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.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wh00ps
Stan Brakhage seems like a really weird guy. Granted his positive "you can do anything if you put your mind to it" attitude is nice and it made the PDF a lot easier to read but I couldn't help thinking that he's the kind of guy that calls people "pilgrim." When I read the voice in my head was of the Family Guy character that lead the CPR class and the PTA meeting. You know, the effeminate one that always talks about his cat and the snacks that are in the back of the room. Moving on. Seeing as how he wrote this in 1966 I'm a bit confused as to why he had to explain how to load a projector; especially in paragraph form. It would have been a ton easier if he used diagrams and pictures rather than run on sentences. My guess is that he's trying to be sure that people understand film as thoroughly as possible so that their art can flourish to the endless boundaries that are achievable. Every time he told me to drop the book if I was excited I have to admit: I was tempted. That wasn't the assignment, though, so I continued on. The part in the "Dear Gregory" letter where he spoke about his relationship with Kenneth Anger was really interesting. It must have been amazing to be part of that time period where there was so much innovation and experimentation going on. I've watched "Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome" recently but sadly it wasn't in the triptych format; crazy film either way.
His comment on page 9 that states "If I make a collage film which can't be printed or projected at all, then it is, after all, more of a necklace or wall decoration than a film." Of course if you make a film that cant be shown then it's worthless. Why did he feel the need to write that down?
The part where he talks about how to make a film a daylight film was a new concept to me. I had never taken into consideration the effect a blue sky has on sunlight thus making one have to filter light to achieve the same effect. The way he follows all of his profound statements up with "if you feel the same then bless you" seems sort of condescending to me.
It kind of feels wrong to be reading a "how-to" on something as creativity based as direct film manipulation. I understand that he is just giving suggestions on what one could do if they were to pursue this method, but I feel if the person was into it enough to read this long-ass article they probably have some sort of idea of how they were going to go about it. The thing where he talks about how the glue crystalizes when you heat it up with an iron; how the hell did he figure that out? This guy must be constantly take things and sticking, gluing, rubbing, squirting, and oozing them onto film just to see how it looks. I have to admit, it sounds like fun.
His comment on page 9 that states "If I make a collage film which can't be printed or projected at all, then it is, after all, more of a necklace or wall decoration than a film." Of course if you make a film that cant be shown then it's worthless. Why did he feel the need to write that down?
The part where he talks about how to make a film a daylight film was a new concept to me. I had never taken into consideration the effect a blue sky has on sunlight thus making one have to filter light to achieve the same effect. The way he follows all of his profound statements up with "if you feel the same then bless you" seems sort of condescending to me.
It kind of feels wrong to be reading a "how-to" on something as creativity based as direct film manipulation. I understand that he is just giving suggestions on what one could do if they were to pursue this method, but I feel if the person was into it enough to read this long-ass article they probably have some sort of idea of how they were going to go about it. The thing where he talks about how the glue crystalizes when you heat it up with an iron; how the hell did he figure that out? This guy must be constantly take things and sticking, gluing, rubbing, squirting, and oozing them onto film just to see how it looks. I have to admit, it sounds like fun.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Scratch Film Junkies Reaction
It was interesting how the images of faces and people seemed to break the film up into sections. Once a face or a person would appear the colors would change schemes (Ie more red, different hues, etc.) and the music would then follow suit. I would relate this to the way one remembers dreams after being awake for sometime. The music seemed to want to go in tempo with the images but it never seemed to match up in a way that made it really obvious. The colors were beautiful, each frame could be used as sweet album cover. The drums were really cool, especially when they formed tempo'd beats. Next time, I'm vlogging.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
