Response to "Projection of Sound on Image"

I would be lying if I said this article made complete sense to me. I was pretty lost most of the time, but what I did understand was interesting. I was pulled in by the first topic of the book. When the author was talking about the two movies, Bergman’s and Tati’s films, I thought about how cool this concept is. It is true that even though film is considered the art of the moving image, it would be a fraction of the art that it has become were it not for the audio design. A few years ago I actually did a case study for a class evolving this audio-less movie phenomenon. We watched select scenes from “The Shining” without sound, and wrote about what happened. We were not told the title or genre of the movie, and most of us had not seen it. The scenes included the scene when Nicolson’s character talks to himself at the bar, and also the scene when the mother and child are wandering through the hedge maze. At first the scenes seemed cheerful, and effortless. Then we watched the same selections with the sound. The visuals meant something completely different then. The ominous music created a horror tone, and the pure insanity of the bar scene became apparent. Through this article’s writing I have come to a realization of just how important the sound is to a movie. It can freeze time and enhance emotion as the author describes with opera’s high pitches. Sound can make a stream of disconnected visuals flow together and create a single message. Sound literally has and endless amount of uses, and were it not for the slightly droll tone and overwhelming technical jargon that this author used I would have enjoyed this entire piece of writing. Overall I would say I have walked away with more knowledge, but no sense of respect for this author in particular.