The Third Work Symposium

I attended the, "What’s the Score: Contemporary Sound Design in Documentary Cinema," on Friday the thirteenth. The two speakers David Barker and Pacho Velez showed us, the audience, various clips showing the relation to sound in film. They used the terms, foley, ambiance, and edge to describe the impact of having or not having sound present in your work. The impact can be just as powerful without an added musical score which was demonstrated in a clip from the documentary, Manakamana. The camera in the documentary is positioned in one spot for the entirety of the film. The film takes place in a cable car in Nepal where all the viewer see is the subject(s) who are seen as sitting across from them, the viewer. There is no music, no script, no sound effects. All that is heard and seen is the interaction between the commuters on the cable car with whomever is accompanying them. Other sounds that are heard are from the mechanical whirring of the cable car, the murmuring or conversation between the commuters, and any other background sound present.

            This clip was not particularly enthralling or significant to me. Besides not being generally intrigued by the clip I feel as though I learned nothing new. To me, it was common knowledge that having sound or not having sound can make a piece powerful. The speakers during this panel acted like they invented an entirely new concept especially by regurgitating an old term and coining it with a new definition. (They had a different definition for foley to describe the atmosphere sound can have/make. When one lady during the question segment of the panel asked why they couldn't just make up a different term, they kind of brushed her off which I found rude. She made a point that rebranding the term foley to fit their "new" meaning is disrespectful to other foley artists and I felt like neither of them truly addressed her point. Another  individual asked the same question and but even then they were not explaining themselves well.) I digress…my point being, is that I felt like I gained nothing new from this specific panel. I know that sometimes a piece works well with no music because it can 1) let the viewer have their own organic response, 2) not take away from the subject matter of the piece, 3) create and evoke a different message whereas adding a musical score sets a different tone. There are many other stylistic reasons to not add sound, all which come down to the artist's personal preference. I understand where they were going with their lecture, however, I didn't find it revolutionary and I didn't think it was something new. I perhaps would've benefitted from a different panel but alas, I did not have the time to stick around.

            Another thing I did not like was the clip showing the lobsters being unpacked in what appeared to be a warehouse or unpacking room. It was strange and dumb. They claimed that the background sound of tape being ripped, or unspooled creates a sense of mystery to the viewers. They say that the methodical snipping of the scissors creates a rhythm and the hum of whatever machine was present in the film creates and evokes mystery to the viewer. I did not get any of that, I found everything about it to be stupid. They said the sound of the tape ripping, but not being able to actually see it, creates tension. I did not pick up that vibe at all. I wasn't anticipating what could that be, I didn't feel anxious or interested to know what was happening, I assumed they were packing something up and that was the end of that so called "mystery". I bet a lot of the people in that room would say it's because I'm young or I'm not open-minded and admittedly, I thought that was my problem too. But I cannot sit there and pretend that I see the "mystery" in that piece. I've seen some unusual pieces before and I've seen the art or the message behind it. I've understood or at least tried to understand an artist's stylistic approach to whatever they're doing even if I personally didn't like or agree with it. But with this panel I found it all to be a waste of time. Not only was the message of the lecture very obvious to me but the examples used to teach their point were not striking or powerful. That is of course just my opinion because even though they weren't visually appealing nor was the content interesting, I saw their point in each clip they played. I thought I'd be learning something totally new and innovative. In the end, I was disappointed by this panel/discussion.