The Kino Ear vs the Kino Eye

http://blip.tv/file/1554461/

This documentary discusses film sound concepts from the period 1921 – 1931, with clips illustrating those concepts with examples. It then shows how modern composers have used the theories to produce soundtracks for films from the era. The documentary ends with a brief soundtrack, composed using the theories discussed, for string quartet and “found sounds”, industrial noises layered to form a musical montage.

The narrative concerns film sound theory and practice during one specific time period (1921 – 1931). This was a transitional time for film as an art form, as the first experimental attempts to incorporate sound with visual images were occurring. There were no conventions or rules governing the nature of the relationship between film and sound, and the political, ideological and artistic struggles that took place provide a fascination insight into the early film industry.

My intention is to briefly summarise the work of some of the major theorists post-1931 within this contextualisation, to create a framework within which the artefact can be placed. I intend to end this contextualisation with a complete bibliography and incorporate referencing into the documentary’s end credits, making both available for students who wish to explore the subject more thoroughly.

Overview of Film Sound Theory

“There is something peculiarly delightful in passing through the streets of a foreign city without understanding a word that anybody says. One’s ear for all sound of voices then becomes entirely impartial; one is not diverted by the meaning of syllables from recognising the absolute guttural, liquid, or honeyed quality of them: while the gesture of the body and the expression of the face have the same value for you that they have in a pantomime; every scene becomes a melodious opera to you, or a picturesquely inarticulate punch”

John Ruskin (cited in Weis and Belton 1985 p.133)

“The consolation of the imaginary is not imaginary consolation”

Roger Scruton (cited in James 2003 p47)

The influence of politics, economics and, more importantly, language barriers, cannot be underestimated in the study of early film sound theory. In America, the film industry was a corporate moneyspinner, and little else. The ability to synchronise film and sound was heralded as a new era, with great proclamations being made by industry stalwarts:

“The movie and the radio will bring people together. They will make for unity and a certain great oneness in the world. Ultimately it may even be oneness with God”

Cecil B. DeMille (cited in Eyman 1997 p23)

One review of the 1926 film, Don Juan, in the New York Times, suggests that DeMille was not alone in his grand utopian ideals:

“No single word, however compounded, is adequate to suggest the amazing triumph which man has at last achieved in making pictures talk naturally, sing enthrallingly and play all manner of instruments as skillfully as if the living beings were present instead of their shadows” (cited in Eyman 1997 p93)

However, European film-makers were concerned about the advances in technology, and were concerned that cinema, as an art form, would lose it’s identity. Cinema would simply become a film of a play, rather than an art form in itself.

Eisenstein, Pudovkin and Alexandrov, three revered Russian film-makers, released statement, proclaiming that “only a contrapuntal use of sound in relation to the visual montage piece will afford a new potentiality of of montage development and perfection.” (Eisenstein 1949)

They argued that this would also allow films around the world an international market, rather than delineating an exact geographical position for their viewing. Pudovkin in particular articulated the concern that “the first function of sound is to augment the potential expressiveness of the film’s content”. (Eisenstein 1949)

Dziga Vertov, a contemporary of the three aforementioned film-makers, saw narrative as a distraction from the interactive process between the film and it’s viewer. His “Kino Eye” principles, explained in more depth in the documentary, expected the viewer to be an active participant in the process of making meaning of the visual images. Sound, often asynchronous industrial noise, was used as a symbol for the viewer to assimilate in any way they felt appropriate. As a Marxist in a society finally overcoming the Tsarist regime, Vertov’s viewpoint was highly significant. His aim was to show documentary footage of everyday Russian life, with contrapuntal sounds and montage techniques, to force the viewer to form conscious opinions about the subject matter, rather than being a passive observer. Michel Chion, in “Audio Vision”, contrasts “causal listening”, wherein an audience uses a sound to gather information about it’s source, with “semantic listening”, which involves the audience interpreting sounds and endowing them with their own meaning. Vertov’s technique used a kind of enforced semantic listening to challenge the viewer.

Modern sound theorists, having grown up in societies where narrative, dialogue and synchronous sound are the norm, are often hesitant to reject Eisenstein’s reactionary theories and Vertov’s formalist style, despite the fact that their guidelines for the use of sound in film are deliberately flouted in the vast majority of modern films. French film-maker Robert Bresson believed that one element, either sound or image, should be dominant at any one time. In “Notes on Sound” he states, “What is for the eye must not duplicate what is for the ear.” (cited in Weis and Belton 1985)

Often the only signifier to a twist in a Bresson plot would be given within the soundtrack, whilst the visual image gave no clues.

Christian Metz argues that there is no such thing as “off-screen” sound, as the nature of sound means that it permeates throughout its surroundings. It is the perpetrator of the sound that remains “off-screen”. Visual events are firmly anchored in a particular space, whereas sound’s relationship with space is less restrictive. Michel Chion refers to this as the “acousmatic”. He states,

“The acousmatic sound maintains suspense, constituting a dramatic technique in itself.” (Chion 1994 p.71)

An example given by Chion is Fritz Lang’s “M”;

“For as long as possible the film conceals the physical appearance…Lang preserves the mystery of the character as long as he can, before “de-acousmatizing” him.” (Chion 1994 p.73)

Modern theorists have accepted that sound and image share a contrapuntal relationship within film, but that, in order to maintain the integrity and power of the message, each must be treated as equal but distinct.