Pattullo brings up a very interesting comparison that seems so very relevant to our class discussions about the integration of spectacle and narrative.  While I am no expert on musicals, Gene Kelley, or Busby Berkeley, the works that I have seen from both choreographers and Pattullo’s descriptions were very helpful in visualizing and analyzing Pattullo’s point.

When it comes to the integration of spectacle into the narrative of a film we have already examined how the two started off as very separate concepts that began to work together more and more during the evolution of early cinema.  A common occurrence that we have seen in many of our screenings so far are elements of spectacle and astonishment loosely connected by a narrative.  This is seen when comedic bits or special effects have a spectacle all on their own but are strung together by a narrative.  While I would not simplify the works of Berkeley to such an extreme, this is closer to how I would describe his show-within-a-show, “backstage” musical.  Musical numbers are choreographed and stand on their own, and often times take place on a stage our in a studio.  The audience gets hooked in to the story and a feeling of participation because of their behind-the-scenes point of view.  They then feel more active when the numbers are performed, almost as if the spectacle that is being presented had something to do with them.  This effect is one that could only work in the aggregated style of spectacle and narrative that Berkeley uses.

Gene Kelley on the other hand worked harder to make the spectacle of the musical numbers come about smoothly and organically within the narrative.  This allows the characters to actually further the narrative with their dancing, and to express strong emotion through spectacle.  While this is a very strong approach and one that works well within Hollywood, it does not necessarily have the same audience participation effect.  I am excited to watch “Singing in the Rain!”