On Monday we discussed early silent cinema, including early film theory with excerpts from Kaes et. al., The Promise of Cinema, in terms of its transnational characteristics. Part of this discussion was a debate about the extent of the universal nature of film. The readings proposed various arguments: gestures and images as a kind of universal language that transcends the limitations of traditional language; the notion that cinema is for everyone, not just the elite; and that a film can only be considered successful if it is internationally popular. While aspects of these claims may be grounded in truth, a closer look reveals the white-eurocentric position from which these claims are made. Gestures are not, in fact, universal, as various gestures carry different meanings in different cultures. Film was indeed democratizing to an extent in Europe in that the working class was also able to afford it, and films from around the world did give those who did not have the means to travel an impression of different countries, often considered “exotic.” However, this was still only true for the white-western world. Film was made by and for the global-privileged class and thus reinforced the stereotypes that the western world held concerning the developing world just as much as–if not more than–it educated the masses about different cultures.
Workers Leaving The Lumière Factory in Lyon . The first film by the Lumière brothers.
During class, we also tied this discussion to the film for this week, Murnau’s Nosferatu. Nosferatu is an excellent example of a silent film that relies on gestures and acting to tell the story. The intertitles act as signposts to guide the viewer along but are not central to the understanding of the film. Nosferatu is particularly interesting in this respect because it initiates the genre of Vampire film that has exploded in recent decades and because it offers a meta-commentary on the medium of film itself. Ubiquity, crossing borders, foreignness, reproducibility, shadows, a preference for darkness, and sunlight as damaging are all characteristics that vampires and film share.
Shadow of Nosferatu as he climbs the stairs to visit Ellen.
On Wednesday we will go into more detail about the stereotypes and othering present in Nosferatu and Vampire films in general, but for this post I would like you to comment on the universality and transnational nature of film with regard to early cinema or, if you choose, more specifically Nosferatu. Please post as a reply below. (Min. 200 words)
In regards to early cinema and transnational measure I learned that film success was calculated much differently then how it is today. Films would have to be viewed by multiple different nations to be considered successful back in the day witch I found very interesting. If the film wasn’t reaching audiences all over the world in early cinema it wasn’t considered a notable picture. Although Nosferatu was basically and different version of Dracula the film was considered transnational cinema because it was known by most of the world not just Germany. I also noticed this concept about early cinema that can be applied to Nosferatu just because a movie is created originally in this case with German expression doesn’t have any effect on the audience. In early cinema if it was regarded as a popular motion picture it was more about the entertainment and watching the movie and know one cared about the translation. This caught my attention because in today’s time if there was a movie that was amazing but was in German for example odds are many of us would prefer a movie spoken in English even if it was rated as popular. This didn’t stop movies of early cinema from reaching around the nation and becoming popular in all nations even if it transcended ones culture.
Film, while not a completely universal, I believe was quite revolutionary in its ability to include and entertain a much wider audience than by other traditional means. I think that the notion that film is universal has less to do with the early euro-centric biases and the disparities in the cultural significance of gesture and mannerisms and has to do more with the inclusive nature of film as a genre. During the early days of filmmaking affordable automobile travel had not yet paved the way for easy recreational travel, and the majority of other means of entertainment were catered to the educated and wealthy. To many people, early film was a way of not only escaping to a place they could never see in their lifetime, but it was also affordable and uncomplicated, which appealed to both lower- and upper-class citizens. The notion of “exotic lands” being displayed on film does detract from the universality of early film, but it serves to reinforce a universal theme of human curiosity, and a desire to explore and learn. Furthermore, while the notion that gesture is constant across all cultures is naïve, removing complex, possibly bias dialogue, forces movie makers to create scenes which depict relatable and universal themes (like the man stepping on the hose as a practical joke). While film, even today, can be catered to a specific audience or cultural view, it does not change that there is a film for everyone no matter what language they speak, how much money they make, or how much education they have received, and in that way, film is universal.
Transnational nature of film is a ‘simple’ concept that can tie together cultures with a similar intent of emotion and ideas through film, specifically through early film. Initially going off the idea of ‘simple’ in that at first thought, transnational, is a term that can be easily defined – the creation and/or concept from multiple nations. In reality, it’s not that simple. The concept of film as a whole is extremely powerful, and specifically for early film it was a way to grasp a concept or event in history through art. Transnational nature was a way for nations to create a global idea together. An example would be the silent short films we watched in class such as the black rider, where it was based off of stereotypes that can be seen all around the world. Transnational films focus on a broad topic that a majority, if not all people can relate to on some level that can bring nations/cultures together in a way. They express a simple theme that is easy to understand. Many concepts go into this, from staging, to acting, to props, to sound,all depending on what is trying to be conveyed to the audience.
I claim that gestures are interpreted differently in all films. I do agree with this prompt in how each gesture can carry more than one unique meaning in different cultures. Film is universal. Not one opinion or answer can determine the action or sequence in a film. Films were made to supply the globally privileged, marking stereotypes to be the truth of everyone who was not privileged enough to view them. There lies the bias in these films. Films are universally made, from viewpoints from other people who make these projects. The film, Nosferatu, is an excellent example of a silent film that pushes these gestures and actions to tell the story of a Vampire Monster. The uniqueness and the shadowy, dark features resemble something misunderstood, and something to be scared of in another lifetime. Film is made from what other people endure, and their memories inspire how they create the subject for their films. Each film however, no matter the gesture the creature or subject makes, will have more than one meaning, due to how the character is formed in the story’s world. The character in the story is the subject of many memoires and perspectives from other people creating this movie, therefore it would make sense for the many opinions of the center character’s reasoning for his actions in the film.
I do believe that early cinema was and still is a transnational experience for all audiences. Due to the biases and views that were prevalent during those times, I completely understand as to why not all people may not have been able to understand or have access to the films. With that taken into consideration, all humans recognize the concept of “moving pictures” and the documentation/creation of some story. A film can be made for a specific audience, however, if a group of people who are outside of the intended audience watch said film then they can get a glimpse of the daily life of people. Take the film of Berlin for example; people walking out of factories, people walking on the streets, the industrial atmosphere, and so on. These captured moments let all people experience anything. The creative and informative options are unending. Therefore I am of the opinion that despite some differences we all can understand the concept of a film enough so that the gestures and such can be conveyed ti all. Film is universally understandable even with cultural or language barriers. We can clearly see that film has trancended all barries and is now a worldwide phenomene that all enjoy.
In regards to early cinema and transnational measure I learned that film success was calculated much differently than how it is today. The industry has changed significantly regarding the encompass of global communication. Films would usually have to be viewed by multiple different nations to be considered successful back in the day which I found very interesting. If the film wasn’t viewed by a variety of nations it wasn’t even on the list of transnational cinema. If the film wasn’t reaching audiences all over the world in early cinema and it was a hit in one specific country it still wasn’t a work of art. Although Nosferatu was basically and different version of Dracula the film was considered transnational cinema in the 1900’s because it was known by most of the world not just Germany. I also noticed this concept about early cinema that can be applied to Nosferatu, just because a movie is created in this case with German expression doesn’t have any effect on the audience. In early cinema if it was regarded as a popular motion picture it was more about the entertainment and watching the movie and no one cared about the translation. Like I mentioned before, if the movie was scene all over the world it was kind of like culture and differences in identity were forgotten and everyone can enjoy the movie with there own interpretation because of cultural differences. This caught my attention because in today’s time if there was a movie that was amazing but was in German for example odds are many of us would prefer a movie spoken in English even if it was rated as popular. This didn’t stop movies of early cinema from reaching around the nation and becoming popular in all nations even if it transcended one’s culture.
Gestures in film can be quite complicated to read. Although we discussed in class that gestures can be universal, it’s sometimes not as simple as it appears. Going back to who was viewing films in the past we have to remember that times were very different and many cultures were most likely not fully known or understood to the general movie goer. However, no matter the gestures, a film such as Nosferatu is going to be translated as universal and be successful due to the nature of the film telling a story of an unwanted/misunderstood person or “monster” coming to terrorize the people in Germany because well it was relatable to an extent. But how the audiences sees that “monster” is going to depend whether or not it is translated to a stereotype of a culture or exactly what it is…a vampire. And since film was something new and exciting, it’s up to the audience on how they want to partake in the stereotype of the characters and stories or just view it as entertainment without biased opinions and a way to escape which what films were intended for.
With attention to early cinema and the universality and transnational nature of film, it’s easy to see how the production was focused on telling general messages and stories to the world. In the beginning of film and especially in silent film, we see more gestures and universally known ideas. These gestures and ideas made it easier for people of all different cultures around the world to be able to understand a film produced by a country of a foreign language. These films were considered transnational because they crossed borders and became universally understood. Films weren’t considered “famous” or “popular” unless they were also considered “famous” or “popular” in different countries. Early film was new and exciting, it was a way to show the world to those who had never ventured into it. Specifically in Nosferatu, Hutter crossed borders in a film taking place in Germany and Transylvania. This showed different parts of the world some had never seen. The idea of the “monster” also comes out of Nosferatu. The vampire, Count Orlock, was depicted as a corruption of humans and of anti-semitic ideas. To citizens, monsters in early cinema represented the worst parts of human kind. Nosferatu is also a perfect example of a transnational film as it is a silent film only including gestures and inter-titles, making it easily understandable to an international audience. Including a vampire (monster) in the movie can be considered as a transnational element because the world had created fantastical ideas/monsters all generally with the same characteristics.
I like the suggestion that early cinema was, in fact, and still is an example of a transnational experience that many different audiences could, and still can part take in. In Cohens, Monster Culture (Seven Theses), Erich Burger posed the question of why do we travel if we have pictures and film? At first, I did not agree with this statement, but after evaluating it a little more, I was able to coincide with the account. The film allowed for a broader range of individuals all over the world to gain access to a new form of entertainment. Along with a source of entertainment came a unique forum to advance education and understanding of different cultures and countries all over the globe. For example, in class, we watched the short film of the daily life of people moving about Berlin in front of the factory. This allows people from outside of Germany to gain exposure to the sounds and sights that can be found in German daily life and culture. This relates to Burger’s claim that it isn’t essential to travel to gain insight and understanding of other cultures when we can see historical sights and daily life of other countries through film and photography.
Nosferatu is a transnational film because it is a silent film and its antagonist is a monster that is widely known. Because Nosferatu is a silent film it does not use one specific language, in regards to speaking, throughout the film. The understanding of the film is based on the viewers’ understanding of the different gestures and facial expressions that the actors make. The majority of gestures are something that is widely universal. The same goes for facial expressions of the actors, like when Hutter is scared of Count Orlac because we have previous experiences of being scared we are able to identify with the emotion and the expressions that he makes. One can argue that Nosferatu is not a transnational film because there are intertitles in German, however, these intertitles do not express the story like gestures, actions, and expressions do. The antagonist of Nosferatu is Count Orlac who is a vampire. Every culture has its own versions of vampires and the different characteristics that they possess. In the United States alone, we have seen movies and tv shows like “Twilight”, “Interview with a Vampire”, “Lost Boys”, “The Vampire Diaries”, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, “True Blood” and many more. Because of these factors, I believe that Nosferatu is a transnational film.
I personally believe that film was and still is a transnational art form for all who consume it. While many made the argument that gestures are not universal, which is true, that does not take away from the experience of watching a silent film. For example, when watching Nosferatu, we were not faced by any barriers of typical German gestures versus our American gestures; we were able to understand the plot and the characters through their actions and expressions. While gestures can be misinterpreted in an outside culture, it is not as common as some would assume in film. Silent cinema, more so than “talkies,” transcends barriers because it relies on the human experience and human emotion to display the plot. While the human experience is different for everyone, we are still able to understand and possibly even relate to those on screen. Charlie Chaplin, the biggest star of the silent age, was an international sensation and despite the fact that he was a British man making films in America, everyone around the world was able to watch his films and find the joy in them. Chaplin’s films stand as an example of how cinema (specifically his silent films) could transcend the national barriers; no one is misinterpreting the sorrow both the Tramp and the kid in “The Kid” feel as they are separated by child services, or breakdown the Tramp has over his factory work in “Modern Times.” Silent cinema is able to rely on humanity to move its plot, rather than language (which stands as the main barrier between different nations’ films today). In regards to the idea that film is made from a western point of view, I do believe that is more valid. Because of film booming in Europe and America, they promoted ideals that were typical of western views and looked down upon others. A very extreme example of this is D. W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation,” which was KKK propaganda that promoted the KKK as the good guys and alienated those that suffered at their hands. The power of film in inherent in the way that we view it today; people like Chaplin used it to spread joy and bring light to tragic situations whereas people like Griffith used it to promote hate. I do believe that film today is gettin more recognition outside of the Western world, but still not as much as it should. Overall, I believe that cinema, at its core, is universal. However, this does not mean that it is free from the constraints of those who can use it to negatively impact the world and embrace negative stereotypes.
With regards to early film, I think that it was quit revolutionary at the time and although can be analysed further and debated think it was very transnational. Some of the films for example that we discussed in class including the Lumiere first films and Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis, these films have every day action occurring that everyone would be able to understand and relate to who saw it. Early films were able to take people to different places that they could not afford to do before and at a quicker time. The Promise of Cinema text mentions gestures acting as a universal language allowing films to be transnational which I do agree with in some part. Although there are some gestures that are different in different cultures, it still allows the film to be understood by a group of different people depending on how heavily based the film is on gestures. For example, Nosferatu although it was made with German expressions and for a german audience, it can be seen and understood by many people and became popular throughout many countries. Another reason why this was popular was the subject of the film, vampires, a lot of people know the defining characteristics of vampires and can follow the story line even if they don’t have inter tittles in their language. The inter titles themselves do not contribute that much to the plot of the story and with the film being silent it allows it to be a transnational film.
The ability of film to cross different cultures and countries to provide a common theme makes it very important. Regarding themes being able to cross language and cultural barriers, the short films that we watched in class were about racism in journey, regarding foreigners and minorities. While it was made specifically for the German public to bring awareness to it and to show how it was wrong, it can helpful for audiences other than the German people, for example in the U.S. we have been dealing with a racism problem, and the theme of the short films can be understood by us as well. While modern day film is universal too, silent films were able to be distributed and watched in many different areas and that was due to the lack of a language barrier, the only things that would be in a certain language were the intertitles, and while they explained portions of the film they were not a necessity to it, you could understand what was happening in a film based on how the actors were behaving and simply watching the film itself. Nosferatu is a good example of this, it is a German silent film that is now considered a classic due to its vampire storyline. While originally the intertitles were in German it is available in different languages now. The main reason silent films are considered universal is that the film is based on gestures and physical acting. Typically things like that are understood worldwide, like shrugs and such.
I think that most early cinema had the potential to be transnational and could be universally understood. Prior to the invention of sound in film, narrative was limited to interstitial titles and physical actions that were carried out on screen. Interstitial titles allowed films to exceed national boundaries because they could be translated into any language. Likewise, the reliance on physicality in early cinema yielded films which could be interpreted across cultures. Films like the Lumiere brothers’, and others of the cinema of attractions, depicted physical spectacles like a group of workers leaving a factory or a clever camera/editing trick. These films contained no culture specific messages and, as a result, were able to receive popularity and acclaim all over the world. Of course, there is a limit to the universality of early cinema. Eventually, film matured out of the “cinema of attractions” and it took more than just movement to captivate an audience. With this, films became increasingly more specified to particular audiences and cultures. Even with culture specific messages, the silent film era was transnational by nature because the necessary contextual information could be translated to any audiences’ language. It was not until the inclusion of sound, and therefor language, that it became more difficult for films to transcend national boundaries.
While gestures in transnational cinema can be; for the most part, universal in context, there are many different cultures and societies around the world that could perceive the messages and meanings within the film in many different ways. When the viewer has a different understanding of the gestures, the film could be perceived in a way other than the way the creator of the film meant it to be, then their goal of communicating a certain message to the viewers of the film is not accomplished and a lot is left up to individual interpretation. This doesn’t apply to every aspect of transnational film; however, There are exceptions.
Erich Burger, proposed a question within Cohen’s Monster Culture: Why do we travel if we have pictures and film? I agree to some extent with this statement but not completely. People will still want to travel. By watching films from faraway lands and taking in the sights and sounds of that region one does not truly or fully experience much. Seeing the daily life of the workers leaving the factory doesn’t actually convey a full message in my opinion. Sure, getting off work could be considered a universal idea, but without being there and seeing, talking, observing and questioning our surroundings in this far away place, then there is still much left open to individual interpretation and ones own perceptions. In no way does film nor photography substitute for actual travel, exploration and learning.
I believe film, ever since the days of early cinema, is a universal language. Film gives a unique perspective into a culture’s way of thinking; their goals, fear, and all. A trait you seem in many early cinema era films is idealization; in early cinema, it seems there must always be a good (normally a person that is representative of the culture in which the film is made), and the good must triumph over the bad (normally a personification of a culture’s fears, not always done gracefully). Film today has transformed and become more complex, as filmmakers build off of earlier generations. Regardless, many themes of good vs. evil remain. These themes, seem in many films made by many people across decades, are just one example of how film can be a universal language. Film helped people realize that although one nation may speak a different language or have different values, they still hold the elements that make us all innately human. In some cases, that’s a reassuring statement. In others, a grim realization of how depraved humanity can be.
It seems that Mollie and I share quite an enthusiasm for early silent cinema. The great Chaplin came to my mind as well when thinking about the universality of film and gesture. Indeed, I agree that Chaplin’s work transcends national barriers, and that we can all at least understand the plots and emotions of his films. However, I think it is quite right, Mollie, to hesitate when making the claim that we can all relate to them. Relation to film, I think, becomes more complicated when examining silent cinema, and I hope to flesh out those complications using Charlie Chaplin’s 1931 silent romance-comedy City Lights as a working example (*spoilers alert for those who have yet to see it…).
City Lights follows Chaplin’s most famous character, the Tramp, as he falls in love with a blind woman. The Tramp’s attempts to raise money for her aid take him through a slapstick boxing match and a dizzying nightclub scene, and in the end, the romantic underdog gets the girl. Because this film is silent, Chaplin uses gesture to encourage laughter and tears. And to a major extent, he is successful. I myself choked up in the final romantic and ironic scene. However, not everyone in 1931 or today could nor can relate to the Tramp. His is an excellent example of the victimization of the social majority – the straight, white male. The Tramp’s poverty and hopeless romance make him an empathetic character, yet his victimization is problematic because it stunts the ability of minority audiences to relate to his character, precisely because he is part of the majority. This idea recalls the argument that silent film was white-eurocentric, and that even though gesture can convey ideas successfully across language and cultural boundaries, it does not always successfully illicit emotion.
To compound this point, it is useful to note the countries in which City Lights was released in 1931. Besides the United States, City Lights entertained audiences in 16 other countries at the same time (see IMDB for details). However, these were all countries that were well-developed and generally of the western culture. So, City Lights did achieve a global audience owing to its gestural effectiveness, but it reached only developed and/or western countries whose citizens were ripe for its application to their own lives. Audiences of less developed and non-western cultures did not have access to the film for many years to come, and even if they did, who is to say that they would be able to relate to the white man stumbling down the streets of a city full of money?
With regard to Nosferatu, it was an extremely influential film globally. The film created the vampire genre which has greatly affected the film industry as a whole. As a silent film, the director, F.W. Muranau, used lighting as a way to convey the plot of the film, this reflects the nature of universal language. The difference between early US and Western European film due to Edison creating a monopoly in regards to creating film and there was no such monopolies in Europe. Europe was more creative in filmmaking, particularly in regards to lighting. Edison wanted approval for creating films. A particular example of lighting creating a mood in Nosferatu is the iconic scene of Count Orlok climbing the stairs into Ellen’s room. The scene creates a feeling of dread within the audience due to the massive appearance of Nosferatu on the screen, which contrasts with the stairs themselves. Orlok is often represented in the film by his shadow. Without even using dialogue, the audience universally knows how terrifyingly scary Orlok is. Using the shadows, Muranau is able to show the foreign nature of Orlok in comparison to the more human characters like Thomas and Ellen. This is a way to universally showcase the juxtaposition of these two different sets of characters.