----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On 24 Feb 1995 MR BILL A TUSCHALL writes: >I feel sound is as much an artistic part of >a film as much as any other. Whether or not the filmmaker >tries to create a sense of realism, or uses the sound to >create something else, it is such an integral part. > >For example, there is nothing like the complete sound of a >thunderstorm in surround sound, or THX. Or the sound of >bullets flying over one's head in the theater (...) I didn't mean to suggest that sound isn't an integral part of the film experience. I was just guessing at an explanation for the fact that surround-sound sometimes can create disturbing effects. I mainly had plot-related sounds in mind, like dialoge or footsteps. Obviously, music is much easier accepted in a surround-sound-situation. Flying bullets might be an intermediate case. To make things more complicated: maybe we should discern two aspects of a film. Plain old storytelling (with or without music), and the creation of an almost physical experience for the viewer. Surround-sound clearly can contribute to this experience, though I still have my doubts about the contribution to the story-telling. >As far as realism, I have yet to have an >experience where a complete orchestra plays in the >background as I ride off into the sunset with the heroine! Come to think of it, it's curious indeed how easily we accept this 'nonrealistic' music to accompany the image :-) Are we just used to it, or is there a reason? Even when there is a *real* orchestra present in the cinema, it's hardly a problem. Leo Bankersen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [log in to unmask]