My son wants to know: Why is the dialogue so rapid in old movies (pre-World War II)? It’s something I’ve noticed over the years, and I assume there must have been a good reason for it.
Anyone out there know?
Ever listened to old radio recordings? They were rapid talkers too. I think people just used to talk faster.
Peace,
mangeorge
“Machine-gun dialogue.” I read an interview with John Sayles, who used it to bring “Eight Men Out” in under a specified time limit imposed by the studio.
He justified its use for the period depicted, citing the importance of one being able to “just spit it out” in the first half the the 20th century, rather than hemming and hawing like an ignoramus.
-
-
- This gets somewhat into the history of theater and Hollywood–but (in the US) before WW II, most of the people who made movies were actually originally involved in the live theater. And in theater, dialog tells the story–nobody comes to a play for the special effects, so personal characters were heavily emphasized through dialog, because that was the only way to do it.
-
-
After WW II, there was a large upswing in the profitability of Hollywood, that consequently attracted a lot of producers and directors who had little or no theater experience. “Cultural elites” feel that the quality of work put out has been declining ever since.
~
I’m told that it’s because most movie actors in the old days were originally trained as stage actors. And stage plays, due to the limitations of the stage, tend to use lots and lots of dialogue to help the audience keep track of what’s going on. And to keep the audience from getting bored, they need to say that dialogue fast. Hence the rapid-fire delivery.
I doubt the reason for it had anything to do with stage actors vs. movie actors. Stage plays don’t need to have rapid dialog; I don’t think they spit out Shakespeare at that rate, for example.
It may also be linked to what people are discovering today: when people talk fast, they seem smarter (this can be seen on TV with shows like The West Wing and Gilmore Girls, both of which use rapid dialog for precisely this reason).
In addition, 30s movies believed in keeping things moving; they disliked long scenes, much like radio today fears dead air. It was felt that if things went on too long, the audience would get bored.
Finally, movies back then were also made very quickly. Since there was a tight schedule, you couldn’t afford to take a lot of time with the shooting, and speaking faster would help with this.
I must confess, I’ve never noticed this but enough people seem to confirm it here so there must be something to it.
I suspect it has to do with modern editing practices. A lot of modern stage actors have to relearn how to converse in dialogue scenes so that the editor can have takes he/she can work with: movie actors are never supposed to overlap the speech of the other performers. (Yes, there are exceptions, of course.) With discreet, untangled snippets of dialogue the editor or director can, say, build in pauses, or cut to a close-up (much more common these days) of the responder replying without any intrusion.
In the old days they would just postion both talkers in front of the camera and yell “Action!”. What they saw is what they got, which was fine with them – the actors created the scene, not the editor or director.
Directors nowadays aren’t so concerned with the spoken word, they are more concerned with image and flow, feeling that ignoring the script allows them to explore whole new vistas of stupidity. That’s why so many films are brilliantly appealing eye candy that make no sense whatsoever. They figure if the pictures are pretty enough, or arresting enough, the audience will watch anything. Sadly, they seem to be absolutely on target in this assessment.
Right now the best writing consistently occurs on television, especially in shows like the LawnOrder clones or the CSI clones. Formulaic as they can be, they DO rely on crisply written plotlines and very little else to keep viewers interested. Interesting that they are the top-rated shows on TV.
And some commercials. Too often the commercial break is a breath of fresh air. Not so much at this time of year, though,
I have nothing useful to add to the post, but if you want to see some fast talking go and rent His Girl Friday.
I think the moviehouse format of the time also played a role. You had 2 movies, some cartoons, a newsreel, etc. So movies, esp. the B movies, were made short. You speed up the dialogue, you can compress a 80 min. movie into 60 min.
In many instances in that era, dialogue was actually secondary. There were a lot of people in the US who didn’t understand English, so it was sometimes how you said something that got the meaning across.
Actually, the couple of Shakespeare plays I have seen live did in fact have the actors talking at a very brisk rate.
Well, I dispute the premise. I was a projectionist for 2 years pre WWII and I didn’t notice that the dialogue was particularly fast in most of the movies of the time.
Sure there were some. For example The Front Page with Cary Grant and Rosilind Russell. But they were trying to create the image if hip, big-city newsmen and women.
On the other hand, a movie like Dark Victory with Bette Davis didn’t have overly fast dialogue. Nor did The Lady Eve, Barbara Stanwyk and Henry Fonda.
Some of the gangster movies with Jimmy Cagney, or Edward G. Robinson did have some fast dialogue. Again, I think, to try to create the image of a bunch of big-city dudes who were really tough. They also did a lot of talking out of the sides of their mouths. They learned that “up the river,” you know.
Watch the show His Girl Friday (1940, Howard Hawks). Aside from being a good show, it has the fastest dialogue you’re likely to hear. Also, it introduced the practice of actors stepping on each others’ lines*, to give things a more realistic feel.
*(When someone talks while another is talking, the first person is stepping on the lines of the second.)
David Simmons: You’re conflating two movies based on the same play. The Front Page (1931, Lewis Milestone) starred Adolphe Menjou as Walter Burns and Pat O’Brien as Hildy Johnson. His Girl Friday, based on the same play, had the two people you mentioned in those roles (to wit: Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell).
I’m with you up until this last point. Although faster dialog might make the difference between a 60 minute movie and an 80 minute movie (in the final edit), as mentioned above, I just can’t imagine some director coming onto set and saying, “Katharine, Spencer, we’ve got a lot to get through today, so I’d like it if you could really motormouth. We can be out of here by three.” I think the time you’d waste with loss of clarity would be prohibitive.
It wasn’t until late in 1958 that scientists finally determined that the amount of atmosphere available to humans was not so finite as to be used up if used too recklessly.
Prior to this time, it was considered quite anti-social to speak at a more relaxed pace, as it was popularly thought to burn more of the atmosphere than using quick speech would. (Ironically, studies done during the 70’s showed that the opposite was true. Those who spoke rapidly actually consumed air at an increase averaging five percent.)
Once the findings of 1958 became commonly known, it wasn’t long before people grew into the habit of speaking with a more relaxed cadence. This is apparent as we contrast movies of the last 50 years with those created prior to the age of speech enlightenment. Older movies regularly had 40-50 thousand pages of dialogue, whilst newer films often fill two hours with scribblings covering only one side of a standard sized cocktail napkin.
One further point of interest is that the habit of speaking at a lazier pace has primarily been adopted in english speaking countries. This is readily heard as one listens to the rapid-fire staccato of languages other than english when spoken by a native of said language.
Purd Werfect, I must respectfully disagree. Sociolinguistic research has provided massive support for the Lord-Haven thesis that the more leisurely pace of speaking is in fact correlated to the longer live span of contemporary Western mankind. Since the ideal-typical invididual has become aware that he/she has significantly more years available in which to express his/her thoughts, a more relaxed attitude to speech has prevailed.
A still tentative hypothesis suggests that this effect is strengthened by the general availability of rapid individualized mass-transport systems, so people wouldn’t have to quickly finish their sentences in order to catch the next train, a phenomenon well-known from 1940s-1950s movies. However, research in this area has run into difficulties in separating the opposite influences of waiting cabs and airport transit stops.
Oh man, I can see this is heading for GD. This subject is always so touchy.
You are absolutely correct, and you can’t be any more correct than that. And His Girl Friday as you said is the one with the fast dialogue. If you want it fast, it’s tops.