Necessary(?) Evils.

Arnheim and Munsterberg agreed that sound and color were the demise of film as an art form. "They're crazy!" I thought at first. Then, I gave it a little more consideration. Are some of their points valid? Do we rely on dialogue too much? Does color really add to the aesthetic experience? Or, does the camera become simply a recording device only copying reality exactly? It made me think about the newer film version of "Great Expectations." The color green was used as a tool to represent money and greed. When I watched it in 1998 I thought this was clever. Now, I think we should have been able to make those conclusions from the film without it being forced upon the audience every time someone wore a green article of clothing.

I'm still not 100% convinced about the evils of sound and color, especially because I'm the first to defend an "okay" movie with the reasoning, "well, it had good dialogue" or, appreciate a film's rich colors, impressive scenery and costumes. Though, maybe that's Munsterberg and Arnheim's point. Does dialogue help a mediocre film cheat? Are we blinded by rich visuals to see what's underneath?

I decided to do a little experiment with a mini short I made last semester.

Below is it's

-original form (with diegetic sound and color)

-with diegetic sound removed

-with color removed

-with diegetic sound and color removed:

Original:

Without Sound:

Without Color:

Without Sound or Color:

There are perks to the subtractions: the lack of sound allows the viewer to use their imagination to draw conclusions of what the boy is saying as well as gives the illusion that there is no person on the other side of the camera. The change to black and white, I think, gives it a more timeless feel-- as if they are stuck in a moving painting as opposed to in my backyard on a home video.

There are also downsides to the alterations. Without the diegetic sound, there is less attention brought to the boy hitting the girl in the face. This is an important part of the story. Critics of sound might say that the visual should be better and therefore wouldn't need sound to explain, however, since this was an accident and not staged, the sound acts as an aid to something that could not be made clearer.

Until reading Munsterberg and Arnheim I never thought to remove the sound or color. It certainly doesn't need either. Truthfully, I'm really not sure which I prefer. What do you think?