The introduction of sound in film was widely celebrated as an advancement or refinement of the medium, yet Rudolf Arnheim, a prominent figure in film theory, held a dissenting viewpoint on the role of sound in cinema. In Arnheim’s theories on film, he contends that sound impeded rather than enriched the artistic possibilities of the medium. This apprehension stemmed from his belief that the full integration of synchronized sound into film would alter the medium fundamentally, lose its artistic essence, and potentially lead to the demise of silent cinema, as he feared audiences would inevitably favor sound films over silent ones. This essay will examine Rudolf Arnheim’s theories opposing the advent of sound in film and conclude their significance in contemporary contexts. I will argue that Arnheim opposes the integration of sound in film because he believed it could compromise the artistic purity of cinema, bringing it closer to reality and potentially diluting the impact of visuals, performance, and montage on viewers, as evidenced by his discussion of visual storytelling in The Docks of New York (Sternberg, 1928).

The primary concern of Arnheim regarding sound revolved around the potential negative impact on artistic expression. Arnheim claimed that the total commercialization of sound film, its imitation of reality, and the possibility of weakening the impact of visuals could lead to a decline in the artistic quality of filmmaking as filmmakers might prioritize dialogues and sound effects over visual techniques and performance to convey meaning. 

Arnheim argues that “cinema is reduced from an art to a recipe for serial production; the result is consumable but barely a nutritious meal.” (Alter 2011, p 72) This initial opposition to sound in film was primarily due to his modernist disdain for mass culture. He expressed concern over the widespread popularity of mass entertainment following the advent of sound in film, attributing it to profit-driven nature of film producers to foster “low-brow entertainment” (Alter 2011, p 75), which could potentially diminish the artistic integrity of silent cinema. Nonetheless, Arnheim’s steadfast resistance to sound in film gradually transformed into a more nuanced perspective on the dynamic between film and sound as film popularity grew. He asserted that his concerns about sound were aesthetic rather than a reaction to the film industry’s commercialization efforts.

He subsequently directed his attention to the duality inherent in the medium, proposing that the integration of visual and auditory elements in sound film leads to the attenuation of both images and sounds. In this diminished state, sound film’s “lawless jumble” (Alter 2011, p 78) falls short of being considered an art form. He scrutinized the fundamental way text and image converged on the screen, noting that in sound cinema, visualization merely accompanied dialogue rather than completing it. Arnheim pessimistically foresaw that this fusion would present a significant challenge for filmmakers, as “the possibility of merging the peripheries of two arts implies no identity” (Alter 2011, p 75). The outcome often mirrors two voices attempting to speak simultaneously, which is why Arnheim praised silent films with intertitles as they conveyed storytelling solely through visuals. Nevertheless, “it is precisely Arnheim’s conception of film as an art and its relationship to reality that lies thus at the crux of his problem with sound film” (Alter 2011, p 80).

Arnheim’s film theory asserts that film should shape, not mimic, reality. He argues that the inclusion of sound, particularly voice, enhances realism, but “it is this realism that moves it out of the sphere of high art and into entertainment for the lower classes” (Alter 2011, p 80). As film approaches reality, it diverges from being considered art. “Sound functions like a spotlight creating priorities that are not dictated by framing, placement, movement, montage, or visual composition but by an aural pointing” (Alter 2011, p 81), disrupting the visual plane’s uniformity. This disruption causes previously cohesive elements to appear disjointed, reintroducing hierarchy into film, which was previously considered a “democratic medium” (Alter 2011, p 81). Arnheim keenly discerned that the essence of montage, reliant as it is on the manipulation of temporal elements, becomes irreversibly compromised in the presence of speech, as sound is affected by time, unlike visuals. These observations on the correlation between time and sound led Arnheim to the conclusion that the addition of sound irreversibly damages the aesthetics of film sequences. He argued that sound diminishes the shot’s role in shaping the narrative, reducing it to a mere tool for reporting, akin to the early days of silent film. This tendency of sound film to resemble documentary brings it closer to replicating reality, thereby distancing it from the realm of art. Arnheim contrasts the challenges faced by sound films with the praised qualities of silent films, lauding its ability to evoke powerful artistic effects through performance and visual imagery. 

“From its very silence film received the impetus as well as the power to achieve excellent artistic effects” (Arnheim 1957, p 106). In silent films, lips transcend their function as speech organs and become vehicles of visual expression. The contortions and rapid movements of the mouth and lips convey messages independently, rather than being secondary to speech. As an example, Arnheim highlights that “Charles Chaplin wrote somewhere that in all his films there was not a single scene where he “spoke,” that is, moved his lips” (Arnheim 1957, p 106). In Chaplin’s films, the absence of audible speech allows for a heightened emphasis on nonverbal communication, where gestures and facial expressions take center stage in portraying diverse human relationships. Chaplin masterfully employs body language and physical actions to express mood and convey the meaning of a scene, demonstrating Arnheim’s point that when dialogue is unheard, the meaning is indirectly conveyed and artistically interpreted through physical expression. Without spoken dialogue, attention shifts to visual behavior, heightening interest in the scene. Arnheim proceeds to argue that sound in film not only impacts audience’s artistic and intellectual engagement through performance but also the visual effectiveness.

According to Arnheim, sound has the potential to divert viewers’ attention away from the visual elements of a film, thereby diminishing the artistic impact of the images posing a threat to evoke emotion and engage the viewer on a deeper level. He illustrates this point using Sternberg’s The Docks of New York, where a revolver shot is depicted through the rising of a flock of birds. The spectator does not just infer that a shot has been fired; they visually perceive its quality, the suddenness and abruptness of the rising birds, which mirror the shot’s acoustic characteristics. By presenting events indirectly through visual means, such as showing the aftermath of gunfire rather than the gunfire itself, filmmakers engage the audience’s imagination and interpretation as only these attributes and not the shot itself are given. “Such indirect representation of an event in a material that is strange to it, or giving not the action itself but only its consequences, is a favorite method in all art” (Arnheim 1957, p 107). This approach not only deepens engagement but also invites viewers to actively participate in constructing the narrative and understanding the film’s themes. Thus, Arnheim believes that sound in film would reject the viewer to project their own thoughts and emotions onto the imagery. While Arnheim believed that the introduction of sound could undermine the viewer’s imagination and interpretation of the film, he also feared that filmmakers would rely too heavily on dialogue and other auditory cues, neglecting the power of visual metaphor and symbolism to convey meaning. In this scene (50:25-53:23), the use of a cigarette instead of speech effectively communicates Mae’s tension and worry to the viewer. This method of expression through performance, facial expression, and actions aligns with Arnheim’s observations on Chaplin’s character conveying emotions through body movements and facial expressions, allowing the audience to interpret the scene independently. The scene effectively illustrates how filmmakers can employ visual storytelling techniques, including facial expressions and performance, to heighten audience engagement and convey narrative meaning. Employing subtle cues such as the birds flocking, the audience infers the occurrence of violence and subtly suggests it is a gunshot with Bill’s eye roll reaction to the loud noise from above. The subsequent visuals of Andy holding his belly reinforce this interpretation, without explicitly showing the violent act, allowing viewers to engage with the narrative on a deeper level as they piece together the events based on the provided cues.

To conclude, Arnheim’s perspective stemmed from his belief in the primacy of visual imagery in the art of cinema. He contended that the essence of cinema lies in its visual component, which encompasses composition, lighting, camera angles, and other visual elements. Arnheim’s argument is functional in underscoring the importance of visual storytelling techniques in film and emphasizing the richness that comes from allowing viewers to infer and interpret meaning rather than presenting everything explicitly. It not only highlights the artistic excellence of silent cinema to convey complex ideas and emotions through expressive performance and the careful manipulation of visual elements but also the difficulties that come with the amalgamation of sound and image in cinema. Moreover, Arnheim’s stance on sound in film evolved into a unity with a diverse approach between soundtrack and image after recognizing its permanence and potential for artistic expression. As Arnheim’s views on sound in film were formulated during a time when the transition from silent to sound cinema was still a relatively new development, the technological advancements reconciled his aesthetic concerns in his earlier writings, although only partially. Arnheim’s perspective on film aesthetics has profoundly influenced discussions, particularly regarding the balance between visual and auditory elements. Despite ongoing debate, cinema has evolved into an audiovisual art form, underscoring the importance of both senses in storytelling. Thus, while Arnheim’s arguments continue to stimulate discourse, cinema has persevered as an art form, adapting to the initial challenges of sound technology in film.

Bibliography

Alter, N. (2011). screening out sound: arnheim and cinema’s silence In Scott Higgins, Arnheim For Film And Media Studies (pp. 69-87). Routledge.

Arnheim, R. (1957) Films As Art. Berkeley: University of California Press.