The (Dreaded) Silent Role

While greats like Charlie Chaplin reveled in the "Silent Role", it is a role most actors try to avoid.

However, sometimes a silent role can be more desirable than most people realize. Getting back to Chaplin... he could do a lot without speaking a single word. Even in his own talkies, like Limelight (1952). Yes, his character speaks. But there are some great moments when the best stuff is all in the body language.

Another great "silent" role comes from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939): The President of the Senate, played by actor Harry Carey.

Before Carey signed on to play the role, other famous character actors were first offered this role. However, they turned it down because of one thing: the lack of dialogue.

No one realized quite how Director Frank Capra would make this role into one of the more memorable characters in the entire film! Watch the movie and you'll notice the number of lines is decidedly on the low side. However, it was such a good role that Harry Carey actually received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor!

And then there's Dumbo (1941). Dumbo says nothing. Absolutely nothing. Everything comes through his facial expressions. Especially those eyes.

Ah, but you could say that that was seventy years ago... Things have changed. It worked for Chaplin. It worked for Dumbo (who's a cartoon, don't forget). But would it work for movies today? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it depends on the role. It's gotta still be believable and work within the movie world.

It's certainly a challenge we filmmakers can take up. To create some good "silent role" characters worth their weight in gold. A role that no actor should ever dread playing.

Chaplin's World of Sound

Charlie Chaplin became world famous in the era of pantomime. When movies were silent. (Even now, most people would probably be able to recognize his "Little Tramp".)

But, Chaplin had trouble when the reality of sound came to the movies. (Here's one of our old blog posts about how he didn't like all the sound gear needed to make a talkie.)

Once the Jazz Singer (1927) came out, all the studios were scrambling to come out with their own talkies. But not Charlie... His next two films -- The Circus (1928) and City Lights (1931) -- remained as silent films. The King of Pantomime couldn't make the switch. At least, not yet...

Then Chaplin released a film called Modern Times in 1936. When he began filming, Chaplin experimented with recording dialogue. But, ultimately he was unhappy with the results. So he abandoned -- yet again -- the idea of making a talkie. However, he did concede in a couple ways.

Modern Times is a movie about machines... And how machines are controlling our lives. The only "dialogue" in the movie comes from machines. The factory-owner barks out commands on a Star-Trek-like console (before Star Trek was even invented!). And there's the pre-recorded demonstration of the machine designed to feed the factory workers in an efficient manner.

By the end of the movie, Chaplin does something interesting. His Tramp "speaks" -- or rather sings -- for the first time on camera.

Yet it's not quite as straight forward as all that. Chaplin has another trick up his sleeve.

We've come to the part of the plot where the Tramp has finally obtained a job as a singing waiter. He's not very good at the waiter part and his boss tells him (via intertitle) that he better be a good singer. Then, while the Tramp prepares to go on stage for his turn, we get to watch and hear a snippet of the other singing waiters. The anticipation is building up to the Tramp's turn on stage. And here's where Chaplin thumbs his nose at us. (SPOILER!) The song is in gibberish. The Tramp has forgotten the words to the song he's supposed to sing. So... he makes up nonsense words.

And it works. For his audience in the movie world. And for us, the audience watching the movie. Even if we don't exactly understand what he's singing, we get the gist of the song. And the song is a delight to watch. (If you haven't seen it, watch the movie.)

This movie was the first time people heard the Little Tramp's voice. It was also the last time. Chaplin never made another movie featuring his well-beloved character.

[Photo by /pitzyper!]

Never Too Much B-roll

What exactly is b-roll?

Let's begin with what b-roll is not. In documentaries, you usually film interviews with various people. B-roll is not the interview.

But if a documentary was just one interview subject after another, things might get boring. Do we (the audience) really want to watch a bunch of talking heads? That's where b-roll comes in. B-roll is the footage that you use to cutaway from the talking head.

B-roll is the footage of the professor writing on a white board in the lecture hall. It's the man and woman strolling down the garden path with their dog. It's the author sitting in the library, reading a book. It's the baker pulling bread out of the oven. It's the kid looking for seashells at the beach.

Get the picture?

And that's pretty much it. Picture. (Sound often doesn't really matter.)

One reason for b-roll is because people don't usually speak in nice sound bytes. Interviews can be long and unwieldy. A question is asked, and the answer sometimes needs a little bit of editing. Not because anyone has any intention to change the meaning of the interviewee's words, but to clarify their response. That means there'll be a cut. And because continuity won't match, you may wish to cut away to something else. That's where b-roll come in! This kind of footage can be used to cover up those edit points.

B-roll can also be used to clarify what the speaker is talking about. If an interviewee is talking about how the dog saved their life, you could show footage of the person interacting with the dog. Sometimes, it can also be used for symbolic meaning -- like rain on a windowpane to represent a feeling of sadness or depression.

No one wants to watch a documentary of one talking head talking right after another talking head. You need b-roll. And lots of it. There probably isn't an editor alive that ever claimed to have "too much" b-roll.

[Photo by tallpomlin]

April Showers Bring...

...A new look for the blog!

Yes, we decided it was time that the blog got some re-arranging. Hopefully it's a little less cluttered. And the white background is supposed to be easier on the eyes when it comes to reading the actual blog posts.

Leave a comment and tell us what you think! Like it? (Good. We like to hear that.) Hate it? (Is there any feature you miss? It's not too late to bring it back.) It doesn't look good in your browser? (Let us know so we can tweak it. We've tested the look in Firefox, Explorer, and Safari.)

By the way, if you're reading this in your email, please come on over and have a look at the "New Look" for 2011. http://amoonbrothersfilm.blogspot.com

[Photo by: bigcityal]

The Other 39 Minutes

"When a documentary filmmaker... suggests that there has been a shooting ratio of 40 hours to every one hour of finished film, that doesn't mean that the other 39 are bad."

So says documentarian Ken Burns.

Anyone who's made a documentary will tell you that you tend to accumulate a lot of footage. You need to! Interviews and b-roll take up space. And when most of what you're shooting is NOT scripted, you're never quite sure what you're going to get.

Okay, so you usually have some sort of idea of where you want to go with your documentary before you begin filming. However, things can change. People can say or do things that take you in a slightly different direction.

One of the hardest things in editing a documentary is to figure out what NOT to put into the movie.

Ken Burns is right. It's not that it's bad footage. It's just that the documentary can be only so long. And you really should only use footage that helps move your story along.

So, what does happen to the other 39 minutes?

Unfortunately, onto the cutting room floor they go. (Although, in the age of DVDs, there's a little thing called Outtakes. So, some of those lucky minutes just might find new life there.)