I just discovered this quote from master filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, talking about how the introduction of sound and dialogue had in many ways hurt cinema:
“The silent pictures were the purest form of cinema; the only thing they lacked was the sound of people talking and the noises. But this slight imperfection did not warrant the major changs that sound brought in. In Many of the films now being made, there is very little cinema. They are mostly what I call ‘photographs of people talking.’ When we tell a story in cinema, we should resort to dialogue only when it’s impossible to do otherwise. I always try first to tell a story in the cinematic way, through a succession of shots and bits of film in between… To me, one of the cardinal sins for a scriptwriter, when he runs into some difficulty, is to say ‘We can cover that by a line of dialogue.’ Dialogue should simply be a sound among sounds, just something that comes out of the mouths of people whose eyes tell the story in visual terms.”
May 29th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
brilliant
May 29th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
pure genius
May 29th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
quote of the day - anyone? anyone?
May 29th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Damn this guy was golden.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Hitchcock was a man who enjoyed having a public persona of extremes. What he really did was find the right balance between visuals and sounds. He’s the guy who said his ideal actor was mickey mouse. He hated actors, but knew them to be essential. Maybe that’s why he disliked them so much. He also knew that a good script was essential. The man was a walking hyperbole.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
i.e. WALL-E
May 29th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
hitch was the man, but cinema like everything on this planet must go through an evolution. dialogue should not be a fix, but an added virtue to the medium. a volley of words between two people in love, can be just as beautiful as a well shot image. kevin smith’s characters are quite talky, but i find many of them very real, tangible, and wonderful to know.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Film tells the story of humanity. Three aspects of the human character are:
Deeds (Actions)
Words (Dialogue)
Thoughts (Internal Actions and Dialogue)
Language is needed in film to create a metaphorical depth akin to how three dimensional lighting creates a physical depth. The removal of speech from film handicaps the art.
And let’s not forget that most of the silent classics contained a good deal of written word to expound upon the visuals.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Sound effects and gimmick standards, like CG have made many film-makers lazy. What bothers me, are some of the films that have millions upon millions of backing today. Still look and sound like cheap b-movie projects.
Just make the sound really “loud” and people think it’s great sound engineering. Add tons of “motion blur” and really tight shots and people will think the CG is flawless.
I know Hollywood is a cyclical beast. But today it’s gotten more and more out of hand. The gates have been opened up to anyone who can use an Avid setup and knows how to make a viral campaign for a film that resembles a commercial more than a film itself.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I think a couple of the people who have commented are not reading what he’s saying correctly. Hitchcock is not saying that movies would be better without sound or dialogue, he’s saying the addition of sound hurt cinema because filmmakers began to use dialogue as a crutch when they could have told something, say exposition, through visuals in a much more entertaining and cinematic way. Before sound, words were used on screen, but minamalisticly. Alfanso Curon’s Children of Men is the most recent film to come to mind that made great use of visual exposition.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Damn you “Enter” key…
Hitchcock used sound and dialogue himself.
I think a lot of you are taking what he said as, “Sound ruined everthing!”. As I stated above he’s saying that it hurt film because it became an easy out for people to rely on than the craft of film-making itself.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
i think we’re all interpreting his words in our own way. like you guys, i know his films very well, so when he says:
“Dialogue should simply be a sound among sounds, just something that comes out of the mouths of people whose eyes tell the story in visual terms.â€
i know that for him, dialogue is a secondary device. each filmmaker has their own style, and while dialogue should never be a crutch, this visual emphasis will never work for everyone. some people (tarantino) reverse this, and are successful in having their words supported by exciting backgrounds.
btw, children of men is a wonderful recent example. i’ll add mel brooks ’silent movie’ to the list. one of my fav comedies ever.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
He’s right, of course. It all goes back to the old “show, don’t tell” rule. I think Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing proves unimportant words are; it’s nearly impossible to absorb Shakespeare at that pace, but it all makes perfect sense because of the way the actors say it.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Ohh that was Hitchcock, I always attributed that quote to Kevin Smith.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Hitchcock was brilliant, Dialogue is sometimes over used in cinema. a story should portray itself through the actions of the camera, not by having someone explain it. Dialogue is great but it takes a real genius to present a great and in depth story solely with pictures.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
word
May 30th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Hitchcock was a talented asshole…..
May 30th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Hitchcock is right, but I think visuals and sound should be equally used. I understand what he is saying because a lot of these films have too much dialogue and don’t really explain much. In addition its not just dialogue too much music as well. Sometimes the music is so much that it seems you’re watching MTV for classical. Overuse is the main problem in this situation.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:37 am
this is why i hate narrators. if you need a voice that isnt even a character to tell the story, than whats the point of the movie itself? you might as well listen to it on the radio or something. A movie, in my opinion, is supposed to take what a narrator would normally say, and interpret that in visuals. if you use a narrator, or a hearing a persons thoughts out loud, then you arent even making a film.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Hitch is right stories can be told without words.I think Kubrick’s 2001 is a great example of a non-verbal experience.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Peter, do you know what year this quote is from, by any chance?
I think he’s right about dialogue becoming (or having the potential, and usually succeeding, to become) an unnecessary crutch. But to dismiss sound entirely seems out of line for anyone, especially him. Hitch most definitely used sound in an interesting way, incorporating it into the experience of cinema. There’s a scene at the kitchen table in The 39 Steps that comes to mind as being a really great audio/visual scene. And that was his very first sound film, I think.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Eliza: I found the quote in the new Art of WALL-E book (which is great by the way) but the bibliography lists the source as the 1967 Simon and Schuster book Hitchcock/Tuffaut.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
That’s a good quote for sure.