Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Chion
I have personally always felt that film isn't whole without sound. That's not to say that films without sound are not as good, nor am I saying that they are any less of art. I feel that cinema is an art because it compiles all the other kinds of art (sound, image, painting, music). This idea correlates with Chion where he talks about the "added value" that sound gives to an image. This added value can go in any direction too. Say there's an image of me yawing. If you put over that image a sound of a fog horn, a lions roar, or a woman screaming; each of those will create different meaning from the image. Not only will it create a different meaning but it will also create a deeper meaning because you have thrown off the audiences expectations.
I also feel that a lot of these ideas of empathetic and anempathetic music are things that one picks up on throughout life (if you have been exposed to television and movies, of course). Even before I started studying film, if I were to edit a sad scene I would know what kind of music in my mind that would fit. Converesely, when I listen to music I can't help but think of what kind of scene the particular song would work in. The idea of non-emotion music intrigues me though. I had never thought of how it works until now. It's like a white noise sound that occurs after a particularly heavy emotion scene can carry over that emotion just by simply being there. Since the sound its self provides 0 added value besides noise, the audience is left soaking it all in.
Another idea I wasnt aware of was the difference in comprehension between ones eyes and ones ears. I knew that it takes the mind roughly 2-3 seconds to comprehend something it's heard, but I wasnt aware of the ears ability to gain definition over repetition. I feel that because of this, image adds value to sound. Since we see things before we hear them, we gain expectations visually a lot quicker. This is something to keep in mind for a filmmaker when one wants to make an impression on the audience quickly.
The last thing I learned (well not learned but more-or-less relized) was that image in some contexts is vectorless, meaning to temporal characteristics. The example with being able to reverse the montage on the beach scene and it still convey the same visual ideas is mind-blowing. On the other hand, I feel it is an easily learned idea to highlite certain parts of the environment when one is showing them. It should be common sense that when one shows an image of a windchime the audience should hear a windchime.
I like the idea of sound having vector because it helps explain audio phenomena. As a music producer, I deal will taking soundbites and making them as musiclly pleasing as possible. This includes chopping, reversing, and speed manipulation. Not once through that though have i considered a sound to have vector because I didn't look at sounds in relation to image. Even more curious is the idea that one can folley a sound in a film using original sounds that are no where near the same as the end result. It's like sound and image give each other context for which to work. If it matches up relatively well then the viewers brain tends to fill in the rest.
I also feel that a lot of these ideas of empathetic and anempathetic music are things that one picks up on throughout life (if you have been exposed to television and movies, of course). Even before I started studying film, if I were to edit a sad scene I would know what kind of music in my mind that would fit. Converesely, when I listen to music I can't help but think of what kind of scene the particular song would work in. The idea of non-emotion music intrigues me though. I had never thought of how it works until now. It's like a white noise sound that occurs after a particularly heavy emotion scene can carry over that emotion just by simply being there. Since the sound its self provides 0 added value besides noise, the audience is left soaking it all in.
Another idea I wasnt aware of was the difference in comprehension between ones eyes and ones ears. I knew that it takes the mind roughly 2-3 seconds to comprehend something it's heard, but I wasnt aware of the ears ability to gain definition over repetition. I feel that because of this, image adds value to sound. Since we see things before we hear them, we gain expectations visually a lot quicker. This is something to keep in mind for a filmmaker when one wants to make an impression on the audience quickly.
The last thing I learned (well not learned but more-or-less relized) was that image in some contexts is vectorless, meaning to temporal characteristics. The example with being able to reverse the montage on the beach scene and it still convey the same visual ideas is mind-blowing. On the other hand, I feel it is an easily learned idea to highlite certain parts of the environment when one is showing them. It should be common sense that when one shows an image of a windchime the audience should hear a windchime.
I like the idea of sound having vector because it helps explain audio phenomena. As a music producer, I deal will taking soundbites and making them as musiclly pleasing as possible. This includes chopping, reversing, and speed manipulation. Not once through that though have i considered a sound to have vector because I didn't look at sounds in relation to image. Even more curious is the idea that one can folley a sound in a film using original sounds that are no where near the same as the end result. It's like sound and image give each other context for which to work. If it matches up relatively well then the viewers brain tends to fill in the rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
