English director Edgar Wright would have to be one of the pioneering director’s when it comes to visual comedy. It’s rare nowadays to experience a comedic film in a witty, original and non-formulaic way through the sparking relationship between visual and sound. A good friend of mine highly recommended this video to me that encapsulates the distinction between Wright’s film making from the blockbuster comedies:

As the video suggests, Hollywood comedies have become generic with its typical “upbeat music over the aerial view of the city” introductions and improvisational dialogue that lacks visual excitement. To be honest, I haven’t watched through a majority of Wright’s films, but one of my all-time favourite flicks would have to be Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Below I’ve analysed a scene with its excellent execution of visual and sound, and analysed Michael Cera’s performance in relation to achieving this concept of visual comedy:

(SPOILER ALERT)

The continuous use of witty non-diegetic sound throughout Scott Pilgrim vs. The World compliments the catchy dialogue to evoke humour. Julie Powers often uses explicit language to suggest her deadpan, pessimistic personality and in conjunction is censored with a bleep noise. Scott’s comment “how did you do that” presents the meta- narrative and breaking of the fourth wall that the film conveys. Furthermore, this breaks the audiences’ expectation of a formulaic high school romance comedy and rather be enthralled by the unexpected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N13WI3oVda8   

Michael Cera’s comic timing through his dialogue delivery and innocently awkward facial expressions exerts humour that defies the expectations of the typical romantic comedy genre. In particular, his anxiety-laden tone in explaining his situation with Gideon to Wallace and his uncomfortable response to Knives and Young Neal’s “romance” overshadows the romance with eclectic humour that broadens the predictable demographic for romantic comedies. Cera is a personality star that is often type-casted as the insecure, innocent, soft spoken and awkward but loveable geek, creating the expected setting of a high school and comedic narrative.  Furthermore, his appearance in independent and underrated films, lanky appearance provided with a costume consisting of pop culture t-shirts, jeans and sneakers further personifies the character that is expected from the audience.

On August 29 1952, pianist David Tudor walks onto the Maverick Concert Hall stage in Woodstock, New York to perform in front of an audience who supported contemporary art through the Benefit Artists Welfare. Famous for his interest in experimental music; Tudor walks on stage, takes a seat on the piano, turned the music sheet around, sat there for four minutes and thirty-three seconds almost motionless and then walked off stage.

John Cage’s avant-garde composition 4’33” (1952) distinguishes listening from hearing. While we were in the lectorial we consciously chose to concentrate on the various sounds we were able to capture while we perceived the sound by ear (or the lack of sound) through hearing. From this sound of silence, we start to realise that the audience watching a performer becomes the performance. Furthermore, the ambience becomes the sound as the audience is captured by the simplistic act of not touching a single key on the piano. Cage makes us interpret the performance for ourselves; as a way to be in touch with our sense, to recognise the power (and irony) of silence as a sound in itself and to break these artistic conventions.

Would I have reacted this way if I were in the audience in 1952? No not all, as I would have had high expectations to be entertained instead of having to question what I was experiencing. But sitting in the lecture room for that four and half-ish minutes, I realised the importance of silence and to be open to interpretation for the purpose of art.

This week’s informative reading changed my perception of the concept of sound from the study of audiology to microphones. At times, the information and several terms became overwhelming, however, the figures on the side nicely summarised and depicted what each paragraph was conveying. Moreover, I never realised how much I neglected the power of sound and how it’s just as powerful as the visual aspect in film. In order for these sound waves to convert into electrical impulses as it reaches our brain and to be of clean sound, certain mikes are used for certain scenarios:

Transducer elements in microphones are either dynamic or condenser. Dynamic microphones function through metal coils that creates a magnetic field energy that converts to electrical energy from vibrations. On the contrary, electrical energy is created from the proximity of two oppositely charged plates with condenser microphones.  If I were to conduct an outdoor interview, I would use a dynamic mike due to its “ruggedness” while a condenser mike will be best for music reproduction due to its wider frequency.

Since Project Brief Three was introduced to us, I figured I started thinking about the microphone I were to use. If my interview were to involve the use of visuals and singing for instance, I would use a hand held microphone as the singer is able to have control over the pitch, volume and quality of their voice. The only downside of hand-held mikes is their obtrusiveness and limitation in range. Lavalieres advantage of barely picking up any ambient noise would be a better option for interviewing someone, rather than a hand-held mike. However, its sensitivity to brushing onto clothing or uncontrollable situations such as wind can make the process frustrating. A shotgun mike is great for capturing sound from a distance and to not appear in frame. The downsides include the risk of more ambient sounds to be heard instead of the primary source and the use of extra equipment to mount and adjust the level of the mike to achieve clarity.

Much to think about. Since these are considered generalisations, I would have to consider what effect I aim to impose onto the audience in terms of tone, the visual aspect and the subject whom I wish to interview. Plan it out, they say, but I guess this is me just getting too excited to skip the planning stage and start experimenting (the fun part).

Week four workshop involved the use of the “baby” Zoom Handy Recorder H2n; portable digital audio recorder with five integrated microphones. Since the objective was to interview someone, the XY stereo mode was only used meaning that sounds would only be picked up by the front microphone (-90 degrees). An amateur with using the Zoom Handy Recorder H2n (and with mikes in general), found features such as the clipping indicator as an LED light that specifies whether a recording will be distorted, and the obtaining of the recordings from an SD card simple, user-friendly and made the whole process much more efficient than it seemed.

Before the interview, I had to ensure that the mike wasn’t too close or too far from myself or the interviewee. Once I pressed the record button, I had to ensure that the levels were between -6 and -12db by multitasking between listening to the recording and watching the VU meter. Although the audio turned out well, I always have to remember about the “signal to noise ratio” and that I shouldn’t just rely on listening to the recording on headphones to determine its quality.

The sound of incoming traffic were used for the atmosphere/ background. In order for it not to overpower the interview itself, I had to change its amplification during post-production. Likewise, the spot sounds of the ringtone and barista at the coffee shop had their amplification altered on the Audacity software. Compared to Adobe Audition, I find Audacity easier to manipulate and blend recordings and soundtracks together with its simple yet effective layout.

      (Audacity) Row 1: interview, 2: Barista, 3: Ringtone, 4: atmosphere/ background noise of incoming traffic

In general, I was satisfied with the recordings that were produced. Next time (especially for Project Brief Three), I would like to add more “texture”/ layers with the recordings such as a diegetic soundtrack or spot sounds to add a comical or dramatic effect for instance. Just like filming, I have to always remember to extend the recording by waiting at least three seconds before talking or ending so when I’m editing, the sound wouldn’t abruptly stop or sound rough.  Post-production could also be improved through the finer details such as fades, transitions, and cuts rather than a sudden “chop” in the sound.