Movies without sound
Aug. 20th, 2009 08:42 amWatched my first Frank Borzage movie last night: the 1925 silent film, Lazybones. But instead of writing about this odd duck of a romance, I'm suddenly reminded of another movie I watched in a silent mode recently. It was actually soundless, however, unlike silent films, which are typically accompanied by music.
On my flight from Seattle to Toronto on the 1st, I watched Watchmen (2009) without a headset. I was curious to see how well it would play without sound, and I actually have to say it played very well. Now it's true that I read the comic books as they came out originally over two decades ago, so I was more or less familiar with the story. Probably less, since I typically don't remember plot details very well. What struck me is how much it was still like my usual way of watching a movie. Which is to say that I'm generally more focused on the visuals than the words. So when there are big moments of exposition and revelation ("yes, it was I, the butler!"), it's often just a bunch of "blah blah blah" to me. In fact, I prefer hyper-recomplicated movies like Out of the Past (1947) and The Cat and the Canary (1927) where the plot is a pretzel that's almost impossible to follow. Thus I found that I didn't mind not being able to hear whatever Dr Manhattan or Ozymandias were saying at key points in Watchmen. No doubt it was just the usual blah blah blah.
One thing I didn't notice, however, was the music I wasn't hearing. Having heard and read a few reactions to the movie since I saw it, I now know that some people were put off by certain song choices, such as Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" during the sex scene. It's quite possible that the songs would have distracted me, too. I will say that one of the visual images that did strike me as too obvious came during the sex scene: when the little aircraft shoots off a jet of orgasmic fire. Duh. Perhaps not too obvious so much as too explicit.
One disappointment of seeing this on a plane, by the way, is that Dr Manhattan's blue rod was censored. When I read the initial reviews of the movie that talked about this, I loved the cheekiness of thrusting the giant blue penis into the faces of the fanboys, as it were. However, Sharee claims she never noticed it when she saw the movie in the theater, so perhaps there was less of it than I imagined. I also have to say that the movie didn't seem as violent as the initial reviews made me think it was, so perhaps some of the violence was censored as well.
Alfred Hitchcock, who started making movies in the silent era, apparently claimed that you should be able to watch his movies without sound and still follow the story. I thought Watchmen passed this test, although again maybe it was because I had once upon I time read the graphic novel.
On my flight from Seattle to Toronto on the 1st, I watched Watchmen (2009) without a headset. I was curious to see how well it would play without sound, and I actually have to say it played very well. Now it's true that I read the comic books as they came out originally over two decades ago, so I was more or less familiar with the story. Probably less, since I typically don't remember plot details very well. What struck me is how much it was still like my usual way of watching a movie. Which is to say that I'm generally more focused on the visuals than the words. So when there are big moments of exposition and revelation ("yes, it was I, the butler!"), it's often just a bunch of "blah blah blah" to me. In fact, I prefer hyper-recomplicated movies like Out of the Past (1947) and The Cat and the Canary (1927) where the plot is a pretzel that's almost impossible to follow. Thus I found that I didn't mind not being able to hear whatever Dr Manhattan or Ozymandias were saying at key points in Watchmen. No doubt it was just the usual blah blah blah.
One thing I didn't notice, however, was the music I wasn't hearing. Having heard and read a few reactions to the movie since I saw it, I now know that some people were put off by certain song choices, such as Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" during the sex scene. It's quite possible that the songs would have distracted me, too. I will say that one of the visual images that did strike me as too obvious came during the sex scene: when the little aircraft shoots off a jet of orgasmic fire. Duh. Perhaps not too obvious so much as too explicit.
One disappointment of seeing this on a plane, by the way, is that Dr Manhattan's blue rod was censored. When I read the initial reviews of the movie that talked about this, I loved the cheekiness of thrusting the giant blue penis into the faces of the fanboys, as it were. However, Sharee claims she never noticed it when she saw the movie in the theater, so perhaps there was less of it than I imagined. I also have to say that the movie didn't seem as violent as the initial reviews made me think it was, so perhaps some of the violence was censored as well.
Alfred Hitchcock, who started making movies in the silent era, apparently claimed that you should be able to watch his movies without sound and still follow the story. I thought Watchmen passed this test, although again maybe it was because I had once upon I time read the graphic novel.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 10:41 pm (UTC)I doubt it - every single review I saw mentioned it. My favorite comment was from (as usual) The New Yorker's Anthony Lane: "Last and hugest is Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), who is buff, buck naked, and blue, like a porn star left overnight in a meat locker."
no subject
Date: 2009-08-20 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 10:48 pm (UTC)So maybe censored, and maybe an issue of different proportion (metaphorical at least as much as literal) for different people...
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 11:04 pm (UTC)But it was definitely erased completely on Air Canada. He looked just like a Ken doll -- if that's a reference that makes any sense to a Briton.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 02:42 pm (UTC)I just read a great line from David Denby's review of Inglourious Basterds, a film I have absolutely no interest in ever seeing:
"Tarantino has become an embarrassment: his virtuosity as a maker of images has been overwhelmed by his inanity as an idiot de la cinémathèque."
Hear hear!
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 02:58 pm (UTC)As for Tarantino, I dunno. I think the hatred just makes him stronger, for better or worse. The only movie of his I've seen is Jackie Brown, which I liked. I've never been interested in any of the others, although I should watch Pulp Fiction at some point just because.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 03:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-21 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-22 11:45 pm (UTC)I don't know how well the rest of Tarantino's stuff will hold up, but I think Kill Bill will last. I read an interesting article several years ago which examines how the plot of the movie pretty closely corresponds to Buddhist mythology and even suggests that Uma Thurman wrote this stuff into the movie without Tarantino realizing she was doing it.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-23 01:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 02:09 pm (UTC)It was pretty violent in bits, so I suspect you did see a trimmed version.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 03:04 pm (UTC)