Very good. Although it is well established in film theory that the soundtrack of a film is where most of the ideology happens, I enjoyed this. My view is that music is an emotional shortcut; documentary scores thread discontinuous interviews, supplying an 'unspoken' commentary that fills in the gaps and clarifies what might be ambiguous. Personally, I like Rick Altman's view: synchronised sound ventriloquises the image, making us credit the on-screen dummy for feelings and meanings whispered by an off-screen institution (see his "Moving Lips: Cinema as Ventriloquism.”). With that, I have two interesting questions for you:
1) Doane’s “effacement of work” and Gorbman’s principle of inaudibility argue the mix is built to hide itself; the spectator is meant not to notice the soundtrack’s construction. If concealment is structural, can “critical listening” ever be more than an academic ideal?
2) Apparatus and suture theory insist the image/sound dispositif produces subjectivity. Altman calls synchronised sound a ventriloquist act that persuades viewers of their own freedom while speaking for them. Where, in that scheme, could an independent listener stand? And as a follow-on, Altman notes the soundtrack can split and complicate the spectator, opening contradictions rather than papering them over. Does your view here allow for music that resists or destabilises the film’s overt line?
You asked some good questions. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'll disappoint you. I don't have any clear or specific views on this topic. It's more something that resonates with my experience, and I'm sure it's a common experience. If I wanted to explore these questions further, I would examine how ambiance and atmosphere research considers sound and music. While it's possible to not be influenced by music and sounds, one must first recognize and understand them as part of our experience, even when they are covered by visual dimensions. Sounds can influence our mood, which is one reason why people walk in forests or listen to classical music.
I find the idea that sound or music produces subjectivity a bit strange. Do they stimulate our affectivity? Yes, certainly. However, producing subjectivity requires far more than just sound and present experience. This is what interested me while writing this post. The way music or sound influences us seems related to the range and quality of our past experiences.
Have a counter thought, that really like, if things are done right, then God is in the details.
Him again 😂
If one allows for the Devil, can he exist with out Him, again.
Probably not! The universe likes to balance things out.
Very good. Although it is well established in film theory that the soundtrack of a film is where most of the ideology happens, I enjoyed this. My view is that music is an emotional shortcut; documentary scores thread discontinuous interviews, supplying an 'unspoken' commentary that fills in the gaps and clarifies what might be ambiguous. Personally, I like Rick Altman's view: synchronised sound ventriloquises the image, making us credit the on-screen dummy for feelings and meanings whispered by an off-screen institution (see his "Moving Lips: Cinema as Ventriloquism.”). With that, I have two interesting questions for you:
1) Doane’s “effacement of work” and Gorbman’s principle of inaudibility argue the mix is built to hide itself; the spectator is meant not to notice the soundtrack’s construction. If concealment is structural, can “critical listening” ever be more than an academic ideal?
2) Apparatus and suture theory insist the image/sound dispositif produces subjectivity. Altman calls synchronised sound a ventriloquist act that persuades viewers of their own freedom while speaking for them. Where, in that scheme, could an independent listener stand? And as a follow-on, Altman notes the soundtrack can split and complicate the spectator, opening contradictions rather than papering them over. Does your view here allow for music that resists or destabilises the film’s overt line?
Look forward to your response!
-Andrew.
You asked some good questions. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'll disappoint you. I don't have any clear or specific views on this topic. It's more something that resonates with my experience, and I'm sure it's a common experience. If I wanted to explore these questions further, I would examine how ambiance and atmosphere research considers sound and music. While it's possible to not be influenced by music and sounds, one must first recognize and understand them as part of our experience, even when they are covered by visual dimensions. Sounds can influence our mood, which is one reason why people walk in forests or listen to classical music.
I find the idea that sound or music produces subjectivity a bit strange. Do they stimulate our affectivity? Yes, certainly. However, producing subjectivity requires far more than just sound and present experience. This is what interested me while writing this post. The way music or sound influences us seems related to the range and quality of our past experiences.