Since the advent of the moving image, filmmakers, theorists and critics have been interested in the question concerning naturalism: To what extent is filmmaking required to aspire to the rules and conventions of our everyday, sensorial experience. Is film to mimic reality?
This in turn reveals a more fundamental question concerning the medium and its artistic and social significance within the wider culture: What is film, what does it express? Is it a truth-revealing technology, a means of accurately recording the raw facts of life? Or is its primary role that of a magic-making machine, the elaboration of special effect trickery to dazzle audiences with fantastical experiences of imaginative worlds?
The talkie heralded a new era of synchronous image and sound filmmaking. Soon critics began to question the slavishly, naturalistic role sound was now performing in service to the moving images. For some, the technological innovations of synchronous picture and soundtrack was in danger of contaminating the ethereal dimension of the silent film. The talkie presented the problem of inviting in too much sensory experience; what would be left to imagine? As Walter Murch comments:
“The weakness of present-day cinema is paradoxically its strength of representation: it doesn’t automatically possess the built-in escape valves of ambiguity that painting, music, literature, black-and-white silent film, and radio have simply by virtue of their sensory incompleteness—an incompleteness that automatically engages the imagination of the viewer/listener as compensation for what can only be suggested by the artist.
In his 1929 article The Art of Sound, Réne Clair lamented the realism of the talkie. In grounding the spectator in a consistent audiovisual storytelling space, synchronous sound threatened cinema’s much celebrated capacity to transport and transcend everyday reality. Clair writes:
“Through such "progressive" means the screen has lost more than it has gained. It has conquered the world of voices, but it has lost the world of dreams. I have observed people leaving the cinema after seeing a talking film. They might have been leaving a music hall, for they showed no sign of the delightful numbness which used to overcome us after a passage through the silent land of pure images. They talked and laughed, and hummed the tunes they had just heard. They had not lost their sense of reality.”
Despite, or perhaps because of this fear, Clair would go on to direct a series of successful talkies between 1930 and 1933. Each of these four films was an opportunity for Clair to create and experiment with innovative film sound techniques. Among many of his achievements as a filmmaker and artist of the avant-garde, Clair demonstrated that this new technology could be effectively integrated into the poetic language of cinema.
Contrapuntal
In 1928 Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Podovkin and Grigori Alexandrov had already issued their “statement” on sound, decrying the use of the synchronous soundtrack in terms of its diminishing efficacy within the soviet theory of montage:
“To use sound in this way will destroy the culture of montage, for every adhesion of sound to a visual montage piece increases its inertia as a montage piece, and increases the independence of its meaning-and this will undoubtedly be to the detriment of montage.”
They proposed a contrapuntal, non-synchronous method in which “sound, treated as a new montage element (as a factor divorced from the visual image)” that will “give the necessary palpability which will later lead to the creation of an Orchestral Counterpoint of visual and aural images.“
Asynchronism
A year after the statement was published Vsevolod Podovkin further refined his own ideas of Asynchronism - the precise juxtaposition of images and sounds and how they relate to everyday human sensory experience. Here Podovkin somewhat distinguishes his own film sound ideas from Eisenstein’s musically analogous countrapuntalist method.
In his essay Asynchronism as a Principle of Sound Film Podovkin reiterated the problem of a faux naturalism that emerges when sound and image reinforce one another in the illusionist fashion of the talkie. He describes how:
“the role which sound is to play in film is much more significant than a slavish imitation of naturalism on these lines; the first function of sound is to augment the potential expressiveness of the film's content […] Unity of sound and image is realized by an interplay of meanings which results […] in a more exact rendering of nature than its superficial copying.”
Juxtaposition
Audiovisual montage, in which both the image and sound material operate juxtapositionally, presents the filmmaker with an opportunity to forge new associations to generate and reorganise meaning and significance. Such elasticity under certain filmic conditions, opens the sound film up to embrace more poetic forms that aren’t grounded in linear, synchronous reality.
Sound not merely mimicking the image but functioning as a counterpoint, or asynchronously, can unify the temporality and spatiality of a sequence of moving images that otherwise may feel disconnected and rhythmically inconsistent. In this regard, non-diegetic musical score is commonly deployed as an effective tool to achieve this sense of unity and cohesion across film time. Both the use of sound and music in this manner can assist in emotional and intellectual modes of audiovisual association and meaning-forming in which the sum effect is far greater than its constituent parts.
Optical Sound: Material Displacement
In some sense the decoupling and breaking of sound from its visual counterpart emphasises the fundamentally illusionary nature of the sound film as defined by the synchronous bond of sound to image. The illusion is perceptual, constructed in the brain of the spectator as it processes these two streams of sensory information simultaneously. This perceptual activity suggests that what one sees and hear is happening at the same time; i.e. a talking head produces a seemingly synchronous and therefore naturalistic set of vocal sounds.
But the photographic information of a film in its most material sense - as a tangible, celluloid filmstrip - is at physical odds with this experience. The optical soundtrack does not correspond to the filmstrip’s adjacent image(s); the variable waveforms are not positioned horizontally alongside their corresponding images, but instead precede them. The two strands of information are actually displaced by a number of frames due to the film projector’s soundtrack head being positioned after the lens for the film’s image track. For 16mm optical, the soundtrack is read 26 frames in advance of the images. In this way, materially, on celluloid, sound and image remain essentially misaligned, out of sync.
Beyond sound-on-film technology, where sound accompanying a picture is recorded photographically, the operation of magnetic tape and later digital sound recorders untethered from the camera enforce the separation between sound and image; they function separately. It is only through the post-production process that these two discrete sources of audio and visual information are physically forced into synchronous marriage.
Film Selection:
Good kid, m.A.A.d city [2014] dir. Kahil Joseph
The Family Album [1988] dir. Alan Berliner
San Soleil [1983] dir. Chris Marker
The Girl Chewing Gum [1976] dir. John Smith
Walden [1968] dir. Jonas Mekas
Unsere Afrikareise [1966] dir. Peter Kubelka
Ako [1964] dir. Hiroshi Teshigahara
Report [1963-67] dir. Bruce Conner
Listen to Britain [1942] dir. Humphrey Jennings and Stewart McAllister.
The Deserter [1933] dir. Vsevolod Podovkin
Sous les toites de Paris [1930] dir. René Clair