A silent film nominated for sound at BAFTA

[Steven1145]

I just read that The Artist received a nomination for sound at the BAFTA awards. This is a silent (meaning wall to wall music with the exception of one scene) movie! This just makes me mad and points out how poorly understood our work is by other people in the industry.
Up to now we were sadly getting used to musicals grabbing prizes for sound because voters automatically think that sound=music, but this is just a slap in the face to all the great people working in sound for films all over the world.

Sent from my XT910 using Gearslutz.com

[DaveUK]

Ridiculous! Score yes .sound??

[apple-q]

For the record (spoiler alert!!! If you haven´t seen it don´t read the rest of this posting):

There are two scenes with sound other than music.

1) The dream sequence where everything suddenly can be heard except the artist´s voice and then he wakes up in panic. (Which is a brilliant idea for a nightmare of a silent movie star)

2) The last scene where you can suddenly hear the breathing after the dance and the main actor has his one and only line saying "with pleasure" (with a heavy french accent) Which is also a brilliant idea too. Nice twist to the story that was about him being too proud to play in sound movies and in the end it turns out that he had a heavy accent.

Wether that´s worth an award is debatable but those two scenes ONLY worked because of the idea and the sound behind them and have a great impact on the viewer.

[postprosound]

While i agree that it's not the most 'sound-rich' movie ever, i do think that what makes worthy of a BAFTA are the choices made. What sound is there, adds exactly what is necessary to the overall story of the film, without getting in the way of the film. All we in the sound world do, or should be doing, is adding spice to the story- the main dish. sometimes we get to take the lead, and be predominant... but even then, we are not the main course.


I feel like if i were to teach a class on film making, you could almost base the whole class on this film. Not so much that a person should copy it; it's a very singular, distinct style. But more so that each aspect is very well thought out, decided, and chosen as to what it can bring to the overall story. Use sound for an example. The film makers thought, 'how can i use sound to help my story?' and then proceeded accordingly. Things were't added or taken away just because they could, for the sake of being loud or bold. The same could be said for lighting, script, music..... etc.


Too many film makers, in my humble opinion, add things because it's something they saw in an unrelated film, or even genre, a gimmick they learned in film school, or trying to make the film into something it's not, and the film hurts because of it.

[MrTeatime]

(Hi, this is my first post on this forum, I'm a french former mix tech)

I was one the mix tech on that movie and the re-recording mixer is the most crowded french technician in movie history with 9 Cesars (the french Oscars).
The guy was nominated almost every year before he retired (he came back to work for that very movie because "he always dreamt of mixing a silent movie") and saib it would be really funny if he was to nominated for the Cesars this year with that movie.
So it's funny to see him nominated for a BAFTA.

[MrTeatime]

Oh and one funny thing about the mix : we had 132 tracks on our ProTools players... for a silent movie...
That's twice as much as an average french movie less than 10 years ago !
(Ok, most of them were music stems but still...)

[iluvcapra]

It's the Hurt Locker Oscars that did it, now all film sound awards are officially postmodern.

Ps. Me and Sanacore are the only ones allowed to make this joke

PPs. On the other hand, they've been handing out Best Sound awards to musicals for years, I don't think industry voters have ever had a completely clear idea of what sound is.

[Henchman]

Can it be any more obvious that it is about who worked on the film, not how good it souds or doesnt sound.
I have felt this to be the case with quite a few films I have seen nominated and win big awards, where the overal sound was pretty average at best.

Kinda sad it's more of a popularity award, than an actual award for quality.

[iluvcapra]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Can it be any more obvious that it is about who worked on the film, not how good it souds or doesnt sound.
I have felt this to be the case with quite a few films I have seen nominated and win big awards, where the overal sound was pretty average at best.

Kinda sad it's more of a popularity award, than an actual award for quality.

How does BAFTA nomination work exactly? Is it like the Oscars where the branch nominates and the plenary picks the winner?

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by iluvcapra

How does BAFTA nomination work exactly? Is it like the Oscars where the branch nominates and the plenary picks the winner?

I don't know.
But it really is insulting to have a almost completely silent movie nominated fr best sound.
That's pull be like having a radios how nominated for best picture.

Really pissses me off.

[Steven1145]

MrTeatime, I have the upmost respect for Gerard Lamps who is indeed one of the greatest French mixers of recent years. But it does not change my opinion concerning the perception of "sound" by people in charge of nominating films.

[postprosound]

Originally Posted by Henchman

I don't know.
But it really is insulting to have a almost completely silent movie nominated fr best sound.
That's pull be like having a radios how nominated for best picture.

Really pissses me off.

You make a good point here Hench. I guess i was very impressed with the choices made, sound wise, and let that enthusiasm carry me.

You made me stop and think a bit. While i really loved the movie, and find the music, along with what sound there is, most definitely very well done, it might have been a stretch to put it in the same category with the other noms. I know how hard all of us worked on Hugo. How many decisions, conformations, hours away from our families, blood, sweat, and most assuredly tears, went into the sound job. It really is comparing apples and oranges.

I liked the artist. In my opinion, it was a great film on many levels. I think that one should be inspired what the director and the sound crew created. I think one should learn from the movie. But, I have to admit, it's on a very different plane than the other BAFTA nominees.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by postprosound

You make a good point here Hench. I guess i was very impressed with the choices made, sound wise, and let that enthusiasm carry me.

You made me stop and think a bit. While i really loved the movie, and find the music, along with what sound there is, most definitely very well done, it might have been a stretch to put it in the same category with the other noms. I know how hard all of us worked on Hugo. How many decisions, conformations, hours away from our families, blood, sweat, and most assuredly tears, went into the sound job. It really is comparing apples and oranges.

I liked the artist. In my opinion, it was a great film on many levels. I think that one should be inspired what the director and the sound crew created. I think one should learn from the movie. But, I have to admit, it's on a very different plane than the other BAFTA nominees.

Exactly.
If you take a look at a movie like Hugo, where the sound was extremely important, where it was as instrumental in creating the world in which the story took pace, as the picture was. THAT is a perfect example of how important sound is.

I take what we do very serious. And I take this nomination as a personal slap in the face for my and our craft. And really, in a sense, it not only cheapens what we do, it cheapens the award, and it most certainly must make it a laughing stock for everyone who will see a silent moie nominated for sound.

Those who voted for it to be nominated, should be ashamed.
And I hope some of them are here, reading this, and will think about what they are doing, next time they vote. And vote for something that deserves that vote. Nt because they are good friends which those who worked on it.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Exactly.
If you take a look at a movie like Hugo, where the sound was extremely important, where it was as instrumental in creating the world in which the story took pace, as the picture was. THAT is a perfect example of how important sound is.

Wouldn´t that apply to "The Artist" as well but in a different sense?

Isn´t it about the result and artistic achievement not about the film with the most work hours, most sweat, most tears most everything?

Without the sound in those two scenes the film would simply be a silent movie like it was made decades ago.

The sound work takes it to a new level. It´s a very good example how a script incorporates sound for story telling and not just sounds slammed onto images with dialog.

I think you cant judge by the quantity of sounds in the film alone.

my 2 cents.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by apple-q

Wouldn´t that apply to "The Artist" as well but in a different sense?

Isn´t it about the result and artistic achievement not about the film with the most work hours, most sweat, most tears most explosions most flying saucers?

Absolutely not.
This is about sound, not the overall film.
That's what the best film award is for.

There is no justification for nominating a silent film for best sound.
Period.

[iluvcapra]

Originally Posted by apple-q

Isn´t it about the result and artistic achievement not about the film with the most work hours, most sweat, most tears most everything?

Without the sound in those two scenes the film would simply be a silent movie like it was made decades ago.

To be honest I was really disappointed with the sound in The Artist. When they got to that first scene of the audience applauding and we heard nothing, that was a good joke but it was completely inauthentic compared to the way silent films were actually performed. Such a scene in the silent film would have been accompanied by all of the members of the band clapping and providing sound effects -- a common part of the silent film experience was live sound effects, loud audience participation, and in many large theaters actors would read the intertitles and perform the dialogue. Silent films were never silent, neither shown in silence nor watched in silence, and music was really only one part of the synthesis. However, the idea that this was the way films "used" to be is occasionally espoused by some academic, or some director of photography who's waxing philosophic about how so very crucial they are (at the expense of everyone else).

In short, The Artist wasn't really a silent film, it was just a gimmick based on someone's misunderstanding, or mythologizing, of what silent films were like. And they didn't really exploit all of the opportunities, mainly because they brought prior commitments to the story that required a stylish-to-a-fault presentation.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Absolutely not.
This is about sound, not the overall film.
That's what the best film award is for.

There is no justification for nominating a silent film for best sound.
Period.

The point is that it wasn´t a silent film. Have you seen it?

It´s about sound in the context of a movie. A part of the storytelling context. etc. etc. yadayada. And the sound in the artist was definitely a very important part in telling parts of the story. It was the KEY role in the nightmare scene. Schoolbook example for how good film sound can be incorporated in the script.

Or let me re-phrase my earlier point:

If a 2 hour film only had ONE piece of music as the score running for 5 minutes and people think it was the best piece of music ever written for a film, wouldn´t that deserve an award for best music in a film? (I´m not saying the sound of "the artist" is the best film sound ever made. I just want to say that for me even a film with a single foot-step would deserve the award if it was the best sound in the history of film. It´s about the result not the work it took.)

re: iluvcapra: I said that the film wasn´t made like the "real" silent films. Which is why it was interesting and fun. It would have been less interesting if it had tried to replicate an original screening in the 1920s. I´m pretty sure it would´t be on the list of nominees now.

Anyway. I guess it´s not going to win anyway IMO simply because the majority of the voters will follow the consensus: We can´t give that award to a film that only contains 2 scenes with sound.

Let me point out again: I´m not advocating the award for "the artist". I´m opposing to the point that a film needs a certain quantity of sound first before it deserves to be considered for it´s quality.

Just guessing.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by apple-q

The point is that it wasn´t a silent film. Have you seen it?

It´s about sound in the context of a movie. A part of the storytelling context. etc. etc. yadayada. And the sound in the artist was definitely a very important part in telling parts of the story. It was the KEY role in the nightmare scene. Schoolbook example for how good film sound can be incorporated in the script.

Or let me re-phrase my earlier point:

If a 2 hour film only had ONE piece of music as the score running for 5 minutes and people think it was the best piece of music ever written for a film, wouldn´t that deserve an award for best music in a film? (I´m not saying the sound of "the artist" is the best film sound ever made. I just want to say that for me even a film with a single foot-step would deserve the award if it was the best sound in the history of film. It´s about the result not the work it took.)

re: iluvcapra: I said that the film wasn´t made like the "real" silent films. Which is why it was interesting and fun. It would have been less interesting if it had tried to replicate an original screening in the 1920s. I´m pretty sure it would´t be on the list of nominees now.

Anyway. I guess it´s not going to win anyway IMO simply because the majority of the voters will follow the consensus: We can´t give that award to a film that only contains 2 scenes with sound.

Let me point out again: I´m not advocating the award for "the artist". I´m opposing to the point that a film needs a certain quantity of sound first before it deserves to be considered for it´s quality.

Just guessing.

Again, no.

2 scenes of sound do not make a movie.
if a regular movie had 2 scenes of amazing sound, yet the rest was complete shite, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

One great song does not a great album make.

[Henchman]

And the more it takes to validate a nomination, the more proof it doesn't deserve it.

You can't tell e there were other movies more deserving.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by Henchman

And the more it takes to validate a nomination, the more proof it doesn't deserve it.

You can't tell e there were other movies more deserving.

Wether there are others more deserving is a completely different story.

Please tell me: How many "great songs" does a film need to be accepted as a great scored film?

How many sounds? How many hours of work.

At how may percent will it become art in your opinion?

[iluvcapra]

Originally Posted by apple-q

re: iluvcapra: I said that the film wasn´t made like the "real" silent films. Which is why it was interesting and fun. It would have been less interesting if it had tried to replicate an original screening in the 1920s.

Well that's a matter of opinion. Some sort of effort in the vein of Olivier's Henry V would have been pretty slick, I think.

Originally Posted by apple-q

Let me point out again: I´m not advocating the award for "the artist". I´m opposing to the point that a film needs a certain quantity of sound first before it deserves to be considered for it´s quality.

If this were some film with an average amount of sound work, not necessarily any explosions or fights but a clever, well-wrought gig, then this argument would probably carry a little more force. I have no problem with a No Country for Old Men being nominated for best sound.

However, the sound work in The Artist was nugatory. 90% of the final mix was a faders-at-zero layback of the music mix. Were these sound folk nominated because they did great work, or because somebody wanted to acknowledge the director's charming aesthetic conceit?

Good ideas are so cheap, it's the execution that matters. If you gave the locked picture of this film to a merely competent mixer, instead of the guy that did it, would the audience have be able to tell the difference? I'm inclined to say no. We shouldn't be handing out awards to people who are merely competent; that'd be like if Italy gave an order of knighthood to the "vada a bordo, cazzo!" guy.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by iluvcapra

Well that's a matter of opinion. Some sort of effort in the vein of Olivier's Henry V would have been pretty slick, I think.



If this were some film with an average amount of sound work, not necessarily any explosions or fights but a clever, well-wrought gig, then this argument would probably carry a little more force. I have no problem with a No Country for Old Men being nominated for best sound.

However, the sound work in The Artist was nugatory. 90% of the final mix was a faders-at-zero layback of the music mix. Were these sound folk nominated because they did great work, or because somebody wanted to acknowledge the director's charming aesthetic conceit?

Good ideas are so cheap, it's the execution that matters. If you gave the locked picture of this film to a merely competent mixer, instead of the guy that did it, would the audience have be able to tell the difference? I'm inclined to say no. We shouldn't be handing out awards to people who are merely competent; that'd be like if Italy gave an order of knighthood to the "vada a bordo, cazzo!" guy.

Quite insulting to the guys who worked on TA, don´t you think? They didn´t pick the nomination.

Better keep your fingers crossed that you never get a nomination for a "nugatory" work.

130 tracks of music at unity gain? Hm...I wonder why they didn´t use the 5.1 mix of the music.

But since you seem to have attended the mix you might know?

[I hear voices]

Originally Posted by apple-q

Wouldn´t that apply to "The Artist" as well but in a different sense?

Isn´t it about the result and artistic achievement not about the film with the most work hours, most sweat, most tears most everything?

Without the sound in those two scenes the film would simply be a silent movie like it was made decades ago.

The sound work takes it to a new level. It´s a very good example how a script incorporates sound for story telling and not just sounds slammed onto images with dialog.

I think you cant judge by the quantity of sounds in the film alone.

my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by apple-q

The point is that it wasn´t a silent film. Have you seen it?

It´s about sound in the context of a movie. A part of the storytelling context. etc. etc. yadayada. And the sound in the artist was definitely a very important part in telling parts of the story. It was the KEY role in the nightmare scene. Schoolbook example for how good film sound can be incorporated in the script.

Or let me re-phrase my earlier point:

If a 2 hour film only had ONE piece of music as the score running for 5 minutes and people think it was the best piece of music ever written for a film, wouldn´t that deserve an award for best music in a film? (I´m not saying the sound of "the artist" is the best film sound ever made. I just want to say that for me even a film with a single foot-step would deserve the award if it was the best sound in the history of film. It´s about the result not the work it took.)

re: iluvcapra: I said that the film wasn´t made like the "real" silent films. Which is why it was interesting and fun. It would have been less interesting if it had tried to replicate an original screening in the 1920s. I´m pretty sure it would´t be on the list of nominees now.

Anyway. I guess it´s not going to win anyway IMO simply because the majority of the voters will follow the consensus: We can´t give that award to a film that only contains 2 scenes with sound.

Let me point out again: I´m not advocating the award for "the artist". I´m opposing to the point that a film needs a certain quantity of sound first before it deserves to be considered for it´s quality.

Just guessing.

I totally agree with apple-g in every single sentence.

I understand what are you saying and I find it weird too, when a “silent” film is nominated for best sound but i think we can not talk about sound in films like “how many tracks we have”, “how many hours we work”, “what kind or how many sfx we use”. Sound is something more than that.

I don't know why the artist is nominated, I don't know voters thoughts maybe you are right they think “music =sound”.
But i can not understand also why the 90% of oscar nominations in sound are film with explosions, battles, cars, airplanes, spaceships, dinosaurs and monsters. And at the end the oscar goes to those movies.
It is something like the good DOP is the DOP who can turn on as much lights as he can.
It's not about numbers its about artistic achievement and artistic vision.

From my personal experience i am the production sound mixer, sound designer, etc. of Dogtooth (a Greek film who was nominated for foreign language film Oscar) and my favorite, for sound, scene of the film is when the kids playing, laughing, jumping in the pool. In some part there is sync sound, some voice overs and at the end it's silent. I love this silent part and i think even the silence is “sound” if that helps the artistic vision of a film.

[JSt0rm]

Originally Posted by iluvcapra

We shouldn't be handing out awards to people who are merely competent; that'd be like if Italy gave an order of knighthood to the "vada a bordo, cazzo!" guy.

or letting anyone be the captain of a cruise ship...

oh wait

[Henchman]

Having moments of silence in a film is one thing.
Nominating a silent movie for best sound is another.

Best film. OK
Best score, sure.
Best sound? An insult and a farce. And please spare me the artistic mumbo jumbo justification.

[iluvcapra]

Originally Posted by apple-q

Quite insulting to the guys who worked on TA, don´t you think? They didn´t pick the nomination.

Permit me to strip away the excess and make the point plainly:

If you gave the locked picture of this film to a merely competent mixer, instead of the guy that did it, would the audience have be able to tell the difference?

[Henchman]

And anybody feel free to point out which movie that was shot entirely, in a singLe stark room with 2 chars and a table, received a nomination for best set.
And which movie that had only music in the opening and closing credits received a nomination for best music.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by iluvcapra

Permit me to strip away the excess and make the point plainly:

If you gave the locked picture of this film to a merely competent mixer, instead of the guy that did it, would the audience have be able to tell the difference?

And any honest mixer would reply to that question with a resounding "no"

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Having moments of silence in a film is one thing.
Nominating a silent movie for best sound is another.

Best film. OK
Best score, sure.
Best sound? An insult and a farce. And please spare me the artistic mumbo jumbo justification.

It´s NOT a silent film.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by Henchman

And any honest mixer would reply to that question with a resounding "no"

Thanks for calling me dis-honest.

Speaking about honesty: Have you seen the film?