CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Bournemouth University Research Online COLLABORATION AND INTEGRATION: A Method of Advancing Film Sound Based on The Coen Brothers’ Use of Sound and Their Mode of Production Two volumes: volume 2 Randall Barnes A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Bournemouth University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2005 Volume 2 Title page 290 Contents page 291 Appendices: A: The Nature of Sound and page 293 Its Unique Impact on Filmmaking Sound’s General Influence on the Narrative Film Sound: MUSIC Film Sound: NOISE and AMBIENT EFFECTS Film Sound: THE VOICE B: The Historical Development of Sound page 328 Technology and its Impact on Filmmaking Practices and Styles Early Developments in the History of Sound Recording and Reproduction The Origins of Competition Sound Film and the Part-Talkie The First All-Talkies: Difficulties and Improvements Reinventing Film Forms and Foreign Markets Standardisation and New Technology Early Unconventional Uses of Sound: European and American Creative Fidelity: KING KONG and CITIZEN KANE The Historical Development of Magnetic Sound Magnetic Sound Film Formats Stylistic Uses of Music Post-WWII to 1959 Sound Effects Stylists Post-WWII to 1959 The first big wave in stylised sound: Films and filmmakers from 1960-1971 Hitchcock’s horror and other sonic chillers Foregrounding Film Sound as an Artistic Expression: Jean-Luc Godard The Re-contextualisation of Music: Stanley Kubrick The Dolby Sound Revolution Sound Gains Recognition: The Work of Walter Murch, Ben Burtt and Alan Splet 291 C: The Coen’s Use of Sound: Main Themes page 443 Narrative Echoes: the Use of Aural Repetition Hyperreal Worlds: Sound and Setting D: Interview Transcripts page 462 Interviews with Skip Lievsay Interview with Carter Burwell Interview with Larry Sider Interview with Bob Last E: Personal Emails page 548 Emails from Skip Lievsay Emails from Carter Burwell Email from Ren Klyce Emails from Randy Thom Emails from Larry Sider F: Sound Interpretations of Non-Coen Brothers’ page 558 films: Earlier Papers by the Author Reality Stretching: The Use of Sound in David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD He’d Kill Us If He Got the Chance G: Film Clip Index page 571 Film Clip Examples (CD appendix F) Inside back cover List of References page 573 Bibliography page 589 Filmography and Television References page 625 292 APPENDIX A The Nature of Sound and Its Unique Impact on Filmmaking This section highlights the various roles music, effects and dialogue play in filmed narratives. All of these elements are examined from a conceptual and practical perspective. The areas of discussion include the following: 1. A discussion of the unique qualities of sound that set it apart from image. 2. A review of the functions of aural ingredients and an exploration of their wider applications, especially in terms of how they can be used as story-telling devices. 3. The theoretical underpinnings that help define how each element of sound has been used independently and collectively in the filmmaking process. All of these items will then be applied in the interpretations of the work of the Coen brothers in next part of the paper. Our minds treat what we hear differently from what we see. Fundamentally, sound cannot be shut out of the ear (unless by artificial means) but images can be denied by closing our eyes. We can hear from all directions simultaneously, whereas our sight is defined to a restricted visual field. Our vision is limited to a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. In contrast, our hearing has a broad range of perception because of our sensitivity to a great number of frequencies. We cannot distinguish the different elements in a mixture of light, but we can differentiate between 293 separate notes within a chord. Importantly, sound can present our minds with coded information (language) or un-coded information (noises) that we must interpret: a creaking door, the sound of waves or a gunshot, especially if the source of those sounds is not within our field of vision. The source of the information generates and reinforces associations and emotions in our minds. However when the source is obscured or it is ambiguous, we then seek an explanation for that sound or try to construct an aural object to form an approximate association. The assembly of visual data also functions in this way. Unlike the process for sound, however, there is usually no delay in identifying the object unless the image is blurred, moves too quickly or is at an extreme distance. Film audiences use the same tools of sensory perception with the given elements of the fictitious film world, regardless of their correspondence to the actual world. Their minds make the same interpretations of the aural and visual content and the same approximations with ambiguous ingredients as it happens in everyday life. Confirmation of this comes in one of the earliest public exhibitions of film, when the audience feared the impact of an on- coming train. Since then cinemagoers have become more sophisticated, but they still accept the plausibility of the illusion on the screen through the suspension of disbelief. Similarly, filmmakers have grown in sophistication in perfecting the illusion. As noted previously, this was predominantly achieved through the visual elements of the narrative. Exploiting the wider dimensions of aural perception was rarely employed. Perhaps this relates to the elusive nature of sound itself. Sound is abstract. It contains no meaning in and of itself. It gains an identity through the mental associations we as listeners make, regardless of whether the source is known or not. A sound, therefore, maintains relative 294 independence until it is married to a visual object. It is then that we relate one with the other. In other words: “there is no natural and pre-existing harmony between sound and image” (Chion 1994, p.xvii). Repetitions reinforce and expand our associations. As listeners hear a wider range of sounds, they develop a broader ‘menu’ of corresponding sound-images. Throughout our listening lives, we do not constantly reassess sound input. However, we fine-tune our perceptions of the variations of individual sounds and we make allowances for new discoveries. As we develop and add to this ‘menu,’ sounds may take on additional meanings by attaching themselves to memories, especially those with emotional significance. While we may try to categorise every sound we hear, there will always be those that remain unknown or ambiguous. A film, in its attempt to represent a plausible reality, is forged through the amalgamation of specific sounds and images. In other words, a film is not seen and heard, it is heard/seen, that is, despite the distinction between the two elements, they are not considered separate by the filmgoer. They are experienced in the same way they would be experienced in the real world. Thus when sounds are joined to images in a given film world, audiences are asked to interpret them through the aforementioned process of association. This fundamental infusion of sound and image is what Chion (1994, p.63) called synchresis: the combination of the words synchronism and synthesis. The acceptance of this synchresis forms the crux of Chion’s film sound theory: the ‘Audio-visual contract’. He defines this symbolic pact as the agreement of cinemagoers when they consider the two elements to be participating in one and the same entity or world (ibid., p.222). The custom in Hollywood has been to highlight the most familiar correlations. Therefore, by producing ‘what-you-see-is-what-you-get’ films, they have ignored the fact that filmmaking offers the advantage (over reality) of separating sound 295 and vision completely. The ability to divide these two elements provides filmmakers with the opportunity to add a further dimension of meaning to their narratives. Above all, it allows them the prospect of manipulating the audience’s sound-image expectations. For example, ‘normal’ interpretations could be challenged through the use of ambiguous or less familiar sound- images. Regardless of whether this is a subtle or obvious gesture, the non- synchronous use of film sound can help signify something beyond the image. Implicit in the nature of film is the fact that the screen does not hinder the emission of sounds. Unlike images, which are confined to a specific rectangular viewing area, aural ingredients can represent objects both within and outside the screen. Containment again only manifests itself when filmmakers marry sound and image. This use of aural ingredients is called synchronous or onscreen sound and it identifies objects or actions whose source appears within the shot to reinforce the concrete ‘reality’ of the film world. The opposite, called offscreen sound, distinguishes any sonic element whose source is not revealed within the confines of the rectangular space. Though emitting from a point beyond the screen, it is perceived to be coming from within the shot. It occurs through our natural ability to adjust our spatial awareness to the most plausible source; a psychological phenomenon called localisation. With the advent of Dolby surround and subsequent developments, this use of sound has been become more commonplace. Though reasonable, these distinctions assign to aural ingredients a role subservient to that of the image. Bordwell and Thompson (2004 [originally published in 1979) expanded the notions of onscreen and offscreen with the terminology, borrowed from textual analysis, that reflects film sound’s unique qualities more effectively. They introduced diegetic and nondiegetic sound, which define sound’s temporal relationship to the diegesis of the narrative. 296 For Bordwell and Thompson (p.331), diegetic describes a sound that is either “visible within the frame – onscreen” (e.g.