I find it fascinating to read and listen to the critiques of Les Misérables that are making their way through the cyberworld. There are those who cannot abide the imperfection of the singing. Others wonder why there was no use of autotune. Still others question the validity of the film compared to the live show. I have decided to weigh in on this controversy with several thoughts.

First off, I think it is a marvelous experiment to produce a musical film that has the singing performed live on the set. As a trained singer and actor, I would adore putting the acting first in a film and use my singing expertise to highlight key parts of songs. The lyrics of this show are wonderful and move the narrative along beautifully. I was in awe of Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, and Samantha Barks. The acting performances of these three during their key solo numbers was nothing short of astonishing. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were less inspiring: Jackman because he has over sung so much his vibrato is unreliable and his poor intonation was quite noticeable, and Crowe because he put the singing first rather than his normally phenomenal acting. Herein lies the debate.

Should a musical that relies so much on an operatic score be directed to highlight the wonderful melodies or should the narrative and libretto be the driving force of the film, at the cost of wonderful singing? I can argue either viewpoint. I think the validity of recording direct sound for songs is substantiated by the introspection that occurs on the set when one is in the character and working with the circumstances that are happening in the scene. On the other hand, the music is such a key aspect of this show that I did indeed miss hearing wonderful singing by exceptional voices. Certainly one can get fantastic acting performances from an actor lip synching to a pre-recorded vocal. However, I recognize that the real life connection that is encouraged in an actor to be raw and exposed is much different when the actor is not concerned with matching a pre-recorded rendition.

I believe we should accept the film on its own terms. Rather than contrast it to what it might have been had it conformed to industry conventions, or compare it to the experience of the live production, I want to let it be what it is. Les Misérables is an innovative approach to a musical film. As such, it cannot be compared to anything. However, we should remember that Rouben Mamoulian decided to let Applause be filmed with mostly direct sound as well. It was daring, bold, difficult, and only partially successful. But as we study it today, we consider his innovative use of camera and sound to create the space of the story world to be amazingly progressive. Mamoulian influenced all who followed him.

Across the Universe has some songs that were recorded as dialogue as well. Julie Taymor used the direct sound approach to several songs in the show. However the more rambunctious group numbers with heavy choreography were done traditionally. I would argue that Taymor was quite successful in her use of production sound for some of the songs.

It is easy for us to judge the aural aesthetics of a film using the criteria from the past. It is less easy to assess the new approach without bias. Regardless of our conclusions, technology moves our filmmaking to new places. As it improves, we are going to experience new ways of storytelling.

And so it will be with Les Misérables. Love it or hate it, the envelope has been pushed from the inside. Can we just go back to pre-recorded music without questioning what else can be done with sound and music? I think not and I hope not.

I think Mamoulian would be pleased.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

Visiting Chicago after being gone for four years was fantastic. The circumstances were far more positive than when I left and I have fallen in love (again) with the city. I have first quality friends there, and since my son will be there for law school, I have many reasons to visit…often.

The conference was a mixed bag, as all conferences are. It is a wonderful schmooze fest with many extroverted and talented filmmakers who love what they do. The quality of discourse varies, which is always true. I had a fantastic time and am particularly grateful to Columbia College Chicago for hosting a great event. I adore my friends there and am so glad I got to spend time with Michael, Jim,  and Larry. How I wish Diego had been there, but perhaps i will see him in March when I attend SCMS at the Drake.

I met some wonderful new friends as well. Some were faculty from various universities and some were students. It is always exciting to experience the enthusiasm of these young people.

My frustration, as always, is the minimum attention paid to sound. There were two panels and one workshop that dealt with sound in film. One was almost completely a technical workshop, one was on a Saturday at 8:30 in the morning so attendance was low, and the final one was on Saturday afternoon. That was the only well attended panel. The conversation was pretty basic, which is great for filmmakers, because so many of them need a foundational experience with sound. However, at this point my concern is that we need to get past the basics and have these film production faculty be exposed to a higher level of understanding about sound in film. The presenters did their best, but we are still at the “sound really does matter in film” stage and that is disheartening.

Also, a small protest, if you will: there is still a palpable sexist approach to sound that needs to go away. The difference between the way men in film sound studies respond to women and the way film production men respond to women is stark. I suggest the men who teach film production work very hard to enlighten themselves about women studies. As a former production teacher, I can attest to the rampant hegemonic perspective in film schools. It is everywhere.

So, men, I know you do not intend to disregard women and their views, but you can do a lot to improve your perspective on women in film. We are not an addition. We are equal. Our opinions, especially those of us in sound, are not given the respect they deserve. Please try harder to grow past the assumption that sound is a tech thing and thus a male thing.

With that being said, thank you all for a great conference. I love it and you.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

Well, I am in day three of the University Film and Video Association annual conference. Part of the fun for me is that it is being held at Columbia College, Chicago, where I previously taught some Foley and ADR. It is wonderful to see old friends and catch up.

Also, who can deny that Chicago in the summer is a fabulous place to be?

The Keynote Speaker was Peter Sims who presented an engaging and inspirational opening. He has written a book, Little Bets, which I highly recommend. If you want to delve into the exciting world of creative thinkers and inspirational leaders, this is the book.

Sims showed some great clips of documentaries that illustrate how the creative innovations develop from the process of working small changes and improvements without judgments. These “little bets” lead to the bigger bets that grow into inspirational results.

Check out his website….please!!!!

http://petersims.com/

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

http://petersims.com/    

It is getting close to job hunting time. The dissertation portion of a PhD is the time to reflect: do I really want to do this? When will I be at a point when I can apply for a position at a university? Will my dissertation be good enough?

Yipes. It is overwhelming. However, I relish the process of writing, and as long as I don’t get too caught up in self-judgment or become overly critical of myself (you know, the “I am a fraud and I hope nobody finds out” syndrome), I should get through this ok.

Add to this the excitement of UFVA in August (Chicago!!!), FLOW in November (Austin!!!), Cinesonika 3 in February (Northern Ireland!!!), and then SCMS in March (Chicago take 2!!!) I feel mildly intoxicated.

However, reality sets in. My dissertation will be a bit of a challenge because I am including interviews, and that means going through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval.

As I get further into my prospectus, I will keep y’all posted on how it is going. Not for you; for me. It will help me keep sane.

Feel free to leave comments about your dissertation experiences.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

I love the film, Gone With The Wind. It is a great E Ticket Ride for me. However, one of the issues I have with it comes down to two words: Max Steiner.

For those of you scholars and fans who admire Steiner and his contribution to film music history, let me explain. I don’t like wall to wall music. Period. I think it is manipulative and kitschy.

While I do not share the critical lens of Adorno when it comes to film music, I think he and Eisler had some good points about the overly romantic insipidness of some film scores. Question: did Steiner think every moment in film was in need of his skilled hand? I do not like being bombarded with sound or music in film. I like actual choices to be made with clarity and precision. True, Steiner came into film composing immediately after the silent era when music did a great deal to move the narrative forward. However, with the addition of dialogue, sometimes letting the story “breathe” and give the viewer/listener a break from music is like negative space in a painting; giving room for the perceiver to actually perceive.

There is nothing that makes a film seem fresh than surprise. Music can bring focus to a scene and lend support to the motion of the narrative. However it can detract from the narrative when the ear cannot get a rest.

There are rumors in Hollywood about Steiner’s insecurities. If true, this would explain some of his overly sentimental themes and orchestration. Regardless, we should honor him for his contribution, but refrain from canonizing him. He was a pioneer. This will always be true. But we should not be afraid to critique the actual quality of his work as it was then and as we perceive it today.

There are other early film composers I prefer. Specificity is a quality I admire, and restraint indicates an understanding of the collaborative nature of filmmaking. No film relies on one element.

Balance, Mr. Steiner, balance.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

Well, it happened. I passed my comprehensive exams. I am now a PhD candidate, and am beginning my dissertation. I am really enjoying viewing films, thinking over my research question, jotting down ideas, and reading articles and books thar are relevant. This is an exciting process. Soon, I will defend my prospectus and can officially look for a job. Yippee!

My dissertation is about film sound and music. I won’t say much more than that right now. But I will say that after studying for comps, my dissertation topic came into clear focus. I have a better idea of what scholarship is already out there and where ther are gaps in the field.

When I went to Boston in March for SCMS, I had the luck of being on a panel with Benjamin Wright, who is brilliant and a great researcher. His interests overlap with mine, and I hope we will do more panels together, as well as research and write together in the future.

Some universities consider a PhD candidate ABD (all but dissertation) after passing written and oral comprehensive exams. Our department at Georgia State, however, bestows that title after a successful prospectus defense. So to some I am already ABD, but to my colleagues at GSU, I am not quite there. Either way, I am determined to be finished with the dissertation before summer is complete in 2013.

Please…wish me luck.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

Tomorrow I fly to Boston to participate in the annual conference of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies. This is my third time going to the conference. Two years ago it was held in downtown Los Angeles. I had not planned on doing much but getting a feel for the organization, but I went to the Sound Scholarly Interest Group meeting and led a discussion of professionals in sound (all of who I had worked with, save one) and had a wonderful experience.

I also reconnected with a dear friend, Deborah Tudor, who is an associate dean at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Last year the conference was held in New Orleans. This time, I traveled by train with my then fiancé-now-husband Paul. I presented on a panel with Benjamin Wright, Randolph Jordan, and Lisa Coulthard. That was great fun. The irony was I was the Hollywood person doing a textual analysis on sound in Barton Fink, and the three Canadian brainiacs were presenting on sound production and industry.

This year, I am presenting on a panel and participating in a workshop. The panel is on sound genres, and I am presenting a production and industry paper on Bram Stoker’s Dracula. I am honored to be on this panel with Mark Kerins, Benjamin Wright, and William Whittington. The workshop is on teaching film studies in a broadcast environment. The other scholars in this workshop are David Coon, David Lugowski, Eric Freedman, Steven Rawle, and is chaired by Harry Benshoff. They are an esteemed group who share a concern with the state of pedagogy in the complicated task of coordinating professionals with academics in media programs.

I feel blessed to be included with these groups. I love what I am doing and feel lucky to have such wonderful experiences after an already satisfying career in film and television.

Next week, when I am back in Atlanta and reflecting on the week, I will post part two about SCMS.

Oh, and I will go back to the torture of studying for comps.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

As a third year PhD student, I am in the process of studying for my comprehensive exams. As I say to my colleagues when they ask how it is going, “well, I am either really doing it right, or really doing it wrong.”

This is truly how I feel about it. I am having the time of my life reading for comps. I don’t claim to understand it all. I don’t claim to read cover to cover. But I will say that reading on my own terms lists that I have constructed (for the most part; there is that film list that I have no say over and it makes my other lists longer as I add all the film readings I actually think I need for building my expertise) is one of the most enjoyable tasks ever. It does not top working on my CD of my own songs in a studio for six months in Los Angeles, but it is not all that far behind.

I am finding my areas of strength and weakness. I am learning to appreciate scholars that are well-known and others that are not. There are some pretty brilliant people writing some pretty interesting ideas. There are also some pretty brilliant people among our faculty and the graduate student population.

I work with a variety of scholarly types. Some are interested in TV  (some in reality TV, which amuses me to no end), some in media industries, some in production studies (that includes me), some in text (also me, sometimes), and some in theory.  Now I think there is validity to all of these approaches. I do not privilege (academic speak) one over the other. Some do. I find that those who focus on developing a new theory to be in a completely different space than I. One class I took was about narrative theory. It was fascinating. Some of it was useful to me, and some of it was not. But I find it fascinating and am thrilled to have taken a class with the scholar who is “into it.” I doubt that he was as thrilled to have me share the perspectives that I had about narrative theories.

Anyway, as I study for my comps, I get more focused on what I want to contribute to the academic world. That is what I think comps really accomplish: they help the scholar get clear on his or her true areas of scholarship. I am enjoying studying film music, sound theories, performance theory, authorship, and cultural media and production studies. Some theory is good, even for a non-theorist. I would reverse that and say cultural and media studies would benefit film theorists as well.

The theoretical and the practical need to converse. Text does not exist without the culture that provides it.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

I just finished watching the 1933 version of King Kong. This is not my first viewing, of course, but I am studying it with fresh eyes. As I look at it now, I watch for the technical elements of the rear screen projection, the models of Kong and Ann, the use of groupings of crowds, the horrific stereotyping of “natives” of Skull Island, and the sexist eroticism of Ms. Wray.

I also scrutinize the sound and music score. I am reading a great deal of scholarship about film sound and film music. This film is cited in both arenas. Not only was it ground-breaking on its use of sound, but Max Steiner’s score is dissected repeatedly.

Opinions vary on whether Max Steiner’s score is good, inventive, sentimental, genderized, too illustrative of the cinematic action (I would say, yes indeed!), and how the music works with the sound (there is duplication with the sound effects and music at key points, especially stingers), but overall it is a crucial part of film sound history.

I am using this film in my American Film History class to show these exact issues. I know I will have to prepare the students for the corny dialogue and Ms. Wray’s never-ending screeching. But I hope to focus attention on the animating that was fresh and meticulous for the era, and the dramatic use, if indeed hyperbolic and repetitive, of the sound and music.

When we watch film from the perspective of what was possible then, rather than what we expect now, it becomes evident why this film is historically important. I invite anyone who has not viewed the film recently to give it another turn on the tv or computer screen. There is a lot to analyze and marvel at.

Be warned, Steiner was clearly not afraid of Mickey Mousing now and then.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa

There is a new edition of André Bazin’s What is Cinema, volume 1. To some of you, this may not seem like a big deal. But the same version has been floating around since his essays were first compiled. For those of you unfamiliar with Bazin, all I can say is, “this is a big deal.”

André Bazin is one of the original film theorists from the French New Wave era. He was the founder of Cahiers du Cinéma, and was mentor to filmmakers such as Godard and Truffaut. He was in the realism camp, and saw film as a way to capture objective realism. He made distinctions between reality and realism. He wrote about montage, Chaplin, Bresson, Wyler, and Rossellini, among others.

Bazin was not opposed to sound, as some theorists were. He believed it could add yet another layer of realism to cinema. In fact, Bazin was not closed-minded about technology at all. I wonder what he would say about 3D and IMAX.

A publishing company in Canada, by the name of Caboose (yes, really) now has a new translation by Timothy Barnard. He did meticulous research to discern what might have been lost in the original translation from French to English by Hugh Gray.

The US has more stringent copyright laws, so we do not have this version here in the states. But it can be ordered online. It is pricey, but worth a look. The URL is:  http://www.caboosebooks.net/what-is-cinema

I read some sample pages and I am excited to get a copy.

Listening carefully,

Vanessa