We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
224 DIALOGUE
caption written only to be read. The speech is incorporated in the picture itself, not in expressionless written words the emphasis on which the reader has to supply as he reads them. And not only is the spoken word heard together with the seeing of the picture — the expression of sound and image merge into an organic unity when they depict the emotions or state of mind of the characters.
Thus the objection to words was legitimate in the silent film because the written caption was always an alien element in the sequence of pictures. The absolute ideal of the silent film would have been a completely captionless film and it has often been attempted to produce such films. These attempts were in fact protests not against speech, but against the necessity of reading — which is also an optical process, but not a process of the same nature as the other optical process of watching pictures. Seeing people talking in some dramatic scene was never considered undesirable. Nor would the hearing of speech have been disturbing if the picture had not been interfered with. We would have all been delighted if we had not been forced to break the picture sequences with written explanations. But the silent film could reach perfection only as a silent film.
SPEECH SEEN AND SPEECH HEARD
In spite of all such logical considerations, it was precisely men of better taste who protested loudest at first against the speaking film, although it seemed at the beginning as if the sound film could preserve such artistic achievements of the silent film as the close-up which revealed the microphysiognomy of the actors and the face of things; the living soul of landscapes; the rhythm of cutting; the change of viewpoint and set-up. What was it then that was so offensive to so many at first?
It was a bitter disappointment, a painful revelation in fact, when the public heard and understood for the first time what the film stars were saying on the screen, after having for so long only seen them talking. Not the fact that they were talking but what they said was a shock. The things they were