|
I think the flip side of this argument is that there is an artistic reason to use sound to augment film. If we look at weapon sounds, there has been a paradigm shift from what I grew up with and what we see on the silver screen now.
When you look at '80s - 90's TV and film that contain actors such as Charles Bronson, Chuck Norris, Mr. T, etc... it is laughable, in the context of modern sound effects, to listen to a shoot out. When Face would shoot off a MINI-14 at the bad guys, you would hear stock gun fire footage where the ricochets sound like little laser beams. The squealing of tires from the A-Team's van was probably at the same dB level as the weapon fire not to mention Mr. T saying "I ain't getting on no plane, foool".
I don't know exactly when film started to take notice of live fire and try to emulate it as accurately as possible on screen, but when I first saw the opening scene to Saving Private Ryan, I was like, wow, this is something new. The artistic intent of that first 30 minutes of so of the film was an attempt to immerse the audience into something that most of them had never experienced - which was combat. Of course if you take an actual rifle, its dB levels are around 150 to 170db for a single small caliber weapon... mortars and larger calibers... well... the dBs can get up high enough to rupture lungs and burst eardrums. Obviously we want to keep the publics hearing safe, but for most people that saw that movie, they were no longer in a safe comfortable environment of a movie theater, I think that many were successfully transported to somewhere between their comfy seats and Omaha Beach, if even for just a few minutes.
I think this is clearly an example of modern directors and writers taking advantage of the performance envelope of modern playback systems. I don't know that the same cinematic effect would have been possible without sound designers going the extra mile to capture those sound and the simple application of volume. What Georgia is probably pointing out, though, is the inability for some to use restraint. I don't think that theater owners should be changing volume levels at their own discretion, as theater systems are supposed to be calibrated to a reference, although I can sympathize with their plight. I do notice things such as simple dialogue and non-action scenes way too hot. If I'm observing a conversation, their dialogue levels should not be significantly higher (film environment perception) than what I would normally hear from another personal talking to me in a normal environment. There is also the long drawn out action scene where everything is loud, screeching, and just a plain assault on the senses, where there is no dynamic range, because everything is maxed out.
On one hand, I think it is almost impossible to regulate this. You can't just average out levels because it must be taken in context and some movies will just simply be louder than others. My only suggestion would be for those that review films for both casual viewing and those that critically review films for awards, take sound into a more important context than it is now. If a film is shot with poor lighting, acting, camera work, well, it is considered amateurish and a distraction from the plot. The same standards should be taken with sound. If the dialogue is abnormally high or action scenes are not done realistically or without any restraint whatsoever, the reviewers should not be any more lenient with that aspect of the film than an actor throwing wood or seeing a guy wire on a stunt, etc... with lower ratings, it should result in a lower attendance (money) and critical acclaim (awards) - the two things that should affect most film makers.
If I had to do my own sound rating of two films I've seen somewhat recently, just from memory...
F to Transformers for sound (I hope I'm not insulting anyone here)
A to Miami Vice, especially the weapon sounds - and I didn't think they even tried to juice it up as much as they could have / nice balance
|