changing the way you think

overall i have found it very hard to change the way that i watch movies. i am so used to just watching the movie to get the story/plot out of it. so needless to say it has been very hard to change the way that i have been trained to watch films my whole life. But even before this class i had been particularly adept to finding little idiosyncrasies in films that many people would just pass over. For example when something is overdubbed it sticks out to me like a sore thumb. So I would say that i am pretty good at noticing little things in films. But I have found it particularly challenging to turn off the enjoyment part of my movie watching and to turn on the analysis part of my movie watching. But as time goes on it gets slightly better. I just hope that at the end of the semester that this situation won't be the other way around and that i will constantly be stuck in the analysis mode, but I think that this may also help me get more out of my movie watching experiences. To be able to look a little further into the choices that the creators made in order to construct a piece as a whole.

Did You Hear That?

Although many silent films were very good, there is no denying the hugely positive effect the addition of sound has had on cinema. In terms of cinema, I can talk about the visual and sound elements separately. But, when it comes down to the final product, audio and visual fuse to become "The Audio Visual Contract!” This relation between visual images and audio created a completely new realm of artistic and creative possibilities. I believe that sound completely changed film making. The addition of sound didn’t just change the way movies are made, it sparked a complete cinema evolution. The way we approach creating or even experiencing cinema is now totally different and I believe it is for the best.

Sound allows film creators to achieve all whole new level of realism and immersion in their works. Sound also completely changed the anatomy of the film "Frame". Sound adds another dimension by creating space and places off screen which are just as real to the viewer as those on screen. Sound doesn’t just add value to visual images; it also allows for much more effective use of visual images. For instance, sound can be used to connect or relate many different visual stimuli when used in a montage. A montage without sound would be confusing, disconnected, and scattered. The positive impacts of sound on cinema go on and on, unfortunately, I am much too sick to continue typing and going to go to bed. After playing a little spore o_O!

positive addition of sound

one film in particular that i think of in which sound was added in a positive way is Punch Drunk Love. throughout the entire film there are transitional shots of morphing color with sound that accompanies them to set an almost eerie but peaceful mood. The music of the film fits the overall mood of the film very well I think too. While much of the movie is kind of shocking and somewhat disturbing. they keep the overall calm and happy feeling of the film with the music and then change it up when you see bits of color. Some of the other music of the film, comes from an organ that Adam Sandler's character finds by his shop. The resulting "music" or tones that come from this organ seem to go along with with the his characters personality. Very timid and demure but when messed with can become very harsh and surprising. I think that overall the creators did a great job in deciding the tone of the film and getting and creating sounds that would go along with that mood.

The Sound of Space

I guess I really don't have any statements I think I can make in this blog but I do have a lot of questions. Why are there so many sound effects that occur in space? Everything from laser blasts, explosions to even spaceships moving has some kind of corresponding sound effect. I’ve never understood the overlying need for sound engineers or directors to animate space with sound.
I suppose it could be seen as a way to drive the actions or plot. Or perhaps it is meant to prevent the audience from feeling uneasy or anxious as cutting to a scene without a lack of audio is very jarring. It still seems disingenuous to me to place sound into a scene in which there naturally is not any sound.
What is really interesting is there is sound in space, such as, celestial objects that emit waves that can be interpreted via sound instead of graphs. In fact, every planet (or dwarf planet) emits a unique sound. I was hoping to find a link of an example but apparently I am failing at searching right now.

Let there be sound!

I believe that the addition of sound to cinema was inevitable. To believe that the visual medium of film would remain separate from sound while trying to convey a sense of reality is nonsense. How can the audience be immersed in the cinematic reality when an entire sense is denied? Well, I’ll move on to the bulk of the blog now although I guess I gave my views away already.
I, also, think that the addition of audio to films was a positive step in film history. Audio replaced the old text stills that were common of early era cinema. These stills were a clumsy way to handle a lack of dialogue and sound effects and, in a way, a clumsy way to handle plot. As I stated early, it caused films to be less engrossing as the audience would have to view abrupt cuts to text stills and back again.
I do appreciate the skills of silent film stars, however. Without audio, stars were forced to perform purely visually, as such; their theatric skills were greatly needed. With the addition of audio, actors perform both visually and aurally and, as some people believe; this dividing of an actor’s attention causes a loss of performance in either aspect. Any halving of an actor’s attention is also the halving of an actor’s burden. No longer are actors required to convey emotion, or drive plot purely through motion.

A Clash of Sounds

As I was watching XXX: State of the Union I couldn't help but notice how well they managed to contrast the music of the film. For the most part, the soundtrack is filled with rap songs that fit the mood of the film which is basically action and additude. Except for the scene at fancy party accompanied by a upbeat string group. The music in this section still matches the feel of the film incredibly well, but is missing from the original soundtrack and is basic the direct opposite of everything heard prior to it in the film. I just thougt that it was interesting.

Cinema Without Sound

I can't really say that I disagreed with the readings or that I really agreed with them either mostly because I'm really not all that clear on the definition of Montage. As far as I am concerned movies without sound are, well to put it kindly, Boring. I’ve spent the last three days watching the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. One very long movie per night makes for lots of sound.

Let me tell you I think I’ve found the greatest way to watch horror and suspense films… without sound. Ironically the idea of being eaten alive by a gigantic spider is not nearly as scary when you can’t hear what it sounds like. Unfortunately, when you play the scene where Frodo is being stalked and chased by the spider, including the part where it’s dragging him away and Sam saves the day it’s definitely an experience that leads to nightmares. So not something I want to dream about.

I think that the idea of sound taking away from film may apply toward the effort put forth to make thing interesting in the acting of early films, but the films of today seem to be missing something without the sound to accompany them.

Spore vs. Everything Else

Dilemma?  I think so.

I was futzing around the internet the other day when I remember my roommates staring at one of their computer screens in awe of this new game that was in the making or has already come out- I haven't read far enough into it to figure it out.  Although I did watch the 35 minute video that accompanied it.

Spore Video in its entirety.

I thought it was pretty ingenious.  It has less to do with sound however than this class may demand, but hey, it's pretty damn cool.

I wonder though how someone actually thinks of this stuff.  At what point does detail keep a system like this from being complete?  For example- the sound in the game seems to lack something in quality from what we can tell.  It is more 'cartoony' than I would really like, but then again, I'm a 23 year old talking about video games.  Brings up another question- how old is too old to marvel at what is now possible with these gaming consoles.  I would say: dead.  You're never too old.

It makes me wonder if someone will take any charge of a music program that runs under the processor of one of these new consoles?  Integrating the controllability of the 'game' aspect and the randomness of the impossibility to be absolutely accurate with the interfaces that are currently present.

(I am mixing the line between pc games and console games at this point- but all the same)

What are some of the interesting ways a graphic interface in a game could lead to new ways of creating sound or music?  If you look at all the controls that are evident in this 'Spore' game- you would think that there would be some demand for something like it.

But yes.  Just a simple plug for the game.  And possibly for anyone who writes code for a major video game company to make a game that is solely for making music and different sounds.

Gurney to the Centaur of the Girth

This last weekend I went to see "Journey to the Center of the Earth" in 3-D at our local movie theatre. My experience with this film was... weird, intense, disappointing, and difficult. Imagine being unrelentingly visually stimuli zed in the most profoundly unnecessary, mind blowing ways, by the worst writing and acting you've seen, maybe ever. This film was very awkward to me. The 3-D visuals could be mind blowingly intense, but felt very cheap and almost dirty at times. I guess I’m trying to say that the movie relied very heavily on cheap 3-D thrills and very little on anything else. The plot was disappointingly predictable and the writing was... painful. It hurt to watch Brendan Fraser. The sound in this movie was a lot like the father of the young boy protagonist. It died some time before the movie started. I feel like the sound editing for this movie was completed in a day or two. For what they had to show, if it took any longer the sound guys were just wasting their time. That might be unfair to say, its understandable that they could have been rushed or over budget, but my twelve dollar ticket was over budget and i was expecting a little more. As a sound and cinema student, I spent the majority of the movie straining for some kind of innovative or at least remotely interesting audio experience but found nothing. There was the sound of the actors voices (which could have been dubbed over with electronic trance music, and the movie would have been way better, in my opinion.) Then there was the "suspenseful" orchestral action music, I would explain it further, but you have heard the same score hundreds of times, there is no need. As far as diagetic sound, there was surprisingly little more than what I would consider the bare minimum. Footsteps made noise occasionally and the T-Rex was really loud, I remember that. Getting back to the subject of their disregard for creative license, a T-Rex? Come on people. How many times have we done the T-Rex? I don’t even think I'm afraid of the T-Rex anymore. Apparently it can only run, almost as fast as Brendan Fraser. I would have liked to see some raptors perhaps. With some real spooky non-diagetic raptor noises, creeping around off-screen. Where is Spielberg when you need him? On second thought, Raptors in 3-D might not be a good idea. Nobody would go to that movie, out of fear. I’m not sad that I watched this move, I’m sad that somebody worked really hard on this movie. There is no doubt that my eyes were visually molested, and I can’t deny that I liked it just a little. But my ears seemed forgotten, as if the director didn’t love them. This made me sad as well. I did score some sweet 3-D glasses though ("score"/ "run out the door with"). I was hoping that outside the theatre they would see in four dimensions, no such luck. I also left the theatre with some very interesting questions.

1. Does a 3-D movie require more of sound in order to satisfy?
2. What type of sound techniques exist or could come to exist because of this genre? (diffusion, radial spatialization)
3. Do people think Brendan Fraser is a good actor?
4. And finally, is Jules Verne Spinning clockwise or counter clockwise, in his grave? Keep in mind that magnetic polarity is reverse in the center of the earth.

Oblivious

I think we are oblivious to sound in movies as a society.  The sound come from the screen we say.  It represents what actual sounds are being presented on the screen.  Right?  That's what the moviemakers are meaning to show us.  Right?

So it seems.  When the question of "how has the addition of sound affected cinema" comes up, it is hard to place all the answers into one distinct category.  What is considered cinema?  All movies?  Just artful films?  What makes it artful?  We come back around to the differences we face deciding what art is as a culture or within a given society (ours for example)[implying we are from the same society]{how ethnocentric of me}.  But still it raises the same quandary about what we are initially talking about.  I'll separate it out into two forms:

1) Mainstream Hollywood Style Films.

      Blockbusters.  Big money films that have actors we have seen over and over again.

2) Indie movies, Artistic cinema, and everything betwixt these categories.

      That should about cover it.

The reason I make a distinction from 'everything else' and 'hollywood' is the intention(s) of the film.  I see Hollywood going mainly for a product that is enjoyable, but is still nonetheless mass produced.  And although some films in the "2" category could be placed in this list by rebutting naysayers, let's keep the main purpose of the film in mind.

The second category, in my mind, has a main purpose of presenting ideas or meaning through the medium.  There are going to be similarities in the way they are presented, items 1 and 2 that is, but that is probably due to the familiarity of seeing things, places, colors- all the elements that make up movies/cinema period.  Without them you not watching anything in the first place.  I digress.

So back to the main question, altered to make answering more clear to what direction my opinions flow: Is it good or bad that sound was added to cinema?

Both.  It has forever changed the palette of options for option 2 to convey meaning and shape the images through the audiovisual contract.  So that's good right?  Yeah.  Those who want to not use it are not forced to.  It has just become a custom to the majority.

Mainstream cinema as it is today would have probably never had been born if not for the bustling sounds accompanying the sights we see on the screen.  So if you like action thrillers or sci-fi odysseys- you would probably agree with me that sound has propelled this industry to the hight of entertainment.  That's good in some ways right?  Aside from overcharging to see these movies.

The downside:  Now that this option has been presented- like many options, some may use it for good, some may use it for evil.  Some movies just don't hit the mark.  They are almost satirical compared to more meaningful works, but just like in real life- some people like these too.  So even the downside has it's perks right?

So getting to the end of the horse, I think that the integration of sound to ANY sort of film has been positive.  It all comes down to the choices that are made when creating the film that effect the likability or the hatefulness of a film- not inherently in the sound.

GO SOUND!! WOO!!

music is the soundtrack of life

I was watching a movie the other day that the title slips my memory. i just know it has Edward Norton in it and has something to do with a priest and a rabbi. (i know it sounds like the start to a bad joke, but thats what tivo had as the description) I figured out the name of the movie thanks to IMDB. Its called Keeping the Faith. Anyway there was a scene in the movie that some would call a montage but i think it was much different than that. This scene wasn't just clips of different events with some inspirational music in the background. The music of this "montage" was very empethetic, in that the lyrics of the song actually were describing alot of the things that were goin on in the scenes. In some of the scenes you see people talking but there is no sound of the conversations, just the music. I found this to be extremely effective in portraying alot of hidden emotions of the characters with out just coming out and explaining it. The producers could have just come up with some cheesy montage with just another song that would not have actually given any support to the plot, but they actually put some thought into which song they picked and made an incredibly effective scene.

Nothing To Listen To

So, here is what my Saturday night movie fest consisted of, let’s see…. 27 Dresses was probably my favorite, it had decent a sound track and supporting sound effects , over all the sounds were empathic to what was happening on screen although to be honest I was kind of sucked into the film, I’m a sucker for romantic comedies.

Over Her Dead Body was about the same, but not nearly as funny since I was playing computer games on my laptop through most of it. My roommate picked out Dead or Alive which, again, I played video games through. It’s not that it’s not a good movie, it just that I kind of lost my patience for repetitive cheesy fake fighting scenes after The Matrix came out. I need a certain amount of reality in what I watch to keep my attention. Sadly reality TV shows do not meet those specific criteria.

And lastly, what has to be the worst sequel I have ever seen, the new Cutting Edge, Chasing a Dream. Yes, the story line was ok for a romantic comedy even though it was repetitive in the plot. But the music/soundtrack for this film reminded me of something from A High School Musical, which I refuse to see, but know well from the thousand different TV commercials. The only thing I really thought was supportive in the sound for the film was the skating sounds. It’s funny, I rented it because every time I turn on the TV, I seem to catch either the beginning or the end and I never seem to have time to watch it, I’ve learned now that it was probably better that way. Because I was sadly disappointed in this film overall not only were the sounds mismatched for the film, but it felt like most of the dramatic scenes were rushed as well. Maybe I’ll have better luck next weekend.

A Mode of Listening

This week’s TV watching consisted of a Saturday night movie marathon. It’s always funny how I always forget about these blogs until after the movies are over and I can’t remember the specifics of the sound I heard. So, here I find myself blogging away late on Sunday night again while watching The Prestige.

Throughout the film there are hundreds of different sections of the film where different listening techniques can be used. But there is a specific repetitive scene when Hugh Jackman’s character is walking in the woods and I can hear birds chirping on the screen, but can’t see any on screen. This casual listening technique is continued throughout the film in different scenes including the one where the wife hangs herself and all we hear is the birds chirping in the background the same way as when we saw in the birds in the cages in the earlier scene. It’s almost like the birds have some kind of unique symbolism throughout the film but I’m not quite sure how to explain what it is.

In this film there is obviously a lot of Semantic listening as well, but that’s not really all that interesting to write about, except for the narrated parts, but even those for this film, I don’t think were required. I’d have to say that this is probably the first movie I’ve seen in a while that really didn’t need sound to figure out what was happening throughout the story by the scenes happening on scene.

Distraction vs. Enlightenment

I was somewhat surprised by Dr. T's statement about him hoping he wasn't ruining the movie watching experience by analysis and discussion of the cinematic process.  I had written something along the lines of that in one of my last blogs, but didn't take it seriously until he mentioned it.

Unfortunately for our professor, I thought about this for a while during the movie and subsequent lecture.  I tried to sense both ways of watching the film: analytically and for sheer enjoyment.  I wondered if there is a difference between the two.  I wondered whether there were similarities as well.

To enjoy something.  What does that exactly entail.  To enjoy art.  I'll narrow it down a little bit more.  There has to be some understanding of the art, perhaps on different levels than expected by the artist as well as other onlookers, but at some point there is an understanding.

Now that I began to define the issue, I began to see the problem with the issue itself.  It really isn't the art that we would be dissatisfied with, but the process of analysis.  We still are left with some questions, but some are within an answerable realm.

So now that we have variable levels of understanding a piece of art, why would one be more desirable than another?  I don't believe that there is an inherently 'better' way of looking at art.

I think the real differentiation between 'liking' and 'disliking' any certain method of realizing art is within an individual's personality.  It is relative to their own experiences and prior likes and dislikes as well as their anticipation towards each of these experiences.  (Negating mention mood, relative disposition in other areas, and any other anomalous factors that are unquantifiable).

So my latent answer to Dr. T's quick question would be: no, this class isn't ruining the experience.  It's just giving us more options, different viewpoints and inevitably inviting us to watch more cinema (or tv heaven forbid).  And perhaps some that we would have otherwise disapproved of.

Lost Again

As I will be doing with many of my "whilst watching tv regularly" blogs- I will refer to and talk about lost mainly.  After a few too many years of having lots of stuff to do with school and outside of school, I've found that tv is quite a time consumer and is also loosing it's touch with some of it's watchers.  There is only so much reality tv that can be consumed by a viewer of even a high-schoolers' intelligence.  And since this has been the 'buzz' for the last couple years, I have lost touch with tv.  For the better.

Lost.

My post may be more made up of questions than statements, but I assure you they will be interspersed liberally.

My first question is about the modes of listening vs. instinct and learned behavior.  (spoiler warning)  In seasons 1-4 there is a 'monster' on the island.  This monster is yet to be totally explained by the show, but there are fluttering rumors here and there on the internet that conclude it's source and composition.  The interesting thing about some of these wikis (if you clicked the link and looked) is that this monster is deconstructed down to even it's sound.  Some ask why it has a mechanical (the ratcheting) and a organic sound (the growling).  I was first drawn to the sound in the first season by the causal type of listening.  I was interested to know what it looked like: seeing what is causing the noise (which was all that was presented).  Later when we finally see the monster (yes you see it eventually- it's still pretty weird even if I explained it to you- so I wont for the sake of you going and watching the entirety of the show)[wow, long parenthetical segue there, continuing on] ... later when we finally see the monster, you wonder why it is making these sounds.  There is this disconnect from what you were expecting.  Now the cause is distracted by what I think is an instinctual process involving semantics.  

Now our language is set up to hold arbitrary meaning to certain sounds we produce, but we are also wired to (thanks to Dr. Miller for this) "run away from loud growling noises".  No matter what form they take, there is a brief period where we cannot (unless have practiced or have chronic ataraxia) control our fear of this sound for any reason.  So I ask:  is this actually semantic?  Are our instinctual cues 'us understanding embedded information'?  Or are they something else?  

And to touch on the last mode: In the wiki they look into what the sound sounds like for it's own qualitative sake.

Boom!

A Little Off Topic

I spent my time earlier tonight (this morning?) finishing up a rough draft for a paper I have due early next week. Part of my writing process (god, does that sound as pretentious as I think it does?) is that I listen to some type of audio when I write.
I find that having auditory stimulation helps me work more creatively and more quickly. I actually believe that I get my best ideas by playing off what I hear in my headphones.
I do not always listen to music though. Sometimes I will load a movie to listening to while I work. This is probably sounds a bit ridiculous but as long as I am dealing with a film or episode or scene that is not extremely visually driven I find I can still pick up plot points and feel like I am watching the movie.
Interestingly enough, I had a strange experience for the first time from doing this. While working extremely tired, I have just found out that I can listen to music while I work but I cannot listen to any form of cinema. I found it hard to write while tired AND listen to a film. I found my mind drifted towards my work or the film..
Perhaps this is just some strange quirk of mine but I would love to hear if anyone has noticed something similar.

The Three Modes of Listening in Reality Television

A strange thing happened to me earlier this week. I actually sat down and watched some television with my family. This was odd because I never really watch any TV. However, it happened to be fortuitous that I did this. You see, my family was watching a reality show – more specifically Hell’s Kitchen starring Chef Gordon Ramsey.
As I watched the show, I could not help but think of the blog we were assigned. The audio of the show provide great examples that could be used for discussing the three modes of listening.
Obviously, reality shows are very dialogue driven entities so much of the show was spent using semantic listening. Of note, though, is the fact that Gordon Ramsey happens to swear like a sailor. As you listen semantically you cannot help but notice how his language is censored. Even though it is censored, and as we discussed in class censoring sometimes advertises the bad word more, we could still get the context of what he was saying from listening to the meaning of the dialogue.
With so much action that goes on visually in the kitchen, I had to also listen causally. From the metallic banging on the screen, we could conclude the items being dropped and the metal nature of the kitchen just from the sounds being emitted.
Unfortunately, I was so busy listening causally and semantically that I did not have any time to listen to sound in a reduced way. I am, however, not sure how much I could have applied reduced listening to the show I was watching.

So I was reading the post below this one about martial arts movies and it reminded me of a Mad T.V. skit called martial law in which "Steven Segal" (played by Will Sasso) defeats a handful of assorted evil doers with intense kung fu moves. The cheesy one-liners and characters were entertaining enough I suppose, but the real comic genius was in the audio-visual contract. "Steven Segal" would actually move very slowly and awkwardly when he fought his opponents. While the fighting took place the sounds of relentless, lightning quick, punching and chopping noises were played over the action. There were far more fighting sound effects than there was fighting and "Steven" looked pretty confused the whole time. It was interesting, however, that even though the satiric sound was overly dramatic and poorly done, the effect seemed slightly realistic from time to time. I almost forgot halfway through the skit that he wasn’t actually dominating those chumps with some seriously fast karate hands. This example caused me to wonder. Does the "whish, whirr, smack, whizz, whirr" martial arts fight sound effect work so well because it has been repeated in so very many movies and we expect fights to sound like that? Or are our mind so easily fooled by synchresis that, at times, only a few well synched movements are necessary to create the illusion? I believe it may be a combination of the two, possibly along with any number of other cinemagic secrets. The scene wasn’t too funny, but the comedic approach to synchresis provides an interesting perspective.

The Art of Martial Arts

To be honest, I cannot really think of what to say with this blog so I am going to just muse a little. I want to pose a question to fans of martial arts movies or more specifically martial arts films made before 1990. Does the lack of audio-visual synchronization in some martial arts films increase, decrease, or not effect your enjoyment of the films?
I do not consider myself a huge fan of martial arts films but there are a few that I do enjoy. I find this lack of synchronization an enjoyable part of my viewing experience. Without audio-visual synchronization, the film seems foreign to the viewer. Yet, the films are meant to feel foreign so a lack of synchronization helps reinforce that feeling.
When I say foreign, I do not mean not of this nation but something that does not happen normally. I mean foreign in the sense of how fantasy is foreign. To reinforce this sense of fantasy, it helps to reduce the things that are normal or plain or even something like the audio-visual contract.
Of course, this lack of audio-visual synchronization occurred due to a lack of technology or ability. However, I feel that this accident is not something negative. As Bob Ross would say: “It’s a happy little accident.”

The Audio of Sockb4by

Over this weekend, I finally got a chance to watch the newest installment of the short movie series known as Sockbaby. This is the first installment of the movie series I have watched since I started taking this course and what I have learn has given me a new appreciation for the work that Doug TenNapel and John Soares are doing.
At first, I thought the re-recording of audio in the Sockbaby series was merely the result of the no-budget work being done on the film. I assumed that they were forced to re-record and replace audio because they lacked the audio equipment to properly capture the audio outside of a studio setting. However, I now believe that the audio is a carefully constructed part of the film and one that the filmmakers have gone to great lengths to create.
I could talk about the audio effects or Foley artistry that takes a prominent role in the film due to the amount of visually active scenes but I would like to focus on the dialogue instead. Nearly every piece of dialogue is re-recorded and re-dramatized in the film. This is not purely to recreate the dialogue in a more audible or understandable tone but also to help establish both character development and support world creation.
In the realm of character development, we are very rarely given any direct background information on the characters. We are given nearly no information about the protagonist, Ronnie Cordova; yet, we are led to define the character, if not even establish his unstated background, from the way we speaks. His roughened, almost strained, voice makes us think about similar voice work in older cop shows and films from the 1970s. The same development holds true for secondary protagonist, Burger. Every time he moves the sound effects of his movements are matched with the sound of hydraulic or actuator motors. When he delivers his dialogue, he speaks in flat, monotone, and almost mechanical way.
Indeed, the re-dubbed dialogue seems to focus less on what is being said and more on how it is said. As TenNapel has stated in an interview; “"Vernacular is a big part of the Sockbaby series...the way they talk is part of the "why" of the show.” I think when I view any installment of the Sockbaby series from now on I will focus more on the auditory aspects than the visual.

Odd Things That You Never Really Notice...

I mentioned in my other Blog that I really had to pay close attention to the film to find good examples of over-dubbing and I wasn’t joking. There's a neat little scene at the beginning of Mr. Deeds that I had never noticed before that I'm pretty sure was over-dubbed where Adam Sandler hits a tennis ball and it breaks a screen of glass that falls semi-slowly down the screen and breaks apart in a way that looks like it's been completely computer generated in which case, the sound would mostly have been added in later. I’ve seen this film at least a dozen times and I’ve never even noticed it once.

I also noticed later on in the film where Emilio is hitting Deeds foot with the fire poker that each time he swings the poker at his foot it makes this metallic clanking sound that really works for the film, but nowhere close to reality.

There’s also the beginning of the girls wrestling scene towards the end of the film where the older lady Jan starts to crack her neck repeatedly which is absolutely hilarious but also completely unnatural and awful painful sounding. It’s almost foreboding in a way, like it hints at what’s going to happen next. It’s just something else that till this week I never gave a lot of thought to. Maybe I should pay closer attention more often.

Obviously Over-Dubbed

Due to yet another weekend at Camp Ripley, and another failed PT test which will inevitably result in me limping to class on Monday, I was feeling really lazy and thought about using a few examples from some more obvious films this week like Alvin and the Chipmunks and then I realized that was way too easy and not nearly interesting enough to write about.

Don't get me wrong, I love the film. Especially the scene where Alvin is showering in the dishwasher while singing what has to be the most annoying song on the planet and then proceeds to tell Dave, "I was waiting for the rinse cycle!" Hey, it's cute! But I figured that was pretty much obvious since it was a cartoon and with clearly edited sound and kind of like cheating so I decided to find a few different examples and found it to be a bit harder than I thought it would be.

It's kind of ironic, every now and then, there's this big editing mistake and we joke about it like it happens every day, but I realized by doing this assignment, that it really doesn't and I actually had to listen and watch very critically to notice just how much work actually goes into the sound editing of a film. It really is amazing just how far the world of sound editing has come in the last 30 years or so.

Machinema

For those of you machinema fans, I have a good one for you.  I found this rummaging through the leagues of Halo 3 videos on YouTube (there are quite a lot of good ones) and this one piqued my interest.

28 Weeks Later

So just to get you into the film, this is an 'edited for time' sequence of nearly the entire gist of the movie.  It is using various sequences from the video game Halo 3 and it's replay theater and saving mechanism.  These are relatively easy to create compared to actual taping of a movie such as this.  It is edited quite well compared to some.

My first impression of it was sort of startled.  For those of you that haven't seen the actual movie- it's pretty good- go rent it or netflix it- or watch the entire machinema.  I had more of a connection to the movie than with the visuals.  The sound was where all the emotion was in my opinion.  The same places that freaked me out in the movie freaked me out in this- and I have to be honest with you- Halo 3 characters don't really scare me- even if they are green and the 'screen' is shaking.  It's just not the same.  But since the sound is still exactly the same and in synch with the video the effect is still felt.  I was not expecting this, especially after such episodes as Red vs. Blue which relies more on a slight knowledge of the Halo series rather than a feature length film.

I wouldn't say that I am yet a rabid fan of this type of creation, but I am definitely interested in why it operates between and beyond the lines of Game vs. Film.

Just for your enjoyment. (this one was too easy to do the overdubbing blog on)

Warning- last link contains mild to extreme amounts of William Shatner and aliens.

Awesome Show

Yes.  The Tim and Eric Awesome Show.  It would be the epitome of A.V. geeks getting together showing off the humor of their childhood.  With the full mastery of comic suspense and also many different types of wipe-style video transitions.

The real reason I bring this show up (not only for its endearing comedy) is for the sonic add-ins that accompany most every show in some fashion.

One of my favorite segments has to be the 'hacky-sack challenge' where both competitors engage in many combo-riddled battles for the first place prize.  When doing so, each effort made is emphasized by added in sound (along with some rather superimposed visuals of each either flying or rocketing up into the sky rather unrealistically).

Other types of sounds they use are usually affiliated with either awkward bodily noises or over-dubbed vocal squeaks (i.e. Casey and His Brother skits).  These are usually more poignant compared with the subtle hacky-sack sequence.  Aside from being more audibly obvious, they are over-exaggerated in context as well.   Most of the time they are used at seemingly unpredictable times (for comic effect) and work well as a deadpan buster- or something to lighten a stiff mood created by the comic.

These comedians leave nothing out when it comes to effect.  I would go ahead and check them out if you are in the mood for utter ridiculousness.  You'll either love it or hate it.

overdubbing

The other day I was watching an episode of Reno 911 and I noticed a very obvious use of overdubbing. It happened in the episode when there was a prostitute character that was in the hospital that was being played by one of the other actors who is usually one of the main characters, Trudy in the show. The scene plays out with the other officers visiting this prostitute on her death bed and the actor that usually plays Trudy was acting as the prostitute, but Trudy isn't with the other officers, because she is playing the prostitute obviously. Her eyes are blurred out and she is wearing a wig, so it's not so obvious that it is her but being a fan of the show I could tell from the voice. Later the character Trudy comes and visits the prostitute, which poses a problem because she can't play both characters. This time the entire face of the prostitute is blurred out, because it is obviously another person playing the character. This is when the very obvious overdubbing comes in. You can tell the overdubbing because you can hear in the recording that it was done in a studio, where there is no reverb or echo and the voice of Trudy has the natural echo of the room. Another less obvious use of overdubbing in this episode comes when the actor of that plays Trudy is the prostitute and she "pukes" over the side of the bed and it splatters on the floor. The vomit is never shown on screen but viewers are convinced that it is happening because of the sound. The careful listener can hear that the moans of vomiting come from the character but the sound of splattering is added in afterwards. I guess what I've realized from all this is that overdubbing is very often used when situations are impossible or very difficult to achieve the real thing. As when a two characters can't be played by the same actor or when getting someone to actually puke would be very difficult.

I love tivo

Doing the assignments of finding different elements of sound in cinema has gone against everything that our parents have taught us. When we were younger our parents told us "No T.V. until your homework is done." and now I'm having to think "no homework until your T.V. watching is done." It's just bizarre how things you learn in college go completely against everything our parents told us. It's strange to say but it's been hard for me to fit watching T.V. and movies into my busy schedule. This is why I am so grateful for TiVo. Since you can't really speed up the amount of time that it takes you to watch something, like you can do with other homework, you really have to have a good chunk of time to actually accomplish this task. But thanks to TiVo, I can actually save time in watching by cutting out all the BS of commercials and actually find what i really need. The ability fast forward through all the things i dont need to watch, rewind to something that i missed, and pause to refill on snacks has been a godsend in doing something that i never would have thought of as homework. And as far as sound goes, that baboop baboop can't be beat.

Tom and Jerry

So I’m pretty sure everyone is familiar with the crazy, intense, symphonic, orchestral scores in classic cartoons. But the other day, I was "re-familiarized" with these awesome feats of animation genius! I had just gotten home from some philosophy classes and instead of going back to bed, I decided to turn on some cartoons. Not shortly thereafter an episode of Tom and Jerry came on and I sat watching, delighted that it wasn’t one of those newer disappointing cartoons. I sat watching, but also sat listening, and boy was I for a treat. The musical score was surprisingly intense, complex, and went perfectly with the action on screen. When Jerry was being chased down hallways and up coat hangers, the music would crescendo wildly. If Tom slipped on a rug the sound of mallets across a marimba (or something else) would synch perfectly to the image as well as with the music playing. Synchresis is a massively important aspect of animation and it is expertly achieved in Tom and Jerry. If a completely absurd sound (like mallets swept across a xylophone) are synched perfectly with images like Tom skidding out of control on a loose rug, those sounds seem entirely like. I began to think about it, and I’m pretty sure that the animations were created after the musical score and the plot was written to the music. I’m not sure though, but that seems pretty logical. Or the plot was written before the score, then the score was set to the plot, and then the animations were then created with the score, I don’t really know. Sound can add such a ridiculous amount of value to an image, especially animated, non-realistic images. When I watch Tom and Jerry, I see them as very real characters with real emotions who feel real pain. Well, at least until I think about it. Ha. (they are only drawings…tear) But this illusion is created by complex and expert use of sounds and images together, and I love it.

Temporal Linearization

I have watched quite a large number of movies in my life and not once have I really, truly appreciated how important proper temporalization is. Until now! Temporalization (the Influence of sound on the perception of time in the image) is accomplished in many different ways. Temporal animation, temporal linearization, as well as temporal vectorization are all techniques which use sound to create, alter, or confuse the perception of time in an image. Imagine how difficult creating the "intended" flow of time in a silent film would be for directors. Imagine shot "A" (two guys on a couch.) Now imagine shot "B" (a police car parked on the side of a street). These two shots in succession of each other without any sound would make it difficult to tell if the police car was outside the building in shot "A" or somewhere completely different. Also, could shot "B" be taking place many hours in the future? Who knows? I sure don’t. But imagine if the police car was indeed outside the shot and this was happening (plot wise) directly after shot "A". Now let’s say we added some diagetic music. Perhaps a stereo playing some Fugazi, placed on screen near the guys on the couch. Now if that music continued to play during shot "B", perhaps slightly muffled (and now nondiagetic), it would be very clear that the police car was near the guys on the couch and that shot "B" was taking place temporally, right after shot "A". You see, music or sound a can bridge the "gap" between shots. Sound can continue the flow of time and space while images cut in and out. That my friends is Temporal Linearization. Peace!

Lost

An interesting thing:

I have watched almost every episode of lost within 3-5 weeks.  This will be sort of a random post- but I suggest you try this:

Ok.  So we all know that seasons of shows are now on DVD at the local "place where you buy DVD's".  They get kind of spendy- but most likely- one of your friends has the entire thing (which is how I lucked out) and you'll be able to borrow it at least once.  Now first things first: you have to watch the season like a movie.  Take it in much quicker than it was intended to be- for instance: on TV.  This gives you a macroscopic view of your favorite season.

For those of you who don't know me very well, I don't have cable and this has been the first TV show I have watched since, well, high school.  So when my roommates kept giving me grief about not coming to 'Lost Nights' at our buddies, I finally gave in and started it up.  But since the seasons were so interesting- I got hooked.  

So now I am drawing nearer to the last episodes and I feel that I have only watched a movie.  I kept saying in class something about how some segments of film seem long, but with this, it is the opposite.  It feels as though I could watch the entire series again from the beginning.

I guess now what I would ask you is:

• Could you do this too (with any series)?
  
• Why do you think it seems shorter than it is?
  
• Can you compare a movie to an entire series?

Or does this just examine my own personality.

Let me know.

TL for short

I was still struggling for a bit when it came to thinking about temporal linearization.  Since I really don't watch film for the 'art' in it for the most part, I tend not to notice these sorts of things while watching.  Being a music major for me has altered my listening of music to be too analytical and I would hate for that to happen for movies as well.  So I will try to be as base as I can about my thoughts, with explanation, but straight to the point.

So.  In any case, I can't really remember any exact movie that has STRICT TL, but I do remember a soundtrack that acted as such.  

In the movie Solaris I noticed that the soundtrack was sometimes interchangeable with the sounds that you may hear in the 'imagined' places.  For those who haven't seen the movie- George Clooney is a psychologist that is asked to come to a space-station that is orbiting a new planet in the distant future.  The planet is quite odd (often perceived this way because of the sounds accompanying the visuals) and something quite odd is happening on the ship.  Thus the reason for Clooney's character to be summoned.  

Since it is a psychological movie with regards to the character's mission and also the setting of events in the plot, the ambient soundtrack and sound effects are sometimes acting as temporal linearization.  I wouldn't say that they are 100% but like I mentioned above, I was struggling to think of a fair use of it in any movie whatsoever.

It sort of reminded me of a lead-in effect often used to segue between shots.  Although it is a transitional motion, it still gives the observer the sense that two things are going on at once.  One instance is being viewed and heard, and the next is being heard before it is viewed.  It would be very effective especially if there was a change of pace in the movie and we, the viewer, would need to be set up for the new pacing while not being abruptly dropped into a new setting.  So this lead-in effect aurally is bonding two (somewhat) unlike sections.

All of this was sort of conjecture as to what fits as "TL" so let me know what you think.

Is it?  No?  Who knows?

Thanks.

Temporal Linearization

I don't spend a lot of my free time out of class watching TV, I've just got to many things to do and projects to finish up. So I had a hard time finding a good, clear example of this term. In fact, I'd probably have to say that I really can't say that I've ever seen anything similar to the example that we watched in class before in my life, at least not in the way that it was used in that film.

There is a section in the movie "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" toward the end in when the good guys finally see what the evil "M" has been up to in his scheme to mass produce all the evil weapons of them selves or their belongings to start a world war, which starts out with how Grey stole thier secrets to a sceen of the mass production of each thing in the science labs and production plant. This is probably the closest thing that I can probably relate to temporal linearization, but it isn't quite as obvious as our in class example from last Wednesday.

I really don't know what else to use as a good example for this term because even with this example, it's more of the images tying themselves together rather than the music or sound connecting everything in the film. So there is my humble attempt at describing temporal linearizaton I hope it was kind of close. As far as the rest of the sounds of the film, they were great, the film has a great score and all the added sounds truly worked well to complement the screen shots. Many of the sounds heard in this film were diagetic, but there were quite a few non-diagetic sounds that turned diagetic later on in the screen sequences so overall the added sounds were very Empathetic in nature for the most part. This is yet another great film, check it out if you haven't already.

The use of rock music in the film 'Zodiac.'

I have to say that I was impressed with the end result of Zodiac. I thought it would be tough, if not impossible, to create an engaging film about a criminal investigation that is not finished but I was wrong. Zodiac was very engaging and that was in no small part to the soundtrack selection.
I will not be doing a song by song analysis of the soundtrack and its place in the movie. To be honest, I would find doing such tedious and, as I am still sick, I do not feel up to writing that much more today. So, to eliminate such issues I will pick two songs to briefly analyze.
The first song I would like to analyze is Donovan’s The Hurdy Gurdy Man. This song occurs during the first murder in the movie. The scene is a man and woman sitting in a parked car in the wilderness. The scene is very quiet with the only non-sound effect audio we hear being The Hurdy Gurdy Man playing quietly on, what we assume, is the car radio. The song remains in the background as merely an addition to the scene until, when the Zodiac Killer enters and kills his victims; the song overrides all other audio and helps to drive the scene.
This is an interesting song to have placed during this scene. There is some tone painting. However, this is not in support, but in contrast, to the visual imagery. Donovan’s smooth melodies and quieted vocal style create a muted or sublimed audio scene while the cinematic scene we are given is very violent and dynamic.
The song is a good selection chronologically because it was released around the time of the Zodiac murders. This reinforces the chronology of the movie and helps keep the audience immersed in the idea of a different time.
The song is also used over the end credits; which is a great way to wrap up the film. Strangely though, this song does not appear on the official soundtrack.
The second song I would like to analyze is Gerry Rafferty’s Baker Street. The song occurs near the end of the film when the protagonist approaches the suspect he believes is the Zodiac Killer. Again, we see tone painting in contrasts. This song, with its upbeat tempo and major chord progressions, seems to be the antithesis of the epic song we would expect for such a monumentus moment in the film.
However, the use of this song allows for allusions to something very poignant. Baker’s Street is the street that the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes resided on. By using this song, the director is showing that our cinematic Holmes has seemed to have met his nemesis.
It is interesting to see the lengths that the makers of this film went to with their soundtrack selection. Each track seems carefully selected for being chronologically correct and being especially poignant.

Resident Evil Apocalypse and Extinction

Resident Evil Apocalypse

Ah, the sounds of gore and the dead coming back to life. I'm not sure what it sounds like to be eaten alive, but they sure did a great job giving me an idea. Such a great scary/suspenseful film. The Resident Evil series is really one of my favorite films. I love the story line, but mostly, it makes me wonder just how bad could things turn out in the future with all of our government experimenting. I know it's really a morbid thought. I like the music for the film as well. I think that the sound work for the film was extensive and very well done. All the different sounds that I noticed worked to complement the scenes and definitely added to the film experience.

Overall, the music and sound that accompany the work extremely well together to create a mood of suspense, fright and anticipation which is very effective in this case. The final film of this series Extinction was also great. Eerie music accompanied with squeaky metal and electrical sparks and the sounds of immense destruction and amazing fighting scenes make for another great film. I thought the sounds used to accompany the scenes with the big energy surges were really neat, I really don't know how to describe it other than the scene where Alice creates a huge fiery explosion in the sky destroying all the flesh eating crows that were attacking the convoy of survivors. The sound effects for these types of scenes are hard to describe, but were really great, so if you you haven't seen it yet, check it out.

An Example of Temporal Linearization

I scoured my movie collection looking for an excellent, or should I say obvious, example of temporal linearization in cinema. Trust me; this is harder than I thought it would be. However, I think I have come up with a great example. My example is from Reservoir Dogs; more specifically the section of the movie concerning the story of Mr. Orange.
The temporal linearization starts with a black cut screen with white bold text stating ‘Mr. Orange.’ The murmur of conversations allows us to temporalize the black screen.
The next transition, from a restaurant at night to a rooftop during daytime, is bridged with a continuous conversation. Mr. Orange’s undercover trainer says “Use the commode story” at the restaurant with Mr. Orange responding with “What’s the commode story” on the rooftop. We can temporalize these events as being linearly progressive because of the continued conversation regardless of the change in scenery. The audience is allowed to assume that the conversation continues the next morning because of the dialogue.
A similar transition occurs when Mr. Orange is reciting the commode story out loud. At first, it starts in his apartment where he is speaking to himself to memorize the story. The scene then changes over to Mr. Orange continuing the story but this time he is outside and talking to his undercover trainer. Finally, it transitions to a bar scene where he is talking to the antagonists. The switch scene would seem less coherent if it wasn’t for the continuing dialogue despite each transition.
In fact, because the dialogue continues, the audience is allowed, again, to see the scenes as linearly progressive. This assumption is reinforced with a change in the tone of Mr. Orange’s voice. With the first scene, Mr. Orange stumbles with the beginning of the story and has to refer to a script he was given to make sure the story did not get jumbled. The next scene, Mr. Orange continues the story but this time he speaks freely and begins adding or modifying the story. Finally, we see him at the bar finishing the story. By seeing the mastering of this story, we can see the creation of a product. In this case, the product is the story. We understand the creation of any product as requiring time and, more than that, as a process with beginning, middle, and end. This greatly reinforces the linearization created by the audio of the dialogue.

Star Wars

Yes.

Star Wars.

I watched Episode V this last weekend and wished I had it on DVD.  The miracles that digital quality brings to us... I also remember watching the Lucas-narrated documentary on how some of the sounds (laser blasters, light sabers, Imperial Walkers, etc.) were created.  Some being quite ingenious- Blasters being my favorite.  I think they were a sped-up version of a monkey wrench hitting a steel wire harness holding up a power line.  Good ideas.  

X-Men.

I watched X-Men United (the second of the three) as well this weekend.  Thank you SCSU for giving us a break so soon in the year.  The interesting audio question that I got from this episode was: "how do you decide what 'moving a piece of metal (a lighter for example) through the air with mutant powers' sounds like?"  A good question indeed.  Since I doubt anyone has such natural-born ability it must be another creative idea that is made from nothing.  Even using electromagnets there probably wouldn't be any sound when moving the item (even the slight hum of electric signal) so there is an element of what is expected when they think up sounds that do not naturally occur.  The same goes for ambient sounds in a high-security insane asylum like the one in Silence of the Lambs (did everyone go out and rent it???) I doubt one can record the sounds of their own psyche whilst being insane.  Although there would also be little evidence that one can't either.  Moving on.

My post really only serves as a "hey, that's interesting to me" column, but I hope something I said makes you think of something you think is interesting in one of your pastimes.

End.