Is it normal for the DP to get to call this during shoots?

[harmonica44]

I went to shoot a movie, for some people, by recording sound on set, and it was by far the highest budgeted movie I have ever worked on. I was quite impressed. However, I felt the director and producer may not have put a lot of thought into the audio compared to the video.

I never got any feedback on what the noise was like on the locations and was not able to visit any of them beforehand. The reason being, is that I had to travel to another city to shoot and the locations were still being decided before then. So when I got there, they were kind of noisy and not the best, since we could not turn off the heating, or control a lot of sound made by the public.

But there was one thing that really bothered me, but maybe I am wrong, and this is normal on a set. I couldn't put the boom mic where it was required to go because the DP called the shots on where it was to be for each shot. He did not want it to get in the way of his lighting, so he would tell me where to put and even have it drawn on the storyboards. My guess is that it's not normal for the DP to have so much free reign given by the director.

 

[WalterB]

....

1. Many decades ago films made without sync sound were "films" and films with sync sound were "talkies" but as talkies made films extinct, talkies became the "films" and what had been called "films" had to be called something else, and therefore the term "silent film" was coined. A "film" and a "silent film" are two different things, so no, you can't make a film with just visuals.
2. The common term "Silent film" is a misnomer because films haven't been experienced "without sound" by audiences since the very earliest years of film, well over 100 years ago.
3. Even if, for some reason, someone wants to make a silent film today, it can't actually be silent (without any sound).
..............

1) Trying to proof your point by definition of words (almost nobody cares about), while everyone knows what is being meant?
Yes, you can make a film with just visuals; that it may be called a 'silent film' by the rest of the world, is something you can point out. (Turning the reasoning around.)
2) This is true.
3) Why not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8r9t135_xY

Did you see that and hear nothing?

Relax a bit...

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Trying to proof your point by definition of words (almost nobody cares about)

Try making and marketing a silent film and see for yourself if nobody cares!

Yes, you can make a film with just visuals; that it may be called a 'silent film' by the rest of the world

You can't have it both ways! "The rest of the world" expects a silent film to not have any dialogue but they do expect it to have sound! I'm not sure what the rest of the world would call a film with no sound at all, some might call it a film, others would probably call it some sort of visual art rather than a film.

Did you see that and hear nothing?

Yes, I saw a 22 year old montage of photographs and heard nothing. Visual art sure, a film(?), not really.

G

 

[harmonica44]

Even though films have sound, the reason why they are called 'films', is because when it comes to movies shot on film, they put the soundtrack on the actual film. Film is capable of holding picture as well as audio, printed onto it, so I assume that is why the term film includes both picture and sound.

 

[digitalasylum]

last location audio guy I worked with was great, his first question was always where was he out of the shot and then was he blocking any lights. He made sure he was getting clean audio and would let us know if we had some how screwed him over or needed to carve a spot for him, but otherwise did everything in his power to save us re-takes and issues from bad boom operation.

 

[GoldenSelkie]

Just on the topic of prioritising sound over visuals, I'm a pretty visual person but don't appreciate it when movies have pretty quiet dialogue and very loud sound effects. Totally get that there needs to be compromises, but I'd still like more balance in audio sometimes.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

[1] Just on the topic of prioritising sound over visuals, I'm a pretty visual person [2] but don't appreciate it when movies have pretty quiet dialogue and very loud sound effects. Totally get that there needs to be compromises, but I'd still like more balance in audio sometimes.

1. I can't speak for others, but I'm NOT advocating prioritising sound over visuals! I'm advocating prioritising "SoundVisuals" over visuals.

2. That appears to be a simple issue with a simple solution; just balance the dialogue louder against the sound FX. In practise it's not a simple issue and there is sometimes/often no solution.

G

 

[jax_rox]

1. I can't speak for others, but I'm NOT advocating prioritising sound over visuals! I'm advocating prioritising "SoundVisuals" over visuals.

I was thinking about this today and I agree. The conclusion I came to (sound guys, don't take this the wrong way, I still love you!) was that sound isn't more important than the image. In fact, sound is equally important.

It's easily demonstrable - if you re-shoot Star Wars shot for shot with no budget, but use the sound from the original movie, people are likely to still hate it. Think of all those terrible YouTube videos shot on handycams that use stolen high-end sound effects that simply sound out of place.

Similarly, incredible visuals where the dialogue is accidentally unintelligible won't hold people's attention for long either.

I think the great distinction is that most people think of the visuals of filmmaking, and very few even realise there's sound there, let alone how much it's affecting them.

As has been said, sound is 50% of the experience/what you see, I think the more pertinent thing is ensuring you pay at least equal attention to both the visuals and the sound. Worrying only about the sound is equivalent to worrying only about the image.

The problem is of those who do think of sound, most of them think purely in terms of capturing dialogue. I think promoting a greater awareness of sound is necessary and awesome.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

The conclusion I came to (sound guys, don't take this the wrong way, I still love you!) was that sound isn't more important than the image. In fact, sound is equally important.

I think I understand what you're saying and if so, I don't take it the wrong way at all. To better illustrate the difficult to explain point which I'm trying to get across, let me add a further example to the ones you've given:

[1] .. if you re-shoot Star Wars shot for shot with no budget, but use the sound from the original movie, people are likely to still hate it. Think of all those terrible YouTube videos shot on handycams that use stolen high-end sound effects that simply sound out of place.

[2] Similarly, incredible visuals where the dialogue is accidentally unintelligible won't hold people's attention for long either.

[3] Incredible visuals and equally incredible dialogue/audio quality also doesn't necessarily result in a good film! Just as you can have a great guy marry a great woman and still end up with a disastrous marriage.

Worrying only about the sound is equivalent to worrying only about the image.

Agreed. The only danger here is taking the logical implication from this, that a director should worry equally about sound and visuals. IMHO, a director should be worrying about the marriage itself, rather than worrying about treating the two individuals involved equally! To aid the director in this respect, I think the best DOPs need to have at least a fair appreciation of sound and likewise of course, that Sound Designers need to have at least a fair appreciation of cinematography.

The problem is of those who do think of sound, most of them think purely in terms of capturing dialogue. I think promoting a greater awareness of sound is necessary and awesome.

That's certainly an issue with many, mainly due as you mentioned, to the fact that much of the sound design is designed to be subliminal and therefore many filmmakers are as unaware of it as the audience.

Following on from my previous point, I have a maybe interesting observation from my years of audio post. By the time they get to me, all films broadly fall into one of two categories: 1. Those with plenty of opportunity for subliminal aural manipulation to create interest, contrast, involvement and dramatic impact and are therefore easy/obvious as far as deciding what the design of the sound should be (though not necessarily easy as far as the execution of it is concerned!), or 2. Those films where the design of the sound feels like a constant struggle, a struggle to come up with anything which creates any interest/drama/involvement without fighting the visuals and the audiences' limits of believability.

To start with, I thought that films fell into either category just due to luck and that it was just a coincidence that category 1 films seemed to perform massively better with audiences than category 2 films. As I moved up through the industry, I noticed a higher percentage of category 1 films, I learned that films fell into category 1 more by design than pure luck and that it wasn't a coincidence they outperformed category 2 films, it was virtually a rule!

G

PS. I'm certain you already know most or all of this Jax, it was therefore more for the potential benefit of others than a direct response to you.