To begin, I love silent films. Especially silent horror films! I think it's because it's about all the horror I can take. Now, I'm not belittling early cinema horror--I just think that Nosferatu has more of a cinema of attractions/I-just-don't-want-to-look-away-from-the-creepiness compared to something with the likes of the Saw saga.
Reading Balazs' short paragraph about the silent film in relation to sound made me consider that maybe it's the way that I'm watching people and reading cards... I don't have to hear their voices, but have the option to make them up in my head, as though they were characters from a novel. Yet, I have a moving image as well as a background noise/symphony (or lack thereof) to provide me with emotional cues when the title cards are scarce.
Which brings me to another point that Balazs' brings to his essay: Silence. I capitalize the S because it is it's own entity. Silence has just as much of a character-like quality as the lead role.
For me, Silence in a film gives me mostly anxiety. I become disoriented, and await for the moment where Silence leaves, and I'm attacked with Sound.
As if they were Yin and Yang, an exceptional film contains both Sound and Silence. Even if Silence takes on the role of being in the background of a singular noise (like Balazs' example of a fly), or accentuating the proximity by hearing a singular noise in the far-off distance.
Sound is so cool. Silence is so cool.
Hearing is pretty cool too.
I overheard two people from class talk about whether or not they would rather be deaf or blind.
Now because of this reading and the assignments (I'm posting them next!), I feel like I hear everything, and relate it back to sound (Echolocation! Bats! Nosferatu!)
-lizzie
No comments:
Post a Comment