The question of why synchronised sound developed can be approached in many different ways. From a teleological approach the argument would be that the development of synchronised sound seemed inevitable, arguably a logical improvement on Hollywood films. A teleological viewpoint would see the development of sound as inevitable because this makes the films more realistic. Steve Neale argues that the use of sound-in-film “reflects more of the world as experienced through our two basis senses” (Neale, 1985, p. 96). The teleological approach looks at sound as a process to get to where we are today. This viewpoint makes the development of synchronised sound seem like a stepping stone in the evolution of sound.
Unlike the teleological approach, …show more content…
The Big Five also saw this “enormous potential for profit” (Balio, 1985, p. 231) encouraging them to make the Big Five Agreement and expanded the use of synchronised sound in American cinema and further strengthen the film industry. However, it was highly argued that synchronised sound would harm cinema, many filmmakers claimed “synchronised sound spoiled a pristine mute art”. With filming techniques changing dramatically due to the importance of sound, camera movements became restricted. “Sound technology posed stylistic problems for the film industry” (Thompson & Bordwell, 2010, p. 180), cameras had to be placed inside of soundproof boxes to avoid being heard in the audio. This reduced the panning range and movement. As well as the use of static microphones on sets limited to movement of actors, this was seen as regressive for acting styles and resembled the theatre. Arguably these constricting camera movements narrowed the stylistic approaches for filmmaker. While others thought of sound as a “valuable new stylistic resource” (Thompson & Bordwell, 2010, p. 177), filmmakers found that they could edit sound in similar ways to film to create complex meanings in their
Unlike the teleological approach, …show more content…
The Big Five also saw this “enormous potential for profit” (Balio, 1985, p. 231) encouraging them to make the Big Five Agreement and expanded the use of synchronised sound in American cinema and further strengthen the film industry. However, it was highly argued that synchronised sound would harm cinema, many filmmakers claimed “synchronised sound spoiled a pristine mute art”. With filming techniques changing dramatically due to the importance of sound, camera movements became restricted. “Sound technology posed stylistic problems for the film industry” (Thompson & Bordwell, 2010, p. 180), cameras had to be placed inside of soundproof boxes to avoid being heard in the audio. This reduced the panning range and movement. As well as the use of static microphones on sets limited to movement of actors, this was seen as regressive for acting styles and resembled the theatre. Arguably these constricting camera movements narrowed the stylistic approaches for filmmaker. While others thought of sound as a “valuable new stylistic resource” (Thompson & Bordwell, 2010, p. 177), filmmakers found that they could edit sound in similar ways to film to create complex meanings in their