623 Lonesome

[matrixschmatrix]

You have to view those scenes in their historical context. At that point in time, talking pictures were still incredibly new and, yes, often cringeworthy by today's standards. But those scenes still have a sort of endearing "you are witnessing the invention of sliced bread" quality to them, and they're of a piece with the other playful experiments in the film.

True enough, and I think the reason the juxtaposition is so striking is as much because it's between a fully mature and developed art (silent film) and a brand new and underdeveloped one (talkies) as anything else- though it does seem as though the art of the talkie had become fully fluid and at least potentially on par with silents within another couple of years, as with Lang's first efforts. As I say, it doesn't come near ruining a movie that immediately rocketed to a high place among my favorites from the 20s, and I agree that the generally experimental nature of the movie eases the jarring incongruity a bit- but man, those sound scenes really feel like a cruel parody of what sound on film would be like.

Listening to the commentary, there's some speculation that there may have been greater use of color in the original prints- I think if we were to get a magical director's intent cut, I'd be more anxious to see anything like that restored than to see the talkie sequences cut out.

[swo17]

though it does seem as though the art of the talkie had become fully fluid and at least potentially on par with silents within another couple of years, as with Lang's first efforts.

Perhaps there is also a comparison to be made here to how the internet looked in the '90s vs. today.

[triodelover]

though it does seem as though the art of the talkie had become fully fluid and at least potentially on par with silents within another couple of years, as with Lang's first efforts.

Perhaps there is also a comparison to be made here to how the internet looked in the '90s vs. today.

I think the more apt comparison is to the advent of stereophonic sound to a broader audience in the late '50s. Like silent films, monophonic recording was truly coming into a Golden Age (see, for example, Bruno Walter's recording of the Mahler 1st with the NYPO). A strong argument can be made that mono still offers a more realistic representation of instrumental tone and timbre than stereo and there's a remarkable depth of field on the best mono recordings. Stereo came along and everyone was entranced because, like talking pictures, it was the new thing. For several years you couldn't walk into a hi-fi dealer without being subjected to the train demonstration. I think of the inserted scenes in Lonesome and other films of the early sound era as the cousins of the train demo. Showing off the technology with a marketing gimmick that had no real relationship to everything else presented.

I also think it took a lot longer before the talkie had become fully fluid, as matrix says. With some notable exceptions, early talkies were "stagey" and didn't consistently lose that aspect until the near the end of the pre-code era. Modern Times demonstrated that talkies might still have some catching up to do.

[swo17]

I think the more apt comparison is to the advent of stereophonic sound to a broader audience in the late '50s.

That's your answer to everything!

[triodelover]

I think the more apt comparison is to the advent of stereophonic sound to a broader audience in the late '50s.

That's your answer to everything!

No, just for this comparison. I have other stock answers as needed.

[Tommaso]

The problem with stereophonic sound, alas, only started much later, with the invention of multi-channel mixing desks in the late 60s and 70s. Many early stereophonic recordings are cherished for their exceptional quality even today by hi-fi enthusiasts. Think of the "Living Stereo" recordings by RCA or the wonderful sound of many EMI recordings of classical music from the 1960s. And then compare this to much of what was recorded in the 1970s with an apparently 'superior' technology. All the clarity and naturalness was often gone and replaced by a muddy sauce of sound.

As to the sound passages in "Lonesome": it's of course right that they are in the CC print for reasons of authenticity, but with this film I really would like to have that 'fan cut' more than with any other film I can think of. Calling the sound passages cringeworthy is almost an understatement.

[triodelover]

The problem with stereophonic sound, alas, only started much later, with the invention of multi-channel mixing desks in the late 60s and 70s.

This is very true, but it's only one aspect of problematic sound. One only need listen to Herbert von Karajan's early recordings for Walter Legge at EMI or the early DGs and compare them to his later work after his star ascended the firmament. HvK adored the multi-channel approach and demanded some of the most egregious multi-miking in the history of recorded sound. He said he wanted the home listener to hear what he heard from the podium but what we got were 10-foot oboes.

Many early stereophonic recordings are cherished for their exceptional quality even today by hi-fi enthusiasts. Think of the "Living Stereo" recordings by RCA or the wonderful sound of many EMI recordings of classical music from the 1960s. And then compare this to much of what was recorded in the 1970s with an apparently 'superior' technology. All the clarity and naturalness was often gone and replaced by a muddy sauce of sound.

My point was that a technology in its infancy replaced a mature technology. There's no doubt that in the hands of competent engineers (Bob and Wilma Cozart Fine at Mercury, Kenneth Wilkinson at Decca and many others) that there were gobsmackingly beautiful recordings made. To go back to Karajan, listen to the 1959 Tosca with a young Leontyne Price and diStefano reprising his Cavardossi. The recording was made for Decca and issued in the States on RCA's Soria label with sumptous packaging that would easily rival some of the DVD/BD issues we wax rhapsodic over. There are tons of other examples - Byron Janis' piano version of Mussorgsky's Pictures and Starker's recording of Bach's student exercises for cello, both on Mercury Living Presence are two.

But I still maintain that well-recorded mono has certain areas where it beats even the best stereo. Instrumental tone can sound thin is stereo when placed side-by-side with a good mono representation. This is particularly true for strings and woodwinds. But stereo excels in providing the spatial cues we respond to in a live concert without even thinking about them. Because of that, overtones and decay are better realized, for example.

This whole conversation changes somewhat if we move from the arena of classical performances to more popular music. There are many examples of poorly recorded jazz in stereo, so much so that many times the simultaneously issued mono recordings are preferable. It was Norman Granz, first at Norgran and Clef and finally at Verve, who finally gave us jazz in stereo that was representative of what could be done with the medium. . A lot of this had to do with the labels' view that this wasn't serious music so why expend the effort and cost. Jazz had to prove itself and I think that self-consciousness contributed to the excruciatingly awful liner notes on some many of the albums of the period. (Nat Hentoff was particularly florid and pretentious, and Orrin Keepnews wasn't far behind.)

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha, I always feel when looking at these conversations that I finally have an inkling of what it's like for other people when I start talking about aspect ratios

[triodelover]

Haha, I always feel when looking at these conversations that I finally have an inkling of what it's like for other people when I start talking about aspect ratios

Hell, I haven't even got down in the knitting yet. You want to really get me rolling let's talk about the best ways to realize the recording engineer's intent in a home playback system. (Hint: It's not mp3s on an iPod with earbuds.)

[tojoed]

Hell, I haven't even got down in the knitting yet. You want to really get me rolling let's talk about the best ways to realize the recording engineer's intent in a home playback system. (Hint: It's not mp3s on an iPod with earbuds.)

Of course, it's vinyl.

[triodelover]

Hell, I haven't even got down in the knitting yet. You want to really get me rolling let's talk about the best ways to realize the recording engineer's intent in a home playback system. (Hint: It's not mp3s on an iPod with earbuds.)

Of course, it's vinyl.

Analog (30ips tape or vinyl) is just the first step.

[Tommaso]

Haha, I always feel when looking at these conversations that I finally have an inkling of what it's like for other people when I start talking about aspect ratios

Talking about aspect ratios is one of my favourite subjects, next to talking about the sound of classical music recordings.

HvK adored the multi-channel approach and demanded some of the most egregious multi-miking in the history of recorded sound. He said he wanted the home listener to hear what he heard from the podium but what we got were 10-foot oboes.

Exactly, but Karajan was a very special case anyway, not just in his approach to technology. His very special 'sound' (which was even made into a 'signature' by the DG marketing experts) was a crime against Beethoven and others even without the multi-miking.

But stereo excels in providing the spatial cues we respond to in a live concert without even thinking about them. Because of that, overtones and decay are better realized, for example.

Yes, and that is probably why I always find mono recordings a little 'lifeless', regardless of how well they might sound in other aspects. And I'd say that even about mono recordings of pieces for solo instruments. However, this doesn't keep me from listening to mono recordings if the performance is excellent and perhaps better than any later stereo recordings (Beecham's Delius comes to mind immediately).

Very true what you say about popular music recordings, and perhaps it's even more apparent in 'pop' music than in jazz. Regardless of whether I think of Tim Buckley, Scott Walker, The Incredible String Band or Fairport Convention: their 60s albums sound so much more natural than the often extremely 'flat' sound of their 70s recordings. You had to wait until the 80s to get the whole tonal range back on a wider basis (but as always, there are exceptions to this rule, of course).

But coming back to "Lonesome": even in the very early days of sound there were a lot of films that included sound or even only sound passages without them appearing so horrid from today's point of view as in this film (a good example for a fine integration of dialogue passages is Hans Tintner's stunning 1930 silent "Cyankali", which unfortunately not too many people know, probably). The special problem with "Lonesome" is that it's such a visual, or visually 'poetic', film that any unmotivated extra sensation like the sound passages feel like an intrusion into the perfect mechanism of this work of art, even if these sound passages were done better than in this film. I'd also almost say the same about the colour sequences, even though they don't disturb me at all and although they are quite beautiful indeed. But somehow I can understand Dreyer when he wanted to have "Jeanne d'Arc" presented without music.

[matrixschmatrix]

The funny thing, though, is that the soundtrack used for most of the film adds immensely to it, and it's hard to picture Lonesome with a more standard orchestral track- the background murmur of the fairgrounds and the beach, the bandwagon music, and the needledrop of the key song all seem like key pieces to a movie that seems forever straining at the edges of the technology available, in the same way the color does. It's not at all a restrained film, after all. The talkie segments, though, don't feel like some astonishing piece of magic, a three dimensional object in a two dimensional world- which is how the color feels to me- but more like if you dubbed dully spoken English translation into the middle of a Wagner aria.

[triodelover]

Yes, and that is probably why I always find mono recordings a little 'lifeless', regardless of how well they might sound in other aspects. And I'd say that even about mono recordings of pieces for solo instruments. However, this doesn't keep me from listening to mono recordings if the performance is excellent and perhaps better than any later stereo recordings (Beecham's Delius comes to mind immediately).

Without taking things wildly off-topic for this forum, I'd say lifeless is more a function of the playback system than the recording, at least in my experience. Hi-fi nuts like yours truly talk about getting PRAT (pace, rhythm and timing right) and there are a number of components out there that miss the boat. Add to that the possibility of dry sound lacking in fullness (a lot of solid state gear, for example) and a mono recording, which struggles for dimensionality (but can achieve it quite readily) compared to a good stereo one is going to come off as lifeless. Of course, my moniker gives my biases away.

Very true what you say about popular music recordings, and perhaps it's even more apparent in 'pop' music than in jazz.

Well, that was truly considered throwaway. But you are right about the 60s versus later, particularly when in came to primarily acoustic instruments like those in folk and bluegrass. Remember too that for most of the 60s the electronics in the studio were still vacuum tube technology. Transistors led us down several roads to perdition - odd-order harmonic distortion, increasing higher powered amplifiers paralleling multiple output devices and leading to smearing of time constants, increased intermodulation distortion - but they fit into the post-war trend toward miniaturization and they were the new thing, so they must be better.

[Noiretirc]

In addition, at least the scenes were shot by Fejos, as opposed to talkie scenes in films like 4 Devils and City Girl/Our Daily Bread that were done without Murnau.

Is it documented that Fejos did those scenes? I'm surprised if he did.

[manicsounds]

Watched "Lonesome" and "The Last Performance" yesterday as a double bill. Now I know that "the end" is "SLUT" in Danish.

Are any of Fejos' documentary works available anywhere?

[zedz]

Watched "Lonesome" and "The Last Performance" yesterday as a double bill. Now I know that "the end" is "SLUT" in Danish.

This is especially jarring when watching Asta Nielsen 'fallen women dying in the snow' melodramas from the teens.

[Mr Sausage]

DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, JUNE 23rd AT 6:30 AM.

Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.

This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.




***PM me if you have any suggestions for additions or just general concerns and questions.***

[Drucker]

I have a thought I intend to put in my post, but I have a question and need to crowd-source some help:

As a Sociology major in college, one of the concepts we learned about related to life in a city. I do not remember the specific name of the concept, or the author, which is maddening. But it had something to do with the geographical space in a city. And that even if you are physically close to each other, the forces of the city sort of make you pretend that the barriers put up are stronger than they are. So if you live in a tenement building and can hear all the fighting amongst your neighbors, you pretend you don't. You are supposed to treat the doors, walls, and floors that separate you as stronger barriers than they might really be.

I wonder if anyone can help me out here? Love, love, love this film, and just want to make a little remark about that point.

[domino harvey]

Here's a bunch of thumbnail approaches to Urban Sociology, maybe one of these jogs your memory?

[Drucker]

I believe it's Simmel's thoughts on Social Distance, I'll have to look further into it. Thanks!

[Gregory]

Some of my thoughts on this seem to tie into to what Drucker brings up about how such close proximity to many other people socializes urban dwellers to put up artificial boundaries that separate them from almost everyone else. What bonds people to each other in an urban setting teeming with people, where things are in constant motion and flux, making it more difficult for ties to develop between people that would happen more naturally and gradally in another kind of setting? "Love at first sight" is the most obvious explanation for Jim's persistence in quickly courting Mary and his decision that he's ready to marry her. But do couples in films like Lonesome fall in love so quickly because that's part of the pace of city life, and anything you find can slip through the characters' fingers at any moment? Now the context of dating has become even more formalized to fit contemporary urban/technological life (speed dating, internet dating, etc.)

When I say "films like Lonesome" the main one I have in mind is Minnelli's The Clock, which has some obvious parallels in the stories of two people who fall in love in the space of a single day but still don't know each other's last names or how to find each other again when they get separated. There are many other similarities, though, such as the films' amazing use of the extras' movement to create a busy, populated urban space, and the way the camera navigates that space. There is also such a stylized way of capturing an artificial New York in both films. Minnelli seemed more intent on achieving visual realism with his elaborate Penn Station set, for example. Lonesome, in contrast, gives us what Richard Koszarski aptly calls a "Coney Island of the mind," and avoiding sustained focus on the architecture.

Both films meander through a city where it seems like almost anything is possible, like in some of Rivette's dreamlike explorations of the landscape of Paris. The New York of these two films seems like a place where someone who breaks a small rule of public decorum is likely to get yelled at by a stranger (particularly for Robert Walker in The Clock, who's pretty much a country rube experiencing a kind of culture shock in New York). Yet there's just as much possibility of encountering a friendly stranger that will alter the characters' trajectory unexpectedly.

Lonesome and The Clock both show the city to be a place where everything is regimented and regulated under complex systems that try to keep the chaos at bay. I think the characters are not just "Lonesome" but alienated by their highly repetitive work and the habits and routines they've settled into. But it's interesting to me that Lonesome, which maintains a very light feel from beginning to end, doesn't portray any of this (chaos on the one hand or regimentation and law on the other) as potential evils. The viewer can delight in seeing the characters sail through challenges with almost unbelievable luck. For me, the scene that felt the most artificial, where one has to view it as something like a fairy tale, is when Jim has been picked up for disturbing the peace and after he screams at them and puts them in their place, they're just tickled and charmed by the guy and tell him to run along.

[Drucker]

I think the characters are not just "Lonesome" but alienated by their highly repetitive work and the habits and routines they've settled into. But it's interesting to me that Lonesome, which maintains a very light feel from beginning to end, doesn't portray any of this (chaos on the one hand or regimentation and law on the other) as potential evils. The viewer can delight in seeing the characters sail through challenges with almost unbelievable luck. For me, the scene that felt the most artificial, where one has to view it as something like a fairy tale, is when Jim has been picked up for disturbing the peace and after he screams at them and puts them in their place, they're just tickled and charmed by the guy and tell him to run along.

And of course, those routines are handled so well early on, and enable us to get a sense of the characters, with Jim late, behind schedule, just barely getting by...he's certainly not the slickest character (which makes him desirable, in the end, seeing the creeps who hit on Mary). And Mary, forced to get ready in the morning and doll herself up just right. Is this in case she does find Mr. Right?

I'll have to check out The Clock. For me, the film had parts of Man With a Movie Camera (aesthetically, the city-scape scenes), as well as The Crowd as well (and perhaps, an urbanized version of Surnise? Though of course the ambiguity of geography is absent) But it contrasts so well, with The Crowd, most of all to me. The feelings of a bustling city that's so easy to get caught up in is constantly reinforced. But Jim has no desire to be a great man. He just wants to make it through life with a girl by his side. It's a bit romantic. I have no desire to assess which of the films is better, but Lonesome seems like a film for the everyman (and woman!)

The pacing of the film is a non-stop ride, appropriately enough. Funnily, though, the first time I saw this film, I remember not minding the dialogue scenes. They felt like I could get time to catch my breath. I'm no longer so generous in my thinking of them. They are so terrible. Poor dialogue, little "acting" (compared to the manic way their faces move in every other scene) and a bit inconsistent with the rest of the film (I put a note below). Worst of all though...you see them coming. In the first two scenes, the action begins to slow down, they have a wide shot of the two...and then the talking begins. I almost feel like they'd be more tolerable without that 10-second gap between when you know the talking is going to come and when it arrives.

Two other quick notes:
1) When Jim goes to get a breakfast, the man running the establishment gives him a dirty look, and then Jim kind of scoots away. Did it seem to anyone else like there's a missing title card there? I wonder why he got in trouble.
2) Did anyone notice in the courtroom scene Jim says "I don't even know her name," even though earlier in the film he finds out it's Mary!

[jindianajonz]

I agree with you about the dialogue scenes; they are pretty bad. The commentary points out that these were filmed later on (and possibly not by Fejos? I can't remember) and on sets, which gives a distinct echo to the soundtrack that took me out of the film with its artificiallity. Which is a shame, becuase I thought the first talking scene had quite a bit of potential- it really is quite surprising to hear voices for the first time after half an hour of silence, and to have it happen the first time the couple really chats with eachother gives the viewer the impression that they have pulled themselves out of the wordless machinery of city life and find an actual human connection. But the poor dialogue and the static camera tarnish what could have been an excellent scene.

One other thing I admired about this film is the way Fejos ensures that even when our characters are surrounded by huge crowds, we never lose sight of them. This was most noticeable to me in the scene where they have their fantastic moonlight dance in front of a castle- Fejos makes sure that when the ballroom fades back in, the heads of our characters are more or less in the same location, drawing the audiences eye to a very tiny section of a rather wide shot filled with dancing couples. I'm not as familiar with silent films as I'd like to be, so I'm not sure how well the art of drawing the viewers eye had been honed at this point, but there were very few times during the film where I found myself doing a "Where's Waldo" style search for the protagonists.

[swo17]

Funnily, though, the first time I saw this film, I remember not minding the dialogue scenes. They felt like I could get time to catch my breath. I'm no longer so generous in my thinking of them. They are so terrible. Poor dialogue, little "acting" (compared to the manic way their faces move in every other scene) and a bit inconsistent with the rest of the film (I put a note below). Worst of all though...you see them coming. In the first two scenes, the action begins to slow down, they have a wide shot of the two...and then the talking begins. I almost feel like they'd be more tolerable without that 10-second gap between when you know the talking is going to come and when it arrives.

It might be an interesting point of comparison to track down a version of this film from before the restoration (or I guess you could come close by turning off the color knob, putting on the subtitles, and muting the talking scenes). I'm curious whether people feel that the "forward thinking" additions were all worth it, on balance. Some of us, of course, were still able to be won over by the film without the benefit of any of them.