Print

Print


----------------------------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]