New Technologies

Many things have greatly influenced the film in throughout its history, such as methods of filming and progressing technologies used. When films were first being created they were nothing more than sequences of scenes put together one after the other. Back then people couldn’t just create their own films and publicly display them for the world to see, like today.

              The internet and digital cameras opened up a whole new world for amateur filmmakers. People could grab their cameras, make a short film of whatever they wanted, then turn around and post it on the internet. This has desensitized many people from the experience of new films. Movies and films used to be for the professionals only, and the only way you could watch is if you went to a movie theater. As if televisions weren’t enough to cause heartbreak to the movie theaters. Today we have the internet, and other options such as ‘Redbox’ or ‘Netflix’, which allows us to comfortably sit at home with little to no cost and not have to waste the gas to go watch an outrageously priced movie in an overcrowded theater.

Cinerama and Cinescope used to be the new big thing that attracted audiences to the theatres. But like anything else, people got board with it and new things were needed to come out all the time to keep the interest of the audience. First it was larger than life screens, then it was blood and gore, and after that large explosions. Now it has gotten so bad that every other movie has to come out in 3-D, because there seems to be nothing else other than plots that can really surprise us. Advanced digital technologies have allowed our generations to become used to watching somebody’s leg get cut off, or watching a building being blown into a million pieces.

3-D technology has become so appealing and popular to the general public that people for some reason see the urge to buy a $3,000 3-D flat screen. So they can put on the annoyingly oversized glasses and watch their everyday shows in “3-D”. Have you ever watched a regular show in “3-D”? There is virtually no difference. People can essentially watch a 3-D movie at home and not have to go to the theaters to watch a movie.

All of these innovations in technology have desensitized us from the ‘WOW’ factor of anything Hollywood tries to throw at us. We no longer get surprised from blood and gore and we no longer become shocked from huge explosions, although we still enjoy it. We can now go attempt to film out own ‘block-buster’ in our own backyards and hope it becomes a huge success. It is time for something new to be thrown at us, we are over due for something amazing in theatres, and yet we get stuck with 3-D. Is that all you’ve got Hollywood?

New Waves in the Cinematic Ocean

The “American New Wave” or post classical Hollywood began in the early 1960’s when audiences to theatres was half of what it was 20 years earlier. Because of this loss, the film industry was not making money, therefore needed to revamp entirely. There were many changes in the production aspect to make films more interesting, in attempt to draw in more crowds. Hollywood began to embrace new technology, such as Cinerama and Cinescope to produce movies much larger than before. Movie producers also started selling movies to TV companies to acquire more of a profit. The popular cast that had been used earlier was proving to become too expensive, so production companies started hiring independent filmmakers and foreign actors to shoot films. In this period, “baby-boomers” had become the bulk of the movie audience, which greatly affected what kinds of movies were being produced; because of this the United States created a systematic classification for movies, with the ‘G’, ‘PG’, ‘R’, and ‘X’ ratings that we see today. Because of these changes “Hollywood moved from studio to independent production, but the story-telling form of the films remained much the same” (Oxford 450). Directors now also became recognized as an extremely important part of the film, rather than just a hand for hire, who would be considered the center of production at the time, with little studio control.

            The French New Wave was influenced greatly by Neo-Realism and classical Hollywood. Its directors, who denied the classical filmmaking fashion that had become the template for making films, defined the French New Wave. These directors were young and full of fresh ideas that reflected their youthfulness. The French New Wave films had been using unheard of techniques in the film industry, such as clearly cut scenes with no attempt at creating fluidity.

            American and French New Wave had many similarities and just as many differences. The French New Wave came ten years before the American did. However, French New Wave was greatly influenced by the American “Auteur Theory”, which in turn influenced the “American New Wave.” Young directors with fresh ideas that would greatly impact how movies would look while being filmed directed in both New Waves. However, the American would still have the Studio above the director, just with much less control over the film during production. Each New Wave was kick started by different events. The French New Wave was developed directly after World War II. Where the American was forced onto the Studios by the major downturn in movie attendance and the reoccurring flop of extremely expensive productions. Though different from each other, both New Waves would effect world cinema and lead to changes in directing aspects and ratings. 

World Influences

We have all gone to Hastings, Block Buster, or our local Red Box at one point in time having no idea what we want to watch. All we know is that it better be good, and worth the money we spend, even if it is only a single dollar. When searching for these movies, most people don’t look for films with cultural significance, especially a significance that is held by a foreign country that they may possibly never understand or connect with. I have never found myself wandering down the foreign films aisle looking for a movie with a deeper meaning, even though I probably should from time to time. I want to be entertained, and if that requires me to sit in front of a screen and use little to no brainpower, and to not leave the movie thinking what if, then so be it. I feel that this mindset separates American audiences from others around the world, thus leading to different films entirely. 

American Cinema has always been known for its flashy appeal and big on screen explosions. These flashy films have always caught the attention of audiences around the world. Though most foreign films do incorporate flashy appeal, they tend to lean more towards the artistic side. However, no matter how hard they try to avoid it, America will always have some sort of influence on world cinema. One example is the typical American motto, “BIGGER IS BETTER”, without that belief huge wide-screens may have never caught on, or would have many years later. World Cinema was also influenced by the simplicity of some western films, there was no need for every single film to reflect on the military past or national pride. America’s physical presence alone had influence on foreign films, as describe in A Short History in Film, when explaining Japan’s movement from an Emperor ran government to an industrialized government.

World cinema also had its own influence on American films. Neo-realism, which became a dominant genre in war torn European countries began showing its face in American films more and more. Neo-realism was developed originally to show the devastation of World War 2, and what life was like after. Films after the war reflected the spirit of the times; in Europe it was sad and depressing. In America films reflected “repression and liberation, of spectacle and gritty realism.” Billy Wilder incorporated neo-realism in his film The Lost Weekend where is was partially shot on the streets of New York.

I do believe film is an international language, but it can only be translated so much, and at some points loses its meaning in translation. There are always those films or genres that become known worldwide, such as Westerns, which have always been known as American films, but have been reflected in many films around the world. This one genre shows only a miniscule amount of the influence that American cinema has had on the rest of the world. Many films that we Americans enjoy today may not be as appealing to people from other countries from around the world. Although the interpretations of films may be taken differently between cultures, every film is taken a certain way, depending on who is watching. There are also many films developed in other countries that we would not find entertaining, or even more so not understand the meaning of the film because our ideology is completely different from that of other countries.

No matter whether a film as cultural significance or not, usually it seems to appeal more to one country than another. Culture plays a large role in this appeal, but without different cultures we wouldn’t have nearly as many genres in film as we do.

Innovation of Widescreen

There were many innovations made in the film industry between 1930 and 1960, most of which occurring in the 1950’s. After World War 2 many people filled there leisure time with out door activities instead of sitting around at the movies. This lead production companies to invest and develop new styles of filming that would draw large crowds back into the movie theaters. Each production company had its own new style to film or bring sound to the theater, which they thought would bring in more post-war audiences. Introduction of the big-screen was the most prominent change in movie theaters across the country. It wasn’t until 1950’s when color was used in by the entire film industry. Some of the other innovations that production companies tried to use to appeal crowds was 3-D film and deep focus cinematography.

Widescreen was used to make audiences feel like they were more apart of the movie they were watching. 3-D also tried this approach by making audiences believe they were just as much in the film as the actors were by “putting the movie in their laps”, but was short-lived, lasting only eighteen months. Widescreen movies helped to exaggerate climatic moments in films by allowing large images to be projected for audiences, making them feel closer.

Paramount experimented with their version of widescreen films by using a technique called Magnascope. Magnascope required special wide-angled projection lens, which would magnify the image to a tremendous 30 by 40 foot screen, from a mere 15 by 20 foot image previously used.

Cinerama was the next technique that was used to try to take over the widescreen sensation, though it was developed outside the film industry. This technique appealed to the audiences’ peripheral vision, using three inter-locked 35 mm cameras, equipped with 27mm wide-angled lenses, angled 48 degrees to one another. Three inter-locked projectors in three separate booths were used to project three separate images onto one, deeply curved screen. These theaters also required a sound control engineer to playback six microphones to seven speakers in the theater. The first Cinerama film grossed over $32 million, even though it played in a small number of theaters due to its high requirements needed to play. Three-strip Cinerama lasted until 1963, when Ultra Panavision replaced it. Ultra Panavision, a 70mm. process that condensed Cinerama’s view to a single strip.

The most accomplished technique for widescreen films was developed my 20^th Century Fox. Cinemascope used a similar approach to that of Cinerama, but on a single 35mm. strip. Cinemascope used magnetic oxide striping to place four tracks on a single 35mm. strip. All this information for condensed and compressed by Fox engineers. In order to fit the information one strip, the frame area was redesigned and the size of perforations on both sides of the strip were reduced. With Cinemascope allowing sound and image on the same strip eliminated the need for a sound control engineer in the theater. By the end of 1954 Cinemascope quickly became the industry standard, every studio, except for Paramount who developed their own version of Cinemascope (VistaVision), had implemented the Cinemascope format. By 1967 Fox retired Cinemascope in favor of Panavision due to the development of Paramount’s high-quality anamorphic lens.

Widescreen films shown in color overwhelmed audiences right from the get-go, with their large curved screens and magnetic sound that was played along with the film. Audiences still appeal to the larger than life movie being played in front of them. If it weren’t for wide movie screens most people would not have been drawn back to the movie theaters after World War 2, which could have brought a sudden halt to the American film industry. Innovations such as widescreens are still used today in most movie theaters around the world, along with the re-introduction of 3-D technology. If not for widescreen movies most of the public would be perfectly content watching films and television from the comfort of the their home.      

A future for the over-exaggerated silent?

     One of the biggest differences between silent actors and "talkies" is over exaggerated body and facial expressions. Such as in The Great Train Robbery where the man takes an extended period of time to show that he had been shot and is dead. There were also many facial expressions that were extreme close-ups to show perhaps and eye movement of a wink, just to make sure the audience caught it.
     As just another person watching a movie I would say that those expressions are not missed in today's movie. I mean have you ever watched a modern film where it took somebody too long to die, its like come on already, we get the picture. Today dialogue is used to inform the viewer of what is happening in the film. I notice that most of us are more impatient with scenes that take too long, we understand what is happening so a over done explanation is not necessary. Yet, as a student in The Development of Film, I do seem to miss the exaggerations. It feels almost as if the actor/actress is giving more to the scene, almost trying harder than today's actors and actresses.
     As mentioned before I believe we are too impatient to be able to sit down and watch a full-length silent feature film in our free time. Yes certain elements are still incorporated in films today, such as big waves of the arms or exaggerated winks, and those certain expressions make the scene stand out, but overuse of the expressions would bore audiences today. I do not believe that there is a future in the movie industry for full-length silent films, Shorts maybe. But silent films will always play a major role in the history of film making and how it influenced films today.