Scratch Film Junkies
St. Louise.
Let's be honest, its hard not to like the Scratch Film Junkies - they make films that make one constantly ask " how did they do that?" and thats pretty awesome. I really like this song that they had with their film. For me honestly, a soundtrack can make or break a film. Well, I should say that the pairing of a film to its sound can make or break a film for me. They definitely chose the perfect pairing to their film. St. Louise had the perfect tempo for their scratched painted film. The animation on this film was incredible - and after 100 frame animating for this class, I can completely appreciate the hard work and effort that went into creating a piece like St. Louise.
Its interesting to me that you can tell that multiple people had a hand in creating this piece. There are different styles that come across this film even though hand painting tends to be disorderly anyway. It definitely felt like multiple people with multiple visions grabbed ahold of this film. Whatever the case may be, it worked.
I think its interesting to compare this film to one like Autumnal. The soundtrack in Autumnal was so moody and haunting compared to the upbeat tempo of St. Louise. If the soundtracks were switched, the movies would both be completely different. I especially think that if St. Louise had Autumnal's soundtrack, the frames with the horse head would be especially scary.
The visuals and the colors were incredibly vibrant. I would love to know what medium they used to get the blue and purples a few sections into the film. They were so vibrant they were hard to look away from. I love how color play like that can alter one's mood. It would be great to watch the SCJ in action. I'd love to know how long it takes to produce a film like theirs. If theirs enough of them it probably wouldn't be bad, but editing to a beat when you can't see the finished product is incredibly hard. I wonder how much Final cut pro or avid they use. I need to download St. Louise actually. !!! cha cha fin.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Chion Reading
Chion's writing style makes reading his works long and arduous. That being said, I actually enjoyed this piece! I've had an interest in the relationship between sound and image for a long time. In the blog that we have regarding Scratch Film Junkies, one of my strongest points is regarding the relationship of the sound to the project. Also, the film Autumnal that was played in class. I noted that if the accompanying sound was lighthearted and gay, the piece would take on entirely different meaning.
I thought it was brave of Chion to ask the hard questions in this paper. By the second page, he was questioning the talent of Bergman. He asked if the sound made the movie appear brilliant, not neccessarily the filmmaker. That's quite a bold question, but honestly its fair. Should all the credit have gone to the sound designer for some of the most masterfully edited films? I think its worth a thought.
I wanted to quickly note that the connection of sound to images being "added value" is a nice way to put it. It isnt neccessary by any means, but sound's application to film does add to the final product.
Next, I thought the idea of "verbocentric" filmmaking was quite interesting. After I read this article, I realized that I too hear dialogue and speech first and foremost. All ambient sound follows in suit. Humans listen for other human voices first. It is in our DNA. Its interesting to compare humans that can hear to the deaf. We realize that their are significant differences in how we view films and respond to speech and tonal qualities.
While reading the beginning portion of this article, I had to read and reread some of Chion's points to fully understand them. One such point was this "The added value that words bring to the image goes far beyond the simple situation of a political opinion slapped onto images; added value engages the very structuring of vision - by rigorously framing it." I never really realized how much sound can create and maintain parameters on a film. Truly, the sound can control the flow and structure of a film. I think thats incredible since its not in the typical film discourse in layman film viewing culture.
Also, I wanted to note that Chion's dicussion of empathetic music was very interesting to me. I have always wondered about the sounds that connect us humans. It seems that there are common sounds and tones that many human groups respond similarly too. Is that why so many cultures respond positively to drum beats. I didn't quite understand Chion's position on "indifferent" music and sound. I'll have to reread that section or ask him next time I see him.
The portion of his article that discussed the influence of sound on motion and speed was great. I instantly conjured images of The Fast and the Furious, which is always good. A really great fast tempo can make you feel like you flying through the air like Harry Potter on a broomstick if it hits you just right. It was interesting to find out why certain sound and their relationship to images creates that feeling of speed and movement. I loved the example of using the woosh from the Star Wars movement.
The portion about foleying was interesting as well. I think that its fascinating that I have never heard the sound of anyone getting punched in the face or kicked in the head, but when I visualize these occurances, my brain automatically substitues in a sound from a Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan movie. We movie viewers rely on films to tell us what certain things sound like. The example of the crushed watermelon making people cring because of its likeness to a child being crushed was a good example.
The entire paper was pretty informative.
I thought it was brave of Chion to ask the hard questions in this paper. By the second page, he was questioning the talent of Bergman. He asked if the sound made the movie appear brilliant, not neccessarily the filmmaker. That's quite a bold question, but honestly its fair. Should all the credit have gone to the sound designer for some of the most masterfully edited films? I think its worth a thought.
I wanted to quickly note that the connection of sound to images being "added value" is a nice way to put it. It isnt neccessary by any means, but sound's application to film does add to the final product.
Next, I thought the idea of "verbocentric" filmmaking was quite interesting. After I read this article, I realized that I too hear dialogue and speech first and foremost. All ambient sound follows in suit. Humans listen for other human voices first. It is in our DNA. Its interesting to compare humans that can hear to the deaf. We realize that their are significant differences in how we view films and respond to speech and tonal qualities.
While reading the beginning portion of this article, I had to read and reread some of Chion's points to fully understand them. One such point was this "The added value that words bring to the image goes far beyond the simple situation of a political opinion slapped onto images; added value engages the very structuring of vision - by rigorously framing it." I never really realized how much sound can create and maintain parameters on a film. Truly, the sound can control the flow and structure of a film. I think thats incredible since its not in the typical film discourse in layman film viewing culture.
Also, I wanted to note that Chion's dicussion of empathetic music was very interesting to me. I have always wondered about the sounds that connect us humans. It seems that there are common sounds and tones that many human groups respond similarly too. Is that why so many cultures respond positively to drum beats. I didn't quite understand Chion's position on "indifferent" music and sound. I'll have to reread that section or ask him next time I see him.
The portion of his article that discussed the influence of sound on motion and speed was great. I instantly conjured images of The Fast and the Furious, which is always good. A really great fast tempo can make you feel like you flying through the air like Harry Potter on a broomstick if it hits you just right. It was interesting to find out why certain sound and their relationship to images creates that feeling of speed and movement. I loved the example of using the woosh from the Star Wars movement.
The portion about foleying was interesting as well. I think that its fascinating that I have never heard the sound of anyone getting punched in the face or kicked in the head, but when I visualize these occurances, my brain automatically substitues in a sound from a Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan movie. We movie viewers rely on films to tell us what certain things sound like. The example of the crushed watermelon making people cring because of its likeness to a child being crushed was a good example.
The entire paper was pretty informative.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
God I wish I could figure out how to video diary this.
From the beginning of this article I was blown away by how much truth it spoke about the world of animation. Before I started the film studies program here at UNCW, if asked to describe animation, I would most certainly have described some two-bit Disney scenario. I believe I honestly thought that cell-animation and computer animation were the only two viable forms of animation. Even though I now know that there are many variations of the craft, I still conjure images of Bugs Bunny when I think of animation. I believe I was exposed to this “look” at such an early age and for so long, that it is hard to sub-consciously change my perception. I think the same happens when people are exposed to experimental film. For so long we were told that Hollywood and the Hollywood style of narrations where the only acceptable form. When one is then exposed to animation the experience can be extremely shocking.
I agreed with Wells that its necessary to point out that even though the narration in animation is by its very own nature fantastical and boundless that there is still orthodox and unorthodox techniques. It is interesting to note that, as a child, I never though animations like Looney Tunes were narratives told in a basic linear style. There are beginning points and endpoints with drama in between. They seemed so fantastical and hyper-active, that I just didn’t consider them narratives. Its odd to think that animators sat around and story boarded the entire plot of these shows that felt crazy and wild.
Wells lists the attributes of animation on the Orthodox form which is pretty enlightening. I never thought about how orthodox animations like Disney films do have a lot of continuity and figures. Abu the monkey in Aladdin always functions in monkey-form. Also, when things fall they really follow the laws of gravity (well for the most part).
I remember watching an animation in Dr. Kreul’s class. It was a Daffy Duck cartoon where he draws attention to the fact that he is an animation. You see the animator’s pen and brush. It was very cool. I remember noting that I had only ever seen one other orthodox cartoon that called attention to its device - it was a Betty Boop cartoon. The Daffy Duck one was much better in my opinion. Wells notes that in orthodox animation it is rare that it would draw attention to its own construction. It is very rare to see an animation call attention to itself in that way. Something odd that I just noted in Wells writing, is that orthodox animation follows continuity in its drawings. This is just like in Hollywood narratives. Animations never jump the line! I love it.
Ah! When I read the article earlier I didn’t realize that Wells had written about the Daffy Duck short. The title of it is “Duck Amuck.” I am glad he metioned it because I had forgotten its name. Apparently, it’s a pretty profound piece.
As soon as wells began writing about experimental animation, I felt a little cheated honestly. How can some write about experimental animation? The field is so broad! I do agree with his terms that describe experimental animation. They do feel very abstract and hard to predict. I also agree that experimental animation very rarely creates a story. Most of the time it hints that it is leaning towards telling a story and then completely dismisses it.
I wouldn’t mind more exposure to experimental animation. I have only seen a few pieces at this juncture in my life, so it’s hard for me to visualize some of the techniques that Wells writes about here. I found it inspiring that Wells put in a quote from Leopold Survage about animating his paintings. When I did my experimental self portrait for Shannon, I attempted to animated some of my paintings. I think that I would enjoy this new expression. Its nice to read an outline about an artform such as animation. I know so little about it – but now I am more learned.
I agreed with Wells that its necessary to point out that even though the narration in animation is by its very own nature fantastical and boundless that there is still orthodox and unorthodox techniques. It is interesting to note that, as a child, I never though animations like Looney Tunes were narratives told in a basic linear style. There are beginning points and endpoints with drama in between. They seemed so fantastical and hyper-active, that I just didn’t consider them narratives. Its odd to think that animators sat around and story boarded the entire plot of these shows that felt crazy and wild.
Wells lists the attributes of animation on the Orthodox form which is pretty enlightening. I never thought about how orthodox animations like Disney films do have a lot of continuity and figures. Abu the monkey in Aladdin always functions in monkey-form. Also, when things fall they really follow the laws of gravity (well for the most part).
I remember watching an animation in Dr. Kreul’s class. It was a Daffy Duck cartoon where he draws attention to the fact that he is an animation. You see the animator’s pen and brush. It was very cool. I remember noting that I had only ever seen one other orthodox cartoon that called attention to its device - it was a Betty Boop cartoon. The Daffy Duck one was much better in my opinion. Wells notes that in orthodox animation it is rare that it would draw attention to its own construction. It is very rare to see an animation call attention to itself in that way. Something odd that I just noted in Wells writing, is that orthodox animation follows continuity in its drawings. This is just like in Hollywood narratives. Animations never jump the line! I love it.
Ah! When I read the article earlier I didn’t realize that Wells had written about the Daffy Duck short. The title of it is “Duck Amuck.” I am glad he metioned it because I had forgotten its name. Apparently, it’s a pretty profound piece.
As soon as wells began writing about experimental animation, I felt a little cheated honestly. How can some write about experimental animation? The field is so broad! I do agree with his terms that describe experimental animation. They do feel very abstract and hard to predict. I also agree that experimental animation very rarely creates a story. Most of the time it hints that it is leaning towards telling a story and then completely dismisses it.
I wouldn’t mind more exposure to experimental animation. I have only seen a few pieces at this juncture in my life, so it’s hard for me to visualize some of the techniques that Wells writes about here. I found it inspiring that Wells put in a quote from Leopold Survage about animating his paintings. When I did my experimental self portrait for Shannon, I attempted to animated some of my paintings. I think that I would enjoy this new expression. Its nice to read an outline about an artform such as animation. I know so little about it – but now I am more learned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
