Synthesizing a “realistic” experience is a strange concept, considering that experiencing the synthesized experience, is a realistic experience in itself. I believe that in cinema, movie creators often try to mimic a realistic experience, but I am not always sure why. I do not believe that a movie necessarily becomes any better simply because it “seems” more realistic, however, pseudo realism can create a very immersive experience and it’s when we forget about reality and substitute it with the “movie reality” that movies become the most real and this is often times a very enjoyable experience.
Many philosophers compare our minds to a “hyper-realistic” movie theater to which we have front row seats. Conceptually, this actually makes a lot of sense. However, a movie theater can only account for two of the perceptual senses which compose our reality, sight and sound. In order to create a “realistic” experience we only need to recreate the experiences of our senses in the actual experience. In the movie format, smell, touch, taste, and anything extra perceptual is out of the question. Therefore, the audio and visual experience is all that can be utilized to create realism.
However, if you filmed a scene in which the camera captured everything as it was and the audio was exactly what the microphones recorded, it still may not be a “realistic” experience. Considering the plot and setting of film, original recordings of the actual scene may need to be altered in order to achieve a more believable experience. Also, because only audio and visual can be used, the lack of attention to the other senses leaves a gaping void of unrealistic non-stimulation. In order to make up for this, audio and visual moments need to be altered further and used in grand collaborations in order to create an immersive experience which needs not the other senses to feel real. Also, audio and visual moments presented in the right way can trigger powerful emotional responses from viewers. Most of our lives are lived within and around our emotions, if a film can stir up emotions like, fear, anger, suspense, joy, etc, it can become very realistic. Because of these factors, as well as others I’m sure, sometimes a large amount of non-realism, such as heavy editing and “fake sounds” are needed to create a realistic experience.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
1408
1408
I watched the movie 1408 the other night and found it to be quite enjoyable. 1408 is a movie about an author (John Cusac) who writes books about haunted places who spends the night in, what Samuel L. Jackson calls “A real Fu*king evil room!”.
Not being a big fan of horror flicks, I wasn’t too stoked about watching this film, so I focused my attention on the audio and began to think about my sound and cinema class. It wasn’t long before I began to hear all kinds of innovative amazing things.
Basically, the protagonist’s experience in the room is something like a very intense, very bad, LSD trip. He is actually convinced for a time that Samuel L. Jackson had secretly “dosed” him with the drug. Although this wasn’t the case, the night was filled with some very scary and very well done auditory hallucinations.
During one scene, shortly after the room begins to take hold of John Cusac, he caused to believe that he has gone deaf. While the expressions on John’s face began to show panic and confusion, the sound of an intense high pitched whine begins to grow louder and louder while the ambient, non-diagetic sounds of the hotel room and the city outside fade out. A moment later, while John is shown screaming out the window, only very low, muffled frequencies can be heard. I believe some type of filtering was used to filter out all high and midrange frequencies. The effect was executed perfectly and is and excellent example of using “first person audio” to achieve movie magic!
During another scene, John believes he hears a baby crying on the other side of a wall, as he listens closer to the wall the sound of the baby’s screams begin too echo and exponentially increase in volume. As John falls to the floor holding his ears the amount of reverb and delay on the looped cry continues to increase before fading away in an otherworldly fashion. I found the scene to be very scary and was surprised that such a terrifying moment could be achieved when the only visual stimulus was some dude standing in a normal looking hotel room. : )
I just want to say that 1408 is a pretty good scary movie, and uses sound in some very fun and very spooky ways.
I watched the movie 1408 the other night and found it to be quite enjoyable. 1408 is a movie about an author (John Cusac) who writes books about haunted places who spends the night in, what Samuel L. Jackson calls “A real Fu*king evil room!”.
Not being a big fan of horror flicks, I wasn’t too stoked about watching this film, so I focused my attention on the audio and began to think about my sound and cinema class. It wasn’t long before I began to hear all kinds of innovative amazing things.
Basically, the protagonist’s experience in the room is something like a very intense, very bad, LSD trip. He is actually convinced for a time that Samuel L. Jackson had secretly “dosed” him with the drug. Although this wasn’t the case, the night was filled with some very scary and very well done auditory hallucinations.
During one scene, shortly after the room begins to take hold of John Cusac, he caused to believe that he has gone deaf. While the expressions on John’s face began to show panic and confusion, the sound of an intense high pitched whine begins to grow louder and louder while the ambient, non-diagetic sounds of the hotel room and the city outside fade out. A moment later, while John is shown screaming out the window, only very low, muffled frequencies can be heard. I believe some type of filtering was used to filter out all high and midrange frequencies. The effect was executed perfectly and is and excellent example of using “first person audio” to achieve movie magic!
During another scene, John believes he hears a baby crying on the other side of a wall, as he listens closer to the wall the sound of the baby’s screams begin too echo and exponentially increase in volume. As John falls to the floor holding his ears the amount of reverb and delay on the looped cry continues to increase before fading away in an otherworldly fashion. I found the scene to be very scary and was surprised that such a terrifying moment could be achieved when the only visual stimulus was some dude standing in a normal looking hotel room. : )
I just want to say that 1408 is a pretty good scary movie, and uses sound in some very fun and very spooky ways.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Question for Dr. Twombly or Any Composers
Earlier in the semester we discussed THX and the creation of a blank audio canvas for modern cinema theaters. This gives the sound designers a lot of freedom to create and mold the audio film. In a way, I could imagine a sound engineer achieving what Brian Wilson had hope to by creating his own pet sounds but not only creating pet sounds, but creating the pet cage or world too. To be honest, it sounds daunting and exciting for any artist.
Anyways, the question I pose is this and any composition majors should feel free to chime in. What is wrong with having a blank audio canvas to work with? I would figure that having such freedom would be a composer’s dream. You could craft every sound, every phrase to its own uniqueness and truly hope to control the aspects of piece. Granted there is the worry that, during a performance, such guided audio creations may not be reproduced entirely accurate but that is a problem even now.
Another question: does it matter that you have a blank audio canvas based on what type of piece you are writing? What I’m asking is would it be more helpful to have an acoustically flat room for composing a film score or sounds versus creating a commissioned piece or vis-versa? Does what you are composing change what you want from an acoustic space? I would love to hear everyone’s answers and explanations for these questions.
Anyways, the question I pose is this and any composition majors should feel free to chime in. What is wrong with having a blank audio canvas to work with? I would figure that having such freedom would be a composer’s dream. You could craft every sound, every phrase to its own uniqueness and truly hope to control the aspects of piece. Granted there is the worry that, during a performance, such guided audio creations may not be reproduced entirely accurate but that is a problem even now.
Another question: does it matter that you have a blank audio canvas based on what type of piece you are writing? What I’m asking is would it be more helpful to have an acoustically flat room for composing a film score or sounds versus creating a commissioned piece or vis-versa? Does what you are composing change what you want from an acoustic space? I would love to hear everyone’s answers and explanations for these questions.
Airplane!
Well, I do not know about the rest of you but that was the first time I had ever seen Airplane!. God, that style of humor gave me flash backs to movies like Hot Shots! and Hot Shots!: Part Deux. Personally, I kind of want to bust out those movies and see how similar the sound designs are. (Hell, I might make that my final.)
However, because this was my first time watching this film, I did not catch many of the sound devices we have been studying. As such, I would like to thank Doctor Twombly for pointing out what he did. Yet, I did notice one thing on my own.
There were two passengers in the film that spoke what was called “jive.” Obviously we, as the audience, weren’t supposed to understand everything the passengers were saying but I occasionally thought when I listened carefully I could understand the words they were saying even if they spoke so fast it was hard to get the meaning without the subtitles.
This is similar to the old man in Blazing Saddles but where Mel Brooks used gibberish to confuse the ear, the creators of Airplane! used speed to confuse the ear. I found it interesting that the same joke was made in each movie, but each movie used a different method to create the comedic effect. Apparently there are more than two ways to skin a joke.
However, because this was my first time watching this film, I did not catch many of the sound devices we have been studying. As such, I would like to thank Doctor Twombly for pointing out what he did. Yet, I did notice one thing on my own.
There were two passengers in the film that spoke what was called “jive.” Obviously we, as the audience, weren’t supposed to understand everything the passengers were saying but I occasionally thought when I listened carefully I could understand the words they were saying even if they spoke so fast it was hard to get the meaning without the subtitles.
This is similar to the old man in Blazing Saddles but where Mel Brooks used gibberish to confuse the ear, the creators of Airplane! used speed to confuse the ear. I found it interesting that the same joke was made in each movie, but each movie used a different method to create the comedic effect. Apparently there are more than two ways to skin a joke.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Reality and Complacency
Movie reality. What does that 'mean'? Dude? Is it like all, "no way! that is so reeel!" or like, "dude. This just got real."
I don't believe it's either.
Pinning down reality as a fact is a matter of fiction. Some of the obstacles that are in the way of thwarting this statement are: perception, intention, and reason- to name a few.
Reality can be taken from 3 perspectives mainly: the creator, the 'consumer', and the observer. The one who creates the reality has control over it to some extent. There are rules- as such in film, music, solar systems, etc. This control within the rules that are set up is what creates the setting or environment of the 'reality' in question.
Reason, then from some sentient being "the consumer", is used to address the situation as it is. If in a movie- they may question the premise with: "why?" Why is this here. Then all the other "w's" follow. These view can be varied as most 'consumers' will be occupying separate minds- at least from what we know.
The last person who could be involved is any third party who takes into account the situation as a whole. They see and question the whole process without being a creator or a consumer. Then they are able to analyze the situation with the least bias (unless of course they are a mixture of consumer and observer- then the system starts to fail).
So related it all to cinema. Someone- perhaps a group of people fall in line of being the creator in this instance. They produce a reality that has certain parameters of understanding. This meaning it is not something else inherently. It is unique unless intentionally emulated. This created 'thing' now is finished- it is passed on by some medium to 'the consumer' and is witnessed. Their perception will filter out what they do and don't believe. They will then choose to consider what is reality and what is not. There are too many variables to even mention here, but to name a few- mood, values, past experiences, etc. will change the direction of belief from here on out. Which is important. Here is why no one reality for any one thing will exist.
Now moving on to the observer. Let's say it is the professor in a film class. Someone who is analyzing what students take from the 'creation-consumer' process. Although they have once been a consumer, and might very well be a creator, they now have a different role. They see the process take place and get to decipher how the process has taken place. They get to hear, from the consumer, what reality they have and try to explain it to the observer. There aren't necessarily right answers for the question of "what is real in this shot?" but are finding out answers that could lead to a reasonable 'average' for what reality could have been intended by the creator.
*A short cut to the process is to hear directly from the creator. Not as much fun. Well, maybe for some. Who knows.
So. I really didn't argue whether reality is real, but that sort of gives one perspective- one that I don't even know if I agree with, but one that seems to be a working model of how the process of reality flows in a specific medium such as cinema.
Hmm...
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Theatre and Film (My Colored View)
As a creative writing major, I cannot help but see film as a logical extension of theatre. In fact, despite certain formatting requirements and issues, playwriting and screenplay composition are closely related. Dialogue is the bulk of the writers work even they also compose a brief description of any related actions. However, the action in a given scene must, in the end, be interpreted and partially composed by a director.
Most of you no doubt have realized this relationship or, at least, suspected it and I am by no means trying to sell this intermixing of film and theatre as my own idea. The reason I am bringing this up is because I want to dredge up some old arguments that we have discussing, specifically, I want to bring up the addition of audio to film. I know we have done an entire blog about this but I thought I would add two more cents to the two cents I have already given.
If we see cinema as an extension of theatre than it is completely illogical to expect that sound would remain out of the realm of film. The theatre is an audio medium as much as it is a visual one and it is almost arguably more audio based than visual. I wonder why people can pine for the “golden age” of silent film when anyone with any decent foresight (or in our modern view, hindsight) could see that a lack of audio was merely a technological hurdle to eventually be overcome. Audio in film was more than eventuality, it is a return to the truth of form for a theatre based cinematic experience.
Most of you no doubt have realized this relationship or, at least, suspected it and I am by no means trying to sell this intermixing of film and theatre as my own idea. The reason I am bringing this up is because I want to dredge up some old arguments that we have discussing, specifically, I want to bring up the addition of audio to film. I know we have done an entire blog about this but I thought I would add two more cents to the two cents I have already given.
If we see cinema as an extension of theatre than it is completely illogical to expect that sound would remain out of the realm of film. The theatre is an audio medium as much as it is a visual one and it is almost arguably more audio based than visual. I wonder why people can pine for the “golden age” of silent film when anyone with any decent foresight (or in our modern view, hindsight) could see that a lack of audio was merely a technological hurdle to eventually be overcome. Audio in film was more than eventuality, it is a return to the truth of form for a theatre based cinematic experience.
The Realities of Reality
The nature of reality in cinema is an interesting subject to broach. Obviously, the goal of any filmmaker is to create an onscreen reality the audience will accept with minimal intellectual discomfort. We are asked as the audience to accept that the characters and plot as being plausible; that things could be real even if they are on the fringes of possibility.
However, as Chion has pointed out, the reality of the film sometimes breaks the reality of life in order to make the cinematic reality more real to the audience. Apparently, our immersion in the film is more important than staying true to the reality of life. This isn’t an amazing revelation because, as an audience, we watch a film to get something besides reality or above and beyond the constraints of real life reality.
As the example Dr. Twombly gave us showed, certain aspects of filmmaking and story telling would not hold up to real life. Two characters whispering to each other in order to not be heard is a commonplace story telling device but, if the audience cannot hear what they are talking about, it jars us out of the immerged reality we have accepted. If the audience does not act as an outside observer, then we cannot follow the plot or the meanings behind the film. In fact, I would argue are lack of “true” reality in film allows us to enjoy films much more.
However, as Chion has pointed out, the reality of the film sometimes breaks the reality of life in order to make the cinematic reality more real to the audience. Apparently, our immersion in the film is more important than staying true to the reality of life. This isn’t an amazing revelation because, as an audience, we watch a film to get something besides reality or above and beyond the constraints of real life reality.
As the example Dr. Twombly gave us showed, certain aspects of filmmaking and story telling would not hold up to real life. Two characters whispering to each other in order to not be heard is a commonplace story telling device but, if the audience cannot hear what they are talking about, it jars us out of the immerged reality we have accepted. If the audience does not act as an outside observer, then we cannot follow the plot or the meanings behind the film. In fact, I would argue are lack of “true” reality in film allows us to enjoy films much more.
Looks Like...
I have some catching up to do.
The theatre experience. It was interesting to say the least. I hadn't been inside that part of a theater. Yes I am using both words: Theatre and Theater. I don't actually use the first (thee-a-tre) since it is sort of awkward to say. I digress.
The actual tour or ture: One of the most interesting things were the differences in technology than I was expecting. I still thought of the 'reel-to-reel' style projector and was sort of startled by the box-shaped thing that was spewing out lit pictures upon the screen. Another was the way the film was stored before and after it went through the projector. Once again- an ingenious idea compared with rewinding the reels the old way I suppose. The last major thing was the different methods of audio embedded on the film and on CD with the synching process. I am amazed that binary can be transmitted the way it is. It makes absolutely no sense to me at the moment, but I'm sure a few classes, and a league of homework later I could find out. But since I'm behind on a task like Blogging- then I'm probably not ready for that endeavor yet. We'll see.
The things that I didn't find surprising was the atmosphere of the projector area. For some reason I had this innate feeling it would be sort of attic-like and look the way it did. It serves a function. It doesn't necessarily need to look like the main 'consumer' area- since they don't see it- it wont affect the business. Although- I would think since someone has to sit up there and wait for movies to get done hour after hour- that they would spruce it up a little bit- or even have carpeting so that they don't make noise while walking from place to place. Who knows- maybe it's set up the best way possible.
And I have deviated away from anything class-like. Great.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Similar Sounds
Since we spent the week discussing how most of the sounds in film are added in afterward and then synced together to create the illusion of reality, I got to thinking about how many different sounds in a film have to been created. In Lord of the Rings the sound of a walrus was used for the cave troll and other sounds were used for the orcs and goblins.
This got me thinking about other obviously substituted sounds. I’m curious as to what sounds were used to represent the T- Rex in the comedy One Night at the Museum? It sounds to me like a mixture of a lion and something else but I’m not sure exactly what. The animal sounds were fairly realistic throughout the film, but I’m pretty sure that they were added in after the filming. And lastly, the mummy, I’m not so sure on what that sound was either.
Mentally, I’m creating a list of all the fantasy and fiction movies I’ve seen and comparing the use of all these different sound heard in each one. I’d be willing to bet that a lions roar has probably been used as sound for every dragon film I’ve seen, whether it be the fireworks dragon in LOTR’s, Saphira from Eragon or even the multitude of different dragons created for the film Dungeons & Dragons. Yet no one ever seems to think that there is anything odd about it. This really shows just how easy it is for film makers to fool the audience just by using this practice of syncing sound and visuals.
This got me thinking about other obviously substituted sounds. I’m curious as to what sounds were used to represent the T- Rex in the comedy One Night at the Museum? It sounds to me like a mixture of a lion and something else but I’m not sure exactly what. The animal sounds were fairly realistic throughout the film, but I’m pretty sure that they were added in after the filming. And lastly, the mummy, I’m not so sure on what that sound was either.
Mentally, I’m creating a list of all the fantasy and fiction movies I’ve seen and comparing the use of all these different sound heard in each one. I’d be willing to bet that a lions roar has probably been used as sound for every dragon film I’ve seen, whether it be the fireworks dragon in LOTR’s, Saphira from Eragon or even the multitude of different dragons created for the film Dungeons & Dragons. Yet no one ever seems to think that there is anything odd about it. This really shows just how easy it is for film makers to fool the audience just by using this practice of syncing sound and visuals.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Cartoons Are Great
In a rush to get in this week’s Blogs before Friday, I cheated miserably and decided to check out a new film I haven't seen yet. So I rented Ratatouille, I mean what could be better for studying the idea of using fake sounds to create a realistic experience than a cartoon movie about a talking rat that wants to be a chef.
There were a lot of examples of Visual and Audio irony. The best scene for this was the scene in the evil food critic’s office, in which sad and depressing music accompanies the frame of the office which was fittingly depicted in the shape of a coffin. I'm not really sure where I stand on the philosophy behind the realism of the sound in film when most of the sounds in film are faked to create the illusion of reality.
But then again, I did watch a film that in the real world would be absolutely insane, yet on screen made complete sense. As long as I could hear the pans clanging, the fires starting and everything was synchronized I had no problem at all imagining a clan of rats cooking dinner in a three star restaurant in France. I understand how this idea of realization is created, I just don’t know if the I really believe that there is a really successful philosophy behind it, because it is ironic how it works.
There were a lot of examples of Visual and Audio irony. The best scene for this was the scene in the evil food critic’s office, in which sad and depressing music accompanies the frame of the office which was fittingly depicted in the shape of a coffin. I'm not really sure where I stand on the philosophy behind the realism of the sound in film when most of the sounds in film are faked to create the illusion of reality.
But then again, I did watch a film that in the real world would be absolutely insane, yet on screen made complete sense. As long as I could hear the pans clanging, the fires starting and everything was synchronized I had no problem at all imagining a clan of rats cooking dinner in a three star restaurant in France. I understand how this idea of realization is created, I just don’t know if the I really believe that there is a really successful philosophy behind it, because it is ironic how it works.
Monday, October 13, 2008
A Simple Thought Experiment
I want to play a game. Well, more specifically, a thought game. Hell, let’s just call it a thought experiment.
You are about to watch a movie you have never seen before. You are only allowed to use either your vision or your hearing to experience the movie. You are allowed to keep all your other senses because cinema is, obviously, an audio-visually driven medium. Which do you choose and why?
Personally, I choose to keep my hearing. I find that my focus in a film is often in semantic and causal listening and, from the sounds, I can assign greater importance or meaning to the vision of the film. Even without seeing the film, I can get an idea of what is happening on the screen. It is hard to get an idea of the plot when all you can do is see the screen.
Keeping my hearing would be my choice in general. It is obvious that I might change my choice, or you might, based on what genre of film you are watching. Something like an action movie is very visually driven with less focus on dialogue or plot. On the other hand, something like a drama film is probably very auditory driven. It focuses great on the development of plot through conversation.
So, anyone care to respond to my thought experiment?
You are about to watch a movie you have never seen before. You are only allowed to use either your vision or your hearing to experience the movie. You are allowed to keep all your other senses because cinema is, obviously, an audio-visually driven medium. Which do you choose and why?
Personally, I choose to keep my hearing. I find that my focus in a film is often in semantic and causal listening and, from the sounds, I can assign greater importance or meaning to the vision of the film. Even without seeing the film, I can get an idea of what is happening on the screen. It is hard to get an idea of the plot when all you can do is see the screen.
Keeping my hearing would be my choice in general. It is obvious that I might change my choice, or you might, based on what genre of film you are watching. Something like an action movie is very visually driven with less focus on dialogue or plot. On the other hand, something like a drama film is probably very auditory driven. It focuses great on the development of plot through conversation.
So, anyone care to respond to my thought experiment?
Tour Time
One of the most interesting things about the tour to me was seeing how much the image still dominates sound in a modern theatre. It seemed like there was more technology or emphasis given to creation of the image to the creation of the companioned sounds.
I suppose I could be saying this because our guide was a projectionist and, well, of course projectionists are going to be obsessed with the image. However, just by the amount of machinery alone, you would have to assume the image is still the primary focus of cinema. Between the large standard projectors and the smaller 3D projector I think about 90% of the occupied area in the booth was devoted just projecting an image. The sound racks, as we saw, were small and tended to be placed in an out of the way place.
I know we have talked about the image has dominated cinema and still does but it is hard to see that sometimes when you are in a class that is focusing on the sound aspects of film. I think we have addressed this repeatedly in class but it really didn’t sink in completely for me until I started see the large amount of mechanical effort that put forth.
I suppose I could be saying this because our guide was a projectionist and, well, of course projectionists are going to be obsessed with the image. However, just by the amount of machinery alone, you would have to assume the image is still the primary focus of cinema. Between the large standard projectors and the smaller 3D projector I think about 90% of the occupied area in the booth was devoted just projecting an image. The sound racks, as we saw, were small and tended to be placed in an out of the way place.
I know we have talked about the image has dominated cinema and still does but it is hard to see that sometimes when you are in a class that is focusing on the sound aspects of film. I think we have addressed this repeatedly in class but it really didn’t sink in completely for me until I started see the large amount of mechanical effort that put forth.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Changes in Sound
Since I really haven't watched anything this week on TV I thought I'd brain storm on some of the changes I've noticed over time in the use of sound in TV shows and movies. When you watch and old Tom & Jerry episode it's mostly music with a bit of added sound for emphasis on certain things that happen in the screen. It's drastically different from the cartoons of today everything is Digi this and Digi that, I'm not knocking it if your into it, but even the sound that accompanies follows the same principle. Most of it sounds electronically mixed with a few really fake sounds to emphasize a certain action in the screen. Personally, I find them incredibly cheesy, but that's just me.
In a similar fashion I think it's peculiar that early films began with no sound except for music and have gradually evolved to these extremely complex sound creations that they are today. Mixing music with other added and mixed sounds to make a film so exact. Complete polar opposites fr the most part. I suppose that's the difference created with technology within the last fifty years or so. I think it this trend keeps progressing the way it is now that it'll be interesting to see what film sound like in another twenty years.
In a similar fashion I think it's peculiar that early films began with no sound except for music and have gradually evolved to these extremely complex sound creations that they are today. Mixing music with other added and mixed sounds to make a film so exact. Complete polar opposites fr the most part. I suppose that's the difference created with technology within the last fifty years or so. I think it this trend keeps progressing the way it is now that it'll be interesting to see what film sound like in another twenty years.
Friday's Tour
I now understand why my brother, who is the facilities manager at the Eden Prarie AMC movie theater complians so much when the projectionists are gone and he has to run the booth. I don't think that I could ever figure out the order of the film reels for set up even after watching someone set up those machines a dozen or so times.
I was fairly surprised about the CD and film syncronization though it was something I never bothered to ask about and I was surprised to hear that they used welding glass for the windows in the booth. I feel so cheated, never in all the gripping about his job has said brother ever mentioned exploding bulbs. That has to be fun to watch provided one is wearing the appropriate protective clothing.
I think that the thing that shocked me the most thought is just how long the film reels really were. I can't imagine how complicated it must be to splice together all the sections. I was thouroghly surprised by all of the different things that we go to see. And here I though all they had to do was pop in a DVD.
I was fairly surprised about the CD and film syncronization though it was something I never bothered to ask about and I was surprised to hear that they used welding glass for the windows in the booth. I feel so cheated, never in all the gripping about his job has said brother ever mentioned exploding bulbs. That has to be fun to watch provided one is wearing the appropriate protective clothing.
I think that the thing that shocked me the most thought is just how long the film reels really were. I can't imagine how complicated it must be to splice together all the sections. I was thouroghly surprised by all of the different things that we go to see. And here I though all they had to do was pop in a DVD.
unnecessary sound
so recently i've noticed that in a lot of the things that i've been watching that they include a lot of unnecessary sound or sound that would not normally occur. a few example that i can remember is a scene in which a family is eating dinner and the father picks up a piece of silverware and you hear the sound of clanking silverware. in most everyday situations you would not normally clank your silverware together before you pick it up. another example i can think of is that i was watching a show about magnets on the history channel or something like that and they were showing how you can make a magnet my wrapping wire around a nail and connecting the ends of the wire to a power source and in the illustration of how to construct such a device they had the sound that everybody associates with a electricity, the buzzing sound. even though if you actually made this kind of magnet in real life that it would not make this sound and in fact would have to be an incredibly high voltage to actually make anything like this sound. and they did this even after they had already highlighted the wire blue to show that it had electricity running through it. i guess that this is done to focus attention to a particular thing in a shot, but many times it seems like attention is not needed on that particular thing. it generally doesn't have anything to do with the plot. i remember a number of years back hearing about how a lot of things in film are over exageratted because the audience can be kind of dumb sometimes. the thing that they cited as an example was the visual use of over empahsizing things with putting ribbon on to fans or air conditioners to show that they were actually on, because if the audience doesn't see that the air is moving they don't think that it is actually on. so i guess that this over use of sound is the audio version of over emphasizing.
theater tour/ long live analog
the tour of the theater friday was an enlightening one. before the tour i was completely unaware that the sound of the film wasn't actually on the film itself. it was interesting that each film has a set of cd's that have the sound/soundtrack on them. the synching of the sound completely amazes and boggles me. it's beyond my ability to comprehend how some simple binary can synch with cds to create an entire product/experience. i guess that this is the solution for the problem with the soundtrack being destroyed with handling and use. this is also probably a product of the digital age. with all the audio becoming digital, film is just following suit with the trends. but being a fan of analog myself i would love to see film return to the analog sound. i feel like analog just has more of a connection to the real sound, since it's not broken down into samples that replicate the actual wave of the sound. digital sound just seems a little crispy to me. although most of the music i own is digital i have recently discovered the "warmth" of analog through my collecting of vinyl. i've actually started buying albums i already own on vinyl, just because i prefer to listen to vinyl. now if only they could create a portable vinly player.
Fun with synchresis
Bored?
Would you like to have some fun with audio/visual relationships?
I can tell you how!
For those of you who have never tried this, it is super duper fun and you should probably do it soon. All you need is a cartoon with a lot of speaking, (like family guy, south park, SpongeBob, aquateen, etc) and some rap music, with a lot of rapping. All you need to do now is mute the sound on the cartoon you are watching and put on the rap music. You will be amazed at how easily your mind is tricked! The cartoon characters will suddenly seems to be the ones saying the lyrics. It’s fantastic!
If a characters mouth is moving in any way, shape, or form that mimics actual speaking while audio of a voice is played, our minds will automatically associate the sound of the voice with the moving mouth. I should also mention that it helps if the source of the music is very close to the source of the visuals. Like a stereo on top of your television.
This trick works best with rap music because a large amount of vocals allows for much more frequent and believable synchresis.
If you set the default language on your cable box to Spanish, every once and a while SpongeBob will get really weird, maybe, it happened to me last night. I suppose the speaking audio was supposed to be dubbed into Spanish, but it was not and the English audio was still missing. Every time a character spoke, its mouth moved, but no sound came out. However, the sound effects were all still intact. For a long time I was very confused, I thought that maybe it was just a very stylistic episode in which all of the characters were mutes, or mimes or something. But that would be really weird and unlikely so I became somewhat distressed. Luckily I figured out the problem and tonight I realized that this scenario would be perfect for the rap/cartoon trick. You wouldn’t have to lose the sound of the characters actions, but the rap vocals would still seem to come from their mouths!
Would you like to have some fun with audio/visual relationships?
I can tell you how!
For those of you who have never tried this, it is super duper fun and you should probably do it soon. All you need is a cartoon with a lot of speaking, (like family guy, south park, SpongeBob, aquateen, etc) and some rap music, with a lot of rapping. All you need to do now is mute the sound on the cartoon you are watching and put on the rap music. You will be amazed at how easily your mind is tricked! The cartoon characters will suddenly seems to be the ones saying the lyrics. It’s fantastic!
If a characters mouth is moving in any way, shape, or form that mimics actual speaking while audio of a voice is played, our minds will automatically associate the sound of the voice with the moving mouth. I should also mention that it helps if the source of the music is very close to the source of the visuals. Like a stereo on top of your television.
This trick works best with rap music because a large amount of vocals allows for much more frequent and believable synchresis.
If you set the default language on your cable box to Spanish, every once and a while SpongeBob will get really weird, maybe, it happened to me last night. I suppose the speaking audio was supposed to be dubbed into Spanish, but it was not and the English audio was still missing. Every time a character spoke, its mouth moved, but no sound came out. However, the sound effects were all still intact. For a long time I was very confused, I thought that maybe it was just a very stylistic episode in which all of the characters were mutes, or mimes or something. But that would be really weird and unlikely so I became somewhat distressed. Luckily I figured out the problem and tonight I realized that this scenario would be perfect for the rap/cartoon trick. You wouldn’t have to lose the sound of the characters actions, but the rap vocals would still seem to come from their mouths!
Tour de Theatre
I have to say that the tour of the waite park movie theater on Friday was pretty cool. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect and I was surprised by whets really going on behind the little glass window up in the back of the theater.
My favorite part of the tour was the projector bulbs. A 600 watt light bulb that will blind you if you look at it and could violently explode if mishandled... pretty darn kewl. I wonder how much those bulbs cost, I should have asked. Even if I got my hands on one though, a ballast of some sort to power it is probably a fortune. I bet a 600 watt projector bulb would be great for indoor gardening.
It was also very interesting how the film sound is all analog. I was sure it would be completely digital by now. Having a syncing strip running down the side of the film was also an interesting concept. I just thought of a lot of questions concerning that, however. I would like to know how the projector reads the "blue strip" and how the syncing takes place. I would also like to know how the sound source is set up. Is it one long recording of the all the films sound as it should be heard on screen? Or could it be an archive of all the movies individual sounds which would be triggered by the blue strip? The latter seems unlikely now, but it would be kinda neat if it were true.
The speaker setup in the theater we went into wasn’t really spectacular. I never had any idea that much of the sound was coming from behind the screen. It’s obvious now, but I would have probably never really questioned it, had it not been for the tour.
Overall, it was a pretty cool time, I enjoyed the tour very much, thx Twombly :)
My favorite part of the tour was the projector bulbs. A 600 watt light bulb that will blind you if you look at it and could violently explode if mishandled... pretty darn kewl. I wonder how much those bulbs cost, I should have asked. Even if I got my hands on one though, a ballast of some sort to power it is probably a fortune. I bet a 600 watt projector bulb would be great for indoor gardening.
It was also very interesting how the film sound is all analog. I was sure it would be completely digital by now. Having a syncing strip running down the side of the film was also an interesting concept. I just thought of a lot of questions concerning that, however. I would like to know how the projector reads the "blue strip" and how the syncing takes place. I would also like to know how the sound source is set up. Is it one long recording of the all the films sound as it should be heard on screen? Or could it be an archive of all the movies individual sounds which would be triggered by the blue strip? The latter seems unlikely now, but it would be kinda neat if it were true.
The speaker setup in the theater we went into wasn’t really spectacular. I never had any idea that much of the sound was coming from behind the screen. It’s obvious now, but I would have probably never really questioned it, had it not been for the tour.
Overall, it was a pretty cool time, I enjoyed the tour very much, thx Twombly :)
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Wilhelm Scream
Unfortunately, (or may be fortunately), this blog will be kept brief as it requires your ears more than your eyes to correctly understand what I am talking about. This blog is about the Wilhelm Scream, which is, a common sound effect that is heard in many popular movies. If you are thinking there is a chance you haven’t heard it, you are probably wrong. It has graced movies like the Indiana Jones trilogy, the Star Wars trilogy, and even all the way down to Gremlins 2.
What blows my mind is I found out about the history of this scream through a website while researching things for this class but I kind of already knew about the scream. I heard it so often as a child, and it is so unique, that even when I was ten years old I knew that there was a common scream that was used a lot in some of my favorite movies. Pretty weird for a kid to pick up on something like that but repetition is way we learn about things.
I won’t discuss the history of the scream because, well, there’s a youtube link below this that does just that. Also at the bottom of this blog are two collages of various movie scenes which use the Wilhelm Scream. Definitely check these videos out if you want a laugh or if you just want to know what the hell I was talking about.
The History of the Wilhelm Scream
The Wilhelm Scream (1953-1999)
The Wilhelm Scream (1977-2007)
What blows my mind is I found out about the history of this scream through a website while researching things for this class but I kind of already knew about the scream. I heard it so often as a child, and it is so unique, that even when I was ten years old I knew that there was a common scream that was used a lot in some of my favorite movies. Pretty weird for a kid to pick up on something like that but repetition is way we learn about things.
I won’t discuss the history of the scream because, well, there’s a youtube link below this that does just that. Also at the bottom of this blog are two collages of various movie scenes which use the Wilhelm Scream. Definitely check these videos out if you want a laugh or if you just want to know what the hell I was talking about.
The History of the Wilhelm Scream
The Wilhelm Scream (1953-1999)
The Wilhelm Scream (1977-2007)
Punctuated Incorporated
I happened to catch an episode of the Outer Limits (the remake of course) a couple of days ago. It was an okay episode. The plot followed a scientist who worked for a world government. He was hired to investigate an obelisk like object that had landed in a large city. The obelisk kept emitting new and changing sounds and continued to change the environment around it into a more natural state. Eventually, our protagonist realizes that the sound emitted by the object was a form of communication and its message was directions on how to enter it which, of course, the scientist does. The plot was a bit predictable and there was nothing overly amazing visually either. What kept my attention was the sound design.
Nearly every sound on the screen was carefully selected or crafted by the sound editor. Obviously, I could go on and on about the use of the sound to describe the obelisk, but since this blog is about punctuation, I’ll focus on a very specific scene. Near the end of the episode, the scientist enters the obelisk and the sound scene changes very abruptly. As he walks toward the object, there is myriad of sound effects that are suppose to represent the encroaching nature such as birds squawking, animals snorting, and the character’s muffled footfalls as he steps from concrete to grass. Throughout this scene, the musical score is very tense with a long crescendo reaching climax just as the scientist enters the object. However, when he enters he stands in a room composed of nothing but white light. There is no sound; no background sound effects or musical score. He stands there dumbfounded until a nonhuman voice rumbles “Hello” and the scene cuts abruptly to credits after the alien speaks.
What is interesting is how the lack of sound inside the obelisk is used to punctuate the scene. It helps reinforce the idea of an alien environment and stands out in stark contrast to the ocean of sound we are given for the scene prior. The abrupt cut at the end, also, reinforces and maintains the alien-like environment in the mind of the viewer. Overall, I thought this was an excellent example of punctuation.
Nearly every sound on the screen was carefully selected or crafted by the sound editor. Obviously, I could go on and on about the use of the sound to describe the obelisk, but since this blog is about punctuation, I’ll focus on a very specific scene. Near the end of the episode, the scientist enters the obelisk and the sound scene changes very abruptly. As he walks toward the object, there is myriad of sound effects that are suppose to represent the encroaching nature such as birds squawking, animals snorting, and the character’s muffled footfalls as he steps from concrete to grass. Throughout this scene, the musical score is very tense with a long crescendo reaching climax just as the scientist enters the object. However, when he enters he stands in a room composed of nothing but white light. There is no sound; no background sound effects or musical score. He stands there dumbfounded until a nonhuman voice rumbles “Hello” and the scene cuts abruptly to credits after the alien speaks.
What is interesting is how the lack of sound inside the obelisk is used to punctuate the scene. It helps reinforce the idea of an alien environment and stands out in stark contrast to the ocean of sound we are given for the scene prior. The abrupt cut at the end, also, reinforces and maintains the alien-like environment in the mind of the viewer. Overall, I thought this was an excellent example of punctuation.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Punctuation?
So the concept of sound as punctuation is pretty darn interesting. It’s pretty obvious that we could use sound to add value to or just accentuate the action on screen. I have seldom thought about the very many different ways sound can be used to punctuate cinema. Once I begin to imagine sound punctuation in relation to grammar punctuation, the possibilities of sound punctuation become much clearer.
It’s difficult to pick any one example of punctuation, considering there are so very many. Also, it’s very difficult for me to write about sound punctuation, it’s so hard to describe or recreate the most interesting sounds with text. However, I just remembered a clear example of punctuation which is easy to talk about. I haven’t watched the show "Survivor" in a very long time, but I can remember several instances of new scenes, new camera angles, or new show developments being punctuated by the sound of a gong crash.
The gong crash is one of the most obvious and easily used punctuation devices. Imagine if a gong sounded just before you said or did anything cool or important. Now imagine if a gong sounded just after you did or said anything cool or important. Either way, it would be very epic. The fact that a gong would punctuate or add value to your life is undisputable. I believe that the gong crash is one of the most powerful guns in the sound punctuation arsenal.
Power isn’t everything however, and believe it or not, there are other tools besides the gong crash for sound punctuation. Most sound punctuation is much more subtle. Most of the time viewers do not directly notice acts of sound punctuation, but the overall effects punctuation can have on cinema can be incredibly powerful and nearly impossible to miss.
It’s difficult to pick any one example of punctuation, considering there are so very many. Also, it’s very difficult for me to write about sound punctuation, it’s so hard to describe or recreate the most interesting sounds with text. However, I just remembered a clear example of punctuation which is easy to talk about. I haven’t watched the show "Survivor" in a very long time, but I can remember several instances of new scenes, new camera angles, or new show developments being punctuated by the sound of a gong crash.
The gong crash is one of the most obvious and easily used punctuation devices. Imagine if a gong sounded just before you said or did anything cool or important. Now imagine if a gong sounded just after you did or said anything cool or important. Either way, it would be very epic. The fact that a gong would punctuate or add value to your life is undisputable. I believe that the gong crash is one of the most powerful guns in the sound punctuation arsenal.
Power isn’t everything however, and believe it or not, there are other tools besides the gong crash for sound punctuation. Most sound punctuation is much more subtle. Most of the time viewers do not directly notice acts of sound punctuation, but the overall effects punctuation can have on cinema can be incredibly powerful and nearly impossible to miss.
Montage
I’ve been wracking my brain all day to figure out what else to write about because I have honestly not turned on the TV all week. So I thought back to our class discussion this week and remembered discussing the concept of montage and what it is as well as how sound affects these scenes.
I just happened to remember that there is a great example of montage at the end of the film Definitely Maybe where the daughter is kind of scolding her father and then the scenes change and progress through about three different screens until the characters reach the arrival scene outside the friend’s apartment, but the music stays the same until then. Even though it's a fairly short example, I thought that this set of scenes really fit the definition of montage and helped me to understand it a little better. I do have to say that while I understand the point that Eisenstein makes, I didn’t find anything unfitting about just hearing one musical accompaniment throughout these scenes, if anything, the accompaniment seemed to connect them together. But maybe that’s because I’m so used to hearing sound used the way it is.
I just happened to remember that there is a great example of montage at the end of the film Definitely Maybe where the daughter is kind of scolding her father and then the scenes change and progress through about three different screens until the characters reach the arrival scene outside the friend’s apartment, but the music stays the same until then. Even though it's a fairly short example, I thought that this set of scenes really fit the definition of montage and helped me to understand it a little better. I do have to say that while I understand the point that Eisenstein makes, I didn’t find anything unfitting about just hearing one musical accompaniment throughout these scenes, if anything, the accompaniment seemed to connect them together. But maybe that’s because I’m so used to hearing sound used the way it is.
Punctuation.....What's the Difference?
After this week’s example of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon I was left with one big question. What isn’t punctuation in an action film, the answer, apparently very little. If one is going to use certain sounds to stress certain actions within a scene like swords clinking and such, then using this example are we to understand that every single sound that acts in the same manner to also be a form of punctuation?
The problem with these examples and definitions is that the sound within a frame is so integrated that it’s difficult to differentiate the multitude of different sound practices used. Because to me punctuation seems really no different than any other empathetic sound added to films. Obviously Mickey Mousing is easy to identify, but even in the film this week, what is so different between the fighting sounds of this film compared to the fighting sounds of any other previous action film that we’ve seen.
It seems to me that we are creating more and more fancy terms to describe the exact same practices that we’ve already discussed. Because whether it’s an action movie with lots of fighting sounds or just odd sounds like footsteps in Mon Uncle, each sound you hear unless it’s a musical accompaniment is still just being used empathetically to add value to the screen. At this point, I am honestly starting to think that Chion is making this way to complicated.
The problem with these examples and definitions is that the sound within a frame is so integrated that it’s difficult to differentiate the multitude of different sound practices used. Because to me punctuation seems really no different than any other empathetic sound added to films. Obviously Mickey Mousing is easy to identify, but even in the film this week, what is so different between the fighting sounds of this film compared to the fighting sounds of any other previous action film that we’ve seen.
It seems to me that we are creating more and more fancy terms to describe the exact same practices that we’ve already discussed. Because whether it’s an action movie with lots of fighting sounds or just odd sounds like footsteps in Mon Uncle, each sound you hear unless it’s a musical accompaniment is still just being used empathetically to add value to the screen. At this point, I am honestly starting to think that Chion is making this way to complicated.
lack of punctuation
So i have recently started watching a show on BBC America called Skins and it is kind of a new experience in television watching The thing that mainly throws me off is there complete lack of punctuation I am not sure if this is a cultural thing or if it is just the style of this show but it really threw me at first Mainly i guess because we have become so accustomed to punctuation in our media The only real thing that they have to end the scene is their Skins title before and after commercials It is just weird to transition without any sound I am kind of wondering if it is possibly a cultural thing and if people in Brittan are used to this kind of thing It may just seem to them that this use of punctuation is a little weird to them I think that some other shows pull this off a bit more effectively Like some shows will end with a punch line or something in the conversation that brings a natural end to the scene But in Skins the commercials just kind of come out of nowhere and surprise you because you're not expecting them from the cues of the speech
Punctuation.!?
So there is a show i watch quite a bit that has some of the most pronounced punctuation that I can think of. The show is called Corner Gas it is a sitcom from Canada that airs on WGN. For pretty much all their transitions to commercials they have the same sound of three notes on a guitar. I'm not sure if this would qualify as punctuation or not but this seemed to be the best example that I could think of. It kind of lets you know when the scene is over and brings a wrap to what was going on in the story. This also brings a kind of signature to the show because they use is so prevalently throughout their episodes, along with some of the other sounds they use in their transitions to scenes. They will use this kind of whipping sound to jump to a short shot of another character (usually being talked about in the scene), and back to the original scene. This sound is also used alot in Scrubs. The sound also acts like a ellipsis in the show when they cut to a another situation with other characters.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Punctuated!...?;"*`-'@
I always wonder before I write these, "Should the 'required' blog necessarily be longer or more engaging than the 'free-for-all' blog?" I have yet to answer myself in any way to even begin. But for the sake of this paragraph, I have very little to say about punctuation. Period.
Although it is quite noticeable in most of it's forms as described in Chion's book, it still is about as important as something's color. You can point out an object's color but whether it's function is an important factor is somewhat separate from it's existence.
For example:
"That apple is red!" Ted exclaims!
Now depending on the situation it could be very important or not very important.
Very Important: The red apple that someone is about to eat is poisoned and it was the only red apple in the vicinity of a large amount of, let's say, green apples.
Not Very Important: The red apple is among other apples of the same color. Now what Ted exclaims is quite irrelevant or maybe even just overly obvious. (They're all red Ted.)
Now. The analogous part of the blog:
If something were to be punctuated and have meaning:
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon fight scene. They are making careful choices to punctuate specific things she is doing rather than all of them. Footsteps have been omitted unless they are integrated into a 'fighting move'.
Let's say now we watch an episode of "Leave it to Beaver" and The Beav' walks in and absolutely everything he does has a sound effect. Everything is meticulously punctuated to an insane extreme. Punctuation would loose all meaning and I would be laughing hysterically.
So. We come to the end of my argument. I think that it is as important as a nonchalantly placed color in certain circumstances, but is only useful when being quite specific about a certain point in a film- usually for added significance.
Final unrelated coincidence in my argument:
Color was not integrated in film in the beginning;
Sound was not integrated in film in the beginning.
Eh? Eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)