You know, sometimes, I think picking complex/difficult exercises is really good for my students. Things that are open-ended, things that even I'm not sure I have a good answer for. Like this clip from Blackpool (BBC, 2004):
I used this clip in my discussion sections of Introduction to Music and Film Sound this morning. Watching them struggle with making their arguments about what's happening in the clip was really interesting. Many focused on diegetic vs. nondiegetic. Some of them tried to argue one way or another, and some couldn't. The point being ... you can make an argument for neither/both in this clip. As long as you qualify your argument and make your point clearly and meaningfully we will be happy! I also made the point to them that they can talk about expectations caused by convention, and discuss how this clip subverts them. When "Cupid" starts playing, it's safe to assume that there is an audio advance going on. But as soon as she looks up and starts singing you retroactively realize there wasn't an advance, and that some kind of audio dissolve occurred. Or maybe the subverted audio advance was itself a dissolve? I don't even know. But it made for interesting discussion in class today.
Also, this clip is cool because it has what I consider a "visual audiodissolve." When Ripley stops singing as he sees the pin, we're given a visual indication that the song has dissolved out and the performance is ending. Very cool. "The Boy With a Thorn in His Side" does the same thing at the beginning. When the dancers start moving in the background we're given a visual clue that a performance is about to begin. They could have easily used the song just as underscoring, and again, convention let's us feel safe about that assumption, but the dancers indicate that it is a performance and not underscoring or an audio advance.
Sometimes I feel like complicated examples are easier to use in discussion than straightforward ones. Well, at least they're more interesting.
I used this clip in my discussion sections of Introduction to Music and Film Sound this morning. Watching them struggle with making their arguments about what's happening in the clip was really interesting. Many focused on diegetic vs. nondiegetic. Some of them tried to argue one way or another, and some couldn't. The point being ... you can make an argument for neither/both in this clip. As long as you qualify your argument and make your point clearly and meaningfully we will be happy! I also made the point to them that they can talk about expectations caused by convention, and discuss how this clip subverts them. When "Cupid" starts playing, it's safe to assume that there is an audio advance going on. But as soon as she looks up and starts singing you retroactively realize there wasn't an advance, and that some kind of audio dissolve occurred. Or maybe the subverted audio advance was itself a dissolve? I don't even know. But it made for interesting discussion in class today.
Also, this clip is cool because it has what I consider a "visual audiodissolve." When Ripley stops singing as he sees the pin, we're given a visual indication that the song has dissolved out and the performance is ending. Very cool. "The Boy With a Thorn in His Side" does the same thing at the beginning. When the dancers start moving in the background we're given a visual clue that a performance is about to begin. They could have easily used the song just as underscoring, and again, convention let's us feel safe about that assumption, but the dancers indicate that it is a performance and not underscoring or an audio advance.
Sometimes I feel like complicated examples are easier to use in discussion than straightforward ones. Well, at least they're more interesting.
Write a comment
Post a Comment