Taken

Many of you have seen the movie "Taken". Well recently there have been many comercials on "Taken 2" so I decided to watch the first one.  This movie is definately an action movie and I felt like it had a lot of the things that we have ben talking about in class. First one is added value. One of the examples I thought music played the added value, is when Bryan finds the person that took his daughter away and ties him in the chair and tries to get information on where did he sell his daughter too. The man is tyed to a chair and Bryan turns on the electricity which is shocking the guy. Well the sound that is added to this scene gives intensity, tension and disgust. This scene is also the example of direct sound or maybe Diajetic ( I guess I am still confused on the difference between the two). But the direct sound is that we see the source from where the sound originates, so every time Bryan turns on the light switch we hear that buzzing, penetrating noisy sound. This scene is also a very good example of empathetic music because to us as viewers/listeners we can both feel the anger of Bryan and the pain and scaredness of the bad guy.  Another example of direct sound in the movie that really stuck out to me was when Bryan was on the plane to rescue Kimmy and he was rewinding a recorder to hear the phone call when his daughter was Taken, we as audience saw the direct source yet not really because we heard the recordings but there were no images of his daughter. I also noticed that this movie was pretty big on using punctuation. Unifying or binding flow of images by music. Unifies visual breaks through sound overlaps and brings unity by establishing atmosphere as a framework that seems to contain the image. For example one of those scenes was when Bryan was in the apartment and kind of having mental pictures of how his daughter was taken.

The Holiday

So I am watching The Holiday and there is one scene where she puts a cd into the cd player and is singing to the music. So since you can see where the sound is coming from and it is the sound that was actually recorded I guess that would be a direct diagetic* sound ? And I never had really noticed before but they really do honk the horn on cars when they pass one in a movie which is really weird... And I just used the word really three times in that sentence....

Thought On Mon Oncle

This film opened my eyes to exaggerated audio effects can be.  Having every sound added to the visual after the fact is something that I have never listened to or viewed before. It made me think about how the general public would react to a contemporary movie made that way today. I think the majority of people would find it more difficult to watch, as I did with Mon Oncle, because we are so accustomed to the contemporary way of mixing sound in film. I also think that if this technique was employed to the extreme today that it would make horror films funny and action films choppy, etc.

The movie was a pretty good. The sound was interesting. I thought the 'motives' of the shoes and the town. It was kind of distracting that the sounds were so loud compared to the background noise. I am still confused as to why those dogs are always running around the town. And in all honesty I don't even know what the movie was actually about. But all in all it was pretty funny and over all good.

Mon Oncle

I enjoyed watching "Mon Oncle" because it's originally a comedy, but also is funny in the same way that "Dracula"is by which they create the sounds and try to synchronize them to gestures with the technology they had at the time.  I found it interesting that even with technological differences between then and now, Tati is able to portray subtleties of sounds to characters.  For example what we discussed in class with the footsteps, that the women have very short, clicking steps while the men are more scuffled sounding.  I believe that that elaborates on the characters actions.  Also, the soundtrack used for the town and the city was a great way to interpret the living styles .    

Sound in Jacques Tati's Mon Oncle

In Mon Oncle (1958), sound is used a great deal to enhance the attributes of different characters and different environments. This is done in several ways, but right now I wish to focus on the use (and non-use) of music. It is perhaps interesting to note that music is present only in the world of Monsieur Hulot. Most other filmmakers, I think, would have had music in the world of the Arpels as well. Or does Tati do this? Because of the way he exaggerates the noises we hear in the Arpel world, one might consider it an expression of the philosophy presented in Luigi Russolo’s L’arte dei Rumori, in which the noises of the modern world are considered musical in their own right. On the other hand, it is possible that Tati might have intended the lack of music to symbolise the philistinism of the modern world. But whether we decide these sounds have a certain musical quality or are just noise is perhaps not very important. The lack of (traditional) music in the Arpel world greatly emphasises the sounds we do hear. This, combined with the visual differences onscreen creates greater perception of the social and ideological distance between the Arpel and Hulot worlds.

Mon Oncle is such a good comic film. I find it interesting to compare it with Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times (1936), which, though very different, is similar in that it lampoons the technology, machinery, and values of the modern world. In Modern Times, though still essentially a silent film (well, a film without much dialogue anyway), Chaplin nevertheless does use sound effects in a limited way, particularly for the sake of emphasising the comedy coming from the modern technology (especially the first fifteen minutes or so). Chaplin’s Modern Times is a great cinematic masterpiece, but Tati’s Mon Oncle goes even further in its use of sound for enhancing/telling the story.

Blog on Tatti's Mon Oncle

I thought the movie Mon Oncle by Tatti was pretty good. I really like the French style movies, they are so simple yet entairtaining. The sound effect and music in film was mostly split into main theme tune for the market and everytime the "Uncle" would appear on the screan as well as really strict no music enviroment for when little boys house and family would appear. The sound would always be very distinct, for example the water fountain turning on, but only when someone would be at the gate. They had a very high tech house with technological sounds. It was also interesting how in class Dr. Twombly pointed out to the sound of footsteps, how Mom's and Dad's sounds were clicky, edgy and distinct compare to muted footsteps of the child and completely quiet footsteps of the Uncle. I loved how some of the object on the screen had direct source of sound. For example a door opening or closing, a car rumbling or a noise of a carriage and bells. Where on the other hand there were sometimes pictures but no direct sound like dogs running around but never really making sound until the scene with the fish at the market. I thought the scene of kids whistling and getting people to walk into a post was really cute as well as different compare to the other set of music/sounds to the film. At this part I noticed there was no main tune theme, and more silence as well as coins setting on the rock, which made a more intense feeling, but not as strict as the silence and house commercial sounds at the rich home. I also think that even thought this movie was pretty good, it took a long time for the film to really unfold to be able to tell what was the story going to be around, but I did like how music had a sense of linear combination of different sections in the film. One very good scene that shows causal listening was the scene with the phone picking up sounds from the market and main tune to symbolize what the Uncle was doing at that specific time.  In general I think the movie really represented more of direct sounds, which is what you see is what you hear.

Mon Oncle

The most interesting thing about the sound in Mon Oncle is that none of it was recorded while it was being filmed. This technique makes the sound of the utmost importance because every sound is deliberate. Everything you hear in the film was carefully thought about and recorded. But because of this technique, the sound in Mon Oncle is usually sparse, awkward, and unnaturally mixed. This is especially prevalent in the beginning scene where the mother is cleaning a running car with a rag. Even though one would struggle to hear the sound a rag makes when it wipes something in complete silence, you can hear it over the roar of the car engine. While this does make me tilt my head, it serves its purpose by directing my attention to the rag instead of anything else on the screen. Another example is when the father walks, his footsteps sound almost nothing like what I would associate with the sound of footsteps in real life, but it works because the sound is happening every time one of his feet hit the ground. This marriage of visual and aural rhythm makes the viewer ok with the odd sounding steps. All of this adds an extra bit of quirkiness, meaning, and fun to the movie.

Added value in performence of Chang Xiang Shou by Chi Wang

So since the whole week, has been pretty much talk about Kyma I decided for this blog to include some refferal to KISS 2012. Saturday concert was visual as well as music concert and in particular the performance by Chi Wang and her composition Chang Xiang Shou has played a big effect on me.  In this performance Chi Wang used a wii powered voleyball that she used to control sound as well as movement of certain pictures on the screen. I found it interesting when Chi Wang's film was more angular or like a static pictures the music was more moving forward and angular which made it interesting in the film sort of creating sense of moving even though the pictures was static. Another aspect I noticed was when the Wii volleyball would go in circle, the sound would be surround and the picture on the screen  would be moving circular too. By having surround sound the picture almost felt more life, more real. It was interesting because when I would close my ears during performance and try to isolate sound the film itself sort of seemed broken up into parts, compare to with music it seemed to have a very good flow.

Outer Space: the Added Value of Silence

Of the many interesting things in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), one of my favorites is the extensive use of silence.

In most science fiction films which are set in outer space, one finds that filmmakers seem to feel obliged to give us sound effects of spacecraft and space weapons — despite the fact that in the vacuum of space there can be no sound. I suppose most filmmakers believe their audience would find it ridiculous to watch something blow up in outer space without any explosive sound effect. To a certain extent, I think there is some justification in this. For instance, if, during the rebel attack on the Death Star in A New Hope (1977), we were given battle sound effects when the shot is of the interior of a fighter but not when the shot is from outside, it might add an interesting dimension to the film, but it also would adversely disrupt the continuity of the sequence and potentially be a harmful distraction to the audience (despite the constant music itself creating continuity in the scene). It is a dilemma. Our conditioning makes us expect to hear an explosion when we see the Death Star (or any other spacecraft) blow up, even though in reality it would be silent. Caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of Silence and Noise, most makers of outer space films seem to choose the latter.

However, when watching 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of the dominant things we are confronted with is silence. Whenever we see shots from the perpective of the vacuum of space (or, more accurately, its representation on screen) there are no sound effects: it is either totally silent, or we get music. The silence is especially prevalent throughout the Jupiter Mission section. Not only is this scientifically accurate (important in a film that attempts a level of accuracy which in 1968 was unprecedented in a sci-fi film), it also serves an important aesthetic function. The entire film is sparse: small cast, a script of few words, simple-looking costumes and staging — the restrictions on sound add even greater emphasis to this. The sparse atmosphere is quite fitting for a film predominantly set in outer space.

The difference, though, between 2001 and other sci-fi/space films is that 2001 is not about action. Nor is it particularly about telling the audience anything. It is an elegant cinematic poem, designed more to suggest thoughts than to tell something. The sonic, visual, and dramatic restraint allow the film to say more, just as with literary poems the poetry is not necessarily what is written, instead being that which a person projects between the lines. The six-part Star Wars, to me, anyway, also is best interpreted as a cinematic poem, but a poem of a different sort. It is about telling a story — and a story which is filled with much action. This requires it to be handled differently from 2001, and the sonic decisions emphasise these differences. Overall, I agree with the sonic choices made throughout Star Wars, as well as 2001. Nevertheless, I think space films in general make too much use of noise…

Tom and Jerry

I was watching Tom and Jerry the other day, (Hanna-Barbera era - mid1950's), and noticed how much added value there is.  I first shut my eyes and listened to only the effects while blocking out the orchestration.  Without the visuals, it was spliced sounds mashed together.  A spring sound followed by the infamous slide whistle ending with a cymbal crash.  Also, without the visual it becomes easier to hear how the sound was most likely created.  When putting the TV on mute and watching without sound, it's less exciting.  In the animation, there are added lines around the character indicating pain, or sudden movements, along with shaking film slides, but without the added sound a lot of the effectiveness is lost.  Most of the sounds are also direct, whatever effects are made are always shown.  In the rare chance that the source if off screen, there is added animation to show where the source is located.  For example, a dog is barking off screen so 5 small lines are flashing synchronized to the bark in the area where the dog would be.

Added Value in Bored to Death

Recently I was watching the HBO series "Bored to Death" when I came across a great example of added value. This series is about a writer (played by Jason Schwartzman) who is having trouble finding inspiration for writing his second book. In a search for a cure to his writers block, he starts taking cases as a private detective. In this particular episode, he had a case where he had to find and retrieve a stolen skateboard. After he finds the person who stole the skateboard, he proceeds to steal it back. This act results in a chase scene via skateboards. This scene is complemented by the roaring of skateboard wheels and it is used partially to familiarize the viewer with the sound of a moving skateboard for later in the episode. The writer ends up escaping the skateboarders and returning the stolen skateboard to it's previous owner, but in the final scene, when the writer is returning to his apartment, the sound of the moving skateboards returns causing the writer to look up and grow a concerned look. The episode then ends. In this example the sound of the skateboards moving is actually responsible for resolving the entire episode. The audience never sees the skateboarders approaching him, but they still experience it because of the sound. The sound also returns the sense of dread and uncertainty present in the chase scene thus adding not only physical information, but also emotional information. So in this example the sound was actually more important than the visual. If you played the video without sound, the viewer would end up being confused, but if you just heard the screaming of the moving skateboards, there would be no question about what was going on. 

Quick comment on Added value

Here goes my first blog. I was watching some tv the other day and for all of the commercials I muted the audio. I found that a lot of the time you don’t even know what the commercial is trying to convey or sell you.  For example,  a commercial will start out with fast cars driving around or a polar bear ( an older commercial that comes to mind) and just when your thinking ‘where is this going?’ or ‘this is definitely about that new car’, it ends of up being a coke commercial or some other soft drink commercial. On the other hand, I found that sometimes you want the polar bear commercial to be about coke and it actually ends up being about saving the environment to protect the polar bears.  Again, these commercials are being watched without audio. I also found that added value plays an important role in these commercials. The sound of the car grabs your attention and audibly describes how fast the car is moving and how “cool” and awesome” it would be to be driving the car. Without audio you just see a car appear to be moving.  There is also a kind of transfer of subliminal messaging from the image of the car to the soft drink, as well as transferring the audio of the car to the audio of a soft drink being opened. The audio of the soft drink also proves the effectiveness of added value. To sum up, audio plays an important role in describing what a commercial is trying to convey and goes a long way in potentially making you feel like you need what the commercial is showing.

Added Value and 'The Road'

The Road is a movie set to the novel of the same name by author Cormac McCarthy (movie director Joe Penhall). The story is about a man and his young boy trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world battling starvation, loneliness, cannibals  and anything the new world has to throw at them. The visual setting is extremely bleak with dark hues of blue and grey; a desolate wasteland void of bright colors and life. This is where the added value of the sound (or should I say, lack of sound) becomes important. While there IS a musical soundtrack and special effects, a good portion of the movie is very quiet. Most of the sounds that are drawn to the viewers attention are either those of the man and the boy traveling or the environment around them (wind, dust, thunder, etc.). As a viewer, this really built a lot of tension for me because I felt completely exposed, like I was one of the characters in the film and I could hear every sound around me. (Surround sound is amazing for this movie) The silence made the important parts even more important because there was a clear contrast in sound. It was very noticeable when someone or something was around. Another thing that the silence did was help to build empathy for the characters. During the most 'human' scenes in the movie, I could not help but make an emotional connection as my focal point was on the characters themselves.  Beyond the silence, the score composers; Nick Cave & Warren Ellis, did a great job of adding mood to the scenes that needed music. During the scenes with the most intensity, their 'atmospheric' type compositions utilized a lot of high frequencies while the moments of solace or loneliness had a lot of lows and mids. Below is a link to the trailer and I hope you all get some time to check this movie out. 

http://youtu.be/hbLgszfXTAY          

Added Value in Slapstick Comedy

Any of the short films featuring the Three Stooges would make a good example for discussion of this subject, but I shall focus on All Gummed Up (1947), which, while not being one of the Stooges’ best films, nevertheless offers some interesting features for the purposes of this posting. A video clip of the first half of the short may be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxieHgozwRg

One minute into the short we find Moe Howard (who, in this particular film, is, along with Shemp and Larry, a drugstore clerk) testing a lightbulb. When he is finished testing it, he turns his face towards the bulb, his cheeks briefly expand and contract, and the bulb goes out. If one watches it with the sound, however, it is instantly clear that he has just done the impossible (and comic) feat of blowing the lightbulb out as if it were a candle. On the other hand, if you listen to the scene without watching it, when Moe blows out the lightbulb it merely sounds as if he has a problem with a stuffy or runny nose.

At 4’45” Shemp declares that he has got an idea in the back of his head which won’t come out, and asks Moe and Larry to help him. So, in typical Three Stooges fashion, Moe and Larry begin to hit and slap Shemp’s head to coax ‘the idea’ out into the open. With the sound, these hits and slaps come across as being comic and intense. This culminates in Moe bonking Shemp’s head with a hammer. Triggered by the bonk of the hammer, we finally get this lovely sound which resembles a vending machine yielding one of its products (a bowling ball with crushed ice by the sound of it!). Now watch this segment (4’45” to 5’05”) again, without the sound. Watched without sound, one can clearly see that Moe and Larry are not hitting Shemp, but are instead lightly touching their fists against his hair, and that the velocity of the fists moving through the air is actually slower than the impression the sound effects give. However, since without the sound we don’t know why Moe and Larry are hitting poor Shemp, their actions might appear more cruel, whereas with the sound effects we know we are supposed to interpret it as comic. Also, with the sound muted at the point where we would otherwise hear what resembles the vending machine, the viewer has absolutely no idea how to interpret the hit on Shemp’s head with the hammer…apart from the fact that Shemp appears to be happy about it (which, in itself, would be really weird). Yet, merge sound with image, and the comedy becomes perfectly clear.

Slapstick comedy has relied heavily on added value for several centuries (including the provenance of its name). Whether one is experiencing traditional commedia dell’arte, a Laurel and Hardy tit-for-tat sequence, or a nice civilized pie fight in a Three Stooges film, one finds that, even though acting ability is a determining factor, much of the success of slapstick comedy is actually due to the sound effects.