Theory of the Film: Sound by: Bela Balazs (this is a longer blog than required; I just had a lot to say!)

Theory of the Film: Sound by: Bela Balazs This article was very interesting in many senses and Balazs' theory is beautifully written using descriptive "sound" words. Within the segment of Discovery of Noise (perceived as confused noise), some form of the word chaos was used seven times: chaotic clamor, chaotic noise, art saves us from chaos, specific kind of chaos, redeem us from the chaos of shapeless noise, a lifeless chaos of sound, and how the sound camera will intervene in this chaos of sound. The constant state of chaos is comprised of the many sounds in the acoustic landscape in which we live, far beyond just human speech. The vast conversational powers of life incessantly influences and directs out thoughts, and emotions. Meanings attached to hearing a creaky floorboard creaking in a deserted room could be interpreted as creepy or paranormal. A deathbed beetle ticking in old furniture brings about a sense of creepy crawly disgust. Sounds don't have to be attached to a visual on screen to bring about emotional responses. A crying baby doesn't need to be seen on screen to create the same effect. Sometimes not seeing the image can be more powerful, and "silence" even more so. Silence can bring about discomfort or peace dependent on the context. . I must say I disagree with some of Balazs' comments. When discussing perceived silence, it is mentioned that even those who are deaf don't know what silence is. I beg to differ. You can feel a vibration, the blowing of wind through the trees, and see the grandiosity of Niagara Falls, but audible noise is not there. There have been studies of deaf people and the effects Cochlear implants have on them. Many older patients cannot stand the sound of the constant chaos and noise because they aren't accustomed to it. Some even stop wearing them altogether because the noise is too much! Balazs states that sounds throw no shadow. I would also like to debate this theory. Perhaps this is just an analogy, but shadow is to light as reverb is to sound. He also states, sounds cannot produce shapes in space. Sounds may be invisible to the naked eye, but they do create shapes in space... sound waves. An omni-directional microphone has a sound pattern which is visibly shown in diagrams. As for hearing individuals, Balazs says that "we cannot hear either dimension or direction". If that is the case, then why is there an option on a sound mixer for solely left and right? Sometimes you can tell where the direction of sound is coming from. His mention of visual impressions not blending with each other, I find contradictory as well. Would you call seeing what is outside and inside a window a blend? A reflection in a mirror? Although soundscapes have far more layers, picture can be layered too. Although I find contradictions in Balazs' theory, I appreciate his comparisons between film/tv, radio broadcasts, and theatre performances, for they all use sound in different ways. There can't be a long, silent pause during a radio broadcast because there is no visual reference. Theatre performances also keep the silence to a minimum in order to keep the audience engaged. Film and television provide the most freedom with sound by the ability to record sounds separately than dialog and layer the background atmosphere in post-production. Sound and lack thereof can be more powerful than picture if utilized in the right ways. Balazs has opened my eyes wider to sound, inspiring me to further utilize soundscapes it to emphasize emotions.