I sometimes feel that cinema has forgotten how to listen to itself, losing silence the way old cities lose stars in the haze of neon. The history of it aches like an old violin string snapped and left to curl against the dusty floorboards of a theatre long emptied by progress and promise and the ceaseless hunt for the next thrill of a strange invention.
Once, film shimmered mute, mouth moving in luminous astonishment while behind the velvet curtain (or at the corner of the orchestra pit, or with trembling fingers at a sad little piano), music and murmur painted feeling without needing a voice. Silence was vast as the white between notes, intimate as hearing someone breathe before they speak. The screen asked us to listen with our eyes, what a faith, what an intimacy, what a terror, to attend so closely that even the flicker of an eyelid became a kind of thunder.
Those early audiences, how they must have leaned forward, half afraid to blink lest the moment pass. A single tear on a pale cheek could stretch across the soul like a coastline, mapped by light and shadow alone. A raised brow, a trembling hand, the space between two glances, these were volumes, orchestras, earthshakes. They spoke without speaking, and we learned, for a brief and fragile era, to hear images as if they carried the pulse of thought itself. Silence was cinema’s grammar, and the world sat hushed in darkened rooms, translating.
But history, as always, promises progress while stealing subtlety. The noise came in with the Vitaphone’s brassy mechanical heartbeat, with actors summoned to speak and sound engineers hammering away at the edges of film’s soul.
Suddenly, the story was punctuated with speech, clatter, music, effects, the world itself pushing up against the fragile envelope of silence like a crowd jostling at the gates of attention. The advent of speech was a miracle, yes, but a noisy miracle, one that crowded the still spaces where wonder once nested softly, unnoticed. Every advance in sound felt like a triumph, yet each new triumph pressed silence further into the margins, the way progress so often bulldozes the very beauty it claims to perfect.
Then came the decades of expansion, surround sound like waves slamming against the ear, Dolby, DTS, compression and explosion, until the theatre sat full with clamour, more real than memory, dialogue more incessant than birdsong, a thousand layers of digital breath crowding out the hush that once haunted celluloid like ghost-light. We have built cathedrals of sound- enormous, but the silence within them is small now, thin as thread, a single candle burning in a hurricane of orchestration. Directors fear stillness like a void, as though audience minds will wander if the air is allowed to breathe. They forget that wandering is sometimes the very purpose. The film does not end on the screen; it continues in us.
Perhaps I am being unfair, or nostalgic, or both. The present always looks vulgar under the candlelight of the past. But even so, doesn’t something feel lost? Once we entered the cinema to dream together in the dark, a collective hallucination of light and reticence. Now we go to be shouted at by images that do not wait for us to think. There is no space between frames, no breath between scenes. The rhythm of modern films mimics the heart of a man running from himself. (And perhaps he is, for what else is our century but a long escape from inwardness?)
Sound, when it arrived, was supposed to liberate. Instead, it enslaved the image. The human voice, that tender impostor, began to dominate the screen, claiming authority it could never earn. Suddenly, gesture became secondary, composition ornamental. The poet in cinema was exiled. The narrator, the informer and the advertiser took their place. Think of certain talky biopics where every feeling arrives pre‑packaged as speech, compared to a silent scene in Sunrise where the wife stands alone in the marsh, and you understand her terror without a word.
Sometimes the faces arrive before the arguments. Falconetti’s eyes, for instance, that wet, terrified oval Dreyer nailed to the screen as if he wanted to crucify expression itself, and it’s funny (not funny) how you can still feel the room around her being quiet, even now, as if every future explosion and quip and Dolby roar were ashamed to stand too close to that much exposed silence. Somewhere else, Chaplin is offering a flower in City Lights, the city supposedly “silent” but really full of ghost‑music and shuffled feet, and yet what you hear most is the space between his hope and her blindness, a kind of noiseless impact that no sound designer has ever quite managed to imitate.
And then, in some other reel running parallel in time, Murnau lets a man and his wife cross a fog in Sunrise, their guilt and forgiveness written only in the way their bodies lean toward or away from each other, no violin yet stapled permanently to their sorrow, only the provisional accompaniment of a pianist in a small town who might be drunk that night, or heartbroken, or bored, and so the scene changes flavour with every screening though the images stay the same.
Later, though “later” never really arrives in a straight line, a man on a screen in 1927 leans into the dark and grins. This is Al Jolson, in a film called ‘The Jazz Singer’.
The first big American “talking picture” that mixed silent images with recorded songs and bits of spoken dialogue and he brags to the audience that they “ain’t heard nothing yet.” He is half a vaudeville clown, half a prophet who doesn’t know his own curse, because from that moment on, the whole medium will spend a century proving him right, pouring sound into every crack of itself until even the silences start to ring a little, like ears that have stood too long next to a speaker.
Voices arrive first, then orchestras are glued directly onto the film strip, then come the surround‑sound tempests: Francis Ford Coppola sending helicopters and Wagner screaming over the jungle in ‘Apocalypse Now’, British‑born director Christopher Nolan later building collapsing cities and ticking timebomb soundtracks in films like ‘Inception’ and ‘Dunkirk’, until the theatre feels less like a room and more like a storm that happens to have chairs.
And Ingmar Bergman, the Swedish director who loved to stare directly at the human face, presses two women together in Persona so closely that their half‑spoken words almost vanish, what really fills the frame is the wordless tension between them, a heavy, unspeaking presence that sits in the room like a third person no one can name, and you feel, watching it, that the silence itself is finally being allowed to speak.
And somewhere very far from all this (or perhaps right next to it), a modern blockbuster will throw another wall of brass and drums at a perfectly ordinary conversation in a café, afraid that if the score shuts up for a second, we might remember there is a gap between us and the screen, a distance alive with doubt.
It is not that noise has no beauty, Apocalypse Now’s helicopters circling your skull like mechanical vultures have their own terrible music, but that so few of these films trust what Dreyer trusted when he stared into Joan’s ruined face, or what Buster Keaton trusted when he let his stone expression do an entire monologue without moving his mouth: that sometimes the most honest thing an image can do is hold still and endure the sound of its own breathing.
To say this is not to condemn the miracle of sound itself, only to mourn what it erased. There was a purity in watching a character speak without hearing them. It forced one to invent, to imagine the inner sound of their silence, as one imagines the sound of a painting or the taste of a colour. We became collaborators in meaning, inventors of emotion. A silent film was half unfinished until we felt something inside us complete the sentence left unsaid. But now cinema finishes every sentence for us. It is generous, almost too generous, and that is its poverty.
I sometimes imagine the future of film as a vast, glowing storm of sounds, machines talking to machines, voices layered over themselves until language dissolves into a kind of industrial chant. In that future, perhaps silence will return, not as nostalgia, but as rebellion. The refusal to speak may again become a way of saying everything. (A child in a crowded world covers his ears, not because he hates sound, but because meaning has been drowned in it.)
The cruelty lies in how easily we mistake noise for presence. Something blares, and we feel we are alive. The more cinema imitates the external world, the more it forgets the interior one. There is too much air now between the heart and the screen, filled with chatter that pretends to be art. I long for that older strangeness, when meaning flickered without explanation, when light itself was the language, and silence the verse no one dared to finish.
If cinema is losing silence, perhaps it is because we, too, have forgotten how to live within it.
There remains, however, one fragile hope. Art, no matter how smothered by progress, sometimes returns to its origin out of sheer exhaustion. When the noise grows unbearable, when every story has shouted itself hoarse, perhaps we will once again sit in the dark and let the images breathe. Perhaps silence will rise again as necessity, as the last defense of a listening soul. For everything, every machine, every civilization, every century, eventually goes deaf from its own music. And then, only then, does it learn to hear again.
Let us know your thoughts. If you have burning thoughts or opinions to express, please feel free to reach out to us at larra@globalindiannetwork.com.
