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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)