Theory of film : the redemption of physical reality (1960)

Dialogue and Sound The term "sound" is commonly used in two senses. Strictly speaking, it refers to sound proper— all kinds of noises, that is. And in a loose way it designates not only sound proper but the spoken word or dialogue as well. Since its meaning can always be inferred from the contexts in which it appears, there is no need for abandoning this traditional, if illogical, usage. INTRODUCTION Early misgivings When sound arrived, perceptive film makers and critics were full of misgivings, in particular about the addition of the spoken word, this "ancient human bondage," as one of them called it.1 They feared, for instance, that speech might put an end to camera movement— one fear at least which soon turned out to be unfounded.2 To Chaplin a talking Tramp was so utterly unconceivable that he satirized conventional dialogue in both City Lights and Modern Times. As far back as 1928— the Russian studios had not yet introduced sound apparatus— Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and Alexandrov issued a joint Statement on sound film in which dim apprehensions alternated with constructive suggestions. This Statement, still of the highest interest, was probably inspired and edited by Eisenstein. A student of materialistic dialectics, he acknowledged sound as a historic necessity because of its emergence at a moment when the further evolution of the medium depended on it. For with the plots becoming ever more ambitious and intricate, only the spoken word would be able to relieve the silent film from the increasing number of cumbersome captions and explanatory visual inserts needed for the exposition of the in 102