Response to Walter Murch

So I had some time this past week to pick up "In the Blink of an Eye" by Robert Murch and read a piece or two from it.  Murch is an Academy Award-winning film editor and sound designer, and is best known for his sound designing work in Apocalypse Now and Return to Oz - which he directed.

What I'm going to specifically focus on for this entry is the problems Murch defines when film made (or makes) the transition from analog to digital.  In the early 1980s, hard drives were bulky, primitive, and didn't really work all that well, so film was stored on analog forms of media, such as videotapes or laserdiscs.  But then in the later 1980s, technological devices such as hard drives and more advanced ways of storage started making its way into the film world.  Film began being digitized directly onto a computers hard disk, and I'm pretty sure its safe to say it scared film industry people back then - technology still scares people now.

Now more onto a more personal level.  My dad used to teach film and television broadcasting at the university and college level up till the early 1990s, when he passed away due to stomach cancer.  This obviously meant that my dad new a great deal about cameras and filming, and I can remember massive cameras laying around the house and stacks of film sitting around.  Yes, the film industry had already made their way to the digital era, but for people who weren't in the industry, analog was still the way to go.  Now instead of hauling around huge video cameras like my dad used to do, I can easily carry a video camera comfortably in my hand.  Not only this - the cameras consumers use today are high-definition, something that would of been out of the question back in my dads time.

Alright, now back to Murch.  Right.  Murch points out a couple negative aspects that come with this move from analog to digital, all of which I find quite interesting.

1. The Amount of Memory - early hard drives didn't really have much memory anyway.  This meant that films couldn't be stored as one large chunk, and moving from one chunk of the film to the next meant swapping hard disks which the film was stored on.  Not fun.
2. Bottleneck - Early machines and digital forms of storage were so expensive that buying more than one was next to impossible.  This meant that the key people involved in producing the film had to work in shifts, simply because there was only one machine to use.
3. Complicated, Inconvenient and Expensive - The big editing machines were bulky and expensive, and copies of dailies had to be specially made to be read by the machine that Murch calls the EditDroid. 
4. The Quality of the Image - Image quality is something that is most important for people who watch television or movies today - people go gaga over large screen displays.  In order to store films onto digital media, the data would be shrunk down, where a lot of resolution would be lost in the process.  Murch says that this makes it impossible to see hidden problems. 
5. Ease of Making the Cut Itself - These editing machines like the Avid were keyboard intensive, which was not what most film editors were comfortable with.  We still see this today - video editing programs like Final Cut or Premier are extremely keyboard intensive.  I'm not even sure if you could properly edit a film or video without a keyboard.
6. Works Best When Needed Least - The machines couldn't handle too much, and editors would often get a message that they had maxed out the machines processing abilities.  Murch says that this would cause things to go out of sync.  Dropped frames, anyone?
7. Reliability of the Edit Decision List - the edit decision list is conformed to match what is in the computer, which turned out to be super problematic on early editing machines.  This all comes down to difference in frame rates.  In Europe, film and video run at 25 frames per second, and in the United States and other Western countries, film runs at 24 frames per second while video runs at 30 frames per second.  This meant that some mathematical equations needed to be done before doing any transferring or copying.  Messing this up would probably result in a massive headache for editors.

And thats Murch's list!  I think there will always be an argument over analog vs. digital.  

 

Robert Bresson Response

After a great deal of thinking about what this new experimental video will take to construct, I've been coming back to Robert Bresson's "Notes on Sound" writing.  Our class received the reading during week one - a long time ago, but I'm writing on it now since its becoming a bit more important to me.

The plan I have for this journal entry is to state each of Bresson's points from the reading, and then explain its importance to video and video editing.  At the top of the list, Bresson explains that the list has been compiled to know what business that sound (or that image) has there.  In other words, the list is for people to understand why something has been done the way its been done, why something sounds like it does, and why something has been edited the way it has been edited.

1. What is for the eye must not duplicate what is for the ear.

By this I imagine Bresson meaning that we should try not to create images with sound. Everything must look aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and audio should not be a contributing factor to this.

2. If the ear is entirely won, give nothing or almost nothing to the ear.  One cannot be at the same time all eye and all ear.

Bresson means that we should not go overboard with audio and video at the same time.  They must play off of each other and not create distraction.

3. When a sound can replace an image, cut the image or neutralize it.  The ear goes more toward the within, the eye toward the outer. 

In other words, do not use images when audio would be better suited for the situation or the viewer.

4. A sound must never come to the help of an image, nor an image to the help of a sound.

If the audience or viewer cannot pick up what the image is saying literally or metaphorically, then something is wrong.  The same goes with audio. 

5. If a sound is the obligatory compliment of an image, give preponderance either to the sound or the image.  If equal, they damage or kill each other, as we say of colours.

I imagine that Bresson is saying that an importance must either be put on the sound or the image and not both.  If both are important, the resulting video/film will not convey the message you want it to convey. 

6. Image and sound must not support each other, but must work each in turn through a sort of relay. 

As mentioned above, I think Bresson means that both cannot be given equal importance at the exact same time.  Sound and image must flow together. 

7. The eye solicited alone makes the ear impatient, the ear solicited alone, makes the eye impatient.  Use these impatiences.  Power of the cinematographer who appeals to the two senses in a governable way.  Against the power of speed, of noise, set tactics of slowness, of silence.

I feel that Bresson means that these impatiences can be used as a form of building suspense or irritation.  If the sound does not sound how the audience thinks it should sound, it may make the film either more enjoyable, or less enjoyable. 

That is Bresson's list. 

Response to Stan Brakhage's "Mothlight"

Stan Brakhage was an American experimental filmmaker who passed away in 2003. He is considered among many to be an important person in the world of experimental and "non-narrative" film. 

We watched one of his short films titled "Mothlight", a short, three minute piece from 1963. As much as it did appear to be a bunch of nonsense, it was actually quite fascinating. It did help that we watched it as it was meant to be watched - on a 16mm projector. Not that Brakhage intended for the piece to be viewed only on 16mm, but the projector did add an effect to the overall viewing experience. 

To begin, the 1963 film is silent. Hearing the film move through the projectors different components added this nostalgic feel, sound and look to the overall picture. If this would of been viewed on DVD or on an online video sharing service like YouTube, this nostalgic feel probably wouldn't have been noticeable, or even present.

According to Prof. Duran, Mothlight was created by placing objects, such as moth's wings, blades of grass, and other small items onto perforated tape that was obviously cut to the same width as 16mm film. This means that dust particles and other small objects would make their way onto the tape and eventually onto the film. This causes the film to appear rather grainy at times - but I'm not sure if that was because of the projector or wear and tear on the old film. Yet I'm fairly certain that the dust particles were intended by Brakhage. 

At first look you may think the filmmaker was on some sort of hallucinating drug at the time, as the film has that "acid trip" look to it. On top of that, the image begins to be hard to look at as the objects are flying by at a fast rate, making it feel as if you might go blind. 

Yet it is important to note that I did enjoy the film. Yes, it is experimental and rather odd, but the film's image is very unique and original and conveys what I believe to be Brakhage's personal expression of his feelings and emotions. 

The film can be found on YouTube here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaGh0D2NXCA