Update... again

Well this week I set out to fill in some of the missing holes in my research paper. I researched a bit about the technical history of movies and interesting technological facts about Singin' in the Rain. I also re-watched Singin' in the Rain with commentary. I actually knew a lot of what they had to say because of the research I've done.

Just in case you don't believe that I've done this, I will tell you an interesting fact.

In "Would You," Debbie Reynolds' character, Kathy Selden, is supposed to be dubbing over Jean Hagen's character, Lina Lamont. However, Lina's talking voice is actually dubbed over by Jean Hagen (helself!) and her singing voice is dubbed over by Betty Noyes. So Debbie, who is dubbing Lina, is being dubbed by two people in the film. Isn't that ironic?

I am now beginning my Lester analysis of the movie. I'm in the home stretch and becoming increasingly unmotivated. It sucks. I need a better work ethic.

So yeah, that's what I've been up to...

Update

I forgot to update this last week. I'm really not the blogging type.

Last week I did a bunch of research and typed out any information that I thought might be the least bit helpful and put it in some coherent order and turned it in. I have yet to do a bit of research on the history of cinema, although, really, I know everything I just need to get dates and terms down. And I have to watch Singin' in the Rain again... probably a few times to do my Lester analysis. Then once all that's done, I'll be pretty close to done.

I wish I could find better sources that tell me exactly what I want to know. I have read every article pertaining to my topic that I could find online. And I found a lot of good information, but I wish it was easier and more exact to my case. Because as of now, I am looking for specific information to piece my paper together now that I have the general body.

So that's what's going on here...

Morality and the Production Code

I ILLd a very interesting book about Morality and Catholics.

It's got a lot of interesting information and has actually caught my attention, which is a rarity. I don't like forced reading, and this doesn't seem forced. So win win.

Black, Gregory D. "Restricting Entertainment: The Movies Censored." Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. Cambridge [England: Cambridge UP, 1996. 3-20. Print.

In the first chapter of Gregory Black’s book, the unease of the people as movies were introduced into society is discussed. He opened the chapter with the following quote from Rev. Wilbur Crafts: “‘Movies are schools of vice and crime... offering trips to hell for [a] nickle’” (3). Black discusses the ways that movies were forced to stay away from dealing frankly and honestly with life due to rigid state, local, and even studio censors. Making movies was a business, not an art, and if the people wanted censors, studios would have to adapt (5). After much struggling with Ohio’s censorship laws, the Mutual Film Corporation went to the Supreme Court trying to gain first amendment rights for films (15). However, the Supreme Court decided that movies were not protected under the first amendment, as they were a business - not an organ of public opinion - and could be used for evil (16). This decision would shape the way movies were made for the next four decades (20).

I feel a lot better about where my paper is going. I haven't read the comments on my last draft yet, because I can pretty much figure out what they're going to say. I wish I had more time to research before my next draft is due, but I guess I'll see what I can pull together. 

Post I Forgot About

Well I forgot to do my post last week since I turned in my annotated bibliography in early. It threw me off. But better late than never, I suppose.

Meerse, David E. "To Reassure a Nation: Hollywood Presents World War II." Film & History 6.4 (1976): 79-98. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 31 Mar. 2011.

This article discusses Hollywood’s involvement in creating war-themed movies during the second World War. Neese comments on the seven types of films that Hollywood produced, which include war information films, newsreels, training films, films for combat areas, United Nations films, Good Neighbor films, and staged “war” films (80). He also talks about what the public liked and disliked. Many were critical of Hollywood’s films that emphasized superhuman American soldiers and, at the same time, were also critical of Hollywood’s failure to portray the incredible feats that soldiers were achieving (83). Finally, audiences were dismayed that Hollywood could not create timely films. In response, Hollywood focused on creating timeless films that portrayed American soldiers on a more personal and ethical level (86). The war films portrayed Americans with strong character who could find time to celebrate Christmas in the midst of war, and ignored any negative, lasting changes in character (89). Meerse closes the article with the following quote from Judith Christ: “‘the films of World War II will tell us relatively little about that long-ago conflict. But they do tell us much concerning the beliefs of the American people about the impact of that event upon American society, and at Hollywood’s efforts to reassure the nation’” (90).

I read an article about war time films. The more and more that I read, I realize that there is a lot to look at in terms of audience perception of films. I still want to cap my paper off with analysis of musicals, but I think a lot of my research is going to have to be very generalized. I know that I want my paper to entail a rough history of movies and sound, how the studio system worked, audience perception and influence, the production code and morality issues, race, gender, and sex stereotypes, and an integrated musical analysis using Lester. So that's where this is going...

What the Public Wanted... and How I Used It.

Jurca, Catherine. "What the Public Wanted: Hollywood, 1937-1942." Cinema Journal 47.2 (2008): 3-25. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Mar. 2011.

This article takes a look at how the public worked to collaborate with executives and producers in creating movies that pleased the public in the troubled period of the late thirties and early forties. Jurca mentions George Gallup, founder of the Audience Research Institute. He was responsible for thousands of surveys for more than a dozen studios and independent producers in the 1940s which tested the public’s response to stars, stories, and titles before filming began (5). Jurca uses The Goldwyn Follies, All This and Heaven Too, Boom Town, and Mrs. Miniver to discuss this point. While The Goldwyn Follies and Boom Town were both created to test the public and find direction for Hollywood, All This and Heaven Too and Mrs. Minerva accent the public as a collaborator, not just a test dummy (7). Each of these films has its own way of gauging the public’s interests while dramatizing Hollywood’s duty to keep the public interested. The article discusses how characters in each story represent what the people want and portray Hollywood as deeply caring about the public’s interests (7). 

This week I read an article about how the public was used in film. The more I read the more I think I might have to stray away from musicals specifically. I don't know. It was an interesting article that opened up a lot of ideas for me. This, in conjunction with our, library sessions has helped me to find new inspiration. I ordered five books and two movies and e-mailed about five articles to myself to go over. Now the real work begins...

Singin' in the Rain

Chumo II, Peter N. "Dance, Flexibility, and the Renewal of Genre in Singin' in the Rain." Cinema Journal 36.1 (1996): 39-54. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Mar. 2011.

Chumo II does an in-depth analysis of the musical Singin’ in the Rain in this article. He explores the physical flexibility and dance used in the musical and discusses how they became metaphors for generic flexibility. He describes generic flexibility as, “the ability to move among different forms of entertainment and survive Hollywood’s transition to talkies” (39). This film is a celebration of both genre and the history of the Hollywood musical through its references to The Jazz Singer, a Busby Berkeley-style dance montage, a Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers-like number, and Gene Kelly himself (40). While the character of Lina Lamont is static and does not make the transition from silent films to talkies, Don and Cosmo transition freely. Lina was trapped in her genre by her inability to sing and dance, while Don and Cosmo, both song and dance men who use their bodies both expressively and tirelessly, were able to incorporate themselves into many genres, thus becoming successful in Hollywood (52).

I read an article on Singin' in the Rain this week that convinced me that I want to zone in on this musical specifically for my research project. It was a very thoughtful analysis of the musical that looked to dance as a metaphor for the ability to survive in Hollywood via the musical and all encompassing genres. 

A lot of interesting interpretations of the screenplay were brought up. In one instance, the audio on a movie recording gets out of sync with the video. As a result, Lina appears to be the voice of the villain in the film. Ironically, Lina does seem to be the  villain in Singin' in the Rain.

It gave me a new way to look at this movie in a more analytical approach. It will be very helpful as I dive further into research.


I also re-watched this movie tonight, March 23. The famous "Singin' in the Rain" scene takes place on the night of March 23/morning of March 24. I hope it rains tonight. Although it is very cold, so I'm not sure I'll be singin' in the rain.

History of Film

First off, I am in Charlotte, North Carolina right now, and it is beautiful. 

Second off, I really like this book. It's written in an easy-to-read style and has pictures and it's great fun. I like the subject matter.

Did you know that actors were usually in contracts for 7 years that they could not get out of, but the studio could relinquish whenever they wanted to?

And studios were making a film a week at least to keep up with the demand of the public. They had "A," "B," and "C," movies, with "A" movies being made over complex schedules and "C" movies being made in three days. 

But the theatre was a way of escape for many in America who were jobless and homeless. They were inexpensive, and with programs that lasted four plus hours, they gave you somewhere safe and warm to be in an uncertain economy. That's powerful stuff.

Dixon, Wheeler W., and Gwendolyn Audrey Foster. "The Hollywood Studio System in the 1930s and 1940s." A Short History of Film. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2008. 89-108. Print.

Dixon and Foster begin by briefly discussing the transition of sound into Hollywood films. From 1923 to 1927, the studios resisted the change from silent to sound because they feared the economical and technological changes they knew would ensue (89). A troubled Warner Brothers broke the trend with The Jazz Singer in 1927. By 1931, nearly all theaters in the nation were wired for sound, and, due to the Great Depression, many frequented the theaters because they were inexpensive and gave many a safe housing that provided an escape from their harsh realities (90). Dixon and Foster then discuss each studio’s identity, naming MGM as the Tiffany of studios (91). Many directors are discussed as well as what made them memorable. Howard Hawks was known for his strong portrayals of women in a man’s world (99). Fritz Lang wanted to expose social injustices. In fact, he petitioned for a black lead in his films to expose racism. He was denied by MGM (101). Ernst Lubitsch found ways to suggest sex that avoided censorship, while Max Ophus was known as the supreme romanticist of the movies with his luxurious camera movement (107).

Incongruous Entertainment

Cohan, Steven. "Introduction." Incongruous Entertainment: Camp, Cultural Value, and the MGM Musical. Durham: Duke UP, 2005. 1-40. Print.

Cohan introduces his book by discussing what camp is and then by giving brief examples of how it infiltrated MGM’s studio era. Cohan refers to camp in many contexts and cites many sources as to the correct way to interpret camp, but overall he explains camp as a sort of hyperbole that has infiltrated gay culture. Anything over the top, yet hidden in plain view, is camp (10). In many ways, camp was the gay culture hidden in the center of a heterocentric society (14). Judy Garland’s over-the-top performance of “The Man That Got Away” in A Star is Born shows that Garland’s camp appeal springs from how and why she is singing, not what she is singing (26). Conversely, while Garland’s singing makes her camp, Fred Astaire’s dancing makes him camp. In an analysis of “Sunday Jumps,” Astaire is characterized as camp because of his theatrical, yet light and airy dancing (38). Cohan concludes his introduction by explaining that camp encourages reconsiderations of the musicals’ representations of gender and sexuality (40). 

I read the introduction to this book about camp in MGM musicals. To be quite honest, it confused me. Cohan went on way too much about camp and gave so many different definitions that I'm only really guessing at what it means. It reminded me of a terrible math teacher I once had that un-tought me what a function was by explaining it too rigorously. Lay off the camp is all I have to say.

The rest of the book looks promising, but probably boring. I will probably just use one or two chapters to focus on. I'm assuming they'll all be as redundant as the introduction, but I'm hoping they won't be.

Irregardless (which is not a word, but it is used cleverly in Mean Girls and I can't stop saying), I'm looking forward to looking at gay influence and presence in MGM musicals. So this was a good lead for me.

Research Update

I've officially decided, after much deliberation, that I want to research the great movie musicals of the thirties, forties, and fifties and their representations of different groups of people. Or something like that.


The first article I read compared and contrasted MGM's musicals with those of Fox. I always forget about Fox. It brought up a lot of interesting points. For instance, MGM appears to be less stereotypical of African Americans, but that's because they don't have many African American roles in their movies. While Fox did use African Americans, although in more stereotypical ways, they were at least being used. 


I personally like the MGM style of integrated musicals more than Fox's vaudeville-esque musicals.


Another interesting point, racial integration didn't really kick off until after World War II. I suppose the genocide of six million people can really make you think about how you treat your neighbor.

Griffin, Sean. “The Gang's All Here: Generic versus Racial Integration in the 1940s Musical.” Cinema Journal 42.1 (2002): 21-45. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 February    2011.

Griffin explores the connection between integrated musicals, or musicals where the music is integrated into the storyline, and racial integration in musicals. MGM quickly adopted the integrated musical after the immense popularity of Oklahoma! on Broadway (24). However, Fox tried its best to resist the integrated musical and instead chose to produce musicals in the vaudeville fashion. In Fox’s musicals, any musical numbers were performed in nightclubs and on various stages to create variety in the plot line rather than accompany it and reveal character (29). In MGM musicals, black performers were almost completely excluded to promote the utopian feel. When black performers were included in MGM musicals, they were in limited and stereotypical roles (26). Conversely, in Fox musicals, black performers had more say in their performances. While roles were still minimal, blacks were able to work on their own terms. Although they were in very stereotypical roles, they were able to negotiate into roles that demanded attention rather than be forgotten and bossed around (35).

Chosen

Today I set up my blog in my CWRR II class. A lot of people seem to be having problems. I suppose I am one of the chosen ones.