the end of the transitition

[Harlett O'Dowd]

All these years later, I remain stunned at how quickly the studios completed the transition to sound. Not just the abandonment of silents all together, but how quickly they, shall we say, got the "creaky" out of early talkies.

So what would you say would be end of the creaky era and the start of the next (Pre-Code? something in-between?) era in film making?

I suppose from a technical standpoint, the transitional event would be the first talkie to abandon the icebox for the blimp.

Or would you determine the crossover in more aesthetic terms?

What would be your choice for inaugural film of the era in which you no longer need to offer allowances for the technical learning curve?

ALL QUIET? DRACULA? PUBLIC ENEMY? FRANKENSTEIN? 42nd STREET? Something else?

[boblipton]

I don't think there is any clear point at which movies became "Pre-Code." I see its roots in the sort of DeMillean * things that Swanson and Daniels starred in in the late teens. Neither did every movie become sex and wine all the time, even in 1933. I had the pleasure of seeing Footloose Widows, a definite precode directed by Roy Del Ruth, starring Jacqueline Logan -- a silent, released in 1926..

As for the creak going out, I would say that by 1931 for studio lot stuff. I've heard some off-sounding Fox on-site material from 1932 -- Walsh's Wild Girl springs to mind. So 1933, probably.

Bob

*Is there an accepted adjectival form for "DeMille"?

[Harlett O'Dowd]

*Is there an accepted adjectival form for "DeMille"?

demillian? demillesque?

[mwalls]

Wasn't there a relatively quick transition to the use of a soundtrack which helped mask the "creakiness"? That might be a turning point.

Matthew

[Mike Gebert]

I think the two artistic hallmarks of really early sound-- that sort of dead air feeling, and the somewhat stilted way of speaking dialogue-- start to disappear in 1931 and movies seem to generally have pretty good pace by 1932-3.

Support for this being the break is that that's what got sold to TV packages. 1931 movies not named Frankenstein or starring the Marx Bros. were pretty rare, 1932 ones more common. Sound was really starting to produce stars we remember today, too, by then-- the Cagneys and Hepburns and Davises and Tracys.

I do remember as a kid, really wondering where the the 1929, 1930, 1931 movies went. And that when TCM in particular appeared, how they were a lost chapter suddenly available.

[Brooksie]

I'd argue that it's not until at least 1930 that you see directors confident enough to make something more than silent films with sound, if that makes sense. Technique-wise, it took them a while to readjust their pacing and find the right balance between showing and telling.

The silent and sound versions of All Quiet make a fascinating comparison on that count. There are still a few parts that are over-talky, but the best scenes in both versions are the ones that are more or less silent - the death of Raymond Griffith's character, and the ending, for example.

[Donald Binks]

It's just my opinion, but I don't think you can give a finite time when talkies came into their own. There are a number of transitory markers along the trail from when when Mr. Jolson opened his mouth.

- when playback came about and all the sound did not have to be recorded at the same time as the picture being photographed
- multi tracking and mixing (even though in the early days it was rudimentary utilising a series of gramophones)
- getting the camera out of a padded room
- getting stage actors to realise they are on film and not playing to the gallery

I have seen talking pictures from 1929 which were quite ahead of their time - and I have seen others from as late as 1932 which were real creakers.

Maybe others would be able to add further transitory points to my brief list above?

[missdupont]

Mamoulian breaks through so many of the myths of sound creakiness with APPLAUSE (1929). Tracking shots in or out of performers, moving camera, making use of sound in a variety of ways, with the camera moving as it's doing it.

[Wm. Charles Morrow]

A few months back there was a lot of talk here about Tay Garnett's Her Man, newly restored and screened at MoMA. It's a perfect example of a 1930 feature that doesn't "creak" at all, and could easily pass for a 1933 release, in terms of pacing, editing, mobile camera, delivery of dialog, etc. Which only goes to show that there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, or rather, films that don't fit the stereotype of what an early talkie looks and sounds like.

[R Michael Pyle]

There were several indie/cheapies made as late as 1934-35, too, that obviously used equipment from two to four years old that made their productions look as if they'd been filmed from '30-'32. Just look at some of the mysteries you can find at Alpha that were made on the cheap. The directors obviously didn't have a clue in some cases how to be fluid with camera work or the actors/actresses themselves in the blocking. Sound was still a problem for some of these productions, too. Hearing the camera movements drives me crazy in many, many cheapie productions! Although...I also find it fascinating how many of these cheapie productions tend to show clocks in close-up with the ticking noise, and then use that ticking noise as motivation for the next shot or scene or psychology or whatever... It's still a cheap way to use sound to maneuver plot. Hitchcock used such devises with a masterhand in expensive productions, but he wasn't Tay Garnett or Phil Rosen...

[Marr&Colton]

Having seen so many early talkies from 1929-33, the flow and smoothness of dialogue and direction really
showed beginning in 1933. There was another transition to even more smoothness (and what we became used to with
1950s television) beginning around 1937.

I generally avoid most movies before 1932.....although as stated already there are a few exceptions--and of course, shorts.

[oldposterho]

There were several indie/cheapies made as late as 1934-35, too, that obviously used equipment from two to four years old that made their productions look as if they'd been filmed from '30-'32.

I think this is an important point. It would probably really depend on what "technology" each production had access to that would determine just where in the transition they sit. I suspect Mamoulian could get his hands on much better gear than lesser mortals, or perhaps it was just his brilliance that let him do more with less.

[wingate]

Here in the UK BIP decided to convert their silent films to sound by having the second half talking.So for example the 1929 version of The Informer bursts into sound right in the middle.I have seen this on about 5 of their films.

[westegg]

I recall not long ago seeing a Charlie Chan movie from 1939 (forget the title); for a B production it was astonishingly assured in its photography, editing and sound compared to, say, a 1931 Chan movie. It's like how GONE WITH THE WIND can stand up to today's audiences on a tech level, compared to if it was filmed in 1929.