The Cine Technician (1935-1937)

50 The Joitrnal of the Association of CineTechnicians November, 1935 : Ivor Montagu Lament of a Diehard It will be remembered that, when talkies first came in, I was one of those who, Jonah-like, roamed the country wailing of the awful things that were going to happen, Cinema going to the dogs, etc., etc. Now, six years later, I am still unrepentant. I am convinced the Cinema has gone downhill, and is not capable of the power of impression it exerted then. Were you a fan in the old days, or is your interest in the Cinema only recent ? If you were a fan, come on, answer me honestly, does any picture you see nowadays mean as much to you, give you the deep-down excitement, that dozens used to in the old days ? Do the modern stars seem as thrilling ? I can remember scores of silent films of most diverse type : the old Griffiths, "Stella Dallas," the old Lubitschs, "Black Pirate" and other Fairbanks, Cinderella, the first Soviet silents ("Mother" and so on), "The Big Parade," "The Merry Widow," at every one of which I received an experience that has outlasted in my memory any talkie I've ever seen. Who that saw it has ever forgotten the moment when in "The Big Parade" the troops move forward towards the front line, in a pictorial composition based on Ne Vinson's famous "Road from Arras to Bapaume" ? And where has there been a moment in talkies like it ? Ah, well ! I know perfectly that these sighings may be merely the jaded sourness of old age. I 7nay be no longer so fresh and impressionable as I was. Perhaps. This is possible, and if it were true, alas I wouldn't know it. But it is also possible that my subjective impressions not so inaccurately register a real objective weakening. After all, it wouldn't be so wonderful if it were so. No one could be surprised, or regard it as a proof of ultimate weakness, if the talkies at the end of six years had failed to rival the masterpieces achieved by the silents after thirty. The danger would only be, that in a normal human complacency with "things as they are," we might not recognise this state of affairs and might, in effect, be content to standardise mediocrity. To save us, I propose to do a spot of stocktaking, which cannot of course be exhaustive here or any more than sketchy. Under what heads did Jonah cry his warning ? Here we shall list : — (1) Limitation of material. (2) Limitation of speed by dialogue. (3) Limitation of comedy. (4) Limitation of universality. (5) Limitation of sound range. Ivor Montagu entered the film industry in 1925 as partner of Adrian Brunei. Directed, among other films, H. G. Wells' comedies and (with Geoffrey Barkas) "Wings Over Everest." Edited and titled over one hundred silent pictures. Writer with Paramount 1930, and co-author with Eisenstein of scripts [never produced) for "Sutter's Gold" and " American Tragedy." Translated variojis theoretical writings of Soviet film directors. For the past two years Associate Producer at Ganmojit-Britisli. A Vice-Presidoit of A.C.T. 1. LlNflTATION OF MATERIAL. In the early days of sound the camera sat in a closed box prison with the recording apparatus. When at last it emerged, it only did so shackled by a clumsy bhmp. We set up a howl : "No more outdoor pictures — the camera has lost its mobility." This fear has proved unfounded. Silent cameras or others that can work in a rough swathe of eiderdown, directional microphones, have emancipated us largely from these shackles. Postsynchronisation ("dubbing") has completed our freedom. We can, at a pinch, now find technical means of using for story material anything that was availalile to the old silent film. But, all the same, there can be no doubt that even here we are standardising a bit too early, and we could do without the complicated weight of apparatus that has to be taken with us on exterior. The soundrecording equivalent of the Newman-Sinclair and the Eyemo is said to exist. Where ? I have not seen it used in practice. As a point of humility, by the way, if material available for sound pictures has not been reduced, neither has it been so much increased. Singing and dancing, neither of which the silent film could attempt, and both of which the first talkies ("Singing Fool," etc.) dealt with as child's play tasks, remain the sole new conquest. Where, for example, is the talkie drawing-room comedy (a field one would think particularly the province of talk) that has impressed or earned fame by its wit as "Kiss me Again" or "The Marriage Circle" ? None the less, we will admit, technically sound apparatus has not limited material in production. Its limitation on material in audience reception will be dealt with later. 2. Limitation of Speed by Dialogue. We forecast that talk would make pictures slow. We pointed out that to see a face as it spoke was for the audience to receive two impulses giving the same information. Either the mood was understood from the speech, and the face must be dull. Or the face was expressive, and the speech must be unnecessary. If both were eloquent, one was supererogatory. It was forgotten, we pointed out, that on the stage, for the vast majority, the typical spectator, speecli alone conveys the impulse, supported by a general visual colouring of the movements on the stage. No one outside the tiny few in the front row of the stalls ever glimpses the expression of the face. To receive both speech and face would give an effect of slowness.