Arc), audiences likely supplied the sound themselves, imagining voices and noises coming from the silent objects onscreen.

Perhaps, then, the fear came not from sound being incorporated into film, but by a permanent sound being attached to the film and taking away the free interpretation (or at least, the sense of freedom) that came from man-supplied, (possibly) ever-changing sounds. Bazin alludes to this by calling it the "realism that sound would bring" (41). However, as I discussed last week, I must question how "real" this truly can be considered. Bazin refers to photography, and subsequently film, to be objective art forms. But even though these media require capturing the real almost literally, it is still subject to framing, manipulation, and most importantly, chosen representation. No matter how real a "realist" film may seem, these are events that are still under direction and executed very carefully to make a point.

Still, I doubt that realist theorists and filmmakers truly see these films as concrete fact. Perhaps it is called "realism" rather than "real" because it resembles the real, it is real-esque. Take Umberto D. It is a film about an old man who is being cast aside by the society he worked so hard for. After being employed for years, he makes a pension that is too small to even help him care for his dog. After being friendly with his landlady as a young girl, she grows into a cold woman who raises his rent and tries repeatedly to throw him out of the house. Even Umberto takes on these qualities, after he repeatedly tries to cast aside his faithful dog when he can no longer care for him (I was happy, though, that the dog and their bond lived). This situation is one that resonates very true, especially in a country where many of the elderly cannot afford healthcare, do not make enough from retirement funds to stop working, and live in improper care facilities. It is, however, a resonation and not a documentation. The created artwork that is Umberto D is very moving and strikes a realistic chord, but it is still created, and thus, still subjective rather than objective.

Film can seem very real, but I argue that it can only be seen as such. What we see is not just bare-bones documentation, but careful framing and planning that is transmitting a certain story and message. This is not to take away from a film's artistic merit, but simply to remind that, while less subjective to interpretation than painting or writing, film is still a means of someone using a medium to transmit their ideas of reality, rather than reality itself.

P.S. For fun, here is the "Nonsense Song" from Modern Times, one of Charlie Chaplin's later silent films. The scene can be seen as his response to the sound film, as when he communicates through this new medium, it is literally nonsense - nonsense that the people in the film still seem to understand. This brings into question both the realism of sound and its objectivity, as even total gibberish is still rendered understandable to the receptive and subjective audience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_du8fjUN0Kg