Categories |
Archives
April 2021
|
 Opening up concert band classes for piano and keyboard students is a wonderful opportunity to build your program. In this post, I include several tips for how to successfully include keyboards in a band setting. Often these instruments are excluded from bands and orchestras or only have a place in jazz bands. By not making modifications to include these instruments, we may be excluding students that want to learn music in an ensemble but also do not have the desire to switch from piano to another instrument in order to join an ensemble.  TuningThe first consideration for the group is tuning. Unlike other instruments that have tuning that can adjust, we will assume that electronic keyboards are always on the correct pitch of A=440Hz. This description says that the A above middle C on the keyboard sounds at a frequency of 440 cycles (sound waves) per second. This means that instead of tuning the band to the oboe or 1st clarinet, the band should be tuned to the keyboards.  Learning The Black KeysUnlike beginning piano lessons, students playing keyboard in band will need to incorporate black keys into their known notes early on. The black keys are not as scary as many learners seem to think. If the player’s fingers are curved properly at the best playing position, students will have no trouble reaching these keys.  Start One Handed Unless a student has previous experience with piano lessons, I strongly recommend that students begin reading just one staff (usually starting with treble clef unless the student has experience with bass clef) and attempting to play the lines with just one hand instead of trying to double each part with two hands or read two staves with different parts. Since many band pieces favor flat keys, it can be helpful for students to play Bb with their left hand and then C, D, Eb, F, and G with the fingers on their right hand. This will avoid students having to start playing using finger crossings. Also, just because keyboards can play chords does not mean that keyboard students should have to play chords to start. A chance to play a familiar melody can be highly motivating.  Finger CrossingOnce students gain confidence, one technique that keyboard students in band will want to learn is finger crossing so that they can play beyond a range of 5 notes. The teacher can help students to explore finger crossing by giving each student a fingering chart and putting the fingering numbers over the notes, so Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G would be labelled 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Just this range and fingerings cover many approachable band pieces. Finger crossing is awkward for every student at first and you may hear many complaints. But the truth is smoother playing comes from finger crossing and not lifting the hand every few notes.  Range Can Reinforce Other PartsOne of the great things about including keyboards in your band is the range that the instrument has. Depending on your numbers and instrumentation, the keyboard can be used to reinforce other parts from the lowest notes to the highest notes. If you have a lot of keyboards, you can even split them up so that some reinforce the bassline while others play higher harmonies. If you don’t have many bass instruments, keyboards can add to the bass line. Even if the keyboard students have not learned bass clef yet, they can simply read it in treble clef and just move down the keyboard to the lower end. Likewise, if your group needs more sound on the high octaves, the keyboards can supplement that. One of the nice things about the keyboard is that every octave has the same key arrangement, so transitioning octaves is not difficult, especially if students follow the fingerings.  DynamicsIf your school has the budget, I recommend using keyboards in band classes that are touch sensitive, meaning the keyboard volume responds to how hard or soft a student presses the keys. In this sense, changing dynamics is more like percussion students than wind or brass players. Also remember too, that a keyboard cannot sustain notes for a long time without replaying a note. An organ setting for keyboards does allow for sustained notes, but without the touch sensitive dynamics. Another idea is that keyboards cannot crescendo or diminuendo on a single sustained note.
I believe if you give keyboard students the opportunity to participate in band, you will be pleasantly surprised and how they add to your ensemble.
0 Comments
 Context When modern critics and scholars analyze Bringing Up Baby, it is impossible for them to consider it outside of its relation to other Hepburn-Grant films. Since the film, Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant went on to make the successful comedies Holiday (George Cukor 1938) and The Philadelphia Story (Cukor 1940) together. Separately, both actors went on to many successful roles in comedies as well as in other genres, and are now remembered as being two of the greatest motion picture performers of the Twentieth Century. Howard Hawks (1896-1977) was one of the most successful filmmakers of the 1930s. Some film scholars have dubbed him an auteur. Hawks cited Chaplin as a source of inspiration when it came to his comedies. At the time of Bringing Up Baby’s development, Katharine Hepburn (1907-2003) had gained some notice in dramatic pictures, but RKO wanted her to branch out into comedy. When the film failed financially, the studio blamed her. Hepburn was quite athletic, and Hawks’ film allowed her to express her abilities. Her physicality set her apart from the other female leads of the time, who could impress only on a verbal level, to which she could add a physical level. Like Clark Gable at the time of making It Happened One Night, Cary Grant (1904-1986) was not yet the megastar that he would become later in his career. He had already appeared in the successful The Awful Truth (Leo McCarey 1937) with Irene Dunne, but after Bringing Up Baby he appeared in a string of successful comedies, to only later branch out into other genres in the 1950s and 60s. Eventually, he became the ideal American man.  Reception The film eventually did make a small profit, but not enough to satisfy the studio. While the reviews were mixed, the critical reaction was not as negative as many scholars would lead one to believe. Norbert Lusk of the Los Angeles Times hated the film, stating that it was the wrong type of film for Hepburn. Film Weekly found the film to be passable, but criticized it, “The opening is a little off-key and several comic sequences have only the elementary appeal of slapstick”. Those were the only negative contemporary reviews that I was able to find. Note how both use comic terms, particularly “outrageous”, “slapstick”, and “parody”. Also notice how the reviewer for film weekly finds physical comedy, “slapstick” in particular, to be only “elementary”. Unlike these two reviewers, reviewers from four major publications gave the film positive reviews. Another reviewer for The Los Angeles Times incorrectly predicted, “in the end Bringing Up Baby will probably be a decisive hit”. Mae Tinee of the Chicago Daily Tribune said, “It’s been a long time since we’ve had a real feature length slapstick comedy. As a quite amusing specimen of this class, I welcome Bringing Up Baby”. Variety praised the performances of Hepburn and Grant and called it “definite box office”. We see critics praising the inclusion of slapstick as they did with Duck Soup (1933), and the performers as they did with It Happened One Night (1934). After the success of later Hepburn-Grant projects like Holiday (1938) and The Philadelphia Story (1940), Bringing Up Baby found a renewed interest among film reviewers and audiences. Most recent reviews praise the rapid pace of the film. In 1997, Jeffrey M. Anderson of Combustible Celluloid said, “It’s a brilliant movie, and one of the greatest and most intense ever made”—using the term “intense” to describe the film’s use of the Principle of Comic Logic. Diane Wild of DVD Verdict described the Screwball Comedy’s collaborative nature, calling it “Magic…a sublime convergence of greatness”. Jon Danzinger of Digitally Obsessed added, “It really is one of the all-time great screen comedies, and in almost seventy years it’s lost none of its fun, charm, wit or spirit”, speaking of its longevity. Joshua Rothkopf of Timeout New York Magazine agreed with Danzinger, saying, “A comedy that never should have worked is now all but immortal”.  Legacy In subsequent decades, Bringing Up Baby inspired dozens of television series and motion pictures, most notably Peter Bogdanovich’s What’s Up, Doc? (1972). Bogdanovich had several interviews with Hawks before and after making his film, and credited Bringing Up Baby for giving him the idea for What’s Up, Doc?. Hawks himself called his own Man’s Favorite Sport (1964) a remake of Bringing Up Baby.
The rapid, zany style of Bringing Up Baby influenced later Screwball comedies, including Arsenic and Old Lace (Frank Capra 1944) and The Odd Couple (Gene Saks 1968). In 2006, Premiere Magazine named it one of The 50 Greatest Comedies of All Time and Entertainment Weekly named it the 24th Greatest Film Of All Time. The genre of comedy and the subgenre of the Screwball Comedy would not be the same without Bringing Up Baby. Like It Happened One Night, it is a treat to witness two of the last century’s most acclaimed performers lose all inhibition and act goofy. Notice, from It Happened One Night to this film, how reviewers look for chemistry between the romantic leads—revealing a critical convention in the analyses of romantic comedies that first appears in the critical language of the mid-1930s.  Vaudeville and the British Music Hall The style of performance known as Vaudeville began to appear just a few years before the invention of the motion picture. The term “vaudeville” comes from the song parodies of Eighteenth Century France. Vaudeville focused not on a narrative or order of events, but rather on the performer herself. There was no director of the performances, aside from the owner of the venue that would choose the order of acts and determine which performer received the best audience response. This absence of a director left the performer as the controller of timing, audience rapport, and content. Later in the Twentieth Century, the Vaudeville tradition continued in the form of stand-up comedy. Vaudeville, and the British equivalent of the Music Hall, had more influence on the style of comedy film than on any other genre. The episodic style of Vaudeville introduced a performance rhythm that became expected in film comedy and ultimately led to television variety shows. With its widespread influence, the style of Vaudeville and Music Hall affected many later filmmakers and theorists, including the great Russian filmmaker, Sergei Eisenstein, who wrote more about the art of montage than any other filmmaker or film scholar. He credits the inspiration of creating meaning through the juxtaposition of separate elements to Vaudeville and the Music Hall. The rapid-fire delivery of antecedent-consequence, set up-punch line style of comedy that audiences come to expect with film comedy has its roots in Vaudeville. Another innovation that came from within the context of Vaudeville is the duality of the comedienne as a character and the comedienne as herself. By the 1930s, it was not uncommon to find examples of comedians, like the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, or (for that matter) Cary Grant, who appeared in films impersonating themselves instead of a fictional character. Of course, studios at the time could not help but encourage this trend. If a comedienne, or more importantly, if her style, were popular with audiences, succeeding pictures featuring this comedienne were more likely to be successful, as audiences members knew what to expect from the comedienne’s performance. Vaudeville also presented the mindset that a successful comic performance should be judged not on the creativity of the performer or the variety of his or her performances, but on the number of laughs that the performer elicits.  The Motion Picture Since the birth of the motion picture in the late 1800s, film comedy not only developed due to the influence of other art forms, but also within the film medium as the techniques and styles of filmmaking became conventions of expression. It is important here to note that the film genres that we know today did not appear fully formed, but rather developed gradually over a period of a couple decades. The major genres of the infant years of film were melodrama, comedy, and historical epic. Comedy was successful critically, as well as financially. In the 1920s, film reviewers and audiences saw the comic Chaplin as at an equal level as that of the dashing Fairbanks. There was no difference between the comic performer and the dramatic performer. Some of the most influential comic characters and situations that are familiar today come from the silent film comedies. Silent film comedy had true universal appeal, as knowledge of the language was unnecessary. As was the case with Vaudeville, the character and her routine of gags is more important to the silent film comedy than the narrative. However, film comedy would not remain the prominent genre that it had been in the 1920s. While audiences seem to be forgiving of dramatic films that reuse plot elements and character identities from film to film, audiences immediately notice when the same gag or comic situation is reused. As I stated before, similar gags not only kept their impact over a period of a couple decades, but rather for centuries. Consider the influence of Vaudeville’s episodic structure on film comedy, and how the medium of film allowed for the filmmaker to insert gags at any moment of the film. A gag recycled from earlier films may even recur in the same film, if the context allows. Film comedy changed style more drastically than any other genre out of necessity, meaning that verbal comedy became the main form of comic expression. Comic style also became more diverse as the homogenous style of slapstick comedy branched out into “comedian comedies” and Screwball comedies. But verbal comedy did not eliminate all forms of physical comedy, as some of the most successful comedians developed trademarks with their physical mannerisms. Indeed, physical comic styles did not die completely in favor of purely verbal comedy. Rather, they remained ever present, synthesizing a greater comic impact than verbal comedy could alone. In the 1930s, comedy did not simply coexist with drama, it complemented it. Sometimes only comedy is daring enough to show society as it really is. The next major technical innovation after the sound film was television, which became the primary showcase for comedy in the 1950s. As a result of this transition, among other causes, few notable film comedies came from American studios in the 1950s when compared to other decades. The most successful American comic director of the 1950s would have to be Billy Wilder. His definitive comedies The Seven Year Itch (1955) and Some Like It Hot (1959), described by some film scholars as “sex comedies”, form practically a subgenre of their own. Also, I would argue that none other than Marilyn Monroe was the most successful American comic film performer of the 1950s. Nearly every comedy film in which she starred was a commercial and critical success, in part because she worked with some of the most critically acclaimed directors of the time. Keep in mind that, although she has now been dead for fifty years, she remains one of the most popular cultural icons. Licensing fees for the use of her likeness alone still earn millions for her estate every year. Her legacy is indisputable as is her influence on American popular culture and on comedy. While the American film industry suffered during the Red Scare of the 1950s, British film comedy found a sort of renaissance. Ironically, the successful British comedies of the mid Twentieth Century had their roots in documentary—a genre that relies on a strict narrative structure, unlike comedy. It seems as if the filmmakers of the United Kingdom had to wait for the output of American comedies to stall in order for international audiences to appreciate their distinguishing brand of comedy. The two most influential British comic performers of the mid Century were Alec Guinness, who was equally as comfortable in the historical epics of David Lean as he was playing multiple roles in Ealing Comedies, and Peter Sellers. These two performers introduced the world of comedy to the unprecedented feat of one actor portraying multiple roles within one film—and sometimes within one scene, as Guinness does in Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949). Although I admit that many so-called “character actors” populate dramas, if one performer were to play multiple roles in a single dramatic film, it would give the impression of a low budget production that could not hire enough talent. But in the realm of film comedy, the ability of one actor to portray multiple convincing characters in a single film is a demonstration of that performer’s prowess. Note how this quality of performance unique to comedy in the field of motion pictures comes from the theatre, in which a one-performer show—whether comic or dramatic—seems to denote an accomplished performer. By the early 1960s, British and American filmmakers seemed to return to a uniform style of comedy. For 1960s and 1970s comedy, parody was the order of the day. In the United States, Mel Brooks imitated classic Westerns in Blazing Saddles (1974) and classic Horror with Young Frankenstein (1974). Woody Allen used an actual Japanese film that he redubbed in order to lampoon poorly dubbed foreign films in What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (1966) and he parodied documentaries with Take The Money and Run (1969) and Zelig (1983). The team of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker satirized the disaster movies that had become popular in the 1970s, including notable entries like Airport (George Seaton 1970), The Poseidon Adventure (Ronald Neame 1972), Earthquake (Mark Robson 1974), and The Towering Inferno (John Guillermin and Irwin Allen 1974), with their critically acclaimed Airplane! (1980). Although some scholars may argue that Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964) parodies Sidney Lumet’s Fail-Safe (1964), I disagree with this assessment. Kubrick released Dr. Strangelove in January 1964, while Lumet released his film in October 1964—nearly a year later. It is quite possible that Kubrick had read the novel Fail-Safe (published 1962) and was aware that a film version of the novel was in the works. However, if Kubrick had wanted his film to function as a parody of Fail-Safe, he would have waited for Lumet to release the aforementioned film. In addition, the credits of Dr. Strangelove clearly attribute the story to Peter George’s novel Red Alert (published 1958). For these reasons, I believe that Dr. Strangelove is not part of the parody tradition. Instead, it most closely follows the methods of the Anarchic Comedies. Concurrently, versatile filmmaker Blake Edwards parodied the James Bond franchise with a series of films beginning with The Pink Panther (1963). The success of this series owes much to the performances of Peter Sellers and to the music of Henry Mancini. In the 1970s, the Monty Python comedy troupe lampooned historical epics in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) and Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979). One curious point that I wish to make about parody is that so often the resulting parody is of a higher caliber of technique and aesthetics than the original film that it parodies. Filmmakers begin work on a parody with the assumption that the viewer will be familiar with the original source, but a well-made parody can succeed on its own without requiring the viewer to have any existing knowledge of the source. Most viewers will arrive at a parody knowing the rules for the particular genre or genres that the comedy film parodies. The most successful parodies work because they purposefully go against the rules of the parodied genre. The 1970s ended with a return to romantic comedy as the primary subgenre of comedy with films such as Allen’s Annie Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979) and Edwards’ 10 (1979) finding popular and critical success. Arguably, this trend continues into later comedies, like Moonstruck (Norman Jewison 1987), Four Weddings and a Funeral (Mike Newell 1994), Bridget Jones’s Diary (Sharon Maguire 2001) and more recently, The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius 2011).  6/20/2021 0 Comments Film- All About Camera Angles Often what are described as camera angles have nothing to do with angles at odd degrees. Most of the time, the camera setup is based on distance from the subject, choice of lens, and camera height. With combinations of these three ideas, a filmmaker can create dozens of creative shots that not only affect the viewer subconsciously but also can help to further the plot and character development. I will describe each of these ideas. Distance The first idea to consider when placing a camera is distance from the subject. Obviously the options are greater in an open outdoor space than an enclosed indoor space. For the basics, moving the camera closer to the subject makes the subject larger in the frame. Moving the camera away from the subject makes the subject appear smaller in the frame. A word of caution here about using a zoom lens or feature instead of moving the camera. Many consumer level cameras offer a wide zoom range, sometimes listed as 300x or more. However, it is important to understand the difference between optical zoom (meaning an effect of the zoom lens) and digital zoom (meaning that the camera is simply blowing up the original image). While optical zoom is a practical effect, digital zoom is no different than zooming in on a picture on the computer. The quality of the image gets worse the closer you try to zoom in. Because of this, I recommend moving the camera closer to the subject than relying on a zoom feature. Lenses Here is where the options can get really interesting. Lenses affect the depth of the image also called depth of field. When we say depth for photography, it is basically the apparent distance between the subject and the background. There are many types of lenses, but the basic ones are wide, normal, and telephoto (a zoom lens is one that can transition between these).  Wide These types of lenses allow the largest canvases. They also make the background appear as far removed from the subject. For traditional extremely wide shots, the entire landscape is in focus. Wide shots are often used to establish a new location. They can also be used for great effect to show contrasts. A tiny house in a huge field can be very effective. Two people standing on opposite sides of the image can be symbolic of the emotional distance between them.  Normal This can be thought of as medium--not too wide; not too close. The background appears medium distance from the subject, depending on the distance from the subject, the background may be more in focus or more blurry. Two subjects can appear together in this type of shot and still be in focus.  Telephoto These lenses are the closest and are meant to focus on the subject, often blurring out the background. They are often only used for two subjects close together or just one subject. The focus can change during a shot to move between subject and background. Combinations of Distance and Lens When you combine distance with different types of lenses, you get some creative effects. With a wide angle lens, you can still move the camera very close to the subject and the background will appear very far while the subject takes up most of the frame. In contrast, with a telephoto lens, you can move the camera far from the subject and still have the subject large in the frame. As one can see, combining distance and lens type can allow the filmmaker to focus on certain parts of the frame or bring out details sharper. The eye is automatically drawn to the parts of the image that are sharper. In this way, the filmmaker forces the viewer to focus on the desired parts of the image.  Height Height is another element of camera placement. The average shot is at eye level, but by altering the height of the camera, the filmmaker can show character perspectives and power relationships.
When a character walks down a street, if the view is from a window, it may indicate the character is being watched. When one character is filmed from below while another is filmed from above it could show the power and influence one character has over another. Height can be combined with distance and lenses to add another layer of information to a shot, but height is often best used subtly so that it affects the viewer subconsciously. Used too much or too obviously and the height of the camera can become comical, unless that is the intention. As you can see, combining distance from the subject, various senses, and camera height, there are dozens of different types of shots available to the filmmaker. The best shots are the ones the contribute to the story and enhance the characters. Let me know if you have questions!  Context The mid-1930s was the age of the Screwball Comedy. This subgenre places its characters in bizarre situations that compound as the film progresses, typically in a romance-driven narrative. While some credit Howard Hawk’s Twentieth Century (1934) as the first Screwball comedy, I feel that the style of Twentieth Century is much closer to the Lubitsch/ Cukor comedies of the early years of the decade, and not the later Screwballs. Frank Capra’s It Happened One Night provided not just the basis for every subsequent Screwball comedy, but for romantic comedy in general. The film’s comedy is forever linked to its unforgettable romance, as nearly every romantic comedy since reminds us. At the time, Columbia was not a major film studio. In fact, most people working in the film industry referred to it as a Poverty Row operation. Frank Capra (1897-1991) had a knack for creating believable, memorable characters. It Happened One Night is not only one of Capra’s funniest and most enjoyable films, but also one of his greatest commercial and critical successes. Today, we remember Clark Gable (1901-1960) as the iconic, suave, rebel Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind (Victor Fleming 1939), but before making It Happened One Night, Gable was not the megastar that we think of today. Getting Gable was actually a stroke of luck for Capra and his relationship with Gable started off rough. Little did Gable know that the film would shoot him to superstardom. Unlike Gable, Claudette Colbert (1903-1996) was already a big box office draw going into It Happened One Night. She began her career in theater, and her verbal delivery allowed her to transition well into sound films Colbert turned out to be quite selective when it came to what she would and would not do in her performance. Many of the classic moments of the film, came as a result of Colbert refusing to do what was in the screenplay. Her reservations inspired Capra to create the whole Walls of Jericho concept. This little picture had surprised not only the critics, but also the people involved in its production. Production went very quickly and smoothly. From the start, the filmmakers had anticipated difficulty with the Production Code due to the innuendo and implied sexuality in the film. Film content standards were under heated debate at the time. In 1933, when the National Legion of Decency began, the Hays Office became the Production Code Administration, headed by Joseph Breen. Capra’s film not only had to pass inspection from these organizations, but from the internal studio censors as well. Though many see the Production Code as a hindrance, it forced Capra and his contemporaries to become more innovative and resourceful in their telling of a narrative.  Reception The reviews were overwhelmingly positive. With these reviews, we begin to see the development of the critical language used to analyze romantic comedies. Mordaunt Hall of the New York Times called it a “merry romance” and praised the performances of Colbert and Gable, as well as the fast pace of the writing. Boxoffice Magazine called it “hilarious”, praising Gable’s performance and noting the “Capra technique”, that is, his ability to get at the basic human nature inherent in every situation. The New Republic said, “Considering its subject, it is better than it has any right to be - better acted, better directed, better written…. The cast was particularly sound from top to bottom”. Variety said that it “proves two things. A clean story can be funnier than a dirty one and the best way to do a bus story is to make them get out and walk”. William Troy of The Nation stated, “Among the more gratifying phenomena of the current season has been the growing recognition of It Happened One Night… as one of the few potential classics of the recent cinema”. From these reviews we see distinct foci: the romance, the performers, the director, and the writing—indicating how the Screwball comedies became more of a collaborative effort than earlier comedies.By the time awards season came around, the film was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing (Adaptation), Best Actor, and Best Actress—winning all five. Over 75 years later, the reviews are still mostly positive. Interestingly, most reviewers still focus on the same aspects of the film as the contemporary reviewers, while some approach the film in the context of an early Capra success. Martha P. Nochimson of Senses of Cinema called it “Capra’s best film”. Bret McCabe of the Baltimore City Paper praised the performances, saying it “catches icons Gable and Colbert early enough in their careers where they let themselves be silly”. Still more reviewers praise the writing. Sukhdev Sandhu of The Telegraph stated, “it’s still witty and sophisticated today”. David Jenkins of TimeOut London Magazine said, “Every line of dialogue is calculated bliss”. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian described it as “buoyant and elegant as bubbles in a glass of champagne”. A couple reviewers addressed the social taboo that the film violated at the time. Dennis Schwartz of Ozus’ World Movie Reviews admitted that “In many ways it’s dated, but the comedy still works even if it’s probably not as madcap humorous as when it was first released” and Neil Smith of Total Film Magazine agreed “Tame by today’s standards,” but adding, “it’s worth remembering just how shocking a glimpse of Colbert’s car-halting stocking would have been in Depression-era America”. Tim Dirks of American Movie Classics Filmsite seems to be the only one to explore the deeper meaning in the film, “The escapist theme of the film, appropriate during the Depression Era”. He also describes it as “a reversal of the Cinderella story”. Derek M. Germano of the Cinema Laser summarized the film’s critical success.  Legacy Capra made It Happened One Night, but It Happened One Night made Capra the standout director that we remember today. He went on to make many successful films, comedies and dramas alike. Outside of the motion picture industry, the film inspired many cultural trends as well. In the hotel scene when Gable undresses, he found it too difficult to remove an undershirt while delivering all his snappy lines. His solution was to therefore not wear an undershirt. Consequently, undershirt sales in the United States dropped considerably. The importance of the bus trip in the film sparked a big interest in more bus travel.
The Screwball Comedy style of the film went on to inspire such comic gems as Howard Hawk’s His Girl Friday (1940), Preston Sturges’ The Lady Eve (1941), The Thin Man series, and George Cukor’s The Philadelphia Story (1940). It Happened One Night is significant in the study of film comedy not only as a film that has been recognized as one of the greatest screen comedies for nearly 80 years, but also as the only comedy film to win the top five Academy Awards as well as the National Board of Review award for Best Picture—awards for which most comedies were not even nominated.  Literature Many would find it odd to see Jane Austen (1775-1817) listed amongst the great creators of comedy, but here I present her as not only the first notable female writer of comedy, but also as someone who today scholars still discuss as one of the most frank and observant social critics. One would not seem to read Austen’s Pride and Prejudice or Sense and Sensibility in order to enjoy an elaborate farce, but by looking to the Medieval definition of comedy that describes comedy as a story with a happy ending, as in Dante, one can see that Austen’s novels end with the joyful union of lovers. Austen has the keen ability of capturing the humorous side of characters, as one would encounter it in everyday life. Austen acknowledged the necessity of comedy for a person’s feeling of well-being. Music In the time since Mozart, composers such as Gioachino Rossini (1792-1868; The Barber of Seville) and Gaetano Donizetti (1797-1848; Don Pasquale) succeeded him in the crafting of comic gems. Today, audiences everywhere are familiar with the music of Rossini, though they may not know it, for Bugs Bunny and the Looney Tunes appropriated much of it. As one can see through the Looney Tunes’ use of his music, Rossini’s operas present such a complete view of comedy. Not only are the libretti and situations humorous, the very quality of the music, with its twists and surprises, is comical. The prolific Gaetano Donizetti succeeded Rossini in the genre of Opera Buffa, crafting several successful examples of the form. One can see many of the gags known to slapstick films and the situations of the Screwball Comedies as being mainstays of Rossini and Donizetti’s operas.  The Victorian Era Few time periods in the history of the Western World have seemed to follow so many implied social rules than the Victorian Era. It was precisely for this reason that the Victorian Era needed comedy—something that can exist outside of social boundaries. While one would seem off base labeling Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities, and A Christmas Carol as comedies, one needs to note how Charles Dickens (1812-1870) does craft many rich comic characters and situations. Numerous critics and scholars praise Dickens for his humor. Early filmmakers, including D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein, who also theorized about effective filmmaking, often cited Dickens as a source of inspiration for the multifaceted structuring of narrative. Dickens demonstrated how the reader could experience concurrent action in a novel, a structure also possible in film, unlike live theatre. Comic filmmakers soon adopted the narrative techniques of Dickens as Griffith and Eisenstein had utilized them. In Dickens, we see comedy as a relief from the pains of life. Like Chaplin, Dickens grew up in poverty and felt a connection to the common people, pursuing comedy as a relief in the Medieval comedy, which also appears in Sullivan’s Travels (1942). Chaplin, Dickens, and (to a point) Sturges, were all populists who could approach social injustices through the lens of comedy. Like Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Mozart before him, Dickens created many rich comic characters. If laughter truly is a group activity, perhaps laughter allows the reader to affirm the comic character. Few authors would shape the philosophy of depression era filmmakers such as Chaplin and Sturges—working with urban settings—more so than Charles Dickens. Romantic Period When we move into the Romantic period of art, literature, theatre, and music, we find that, “Romantic dramatists preferred tragedy to comedy” (Ousby), which makes sense in an era of industrial change, war, social upheaval, scientific and medical discoveries, and changing national identities. If the reader considers that one of the elements of Romanticism, personal feelings and individuality, it is not surprising that comedy—which is an expressive form that is meant to be shared—should not catch the attention of Romantic critics. In music, it is interesting that of all of Bedrich Smetana’s opera works, it is the comedy for which he is remembered best. Comedy makes people feel good, and one can always remember the feeling that a comedy inspired. French composer Jacques Offenbach (1819-1880) held the world stage with a variety of comic operas. Offenbach was able to take the satire of Swift and mold it into a musical form. It is ironic that Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901), who began his career with a comedy—decided to end his career with a comedy as well. It is still performed today to enormous popularity.  Transitional Years Much like the case with Verdi, Giacomo Puccini (1858-1924) is known for his tragic operas. However, his Gianni Schicchi, based on a character from Dante, is a highly praised comic opera. Like Puccini’s skill in comedy as well as tragedy, some of the most notable comic filmmakers like Billy Wilder, W.S. Van Dyke, and George Cukor, could also succeed in non-comic genres. One only has to think of Double Indemnity (Wilder 1944), Tarzan the Ape Man (Van Dyke 1932), and Gaslight (Cukor 1944), to see this versatility in action.
The comic opera tradition continued with the works of three separate composers. In Vienna, Johann Strauss (1825-1899), “the Waltz King”, composed Die Fledermaus, with annual New Years performances still selling out fifteen years in advance, As we see with several film comedies like Chaplin’s City Lights (1931) or Wilder’s Some Like It Hot (1959), a comedy may be successful commercially and critically at its release and continue to be so. Often, as with Verdi’s Falstaff or Strauss’ Fledermaus, the appeal is partly due to the comic creators and performers’ existing reputations. In the United Kingdom, librettist William Gilbert (1836-1911) and composer Arthur Sullivan (1842-1900) collaborated on several comic operettas including The Pirates of Penzance, H.M.S. Pinafore, and The Mikado. In a similar way, American composer Victor Herbert created such comic operettas as Eileen, Naughty Marietta, and The Red Mill. In the realm of literature, Mark Twain (born Samuel Clemens; 1835-1910) is still one of the world’s most influential writers. Twain’s comic style relates to the social critique of Dickens and Chaplin, as well as to the satire of Swift. In a later work, The Mysterious Stranger: A Romance, Twain proclaimed the power of comedy. It is a terribly important fact for American film comedy that one of America’s greatest writers specialized in comedy, particularly the ability to observe the people and situations of everyday life. Part of the next generation after Mark Twain, composer/conductor John Philip Sousa (1854-1932) became quite a prolific writer of comic operettas, though today, the general public and most music historians remember Sousa as the “March King”. Sousa’s dream, in fact, had always been to be a musical theater composer, not a band conductor. Despite this, many music reference texts do not even mention Sousa’s operettas in his biographies. Sousa’s work on Our Flirtations and other arrangements made him well known in the music world. Sousa wrote nine comic operettas, however, Sousa’s operettas fell out of favor with audiences and critics just as silent film comedy was reaching the forefront of American popular entertainment and art. Many historians attribute the failure of his final show to the fact that it was the product of an era that had already passed in America, Sousa’s operettas and those like them still exerted an influence on the later anarchic sound comedies of W.C. Fields, Laurel and Hardy, The Marx Brothers, Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, and Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis—especially in the musical interludes of the latter three comedy teams. One should note how easily aspects of comic musical theater were absorbed into the comedy of the sound film. Electronic instruments are defined as instruments that use electricity to produce sound. This is different from electric guitar which uses electricity to amplify or modify sound. Although there were experiments before the 20th century, electronic instruments that still exist today started in the 20th century. ThereminThe first major electronic instrument was the Theremin. It was invented around 1920. It has two antennae on opposite ends. Without touching the instrument, the player uses their hands to manipulate the current between the antennae. One hand controls the pitch--how high or low the sound is while the other hand controls the dynamics--how loud or quiet the sound is. It is incredible to watch a Theremin player as they never actually touch the instrument. The theremin has been used in many science fiction soundtracks, think of Bernard Herrmann’s score for The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951).  Ondes MartenotThe Ondes Martenot was invented in 1928. This instrument is played with a keyboard, making it very accessible to keyboard players and able to easily play with music ensembles that rely on specific scales and key signatures. It has been used in pop music as well as film scores and classical music. The player can also manipulate the sound of the instrument using a metal ring on a curved wire. The next innovation in electronic instruments would be synthesizers.  Early SynthesizersThe first synthesizers were developed in the 1950s. The components of these instruments allowed players to creatively manipulate the sound. Like the Ondes Martenot, a keyboard controlled the pitch of the instrument, while other aspects of the sound could be controlled by other buttons and knobs. Similar to early computers, the first synthesizers were so large that they were not portable and only could be used in the recording studio. If you look at liner notes from the 70s and 80s, there are often several technicians listed under Synthesizer Programming.  In the 1970s, synthesizers became more compact. The Minimoog named after creator Robert Moog became very popular. These portable synthesizers were monophonic, meaning they could only play one note at a time. This made the synthesizers good for solos or to add a layer on top of other instruments but they could not function as a harmony instrument like guitar or piano. Monophonic sounds limiting, but wind instruments like flutes, saxophones, and trumpets are also monophonic.  By the mid-1970s polyphonic synthesizers were developed. These newer instruments could play more than one note at a time, meaning they could play chords. Once we get to the 1980s, synthesizers became common in many styles of music, sometimes even replacing the dominance of the electric guitar in pop music. Digital Synthesis and MIDI Also in the 1980s, synthesizers became digital, meaning that the instruments could communicate with computers. The technology that allows computers and instruments to communicate is called MIDI- Musical Instrument Digital Interface and it has remained relatively unchanged for 40 years. When recording with MIDI, every aspect of the sound played becomes information-- the length of each note, how loud it was played, the key on the keyboard, etc. This also means that notes played into the computer can be manipulated after recording. Unlike when recording in audio, you can record a section of MIDI and completely mess up while recording, but you do not have to delete it and try another take because you can move any note to the correct pitch and drag notes to the correct parts of the beat.  Beyond keyboard-style MIDI controllers, there are controllers that resemble wind instruments, guitars, and simple boards with pads on them. It is important to note that some MIDI controllers do not produce any sound on their own, they simply send data--information to a computer and the sound comes from software inside the computer.
This also means that the MIDI controller can create musical information for sounds outside of the keyboard family. A MIDI controller can be used to play synthesized or sampled sounds of hundreds of different instruments. Synthesized means it is an approximation of an instrument sound. This is what is found in most affordable electric keyboards. Sampled instruments are created from the recorded sounds or samples of actual instruments. Instruments are recorded playing every note in their range at different dynamics and articulations. Then, software programmers allow the instrument to be played using a MIDI controller. Based on the information played into the computer, the results can be very realistic. It is interesting how the history of electronic instruments has gone from musicians seeking alternatives to traditional instrument sounds that could not be created without electricity to trying to reproduce the exact sounds of these traditional instruments. Did I leave out an electronic instrument that you like? Please let me know!  Traditionally, elementary school music students were not introduced to writing their own music until after several years of studying the fundamentals. In terms of some skills, that makes sense. Students learn how to add numbers before they learn how to multiply numbers. On the other hand, think about how students are encouraged to create their own stories before they know how to spell every word or write a complete sentence. Also, think about how students explore working with colors before they know warm or cool colors or can even name all their colors. There is no risk to having students experiment with creating their own music. There are also ways to make the experience frustration-free and enjoyable. Approaching the concept by way of an activity or process instead of a theory can help make composition an engaging time for students. An easy beginner lesson for composing is to encourage students to create a variation on an existing idea. They could use percussion instruments to change a rhythm the way they would like it, they could take a limited number of notes (like B, A, G on recorder) and write a melody using just those notes, or they could sing a new melody to the same text.  Once students feel comfortable creating new music using variations, the teacher can extend the parameters to give the students more freedom. For example, the student could have more notes as choices but use the same rhythm. Another idea would be to give the students a box of different rhythm types that they can use in their creation. As students’ confidence and abilities grow, the parameters can change. Students can practice writing music as they learn about different styles, composers, and cultural traditions. For example, a student might be challenged to write something to sound like Disco, Duke Ellington, or Samba music. If more advanced students have an understanding of chords and harmony, students can be asked to fit their music to existing chord progressions. Putting parameters on a student’s focus can be very helpful, but if a student wants to push the boundaries, that is awesome and that should be encouraged.  As with many skills and concepts, technology can be a wonderful tool to encourage creativity. GarageBand is one program that I have used with my students to explore composition. The great thing about the program is that students can play their own notes into the timeline or drag and drop already written loops. The only downside to GarageBand is that it is only available for Apple products. So if your students use MacBooks or iPads, it can be downloaded for free.
For schools that use Chromebooks or Windows-based devices, Garageband is not available. The best alternative I would suggest is a cloud-based (online) program called Soundtrap. It is free with limitations or you can get the full version for a fee per student. Like Garageband, it has some pre-written loops that students can drag and drop or students can input their own sounds. It does not have the functionality of Garageband, but in my view is the best alternative for non-Apple devices. Teaching students to write their own music should be a joyful activity for teacher and student. Creativity can be an exciting feeling and students of all ages will be very proud to share what they have made.  That is an excellent question! When you look at them, they are about the same shape. There are even bass practice amps that are smaller than guitar amps. What is the difference and why are guitar and bass amps different? Amps can be really complicated but at a basic level there are two ideas driving amps--size and power level.  SizeSize-- Although we cannot see them, except when they make liquids move (like the cup of water when T-Rex approaches in Jurassic Park) sound waves have size. Pitch, or how high or low a sound is, is determined by how close together or far apart the crest of one wave is to the crest of the next wave. Higher pitched sounds are closer together and lower pitched sounds are more spread out. For guitar, most of the sound waves it produces would be measured from a several hundred millimeters to a few centimeters. Bass notes, on the other hand, are most often measured in meters. In order to produce such large sound waves successfully, bass amps require larger speaker cones or several different sized cones for different frequency ranges. In terms of size, bass amps are most likely going to be larger overall than guitar amps. However it is the size of the speaker cone inside the amp and not the overall dimensions of the outside, what we call the cabinet. Thinking about the size of sound waves, using a bass amp for a regular guitar would mean that the higher pitches would not sound as good as if they were from a guitar amp with smaller speaker cones. Likewise, playing a bass with a regular guitar amp would mean that the lowest notes would not sound as good (or not sound at all) than if it were played on a bass amp.  Power The second layer of how amps work involves the amount of power it can output. More or less power equates to how loud the amp can get, but the size of the sound waves or frequency, also changes how much power is needed. Remember sound waves? The height of the wave is how loud or quiet the sound is. On average, the very low bass notes require more power output than higher notes played at the same volume. This means that a bass amp playing at the same perceived loudness as a guitar amp would need more wattage. It’s also the power idea that makes selecting the correct amp important as using an amp at a loud volume with an instrument that it is not designed for can eventually damage the amp. But how can I tell which amp is which? Here’s a hint- they usually are labelled somewhere on the unit. If you do not see the word “guitar” or “bass” on the amp, find the make and model number name/number and look it up. Google should be able to tell you. Another difference between guitar and bass amps that is more subtle has to do with the EQ settings available or rather the focus of these settings. In order to understand the purpose of them, first we need to understand how instrument pitches work.  Every note has a main frequency (sound wave shape) that gives it the pitch-- we call this the fundamental pitch. But fitting within that wave are other related waves. These other waves are called overtones. While the fundamental pitch is what gives the note its letter name, it is these overtones that give the note its quality of sounding like a bass guitar and not a piano, tuba or other low instrument playing the same pitch. The EQ settings on an amp are obviously not going to make a bass turn into a tuba, but it can enhance or repress certain overtones so that different frequency ranges (sound wave sizes) are brought out. Going back to the sound wave sizes, the low, medium, and high frequency ranges for a bass is going to be different than the low, medium, and high frequency ranges for a regular guitar. Meaning that the medium knob on a guitar amp will not affect the same frequency range as the medium knob on a bass amp.  Guitarists are notorious for chasing the perfect tone with complete pedal boards to assist in that process. Often the focus for bass is more on defining the fundamental and how tight or reverberant the player wants that sound. For a bass, lower EQ boosts would give it more power and depth whereas higher EQ boosts would give the notes more clarity.
Hopefully this post has not confused you more. You should be glad I did not talk about keyboard amps and how they have to work for a wider frequency range than either bass or guitar amps. Unlike many products that are simply marketing gimmicks, bass and guitar amps are two separate products that serve different needs. Please let me know if you have questions! 5/17/2021 0 Comments Profile- The Ladykillers (1955) Context American movies dominated the motion picture market of the English-speaking world for most of the Twentieth Century. In order to fully understand the ability of British comedies to succeed globally in the 1950s, one must first understand the situation in the United States at the time. First, with the American film industry during much of the 1950s living in fear of the Communism investigations by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, comedy, as the most subversive of all film genres and the most critical of the status quo, stood the most to lose. Second, when television became extremely popular in the 1950s, it welcomed tamer comedians such as Lucille Ball, Jackie Gleason, Red Skelton, Jack Benny, and Sid Caesar. Third, as a reaction to the popularity of television, film studios attempted to win back audiences with big-budget, widescreen epics, featuring grand, dramatic subjects. Of course, most comedy was not well suited to this sort of exhibition. The fourth reason that we do not see much pure comedy film in the 1950s is because so much of the comedy of the time appeared in the form of musical comedy. Unlike comedies with musical interludes, like many of the Marx Brothers’ pictures, the musical numbers in a musical comedy are part of the action—in fact, they drive the narrative. While the Marx Brothers could perform a song as a mere aside, the characters in a musical share their thoughts, feelings, motivations, plans, and reveal plot points through song within the scope of the narrative. Comic stars such as Gene Kelly, Danny Kaye, Bob Hope, and Bing Crosby featured most of their work in the form of musicals. Even most of the films of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis are arguably musical comedies. With American film focused elsewhere, other English language comedies could arise. England’s Ealing Studios, under the direction of Michael Balcon, first excelled in the field of documentaries before Balcon realized that British comedies could carve their own niche in the international film market. The most significant performer at Ealing studios was Alec Guinness, who starred in what are today considered Ealing’s greatest comedies, Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer 1949), The Lavender Hill Mob (Charles Crichton 1951), The Man in the White Suit (Alexander Mackendrick 1951), and The Ladykillers (Mackendrick 1955). Today, when film historians write about British film comedies of the 1950s, most likely they are speaking of the Ealing comedies, which set the tone for later British comedies. Sir Alec Guinness (1914-2000) was one of the Twentieth Century’s most versatile actors. He began his career on stage and appeared in dozens of plays throughout England, transitioning to mainstream film in the 1940s, although he never left the theatre. In 1946, Guinness first worked with director David Lean on Great Expectations, resulting in a nearly 40 year collaboration with director Lean in such notable films as Oliver Twist (1948), The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Doctor Zhivago (1965), and A Passage To India (1984). Later in his career, his portrayal of Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi in George Lucas’ Star Wars saga brought him millions of more fans from younger generations. Guinness brought experience to the cast of Star Wars as the most respected actor involved in the production at the time. Throughout his career, Guinness demonstrated that an actor did not need to specialize in comedy or drama in order to achieve success—indeed, his comic knack for timing complemented his dramatic sense of character study.  Reception The Ladykillers was a commercial hit across the world. Most critics’ reviews at the time were favorable, though many agree that the film has several flaws, of which the reader will soon learn. Variety liked the picture, especially the cast, “Cecil Parker strikes just the right note as a conman posing as an army officer. Herbert Lom broods gloomily as the most ruthless of the plotters, with Peter Sellers contrasting well…. Danny Green completes the quintet”, although the reviewer felt that “Guinness tends to overact the sinister leader”, apparently unaware of the Principle of Comic Logic, particularly the quality of exaggeration. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times called the film a success, also praising the cast, especially Johnson, “a performer who does one of the nicest bits of character acting you could ask for at any time”. He adds however that he felt it was “slightly labored. Perhaps it does have the air of an initially brilliant inspiration that has not worked out as easily as it seemed it should” and that “Michael Balcon’s production in color gives the whole thing a slightly garish look that is not wholly consistent with the humor”—once again supporting the argument that the praised technology of the time, particularly full-color presentations, did not always serve comedy film well. Andrew C. Mayer of The Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television, an American trade publication, was more critical of the film than his contemporaries, stating it “takes itself a little too seriously…. The film is therefore necessarily miscast because it is badly conceived; but it does have its humorous moments”. He was especially critical of Guinness, “in his new role he is far less attractive; in all his previous performances he was, basically, a sympathetic character who occasionally got away with murder, or some lesser offense…. The lighthearted quality of Guinness' early pictures is gone”, overlooking Guinness’ preference for playing a broad array of characters in his career. I believe that Mayer misses the distinctly British qualities of its humor—the understated manner and utterly serious delivery. Recent reviews have been more favorable than the contemporary reviews. In 2002, Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian (London) called it “Subversive, hilarious and more English than Elgar, though written by the American expatriate William Rose, this is one of director Alexander Mackendrick’s masterpieces and a major jewel in the Ealing Studios canon”. Adrian Hennigan of the BBC described it as a “wonderfully macabre black comedy that really does improve with age”. Hennigan praised the cast saying, “Guinness delivers a typically mesmerising performance…. While Guinness’ teeth could have won a best supporting actor award in their own right, every performance shines through in smog-filled London”. It is important to note that these two domestic reviewers give the film more praise than the following American reviewers, who come from a different cultural background and experience of comedy. While James Kendrick of QNetwork called it “very much a stagy production”, he adds, “it is still one of the funniest and most wicked British comedies ever made”. As with any film, there are of course reviewers that find it flawed. Many such critics note how Mrs. Wilberforce seems almost too oblivious throughout the picture—not acknowledging how she follows the absentminded quality of the Principle of Comic Sense. Although he liked the film, Clark Douglas of DVD Verdict did say, “The film’s premise is honestly a little bit thin”. Dennis Schwartz of Ozus’ World Movie Reviews agreed, adding that the film is “Always witty but never fully believable (it takes a lot of crafty writing and smart acting to make the flawed plot line so workable)”. The worst review comes from Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com, who gave it 3 out of 5 stars in a 2004 review. In the review, he said, “As black comedies go, The Ladykillers is neither terribly black nor terribly comedic”. It is important to note that, unlike many other British comedies, reviewers from both the United Kingdom and the United States seemed to agree on many aspects of the film.  Legacy Around the time of Ealing Studios’ 100th Anniversary in 2002, James Christopher of The London Times called it “THE finest Ealing comedy…. The humour is so dark, steely, and polished that it slides through the drama like a knife”.
In the liner notes to the 2002 DVD of the film, filmmaker Rand Vossler describes the appeal of the comedy, “Mackendrick deftly handles Rose’s masterful script that derives most of its humor by contrasting the callousness of the thugs with the polite Victorian sensibilities of their landlady and her circle of friends”. The addition of The Ladykillers to the canon of British motion pictures added not only to the prestige of British comedy worldwide, but of British film in general. |