2930007

8/20/2019 2930007

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2930007 1/22

Sound in France: The Origins of a Native SchoolAuthor(s): Dudley AndrewSource: Yale French Studies, No. 60, Cinema/Sound (1980), pp. 94-114Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930007 .

Accessed: 01/03/2014 20:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Sat, 1 Mar 2014 20:37:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930007?origin=JSTOR-pdf






http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930007?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale

8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

Sound

in

France:

The Origins f a

Native School

At

the beginning f

the decade of thethirties,

ollywoodhad France

in

the palm of its

hand. First f all, itwas clear that

fortune as to

be made outfittinghe6000 French heaters nd 55productiontages.

Second, since

the

Frenchwere o far

rom aving ither

he echnology

or the

nitiative

o

make sound

films,

hese tages nd theaterswould

be

corneredby American nvestments

ecouping rancs

orAmerican

companies. With

neither n organized strategy or

significant e-

sources,

the French could

only

sit back to watch

themselvesbe

"taken"

whilethe entirenature

f

themotion

icture

hanged

under-

neath them.

Given this

bysmal

tate of

affairs t the turn

f

the

decade,

how

is

it

that

by 1937-38

France rebounded to become the

most highly

acclaimed film

ndustry

n

the

world,

ts

films

outinely

inning

om-

petitionsand

leading

the

export

markets

n

the

USA, Germany,

Japan,

and

literally

verywhere?

ow is it that

French

production

doubled since

1928

to

122

films

nnually?

How did the French

film

industryncrease audience size to the

pointwhere twas considered

second onlyto theUnited Statesin size and strength,utdistancing

the

declining ndustries f Russia,

England, and even

Germany?

n

1929

it

was

fifth.

This

study

eals with he crucial

years

1930

and 1931. For

by

1932

everything

as set

up

for

he

development

f

a

superior

inema

ater

in

the decade. The

actual transition o that

uperioritys markedby

the

bankruptcy

f

keyHollywood

nd Parisian

tudios

Gaumont

nd

I

Roger Icart, "L'

Avenement

u

film

arlant,"

Cahiersde

la

Cinematheque,

nos.

13-14-15,

n.d., p. 60) suggests he

pricesfor

enting rpurchasing

ound

equipment

to be between

$30,000and $100,000

depending n thetypeof system

nd the

size of

the house.

Varietyndicates hatby

mid-1930

ouses couldbe

equipped cheaply t

ust

under

$10,000 (May 7, 1930

andMarch 19,

1930). Studio

equipment an from

32,000

to

$180,000

(Variety,April

23, 1930).

94






8/20/2019 2930007


8/20/2019 2930007


Yale FrenchStudies

afteryear.

When the French

government locked

the outflow

f a

large portion of profits, t found that with thiscapital, American

giants began settingup French subsidiary ompanies

especially n

distribution) o corner

he market urther.

In the best tradition f monopoly apitalism, he

development f

sound

was

immediately

escribed as a "battle."

The small French

companies "consolidated

theirforces,"forming athe-Nathan-Cine-

romans and Gaumont-Aubert-Franco-Films,

ut could hardlykeep

out

the

farmore powerful

American

nd German

forces-armed

as

they were withthe supremeweapon itself, ound technology. he

great "patent wars" betweenTobis Klangfilm nd

threeU.S. studios

were waged largely n

French oil.

It was

risky

o

work

in

Paris during his period.

Pierre Braun-

berger,

he

great ndependent

roducer

who had

started

is

careerby

bankrolling and playing

part n)Jean

Renoir's

Nana, showed

more

courage than the

Frenchmajor companiesby buying p the

Billan-

court studios and preparing hem for sound recording.3 ut what

equipment

should

he

use?

He

wanted

Western

lectric,

but earned

that all filmsmade

on

such

equipmentmight

e

locked out of Ger-

many and

all other

Tobis-dominated

ountries; hishe couldn'trisk.

If he were

to go

with

Tri-Ergon quipment hrough obis, he might

later

run

into problems

with the

compatibility

f

his

products

n

American theaters

r

in

any theater quipped by Americans.Since

only

a small

percentage

f theaters

were

equipped

for

ound

n

1930,

the independentproducerwas in competitionwithbigdistributors.

Paramount,for nstance,

efused o let independents

unpictures

n

its large block of theaters, orcingmen like Braunberger

o search

personally

for whatever exhibitionhe

could aside from his

own

couple

of

theaters.

Notoriously onservative,

he

Frenchexhibition

system made up

of small

family

oncerns

orthe

most

part)

was at

the mercy f distributors,raditionally

he

strongest

ector f the

film

industrynFrance.

While distributors

y

and

large

maintained llegiance

to

none

of

the

combatants

in

the

patent wars, leasing

films from whatever

3Variety,

April 23, 1930.

96






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

source

to

whatever heater r chain

would

pay

them

highest,

rench

producerswere forced o take a slightlymore partisan osition.On

the whole they ligned hemselves ith he Germansna "European"

effort

o

stave off

Hollywood

domination.

his

came about

primarily

because liaisons between

Paris and

Berlin

had

become indispensable

to French film duringthe latter part of the twenties.There

was

scarcely producer

who had notworked

n

Germany

r

withGerman

capital.4 Every filmmaker nd star had had some experience

n

Germany.

When sound

entered,

he French

t

least understood he

size and scope of thisdevelopment n relationto Germany nd a

system

of contacts

naturally

ed them

to throw

n

their

ot,

when

necessary,withtheirEuropean neighbor.

Hollywood at

first

eemed

to

drivethe French owardGermany.

Cavalierlytheyhoped

to

strong-arm

he

French,making

hreatening

remarks at home

and abroad.

The

most

comprehensive hreat,

summary

f

everything

he

French

feared

hat

Hollywoodwas,

came

inMarch 1930 in the FilmMercury:

Slowly

but

surely, hanks o a clever nd uninterruptedlan,

we

have

earned o

build bases

in

Europe

which

permitus

to direct

according

o

our

desires

the

commerce

of

cinema

n

that ontinent. t a

certain

momentwe had to fear hat

he

sound

film,

liced nto

many

iefs

ccording

o differentxternal

markets,

was

going

to uproot our world mastery.Happily for us the countless financerswho are

interested n cinema are always ready o listenwith complacent ar toAmerican

offers. here are

certainlyndependent roducers

n

England,

n

Germany, nd

in

France, some of whomfight ith ll their trengthgainst oreignnvasion; hey

re

withoutweight ompared to those who, without ven thinkingbout it, sell their

own

industry

o Uncle

Sam.

We will

arrive t

our

goal

no

matterwhat the

cost;

the

foreignmarket s from

now on just as important s our internalmarket. t will bring n receipts oubled

compared

to

those at home, and it's for this reason that day and night

our

businessmenwork with

enacity o get the reinsof control

n

hand everywhere.

Economists

will

certainly rotest; he variceof Europeans forAmerican old s

such

that their ries of alarm

will

continuewithout

cho.

We know

already

what

language s beingused

in

England,

n

Germany, nd

in

France gainst he

American

intrusion.

And

we

know as well that

hosewho clamor he

oudest

have

been,

and

still re, our best clients.

'Variety, October 24,

1928, April 9 and April 16, 1930)

details ome

agreements

set up

between French and German companies. Abel, Ibid.,

details the French

presence n Germanyduring

he twenties.

97





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale FrenchStudies

We

are

following,

fter

fewcautious

teps,

campaign trategy

hich

s

very

simple;we are buying heatersn thecapitals nd inthe mportant igcitiesfirst;

from herewewill pread out everywhere. et's

leave them ittle espite o that ur

financers an

quickly orce he exterminationfwhat ittle emains f whatused to

be called the

European

film

We won't permit

urselves,you say,

to

grab their

theater ircuits

Aren't we doing ust thatright ow inLondon,

in

Berlin, nd in

Paris?

The heads of

European

film

ndustry

moreoverhold out theirhands to the all

powerful

American dollar with uch greediness hat

theydon't

even

see opening

before themthe

grave nto which hey

will

soon stumble.

Anotherpartof ourplanconsists

n

uring o

Hollywood

ll

European artists f

any renown. When silent filmswere kingthistacticworkedmarvellously nd it

should

be

perfectly

uited to the

talking

ilm s well.

In

the theaters f

England,

Germany,

nd

France

will

resoundnational

ound

tracksmade

in

the

USA.

What

European producer

will

vie withus when we have

captured heirgreatest ctors

withour

money?5

Despite such announced

antagonism

n

both sides, forthe first

two

years

of

the decade

everyone leefully

made lots of

money.

The

French thronged

o

see sound films

no

matterwhere

or how

they

were made. Hollywoodresuscitated collapsingmarket, aking ll

the risks nd

providing

he

enormous apital

to make the sound

film

venture

possible.

Of

course

it

was

scarcely

riskforthemand

the

capital outlay

was

insignificant

o

companies

backed

by

such firms s

the

Chase

Manhattan

Bank.

Nevertheless

rom

he

standpoint

f

the

French

ndustry, ven thoughHollywood eemed

to

be corneringar

too

great

a

portion

of the

market,

he

exponential ncrease

n

the

value of movies insuredthatsmaller, ocal investors hared n the

bonanza.

Naturally

herewas

concern bout the kinds

f films

eingmade.

The French

were,

n

general, tridently

pposed

to the

very

xistence

of the

sound

film,

f

forno

otherreason than that

t

meant

further

dominanceof themes

nd

styles yHollywood.

For

the

first

ew

years

these fearswere

absolutely ustified.

Hollywood's

approach

to

the

vast

European

market

omprised

threephases.At first oreign ersions fcertain criptswerefilmedn

Hollywood.

This

meant

the

importation

f

personnel

from

every

country o do

the

hastyrewriting,cting,

nd

directionneeded

to

5FilmMercury,

930, translated

n

Le

Courrier

inimatographique,

o. 11

(March

15,

1930) and reprinted n Icart, Op. cit.,

p. 44.

98






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

turn $300,000

English anguagefilmnto

four$100,000

European

versions. Jacques Feyderand FrancoiseRosay were the mostnoted

French names

to be luredinto working n

what amounted o used

sets.

But

many

other

esser

talents

rossed

the

Atlantic

s

well. The

light omic playwright ves

Mirande, for

nstance, at

in

an empty

room for

threemonths,

icking p

a

weekly heckof$500

ust

so he

couldn'tturn ut

original rench cripts

n

Paris.6He also was used

as

bait to lure

larger alents o

California

nd to lure

French

udiences

to MGM

pictures.EventuallyMirande

became

a

rewrite

man for

French versions and contributed t least two originalscreenplays

driving

is

salaryup

to

$1500

weekly.

But no

studio,

not even

MGM,

could long

keep

a

stable

ncluding ersonnel

rom

very

key

nation.

Mirande,

like

so

many

others,

was

sent home.

But his

career was farfrom ver.

Outside

Paris at

Joinville e

found that

a

mini-Hollywood

ad

been

spawned

by

the wealthiest

and

most

cosmopolitan

f

studios,

Paramount.There he wrote

fluffy

comedies like La Chance featuring ranqoiseRosay as an elegant

societywomanwith

gambling roblem

who

narrowly

scapes

finan-

cial

embarrassmenty playing ff series f

continental

uitors gainst

each other.

Her virtue

s

threatened

n

luxurious

ettings

rom

aris

to

Nice,

although very cene was shot at Joinville.

Mirande was

one

of

manyFrenchwriters

mployed yParamount

in

its attempt o

avoid the

economic and aesthetic

problemswhich

had

cost

MGM

so

dearly.Even Variety

onceded

that

Films with

strictlyocal background re preferred o those adapted. We are

receiving

ncreasing ompetition rom

ativeproducers

nd willhave

to

change."7

Paramount

was readyto change,ready

o buy ocal

scripts layed

on local

backgrounds.

As

early

as

1929

Jesse

Lasky

and

Walter

Wanger had made the

decision to buy a

studio outsideParis and

concentrate heir

uropean

effortshere.8

The Joinville tudieswere

soon equipped withthe same Western Electricsound whichthe

6Yves

Mirande,

Souvenirs

Paris, 1951), p.

139.

Mirande's

utobiographyontains

over

forty ages of reminiscences

oncerning

he

position f the

screenwriter

n

the

early days

of the

talkies,both

n

Paris

and Hollywood.

'Variety,December

10, 1930.

8lcart,

Op. cit., .

44.

99





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale FrenchStudies

company

used at

home

and the

plantwas refurbishedntil t rivalled

thebest inHollywood production apabilities.

Bob Kane, who had long been in

Paris as a Paramount istribu-

tion

executive

was installed

officially

s

head

in

early

March

1930

when the

studioswere ready

for

production, ut he had actually een

activelyorganizing

rench

production

or

nearly yearthere.The

next

12

months t Paramount n Parisare fabled, s the tudio urned

out an incredible

00

features nd

50

shorts

n

as

many

s

14

anguages.

It

was justly alled "Babel."

Paramount's actual expenditures

n Paris at thistimewere truly

staggering.

n

April 1931,

for

nstance,

hey

llocated

$8,000,000

or

Frenchproductions, sum equal to

around20% of Paramount's otal

production udget.9The infusion f this

kindof money ntoParisian

production was

an

obvious boon to

French

technical

nd artistic

personnel. Variety loated

that

Paramountwas

keeping European

film

float and thatfor he first imecontinental orkers nd artists

were getting taste of real productionmethods. "They like the

money,"

Variety

wrote,

"but

they

re

upset

at

the strictness f the

operations,

unaccustomed s

they

re to

coming

o work n time."

1

Varietymight ave added thatdespitetheir

obs

theFrench

were

also ashamed

at

the

shoddy

work nd

insipid ubjects

which ame off

thisproduction ine. The American bsession

with

fficiency

eached

a

peak

in

the

single-take,multiple

version

method

which

required

four sets

of

actors

in

glass

booths

surrounding

he sound

stage

to

deliver simultaneous ersions f the action

taking lace.

This was of

course

a

proto-dubbing rocess

and

gave way

to

actual

dubbing

technology

n 1932.

Paramount

t

this ime

was

reeling

rom

he

first

effects f the

depression

nd

nearly

eased the

production

f

original

French films

n

Joinville.1I hose

facilities

were

instead

converted

into an international ubbingcenter,Hollywood's

final

trategy o

dominatethe worldmarket. uccessful

n

the hort

un,dubbingwas,

9"Paramount," FortuneMagazine XXXV, no.

6

(June,1947).

'

0Variety,April 30, 1930.

"Paramount was batteredby the depression

more than any other tudio,going

from rofits f $18,000,000 n 1930 to deficits

f $15,000,000

n

1932. n 1932 they ut

productionfrom 5 to 52 features nd in

1933 theyhalved theirproduction udget.

Joinvillewas a casualtyof this. See FortuneMagazine, Op. cit.

100






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

however,

two-way trategy.

t

would

not

be

long

before

oreign ilms,

dubbed intoEnglish,would nvadeNewYork.

Paramount's presence nFrance at this

timewas the

single

most

important

orce n the ndustry,ven though

carcely film f

asting

interestwas made there.

Many young

directors, oon

to

become

crucial

in

France,

received excellent

raining

n this

hectic

system:

Marc

Allegret,

Julien

uvivier, erge

de

Poligny,

nd

Claude

Autant-

Lara. Older

renegade filmmakers

rom

he

silentdays got

a

second

chance at

Paramount, especially

f

theywere

polyglot.

n

Alberto

Cavalcanti's case thismeant nlymoredisappointments thestudio's

impersonalitynd haste

flattened ut

every nterestingdea

he

had.

Alexander

Korda, however,was more fortunate. orda had come to

Europe

after

being informallylacklisted

n

Hollywood.12

His old

friendshipwith Bob Kane

paid

off

n

an

offer

r work. He

knew

nothing f

Marcel Pagnol or Mariuswhen

hat roperty as

given

him

to

direct.After

watching command

performance

f

the

play

he was

so moved thathe talkedParamountntohiringhe ntire riginal ast,

includingRaimu

and Pierre

Fresnay.

n

additionhe convinced

his

brother o

design

he memorable etswhich

ontributeo much

o the

physical

tmosphere

f this

wonderfullyouthern

rama,

an

atmos-

phere quite

different

romthe

neutral

white

sets

of

nearly every

Paramount

filmmade at

home or abroad.

Marius

capitalized

on

the local flavor f

its Marseilles

etting y

employing,ndeed

emphasizing,

he ccents f ts

haracters.

strong

use ofnatural ounds, specially hose f hips tsea,forms rich rack

that

othrenders

he

place

n

an

audible

way nd works oward

level f

sound

symbolism

carcely

reamt

f n

thesefirst

ears

f the

talkies.

Korda had

instinctivelynderstood hat

n

a

sound

film

single hot f

the harbor

was

all

the vistaheneeded

because thiswas the

dramaof a

particular

ocale

and

of

characters

t

one

with

hat ocale. Marius till

strikesus as

"true"

to

its

subject

and

region

argelybecause

of

its

restricted oint of view. We are made to see and hear with the

characters,

not

above or

beyond them.The

soundtrack, erhapsfor

the first ime

n

France,

made the ocale

palpable and thestory hat

2Paul Tabori,

Alexander

Korda (London:

Oldbourne, 1959)

100-117

101





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale French tudies

developed within

t

as

natural as the sun

beaming

down on

the

provinces.

Korda would make two otherfilms orParamount,but neither

would reach the

stature

f

Marius,

for

ts scriptwas

so

strong

hat t

needed only a small measureof special treatmento come alive even

under the conditions f

filmmaking

hich

prevailed

t Paramount.

Paramount's hief

ival n Europe was clearly obis. Very arly n,

theGerman firm ad

bought studio

n

Epinay whichwas equipped

witha Tri-Ergon

ound system nd had begun easingto all comers.

Although Tobis was producing ound films t a reasonable rate in

Berlin, it entered the Parisian market

cautiously.

Tobis'

strategy

involved makingdual-language films n Paris using the very top

personnel nd scripts vailable. Through ssociation

with

rench

ilm

during

he

twenties,

t

knew Frenchartistswell and

it

picked

Rene

Clair

to

make its

first rench

efforts.Within he

space

of

one year,

Clair turnedout Sous les Toits de Paris, Le Million, and

A

Nous la

liberto.All werefilmed tEpinay,all inFrench nd Germanversions.

Clair's

theories

f oundare

widely

nown nd

were,

ven

at this

ime,

in

commondispute

n

thecontinent.

3

His battleswith

agnolgrew

s

each

man

found

reater

nd

greater

uccess

using ncreasinglypposite

sound

strategies.

4

To

the extent

hat

Pagnol

succeeded

by tying

is

films

o

a

specific

ocale,

Clair

created a sound

film

whichfloated

through

he

air

to

the inematic ealm

n

everyone's magination

n

the

wings f

a

musicalrhythm

hich s audio-visual

n

the

proper

ense of

the term. t

should

not be

surprising,hen,

hatwhileMarius was an

immediate sensation

n

France, only

later

finding

n

international

audience,

Sous les

Toits

de

Paris was

scarcely

nown

n

Franceuntil t

was hailed

in

Germany.

oon it

would arouse

the

ealousy

of

Variety,

which asked how the Germans could

afford o

spend

such time

nd

money

on an

individual

ilm

estined

or

n educated audience. Sous

'3Ren6 Clair, Cinema,

Yesterday nd Today (New

York:

Dover, 1972).

Clair's

commentsmade during he 1929-33 period and theirgeneralcontext an be found

within, p. 117-182.

'4Ibid. pp. 151, 153, 158, and 176-180.Pagnol andClair reflect pon their

ebate

in a television eries, "L'Histoire

du cinema

frangais

ar ceux qui l'ontfait," vailable

in

six parts from .A.C.S.E.A.,

972 FifthAvenue, New York, NY 10021. Parts

1

and

2, dealing with he coming fsound and with he first 100% Parlants t

Chantants,"

contain these reflections.

102






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley

Andrew

les Toits de Paris

may grant

Tobis

momentary

restige,

but

Para-

mount'sability o turn utfilm fter ilmwould nthe ongrunwin t

the public whose head Tobis had

turned.

5

The

list of films roduced by Tobis is

not

ong but

t

s

stunning.

JacquesFeyderdirected ensionMimosas

n

bothFrench

nd German

at

Epinay, were he had also built

he magnificentets

forCarnival

n

Flanders,anotherproductionwhich

he

personally

irected

n

the two

languages. While Tobis was clearlynot going to rule

the

continent

through ts

Paris studio,

it was at least committed

o

high quality

products,happyto lease its facilities o otherpartieswhen tsown

schedule agged.

II

Thus

far we

have detailedthe standard cenario

of the

develop-

ment

f

sound

n

France. America nd

Germany

re

cast

n

therolesof

Paramount and Tobis pitted na battle, hescope and heat ofwhich

indirectly enefitted

he

reluctant

rench.

n the

context

f

foreign

capital

and

pressure,however,

the native

French

genius

developed

two radical

and

radicallyopposed approaches

to

sound

(Pagnol

at

Paramount,Clair at Tobis)

which ontributed ar

moreto the

history

of

film

practice

than

the

standard

products,which,

because of their

very ize, these studioswere bound to continue o

produce.

It

is

distressing

hat his

iew

of

things oes

little

o account or he

risetopowerof nindigenous rench chool ater nthedecade. Tobis'

activity

eclines

fter

935

nd

Hollywood eases

altogetherts erious

involvement n European

production fter 933. How

do we explain

the

strength

f the

ndustryate

in

the decade? More

crucial,how do

we explain

the poetic realist

movementwhich ecamethecore ofthat

strength

nd which

annot

n

anyway

be

linked o

Pagnol

or Clair or

their

followers? agnol continued

o

be

successful

working ut

of

his

studios in Marseilles but exerting ery ittle nfluence n Parisian

production.

Clair,of ourse, eft rance altogethern

1934 nd was, at

any rate, considered nimitable.

15Variety,

May 31, 1932

and

January 4, 1931.

103





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale French tudies

It is notcoincidentalhat he wofilms considermost ignificant

n

the developmentof a French tradition,Renoir's La Chienne and

Gremillon's

La Petite Lise, both came out of French production

companies. Contrary o popular belief,therewas from he first n

importantndigenous rench ndustry roducing style f filmwhich

theworldwould oon recognize s indigenouslyand valuably) rench.

The first hoots of this native industry prouted between the

foreign giants

of

Tobis and Paramount, fertilized y the lure of

unfailing rofitsor llsoundfilms, omatter hat uality. othPathe

and

Gaumont equipped sound stages and went into production.

Independents ike Jacques Haik, Pierre Braunberger, nd Adolpho

Osso tried to capitalize quickly on the sound bonanza before the

majors

had

organized

heir

huge systems.

6

There was an unofficialace, underway s early s May 1929, o get

the

first rench

anguage

film ntoFrance

even before

he

tudios

were

equipped.

While

MGM

was

filming

renchversions

n

Hollywood,

Pathe and Braunbergerweresponsoring rench roductionsnBerlin

and

London respectively.

eanwhile

partial

ound films ere

quickly

fabricated

hrough

he addition o

silent

ilms

f

songs

r

ntermittent

post-synchronizedialogue sequences, allowing

xhibitorsn

the

few

wired theaters

o

chargehigher rices.

7

The claimforthefirst 00% Frenchtalkiegoes to

Pathe

forLes

Trois

Masques.

A

filmed lay

with

no

visual

adventure nd

lengthy

dead

segments,

Les Trois

Masques

neverthelessmade

money,

en-

couraging Pathe's

ambitious

president,Nathan,

to

sponsor

more

filmed

plays.

Even

Marcel L'Herbier, loudest

n

decrying

his

hybrid

medium,

8

found

himself

dapting

HenriBataille's

L'Enfant 'Amour,

though

with

none

of the

precious nspiration

f his silent

pics.

Pathe

was willing o experiment

ithnew

conceptions

f sound film o

long

as

they

were

quick

and

cheap

to make.

Far more successful

han their

adaptations

from

quasi-serious

literaturewere Pathe's venturesnto thetranspositionfVaudeville

"6Henri

escourt, a Foi

et esmontagnesParis,

Paul Montel,

1959),pp. 367-400.

1

Icart,

Op.

cit., 124-141.

18"L'Histoire

du cinema

frangais

ar

ceux

qui

l'on

fait,"Op. cit.,

Interviews

L'Herbier on

the period1928-30.

104






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

and Boulevard

comedy.Maurice Chevalier,

hemost

popular

Vaude-

villianofthem ll, had led thewaywithLe PetitCafe,a film ctually

made

in

Hollywood

under Germandirector. ut Pathe mmediately

followed

with

series

f

films irected rimarilyyPierrre olombier,

includingChique, the first rench subject filmed ntirelyn France.

These films rought

o the screencurrentlyopular entertainersnd

themes. These

were the

films

which Varietyclaimed were driving

MGM

to abandon

its

strategy

f

cosmopolitan ubjectsduplicated n

multiple

ersions. he

French

public learly

wanted o

hear

the

ongs,

singers nd routines ftheir wn country nd epoch.

None of

these

films as

survived

s

memorable,

ut

together hey

did launch ocal

production nd give

more mbitious

roducers ope.

In all,

1929

saw eight

ound films, hough nlyfive

f

thesewerefully

synchronized nd none

was

made

in

France.

1930

was

only slightly

stronger

with but nine sound

films inanced

by

French

companies,

though

ll

nine

were

produced

n

the

newly

modified arisian tudios.

The yearofrealexpansionwas1931with athealoneaccountingor 9

features.That year

a

totalof

159

films f all sorts ame out

of

France,

compared

with

2 in 1929.19

While Pathe

was

cashing

n

on this

ituation,

t

was

by

no means

givingdirectors ree

rein to experiment ith

new forms.

his

was

a

period

of

education

n

production

methods

or

ll

directors,ncluding

men ike Maurice

Tourneurwhose

career

datesfrom

his ra. Even the

most

experienceddirectors

ike

L'Herbier and

Raymond

Bernard

were at the mercy f Hollywood's sound man" who accompanied he

WesternElectric

nstallation hether ne liked

t

or not.

Every

et

up

had to be "okayed"

by thisforeign echnicianwhile the director at

helpless n the huge

camera booth.20

Slightlymorefreedom astobefoundwithndependent roducers,

traditionally

he source

of artistic

xperimentation

n

French

inema.

Pierre Braunbergerwas surely he most significantf these. He had

not been in theindustryong when sound threw veryone nto con-

fusion.

Anxious

to

capitalize

n

the pparent esitation fthe tandard

"9Icart,Op.

cit., 51-52.

20RaymondBernard,

nterviewedn

"L'Histoire du cinema

frangais

ar

ceux

qui

l'ont fait,"

Op. Cit.

105





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale French tudies

French ndustryn the face of sound, he telegraphed obertFlorey,

inviting imto return rom ollywood nd become thefirst o make a

French

film.

lorey,

French

xpatriate,

ad

worked

n

Hollywood

or

nearly decade as an assistant irector n manyprojects nd (more

important) s a sort f special effects

xpert.His exceptional echnical

acumen ncreasedhispersonal tock t

a

timewhen

producers

were n

awe

of

the problems osed by ound

films.

n

1929

he directed hefirst

Marx Brothers omedyCocoanuts

nd

shortly

hereafter

eceivedhis

summons rom raunbergerwhomhe had metyears arlierwhen he

latterhad

come

to

Hollywood

as a

wealthy eenager

o

get

a feel for

the business.2'

La Routeestbelle,filmed

n

London n

1929,missed y fewweeks

being the firstFrench sound film,but it

outdistanced

Les

Trois

Masques bothcriticallynd financially. raunberger nd Floreydeter-

minedto make two

morefilms nd,

f

possible, o do it

n

Paris.At this

time

onlyGaumont

and

Pathe had sonorized

tages

nd Path6's

were

monopolized by their wn frantic roduction chedule.Gaumont, t

turned

ut,

would

rent

ts tudio

only

under hecondition

hat t

could

distribute

he final

product.

This was

unacceptable

to

Braunberger

who

jealously guarded

his

independence.

He

took on a

wealthy

partner,

Robert

Richebe,

and

together

ith

ther

ackers

hey ought

and modernized he Billancourt tudios.22

It

was here that,early

n

1931,

Braunberger ave

his friend ean

Renoir his first est as a sound director.That storyhas been told

eloquently by

Renoir himself.23

e

was

passionate

to direct La

Chienne

nd

Braunberger

was

sympathetic.

ut first enoir

was

tested

with

a

farce

starringMichel

Simon and

Fernandel,

a

playlet by

Feydeau

called On

PurgeBibe.

Scarcely uperior

o the

Pathe

farces,

thisfilm

neverthelessmade lots

of

money

nd convinced

veryone

t

Billancourt hatRenoir understood ound and

its

uses. La Chienne n

contrastwas

a

long

time

n

the

making

nd

consequently

ost

a

good

2

Variety,October 1,

1929.

For

more

detail

see

Florey's

own books, especially

Hollywood d'hier et d'aujourd'hui

Paris: Prisma, 1948).

22I am indebted to Rick

Craig and his essay on Braunberger unpublished,

University

f

Iowa, 1979).

Also see

D. J.

Badder, "Pierre Braunberger"

ilm

Dope

no. 5 (July 974) p. 7, and Jean

Renoir,My Life nd My Films NewYork: Atheneum,

1974) pp. 105-06.

23Renoir,My Life and My Films 107-114.

106






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

deal

of

money.

Much

of this

ime

nd

money

went nto

experiments

with ocation ound,thefirstuchexperimentsnFrance, ccordingo

Renoir,24who refused o shoot treet cenes

n a

studio nd refused

o

shoot

them with

fabricated ound

effects. he results tunned he

critical

world nd, after

n

heroic truggle

ith

Richebe,

who

hated

he

film nd suppressed tsrelease,stunned hepublic t arge.Renoirwas

not only respectable ilmmaker ow but

an

expert

n

realistic ound,

a

new filmmaker,ompletely

ifferent

rom

he

unpredictableimagist"

of

the silentdays.

Indeed thiswas notfarfrom he truth.He himself rote:

La Chienne .. was to be a turning oint

n

my areer. believe hat

n

t came

near

to the style hat call poetic realism.

He

credits

hisnew

style

n

largepart

to

sound:

I

welcomed t withdelight, eeing at once all the use that ould

be

made

of sound.

After,

ll

the

purpose

of

all

artistic reation

s the

knowledge

f

man,

and s not

the

human voice

the best

means

of

conveying

he

personality

f a

human

being?25

His fanaticism

or

real

sound" drew

he ttention

f

Western lectric's

consultant

who

had hopes thatRenoir might xtend,

n

La

Chienne

and

later

films,

he

capabilities

f

the medium.But Renoir's

exper-

imentswentonlyfar nough o givehim henatural ffects e sought.

La Chiennegave Renoirmore han echnical now-how nd more han

the

opportunity

o

go

on

to newventuresBoudu Saved

From

Drowning

was soon underway).WithLa Chienne, s Andre Bazin was to point

out,26 sound became the natural complement o the realist style

Renoir was

intermittentlyearching or

n

the wenties.t allowed

him

to

become "the

mostFrench

of

directors,"27nd attuned

him

to the

solidity

of

a

world

which

resonated

with

ounds and whose sounds

carrieddistinctiveccents nd timbres. enoir would workwith uch

accents like

no

other

filmmaker

f

the thirties, itting lass against

class

in

highlymixedgenres o express he omplexitynd thickness f

24Ibid.,

06.

25Ibid.,

pp.

103

and

105.

26Andr6

Bazin, "The French Renoir,"

in

Jean Renoir

New York: Simon and

Schuster,

1973),

p.

22.

27

bid.,

02.

107





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale French tudies

the

modern

world n an

audio-visualmedium

whichwas tself omplex

and thick.

Renoir's

stylistic onquests

of the

thirties,

ncluding

his use of

location sound, are

precious to us today and

doubtlesshad a strong

effect

n

his

fellow

filmmakers

n

France. But

Renoir, despite

his

gregarious ature,never ed

a

French

chool

of

filmmaking.

n

France

he was respected nd

controversial;

n

America

he was, until

Grand

Illusion, unkown

r

maligned.

8

His

increased popularity fter

1936

was

largely he result

f

his

being grouped (mistakenly)

with the

"poetic

realist"

school

which

included Feyder,

Carne, and Duvivier. This was the schoolwhich

conquered

the

world before

the

war

and, while it doubtlessowed

something

o

Renoir's

work

arly

n

the

decade

and particularly

o La

Chienne,

t

owed

muchmore

to

the esthetic

which

ame to birth

n

La

PetiteLise

by JeanGremillon.

La

Petite ise preceded

La Chienne yeightmonths nd was nfact

amongthe firstoundfilms roducedbyPathe nParis.No doubtdue

to

confusions

n

distributionnd

exhibition

rought

bout

by

sound

(although

for

easons

which s

yet

re not

totally

lear),

La

Petite ise

never

received the publicity

f an

exclusive

un

nd

has

become,

for

that

eason,

a

film

eldom ited

n

histories

f

the

poch.

Those

who

do

remember t,

ike Henri

Langlois quoted below),speak

of

t reveren-

tially,

nd regret

hatneither hefilm

or

Gremillon

ver

xercised

ny

significant

nfluence

n

French inema.

Langlois,

in an

essay

entitled,

"Les

Chefs

d'oeuvres

perdus"

wrote,

It was 1930.

n

the ocal cinemawhichhad

ust

been

given

fresh hine.

n

only

a few weeks

all had

changed:

the

public

and

the

films,

nd

everySaturday

one

regretted tillmore the (silent)cinema which

had

been lost.

It

was

at

this ime ndplace that here

ppeared

on the screen

film

which

had

had

no exclusiverun nd because

of

that,

ne about whichno one

had

spoken.

Armed

with

ound and

speech

thecinema nce

again

commanded

ttention,

nd

created emotion....

28Renoirwas unlisted

n

the

1936Film

Daily

Yearbook

discussion

f

the

14

most

important ilmmakers

n

France.

His

left-wingympathies ere regularly cornedby

theHollywod press,particularly

is

financing

f

La Marseillaise

hrough ubscriptions

by

labor union

members.

108






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

Itwas

in

seeing La Petite ise of JeanGremillon hat forgot

ous

Les Toitsde

Paris and stoppedregrettinghepassing f silence. n thehistory

f French inema,

La Petite ise marks n essential ate. It s thefirst ork f schoolwhich fter 936

would definitivelyome to thefore nd make French inema hebest

n

theworld.29

The scenarist, harles Spaak, is the mostdirect nd obvious

ink

between La Petite ise and the

poetic

realist

chool,

connected

s he

was to Feyder, Renoir, and the gloryyears of the late thirties. n

addition,

the

film'smajor location, the "H6tel du Nord," was to

become the title nd

subject

of

Carne's

second feature.But

beyond

these external onnections, a PetiteLise predicts hepoeticrealist

school

n ts

rhythm,one,

nd

dramaturgy.

azin

once described uch

films

s

based on highly ealistic etails o selected nd ordered

s

to

form "a

pretext

and

modern

incarnation f an action .. which

essentiallygoes beyond

it. "And

yet,"

he

qualified,

this

action

s

worthwhile

nd convincing nly

to the extent hat

t s

realistic."30

The tension

betweenthe

drivetowardrealism nd

an

impulse

o

transcend r essentialize ealitys thedefiningharacteristic

f

poetic

realism.

n practice

t

resulted

n

an

obsessive oncern

with he

theme

of

fate,workedout

in

the

ives of

uncomprehending

haracters. his

theme and

attitude

was marked

by

a

peculiar

mixture

f

a

cold

mechanism f

plot (almost

n

the

style

f Fritz

Lang)

and

an

atmos-

phere

of

regret

n

which

he pectator,

f

not

the

characters,meditated

on

the nevitable.

These various tensions

between realism nd transcendence,ate

and regret,mechanism nd atmosphere) ecamedramatically iable,

perhaps

even

predictable, fter he ntroductionf sound. Gremillon

was

precocious

n

sensing o immediatelyhepowerof style f ound

film

whichwould inevitably) e crucial o French

inema s

a

whole.

An

accomplishedmusician,

Gremillon

evertheless as

not

temp-

ted by

the

search

fora

purelymusical

film.31

Far from

llowing he

soundtrack

o

etherialize

his images,

Gremillon

was

anxiousto slow

down,

and

in

one sense

weighdown,

his

film, llowing or kindof

29HenriLanglois,

Les Lettres

ranpaises

no.

801,

December 3, 1959.

30AndreBazin, "Le

Jour e

1ve

... Poetic

Realism,"

introduction

o M.

Carnm

Le Jour

e leve (New

York: Simon and

Shuster,

969) p. 12.

3'Roland-Manuel, "Un Authentique

musicien,

Les Lettres

ranpaises

no.

801

(December 3, 1959).

109





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale French

tudies

rhythmnd

counterpoint hich

makes

henotion f

"tone"

absolutely

literal.His was a larger onception fthematerials f theart,one in

which hythm

nd plastics

would

mutuallynteract.

efusing

o mpose

an

external one

on hisfilm ike

Clair, he

also

rejected he hickness

f

a

realism,

uch s that fLa

Chienne,

wherein

he oundtrack

bsolutely

anchors

each scene to

a

particular lace

and

moment. nstead

he

sought tone n

which

simple

melodrama

would suggest

clarifying

rhythmapable of

universalizinghe

situation

nd our

response o

it.

This

would be

the formula f

the poetic

realist

chool.

The structural implicity f La PetiteLise is especiallynotable

whencompared

to the

denserrealism

f La

Chienne.The

credits

ist

but four

haracters nd their

ntense

nterplay onsumes he

whole of

the film.

The

extras,

always

nameless,serve only as

furniturend

backdrop.

As

would be

typical

f

poeticrealist

cripts,

ach

of

these

characters s

socially

marginal:

convict, is

prostitute

aughter, er

petty riminal

iance,

and

even

the

Jewish

awnbroker

obbed and

then,accidentally,murdered ytheyoung ouple.

But it s

thepace

and ndirectionfLa

Petite ise whichmark

t s a

precursor fthe

ater

movement, nd

t s

the

oundtrack hichmakes

possible

the

atmosphere

t

builds.

The

film

pens

n

the

ropical

rison

of

Cayenne

as a slow

rhythm

f

voices nd noise

pushes

ts

way

forward

into a plot

which will

culminate

ragicallyn the

equally

stultifying

atmosphere f a

Parisian

nightclub.

n

the first

equence the motiva-

tions

for he

plot thefather's

mprisonment,

is

hopes

for elease

and

for his return o his daughter)are given in dialogue whichmust

compete,

and

even

alternate,

with

he

songs,

banterings,

nd

noise of

the

innumerable

otherprisoners.

n

the

finale,

the

confrontation

betweenthe

guilty ouple

and the

fathers

overwhelmednd drowned

out

by

the

ambience of the

azz

club. Without

peaking,

he father

leaves his

daughter

n

the noise

of the

club and takes

himself o

the

prefecture o confess

o her crime

nd

to

return orever o

Cayenne.

Cayenne and thenightclub husbracket hedrama n an atmos-

phere

of stasis

suggesting

hat

the

random

molecular

movement

f

human instincts

will

necessarily urround nd outlast

he vectorized

desiresof

father nd

daughter.

ven

before hefirst

equence,

Gremil-

lon signals

he

fatal

key

of

his tale

by

sounding

he

tick-tockf a

clock

110






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

for

nearly minute uring

which

we see nothing ut

black eader. This

tick-tocks a rare auralmarkof narrationn a filmwherenearly ll

music s motivated.Alwaysa signifierf fatality,he tick-tock

n

this

instance s doubly o, since tprefigureshetreasured atchwhich

will

bind the

destiny

f

the

four

haracters:

s a

gift

f ove from ather o

daughter, s the central rop

n

themurder f theJew, nd

as

thekey

to the

father's iscovery f thatmurder.But beyond hese

narrative

overtones,

the

opening tick-tock

ets the

steady

mechanical

hythm

which

heplot

will

follow etween heraucous pening nd

close. That

rhythms most notable for the silences ying etween peeches and

sounds. No music r contrived mbient oise coats the rack, et

here

is an impressionof continuity, ven inevitabilityonveyedby the

pulsing ntermittency

f ounds

gainst

his

ilence.

Whisperedpeeches,

lone trainwhistles, he closingof a door, all create a clear rhythmic

chain

leading away

from he confusion

f the first cene and toward

thatof

the

finale.

This mechanical oncatenation f sounds findsmorecomplicated

expression

in

its

interplay

with

the film's

mages

and

suggests

n

altogether single-minded atality

ehind the world

of

the

senses,

controlling

he eventsof ife

n both

sight

nd sound.

Most frequentlyhe tempo

of

the mages s slowed by sound. The

opening

hreeminute

an

shot

f

theprison,

or

nstance,

s

keyedby

singlebell toll fading nto he off-screenoice of a guard.Later n the

sequence an escape drama s stopped hort ythewhistle f nother

ff-

screenguard,thatsingleclean sound halting he flight othof the

convict

and

of the silent

mages.

In

the first arisian

sequence,

the

rumble

of an

approaching rain nterruptsn intricate diting attern

in

which four solated characters re interrelatedn the dark. The

sound

of

the train

focusses

all of

theirglances, linking hem to

a

common fate.

Moments

ater,

with

he camera

tracking

heir

heels,

Lise

and

her

fiancewalk nto

hegloomy ightwhilewe overhear heir

expository onversation etting p the terms f the drama. In this

single ongtake ofthebacksofthe haracters, remillon learly ound

a

way

to avoid a

difficult

ync-sound roblem; ut,more nteresting

o

us,

he was able

to

express

he

weight

f doom

through

he

very ength

of

this hot

nd

through

he

quality

f

hepathetic oicesover t. Sound

111





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale

French

tudies

has

here

created

atmosphere y

conveying

nformation

othe

side of

the mage,so to speak,setting hetone for urresponse othe mage

but

not

interrupting

hat

response

with

titles or

with

expressive

intercutting

etween

the

characters.

Similarly,

he

anticipated

meeting

f

father

nd

daughter

s

given

with a

kind of

obliquity

mpossible

before

sound. As

the

father

lumbers

up the

dark

staircase,

he

camera

remains t

the

bottom.

We

hear

him

knock and

see his

shadow

thrown

nto

reliefby

the

light

streaming

rom

he

openingdoor.

He

enters,

eaving

he

screen,

yet

thecamerastill efuses obudge.Thelittlepotof ight,hehopethat t

expresses,

s the

only

visible

ource

ofthe

father's

ear-choked

reeting

and

Lise's

off-screen

riesof

surprise

nd

glowing

leasure.

The

slow

fade-out

punctuates his

cene's

overall

darkness.

A

brief

low s

all

that

s

allowed

these

characters,

momentaryigh

of

oy

and

fullness

fading

n

the

fuller

ilenceof

the

night.

Gremillon

ntuited

he

dramatic s

well

as

the

atmospheric

oten-

tials ofsound. In themurder equence,suspense s built essthrough

cutting

han

hrough

he

reactions f

characters

o

their

milieu,

argely

a

sound

milieu.

When

the

Jew

goes

into

his

back

room

to

get

his

money,we

stay

with

he

desperate

but

uncertain

ouple.

Their

doubt

and

determination

isibly

edouble at

the

sound of

the

opening afe.

During

the

ensuing

truggle

e

are

alwayskept

o

the

ide

of

violence,

Gremillon

nce again

preferring

n

oblique

presentation

hich

nsists

on

his

narrative

rescience

nd,

consequently,

n

the

fated

spectof

the

deed

being

performed.

uring the

fight tself

we

chiefly

watch

Lise's

face and

hear

the

drama

she

witnesses.

When

she

takes

action

and

prepares to

bludgeon

the Jew

from

behind, the

camera

moves

discreetly

o

the

window.

Only

after he

thudding

low

s

heard

do we

view ts

consequence:

in

silence,

blood

trickles

n

a

pool

on

the

floor.

As

the

horrified

ouple

ooks

on,

the

door

bell

rings.Without

aving

o

cut

away

as

in

the

ilent

ays,

Gremillon

ivesneither is

ctors

nor

he

characters heydepictthespace of a moment's elief.

The

concentration

chieved

by

alternating

he

dramatic

arrier

betweenwhat

we

see

and

what

we hear

once

again

allows

Gremillon o

limit

his

cutting-as

well

as

his

visual

scope.

We

needn't ee

the safe

that

opens,

the

doorbell hat

ings,

he

rain

whose

whistle

ontinues o

112






8/20/2019 2930007


Dudley Andrew

haunt

Lise. Meanwhile, the fewer

mageswe do see

attain

density

seldom beforeknown o thecinema.As thefather oestoredeem he

watch, we hear its

tick

s

in

the

opening

of the

film,

ts

fatality

ow

fullyweighing

n what

we see. It is

only

short

tep

from his

o

the

father's

ilent

acrifice

n

the noisy

lub and

to the

final

olling f the

bell to

close the

film.

The

sound track f La Petite ise

alternately

reathes

tmosphere

into the

tale and maintains

arrative

ension

n

even the

most tmos-

pheric shots. The film

heaves

simultaneously

ith

melodrama nd

studiedreverie.This slowpulsing nd heavy lasticityetweenmage

and sound, between

the

dramatic

nd the

poetic,

was

achieved

by

a

more

subtle

sense of the

potentials f sound than

that

displayedby

eitherClair

withhis

pure

music

r

Pagnol

withhis

transposed

heater.

More

important,

t also

foretold

type

of sound

film

whichwould

appeal

at

once to

a

mass

audience

and

to a more

cultivated

lite

which

had threatened o defect at

the

coming

of sound. This

was

evidentto its first ritic32nd itwouldin fiveyearsbe evident o a

host of

producers eekingboth

gain and

prestige

n

backing

he

poetic

realist

school.

It is

strikingo

realizethatParis,

whichhas

alwaysprided

tself n

being the

home of

the artistic

vant-garde

nd

as

the most

cultured

and

lively enter f cinema

n

the

world,had to

wait

for he

coming

f

soundtoachieve n internationaleputations a city ffilm roduction.

Despite the

extravagantlaims f

tsmany

ine-clubs nd

ournals,

the

period

of

the

twenties

n

Paris

seems

feeblenext

o

the output

f

Germany,Russia, and

Hollywood.The excessive

oncernwith

recious

images

and

modernistnarrative

echnique

producedsome

remark-

able

experiments nd

a

few

lastingfilmsbut

never

built a strong

cinema

culture

whichcould draw

on a

popular base

and, hence,

on

steady capital.

It

is no

wonderthat

Hollywood and

Berlin,

with

their ense of

audience

and with

heir

mmense apital,would

swoop downon

Paris

32Pierre

Henry,

ited y

Langlois, p.

cit.

113





8/20/2019 2930007


Yale FrenchStudies

after sound had all but paralyzed France's native producers.

But

France would find ts cinematicvoice. It would take control f its

industry nd fightback on an international cale. Remarkably

t

would do so under the banner

of Renoir's naturalism nd of the

poetic

realism of

Came,

Duvivier and others. The city

of avant-

gardes had givenway toa cinemaof popularrealism nd through hat

seemingly onservative esthetic

had made its greatest ontribution

to the history f cinema.

What

I hope to have shown

n

this rticle s that, arfrom eing

belated

strategy oming

n the wake of the

collapse

of

Paramount

nd

the retreat f

Tobis, Frenchrealism,

ponsored y Frenchproducers,

was one immediate esponse o the potentials f sound. f thispoten-

tial, as actualized by Renoir

and

Gremillon

lready

n 1930 and

1931,

was

submerged or

a

while by

the oftier laims of

Clair

and Pagnol

and

by

the

stronger dvertising

f

Paramount

nd Tobis who

backed

them,

t

would ultimately

ave the more

asting

ffect.

Documents

2930007