Wednesday, September 30, 2009

sound reading

I believe that sound is much more then an added piece to a film. It is true that films do not need sound, like silent and some experimental films. Sound is as much important to films as the picture is. In a well made war film, if it had no sound and all you see are muzzle flashes, artillery hitting the ground, and men getting shot or killed, you would not get the full experience. Sure you can picture it in your mind, but you still won't know the full power of the film or sence. Hearing a shot striking a body, the deafen loudness of an artillery blast, and the sound of the guns firing, and the screams of orders and dying men is nesscary for a war film. In movies that have a lot of dialogue, how would you know what they are saying if you can't hear them?

If sound is an added piece to film, then film is an added piece to sound. Earlier in the 1900s, Orson Welles did his famous War of the Worlds broadcast that made the country to go in a painic. This was done with just sound and no picture or film at all.

Here is a link to a part of the boardcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejt_aWUrEp8

Sound cues things that are happening, that happen off screen. When you see a character on the screen and a loud noise catches the character by surpise, it does the sam for the audience too. We are surprise as much as the character in the movie, which connects the audience to the character through the use of sound.

Sound does not change the mood of the film or picture. I think that is bullshit. You see someone get a nail hammered through his hand, you see blood and all that good stuff, but adding sound wouldn't change the meaning or tone of the film, but connect us more with the the pain of the person, the sound lets you feel the pain in you bones and lingers on after you seen that sence.

Overall, i thought the reading was hard to follow, and i thought i wrote bad. I most have fallen asleep three times by keep reading what i just read so i could somewhat understand what he is talking about. thats it. i believe thats all folks!!!!!!!!!!

Saturday, September 19, 2009

response to wells

Wells comparison of the two types of animation are good, in my opinion. He broke down the essay into an easy format to follow. I like the orthodox animation out of the two. Film and movies are entertainment to me. I believe that was the main objective in the early years of film. I like a story in my films, wether animation or not.

I like a good story in my animation, not flashing color, or shapes of colors making useless shapes and don't really do anything, but try to perceive you to see the author's interpretation of the film or your own. I like it to be in black in white. I don't want to watch an experimental film that makes me have to go to the restroom because of the pattern and objects on the screen, although it would be funny to play this video to a group of people and watch them all run to the restroom at the same time, if there was a experimental film that actually makes people go to the restroom.

At the moment, I will not make too many experimental animation films, because i am not too interested in it, but i enjoy goofing around and watch what what came out of it. I don't care to much of there being a message or thought behind the screen. I like to see how cool the film looks.

I do agree with Wells that orthodox animation has unity of style, because you would not want the film to change style half way through the film while you are enjoying the story of the movie, it would be distracting. When you are watching a cartoon series and each week the style change in each episode, it be cool to do every once in a blue moon.

There is no absence of artist in an orthodox animation. The animation is the work of an artist, unless it is done by a computer, RISE OF THE MACHINES!!!! The way the film is drawn is the artist talent, it may not be what some people consider "talent", but i seen some animation films that look like they were made by my goats.

Thats all i got to say about this.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

cameraless filmmaking so far...

So far, I am enjoying the camera less filmmaking. It is another cool way to make films. The different ways to create films without a camera are neat. It lets you do almost anything to the stock to create almost anything. I like how you can use magazines, newspaper, tape, and water to create interesting patterns on film. I had made a sentence out of magazine clippings when we were working on it in class. I cut out several words out and made a sentence, but it the film went by fast and I didn’t see it. I was hoping it would not have gone by so fast that I would have been able to see a glimpse of it as it went by. I did manage to see some of the piece of the film that I had put my tape on. I knew about scratching the film stock, but it still interest me how you can create a lot of patterns and other things just by scratching. I have not got the chance to paint on the film stock yet, but will get to try it out tonight in class. Processing the film in the dark room was very cool. It was pretty neat to work in the dark with the red light, and placing the objects on the film. Then you flash the film with light to expose the film stock. Then you place the stock in the developer for a few seconds then you put it in the fixture, and then rinse it off in ware, I believe that’s the correct order. Then you let it dry. The items that I put on the film stock made interesting designs. I put salt, pepper, rice, sugar, paperclips, a dime, little gold things, blue glass pebbles, and parsley on the film stock. I believe that I am going to do this again, but I am not sure, I would enjoy doing this again with different items to see what different designs and effects that I will get.
There is probable many different ways to manipulate film that we have not talked about in class. There is probable many different ways that even people that manipulated film for a living and/or hobby that they do not even know. I would like to learn more techniques in class to manipulate film in the future to help me with future projects.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Synesthesia

I think it would be pretty nice to be a synesthete, being able to remember things clearly like grapheme ---> color synesthesia. I don't think that i am a synesthete, but i do remember things that i only hear once. I don't think it is anything that deals with synesthete. When i hear a low not, i picture it more of the hot colors like red and orange, compare to a high note which i picture it more of a cool color like blue or green. I don't know if i am a synesthete or i made a connection with the pitches and colors long ago. When reading about the sound ---> color synesthesia, i remember in the movie, Mr. Holland's Opus, Hollad's son is deaf, so in order for him and other people that are deaf to enjoy music, there is a device that lights up in a specific color to match the sound and tempo of the music. I believe that the people with the sound ---> color synesthesia must be one of the best enjoyment in their lives, by being able to listen to a song or standing and hearin nature, to see colors that resemble those sound must be breathe taken, and seeing what other people can't. They must also see a bit of dark sounds that they could use a painting or film to get a emotion a cross to the audience, so they can experience too. I that everyone is a synesthete in some intesity, i bet that some are barely noticable to some that are very noticable.