Projections of sound on image

This article talked about the relationship of sounds and images in a film. It starts out by giving different examples of the very different impressions you can get of watching parts of films silently compared to with the audio. The audio can often link images together and make something more cohesive. The absence of sound in the very same clip can make the viewer question whats going on and who exactly two shots can go together or why they are in that order. Its almost like the sound in a way distracts you and makes you assume that things fit together a lot better than they actually do. It can just give you a very different response and opinion of a film or a part of a film when you watch in without audio compared to when audio is present. The reading claims that we have an “added value” when the two relations are combined. This “added value” in the text means “the expressive and informative value with which a sound enriches a given image so as to create the definite impression, in the immediate or remembered experience one has of it, that this information or expression ‘naturally’ comes from what is seen, and is already contained in the image itself.” I think that basically this is just saying that the audio can give you such a different opinion; it adds so much to an image or group of images. It changes how you see the clip and will make you remember the clip in a very different way. The text gives some examples of the very different opinions that you get from watching the same scene with and without sound and its really interesting to look at that and how differently people do react.

There is an immediate connection between what is seen and what is heard and taking away one of these aspects away makes things completely different. The audio gives a viewer so many more hints as to what is going on in the story and the possibility of where the story is going to go; it’s the combination of dialogue, music, sound effects…it all contributes to the way you interpret something and it all works together to continue on with the plot.

The text goes on to talk about “empathetic music,” music that works to help the viewer have the ability to feel the feelings of others. I think that this is totally true. Music can have a huge effect in the way people see something and the way in which they interpret it. Music is such a big part of people’s lives in today’s culture and it means so much to people. Many people are so able to identify with music that it only makes sense that music would contribute to an image.

Another reason why sound added to an image can be so effective is because of the fact that the ear analyzes, processes, and synthesizes faster than the eye. I assume that this makes what one hears even more important since it could be making the first impression.

The text then states that sound “dramatizes shots, orientating them toward a future, a goal, and creation of a feeling of imminence and expectation. The shot is going somewhere and it is orientated in time.” This makes total sense too. The sound is helping it along; helping the story move smoothly and seamlessly forward.

Towards the end of the article other topics are discussed such as the how cinematic and cultural elements also play a role in the audio of a film.

wells

Wells starts out the article talking about the difference between orthodox animation and experimental animation; giving the reader his definitions of the two. The words and phrases that he uses to describe orthodox animation include the following: configuration, specific continuity, narrative form, evolution of context, unity of style, absence of artist, and dynamics of dialogue. In contract, experimental animation is defined as abstraction, specific non-continuity, interpretive form, evolution of materiality, multiple styles, presence of the artist, and dynamics of musicality. This is the basis for Wells article as he goes on to define each of these terms in depth.

In my opinion one of the main differences that I see is the narrative vs. interpretive forms. The narrative form of animations were usually filled with character conflicts and chase sequences. All in all, narrative animation is really just the idea of establishing a story by coming up with a situation, coming up with a problem and then solving it. This narrative form is a characteristic of orthodox animation. In contrast, experimental animation is based on an interpretive form. This interpretive form is based on aesthetic and non-narrative. It seems to avoid storytelling and instead works towards getting its point across in a way that is more similar to that of artists like painters and sculptors. It can also be described as animated paintings. I think that this difference totally makes sense in explaining the differences in orthodox and experimental because when I think of experimental, I think of the absence of a defined narrative story line; the ability to tell a story in a completely different way and the opportunity for everyone to get their own idea and story out of a film.

Another thing that stuck out to me when reading the essay was the idea of unity of style for orthodox and multiple styles for experimental animation. Wells talks about the unity of style as formal properties that tend to remain consistent. On the other hand, in experimental, multiple styles of animation are mixed together. Multiple new effects can also be used in experimental style.

Orthodox animation is just a much more structured form of animation. Experimental animation, like any experimental films, provide much more freedom to the filmmaker.

cameraless filmmaking

So far i'm really enjoying cameraless filmmaking. i have very little prior experience with it but im really enjoying the newness of it all. at first i was a little hesitant about it. ive always been a very narrative-oriented person. narrative film was always what i planned to do. it has always been what ive wanted to do. i was never really interested in doc or experimental. but i think that was just because i had never really been exposed to it before. the more i play around and experiment with experimental film, and more specifically, cameraless filmmaking, though, the more i like it and the more i can see why some people like it so much and concentrate so much on it as opposed to other types of filmmaking.

i have really enjoyed learning all the different techniques and all that you can do to the actual film; no camera necessary! it has opened my eyes to so much that i never knew was possible. it has helped me be so much more open minded and willing to look at things in a different light.

i think im going to have to say that the magazine transfer has been my favorite kind of cameraless filmmaking so far. there was just something about taking parts and pieces of one thing and making something totally different. its one of the most unique things ive ever seen! i can definitely see how people can get so into this kind of thing. i never thought i would enjoy this so much but there is so much freedom with something like this. you can do whatever you want and if you can figure out something to try, no matter how crazy or how much it doesnt make sense, you can still try it cause you never know what will happen. with all the rules and structures of narrative and docs, there's no way you could try anything. for the most part you stay within whats expected or normal for fear of scrutiny. i know i care a lot, and probably too much about what other people think about me and the work that i do. you put all this time and effort into something, you want it to be able to have an effect on people, a good effect.

Not only will cameraless filmmaking help me in the film industry, i think it is going to help me in my life too. it is going to teach me to think outside the box in all aspects of life. i think it will also help me to become more open with my ideas in camera filmmaking and make me a much more creative person. i now know that there are always going to be other ways to make things work.

Next up i'm pretty excited about the exposing the film to light project. i watched the sample projects that you posted on your blog and it looks like a really cool technique and im really interested to see exactly how it works. its been really interesting thinking about objects to bring in since last week and getting even more suggestions in class the other day. i can now see things in a completely different way. the other day as I was making cupcakes with my roommates, all i could think was i wonder how it would look to put some of the sprinkles on the film for the light project. best homework assignment ever. i mean, how often do you find yourself accidently doing class work? i know that it definitely doesnt happen to me very often. usually im having to force myself to do it. ;)

synesthesia

Synesthesia is pretty much just the co-operation of senses. examples of this would be like if you saw a letter and without even thinking about it, associated a color with it, and it would be the same color every time you saw that letter.

It's like last week in 6 x 1 when we watched the film without sound and had to think about what kind of music we would add if we had to make that kind of decision. when i think about it, it makes sense. i'm so used to expecting music that it wasnt that hard to imagine that there was music playing in it. and then when we watched it again with the music, that music fit with the film but it was kinda weird cause i had made my own soundtrack for it in my mind and when listening to it, it obviously wasnt exactly the same. the music that was in it though fit too, just in a different way. but thats one of the things that i love about it, that everybody can have their own opinions and ideas about something like that and there is no one right answer.

i dont think that im one of the people that this happens to because its involuntary but i think that when you think about it, it makes total sense. i mean if i had to assign colors to letters i think i could. and i think that if someone else did it too a lot of the colors would be the same. i mean is it just me or would the letter A have to be red?

the wikipedia article sad that people with synesthesia often use their experiences to help with creativeness. it says that synesthesia has worked as a source of inspiration for artists, composers, poets, novelists, and digital artists. experimental filmmakers fit in perfectly when talking about this topic too. i think that this could very well be true, especially with something like experimental film/film manipulation. a lot of the interpreting would already be done in your mind. you would automatically put certain colors or sounds in certain parts of a film. i also think that it may be harder for some people with synesthesia when something isnt the way its supposed to be in their mind, like if a letter was a different color, would that have any effect on them? would they look at something and say that its not supposed to be that color, that its wrong? would it bother them at all?

in class we talked about how in experimental films that sometimes the music will be added in later to fit the image and at other times the image will be added in to fit with the music. what im now wondering is if people with synesthesia would come up with a similar product no matter which one they started with...you would kinda think that they would seeing as though they tend to associate one thing with another all the time; one color with a letter, certain colors with certain types of music, etc....