This exposition of notes is a rant that occurred during one of the documentaries we viewed after the K-B sports documentary. I think it was a crime scene investigation. Anywho, here's what I had written as a massive paragraph in my notes...
The more I'm working with film, the more I'm realizing that it's an aural medium, not visual. The visual aspect of film only carries film so far -- the image cannot tell the story. It merely suggests what is real. Audio brings truth to visual's reality. So, audio tells what is true. We hear what we see; the audio effects of a film dictates the film. We can hear the audio and picture (for ourselves) the movie's visual presentation, but I don't think we can see a film and imagine its audio (for ourselves). That is to say when we only hear the video and do not see it, we can visualize it. However, we cannot, as effectively, see the film and consciously create or think of its audio content. The visual is easier to create than the audio. Film must be aural medium. That's why film is passive -- you must hear it. You need to be silent. Dead. Dumb. It is a hot medium. It tells a story and you need to listen. You must hear it. You must be passive. If not, you'll misinterpret the story being told. TV is different. The story is repeated, recaptured, reviewed, and retold. The audience is temporary; not permanent. TV must capture its audience and sell its product's programming. People decide if they want to buy it or not; they are active in this form of decision-making. So, TV is a cool medium. TV and film are different. However, it is not the stories being told that's important, it's the way in which they are told and the products being sold that are important -- the way in which they are told and sold. The medium is the message, in both broad and narrow terms. We are a digital age and the media utilized in this age are worth studying.
No comments:
Post a Comment