Using reverb for emotional beat changes

[harmonica44]

I am helping a first time director edit his movie, and we hired an audio engineer who asks questions like how he wants the reverb in the scene to emphasize emotion. Now in some movies it's obvious in big dramatic scenes, but apparently it happens all the time in the most quietest scenes in movies he says. He used this as an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHp5HfA5hIA

Kirk Douglas is defending the men on trial, to the court. When the camera is on the members of the court, Kirk's voice sounds further away. When the camera is later on the men on trial, his voice is closer up. This is because the court is emotionally distant towards him, where as the men on trial, are not.

I thought that the reason why his voice goes from further to closer was because it cuts from distant master shot of him, to close up. But he said no the reason is, is because of the emotional feelings of the characters.

It's like cutting from an audio master to an audio close up for an emotional beat change reason, same as emotional editing in video.

So I have a lot of thinking to do now. Not only do I have video masters and close ups to edit with but audio ones as well.

However I also have to consider if the logic of the scene dictates that, since characters aren't always far away enough from other characters to warrant such a logical change in distance, even if it's for emotion beat changes.

I also have to think about how the video editing flows with the audio editing. For example, can I show a close up of an actor talking, then when I cut to another characters reaction shot, can the audio cut to another reverb distance as well, to go with the emotional beat change? Or would audiences find it too jarring, depending on the scene?

In that scene there, the audio was the same, until the close up of Kirk Douglas. The reverbs in between reaction shots, were not mixed at all. It seems that movies always wait to cut to a video angle of a character, before switching the point of view of the audio. Is it okay to cut to another audio point of view for emotional reasons, without establishing a video change of angle?

What are the cinema rules when it comes to this, so the audience will not find it jarring or confusing? Thanks.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I am helping a first time director edit his movie, and we hired an audio engineer who asks questions like how he wants the reverb in the scene to emphasize emotion. Now in some movies it's obvious in big dramatic scenes, but apparently it happens all the time in the most quietest scenes in movies he says.

What you mean "he says", haven't you noticed yourself? What you are talking about is a fundamental basic of film making and sound design, don't tell me you've never come across it before!

Think about it, why do you change angles and perspective in your scenes, why do you have wide shots, MCU's, CU's and everything inbetween, what are you trying to achieve? In the vast majority of cases, whatever it is you are trying to achieve with these different types of shots, you will not achieve it if the audio contradicts the visual image! Sound design exists in very large part to emphasise emotionally what you are trying to achieve visually. Because, you can bend (under or overemphasise) the aural perspective, while staying within the realms of believability, thereby dramatically enhancing the reason why this/these cuts exists in the visuals.

I thought that the reason why his voice goes from further to closer was because it cuts from distant master shot of him, to close up. But he said no the reason is, is because of the emotional feelings of the characters.

It's usually because of both, as I explained above. But, that's a "usually" and certainly not an "always", there are often times when for artistic/emotional reasons you will want to and can bend the sound design beyond what is believable. Sound design is a true ART rather than a technical craft, so it's entirely based on getting/enhancing an emotional response and personal taste.

However I also have to consider if the logic of the scene dictates that, since characters aren't always far away enough from other characters to warrant such a logical change in distance, even if it's for emotion beat changes.

This is fundamental to film making, modern dramatic film making is not as simple as pointing your camera at something, hitting record and shouting "Action"!

I also have to think about how the video editing flows with the audio editing.

Again, post production and film making 101 (OK, maybe 102!).

For example, can I show a close up of an actor talking, then when I cut to another characters reaction shot, can the audio cut to another reverb distance as well, to go with the emotional beat change? Or would audiences find it too jarring, depending on the scene?

It could work brilliantly or it could jar the audience out of the scene, it depends on how and why it's done. Again, this is an art, not a technical craft. There are often guidelines or conventions but because sound design is an art these general rules or conventions have large numbers of exceptions and are often deliberately broken or ignored.

In that scene there, the audio was the same, until the close up of Kirk Douglas. The reverbs in between reaction shots, were not mixed at all. It seems that movies always wait to cut to a video angle of a character, before switching the point of view of the audio. Is it okay to cut to another audio point of view for emotional reasons, without establishing a video change of angle?

Actually, the aural perspective often changes before the picture and not at all uncommonly changes subtly even when there is no visual edit or change of perspective. BTW, we don't just use reverb to accomplish this but EQ and sometimes compression as well.

What are the cinema rules when it comes to this, so the audience will not find it jarring or confusing? Thanks.

Hopefully you now realise this question goes to the heart of what sound design actually is. There are no absolute rules, which is why it takes many years to learn to do sound design well.

If you haven't already read it I strongly recommend you read carefully "The Principles of Sound Design" thread. If you have already read it, study it again, much more carefully!

G

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks I will. But let's say two characters are no more than a few feet apart, like sitting a desk across frome each other. What are the rules, as to how far they have to be apart, or how far away from the camera before you can bend the sound for emotional reasons? Like if you watch a movie like Casino Royale for example, the scene where Bond is being tortured. Bond and Le Chiffre are on very different emotional grounds from each other, yet they both sound like they are in the same space. Why didn't they make one sound different from the other there for emotional reasons?

I could name several other movies where characters are on different emotional grounds in contrast to each other, yet they all sound like they are in the same space of that scene, so I need to establish some kind of rule. Or in the Dark Knight, the scene between Gordon and Dent, in Dent's office near the beginning. They both sound like they are in the same room, and if Gordon had sounded like he was far away for emotional reasons, I think the audience would have found that too distracting.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

What are the rules, as to how far they have to be apart, or how far away from the camera before you can bend the sound for emotional reasons?

You obviously didn't understand my post or take my advice and go through the Principles of Sound Design thread! If you want a rule, I'll give you one: The characters have to be more than a thousandth of an inch apart and more than a thousandth of an inch from the camera. In other words, the sound is ALWAYS bent for emotional reasons!

If you're not bending the sound for emotional reasons then you aren't doing sound design, you're effectively working at the same level as the very first films with sound and ignoring nearly 90 years of evolution in film making and audience expectation!

G

 

[harmonica44]

Okay for the past couple of weeks, I have been watching parts of movies as examples, and I often find that the sound doesn't change unless the camera distance does. Can you give examples of where that rule is broken in movies, or how I am just not seeing maybe? Saying their are no rules does not help, cause when I've posted edits on here before, I've been told I've broken rules or have done something wrong, which also could be looked at as breaking rules. So their are rules if people tell you that you did something wrong.

 

[Alcove Audio]

First off, I don't think that, in 1957, they were thinking of emotional content regarding reverbs. I mean, really, keep your perspective - they didn't have Pro Tools, digital effects or any of the tools which we take for granted. Everything was done with a razor blade and/or a bounce. The dialog was (most probably) cut with regards to the best dialog consistency/delivery possible, and with an ear towards visual perspective.

The job of the sound designer, sound editors and rerecording mixer(s) - with the input of the director - is to create an acceptable aural reality (within the context of the film) and then, within those constraints, "play" with sound for maximum emotional impact.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

In response to you edit (which I didn't see until after my last post) where you give completely different modern examples:

Bond and Le Chiffre are on very different emotional grounds from each other, yet they both sound like they are in the same space. Why didn't they make one sound different from the other there for emotional reasons? [And] Okay for the past couple of weeks, I have been watching parts of movies as examples, and I often find that the sound doesn't change unless the camera distance does.

The sound does change, you are listening as a member of an audience rather than as a filmmaker, you need to listen much more carefully! In the film you linked to in your OP, you are talking about a film made in the era of mono soundtracks and where they had far more basic technology than to today. Today it would be unusual to have two people close together in the same physical visual space have such different amounts of reverb ("unusual" but not "never"). With today's mixing technology and 5.1 or greater audio formats we have a great deal more control and audiences have much higher expectations. The sonic quality of the voices is always manipulated though, in the examples you have given there are changes to the aural perspective when the characters change their position relative to each other or the camera, the exact amount of reverb, the EQ and/or the balance is changed (automated) almost from syllable to syllable. The point is that this sound design is specifically designed not to be consciously noticed by the audience, as you would know if you read the Principles of Sound Design thread, please read it!!

I could name several other movies where characters are on different emotional grounds in contrast to each other, yet they all sound like they are in the same space of that scene, so I need to establish some kind of rule ....Saying their are no rules does not help, cause when I've posted edits on here before, I've been told I've broken rules or have done something wrong, which also could be looked at as breaking rules. So their are rules if people tell you that you did something wrong.

Tell you what, you tell me the specific rules of creating any effective artform and I'll tell you the specific rules of sound design! The only rule is: Stay within the bounds of believability, except for those occasions when you've good artistic reasons not to. Please, go through the sound design thread!

G

 

[AudioPostExpert]

First off, I don't think that, in 1957, they were thinking of emotional content regarding reverbs.

Hmm, I don't know for certain but I'd be surprised if they weren't thinking in those (emotional) terms to some extent, even then. EQ and compression were both invented for the film sound world a decade or more before this film was made and although they had no digital reverbs they did have various and customisable echo chambers and worldising, which did provide artistic choices and options, albeit very crude options by today's standards.

G

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks I am reading it through it now, and watching the video examples in the thread.

Well Kubrick could have also planned it out in pre-production and said, let's record Kirk's voice with this amount of reverb when he says these lines, and then lets get closer up, when he delivers these next lines.

Their is a courtroom scene I have written which we could use as an example. The prosecutor is making his arguments to the judge. The judge doesn't like the defendant, and the defendant is dependent on the prosecutor to make the judge see different.

Now let's say the camera is on a close up of the prosecutor as he starts talking. It then cuts to the judge and you hear that he is further away, which symbolizes that the judge doesn't really like what the prosecutor has to say. The camera then cuts to the defendant, and the prosecutor's voice is close up since the defendant is dependent on the prosecutor. It then cuts from the defendant to the judge, and the sound of the prosecutor's voice, is more distant. It then cuts back to the defendant and his voice is closer again.

Is this acceptable or would that be bending it too much, just for an example?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Now let's say the camera is on a close up of the prosecutor as he starts talking. It then cuts to the judge and you hear that he is further away, which symbolizes that the judge doesn't really like what the prosecutor has to say. The camera then cuts to the defendant, and the prosecutor's voice is close up since the defendant is dependent on the prosecutor. It then cuts from the defendant to the judge, and the sound of the prosecutor's voice, is more distant. It then cuts back to the defendant and his voice is closer again.

Is this acceptable or would that be bending it too much, just for an example?

The problem here is the symbolism itself. How does the audience know that a distant sounding voice is supposed to mean the judge doesn't like what he's hearing, rather than the obvious fact that he's further away? As a very general rule, if you are going to try and use processing effects symbolically (rather than realistically) you have to set them up and establish a quite obvious association for the audience to understand. You have to be careful when using processing effects (or abstract sound FX) symbolically, as you are in danger of ending up with a scene which will appear to an audience as surreal if they haven't fully appreciated the association. If you're not after a surreal scene you're likely to jar the audience out of the scene rather than enhance it's emotional content.

Generally with dialogue processing we are looking at enhancing what is already there, so the question is, what is already there? You have to listen to the actor's voice! It's likely if the judge doesn't like what he's hearing that he will reply with a harshness in the sonic quality of his voice, we can (if required) enhance this harshness with EQ or we can make it more mellow or give it other sonic qualities to enhance the emotional content and how the audience will perceive it.

Usually we would use a dryer (less reverb) effect on dialogue (along with EQ and maybe compression) to enhance it's intimacy or maybe importance. Notice how often I'm using the words "usually" and "generally", rather than "this is a golden rule"!

G

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

That's strange. I was watching Paths of Glory for the first time as I watched that video.

 

[wheatgrinder]

I think the reverb in the example clip is just the reality of the camera position and the room they are recording in.

If that is a real room (not a set) then it is live as heck! Kirks monologue as he is pacing is being mic'ed from quite a distance so naturally it has a lot of room reverb. The close shots have the mic closer so less room reverb is captured.

But I only skimmed it.. so maybe I missed something..

 

[AudioPostExpert]

If that is a real room (not a set) then it is live as heck! Kirks monologue as he is pacing is being mic'ed from quite a distance so naturally it has a lot of room reverb.

Most likely it is a set (rather than a location) and the reverb was created artificially in a chamber or it was worldised. Kubrik is most often mentioned for his visuals but is also regarded as one of the great directors as far as sound is concerned. He was famously an absolute stickler for extreme fine detail in the sound. Even if that was a real room and even if that was the reverb captured at the time (both of which I very much doubt), Kubrlk would have had that dialogue looped without a second's thought, unless he was sure it was exactly what he wanted artistically!

I can't be absolutely certain of what I've just written, it was one of Kubrik's earliest films and I've never heard any sound design stories about it but his next film after Paths of Glory was one of the great film sound mixes of it's day and was incidentally the last film done by the great Jack Foley (who had been demanded by Kubrik).

G

 

[harmonica44]

Okay so was the PSM who told me this, is wrong then, and they are not going for being metaphorical with their reverb? Should I do what he says and stage a scene that character A is further away from character B, cause he cares more about character C, than B, and you can hear it in the more distant reverb for example? Or is staging characters in a scene, based on reverb for emotional content, not the way to stage at all? The PSM has brought a great deal for me to think about and I never staged my storyboards based on emotional content in reverb before. I guess like AudioPostExpert said, the rules can be often broke and ignored, so I guess I will have to decide for myself what to do with this storytelling tool.

I am reading through the sound design thread now!

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Okay so was the PSM who told me this, is wrong then, and they are not going for being metaphorical with their reverb?

Again, you want a simple set of "paint by numbers" rules of sound design, a set of rules which do not exist! You seem incapable of understanding or accepting this fact and instead all you do is keep asking essentially the same question over and over again but from a different angles, in the vain hope that you will stumble across a question whose answer gives you the set of rules you seem so desperate for. For the last time, Sound Design, like much of filmmaking, is an art not a technical exercise and there are no absolute rules to creating art, if there were, it wouldn't be art!! So, the answer this latest question is no, the PSM was not entirely wrong but neither was he/she entirely right. More likely though, is that you have mis-understood, mis-interpreted or mis-represented what they said.

Should I do what he says and stage a scene that character A is further away from character B, cause he cares more about character C, than B, and you can hear it in the more distant reverb for example? Or is staging characters in a scene, based on reverb for emotional content, not the way to stage at all?

No, you have it backwards! You stage and shoot a scene to create a response from the audience and then you apply reverb to make the scene more believable, thereby enhancing the response from the audience. How you are going to shoot and visually edit the scene (wide shots, CU's, over the shoulder, density and juxtaposition of edits, etc.) will generally dictate the rough amount of reverb but the exact amount of reverb is an artistic choice. I said "generally" because it's not an absolute rule! It's only a general rule and only then under certain circumstances. It maybe for example that what you want the audience to believe is that the scene/shot is not real but surreal, say in the case of a dream sequence, flashback or an aural POV from inside one of the character's heads. There is no one right way to tell a story, that's why film and all forms of story telling are an art!

I guess like AudioPostExpert said, the rules can be often broke and ignored...

You've interpreted what I've said incorrectly because you are so fixated on finding/having a set of easy sound design rules to follow! There are no rules, only artistic and technical frameworks or boundaries but NO rules. A simple example, there is no rule about how loud any of the sounds in you mix should be, only a framework within which you must operate; a sound must be at least equal to or greater than the noise floor and must be below 0dB (or whatever peak level is specified). Within this absolute framework there are various general rules but they are general rather than absolute, meaning they only apply some or most of the time rather than all the time. If you are going to try and take these general rules as absolute rules then yes, they are often broken or ignored but if you understand that they are not absolute rules, then they are very rarely if ever broken!

 

[AcousticAl]

Most likely it is a set (rather than a location) and the reverb was created artificially in a chamber or it was worldised. Kubrik is most often mentioned for his visuals but is also regarded as one of the great directors as far as sound is concerned. He was famously an absolute stickler for extreme fine detail in the sound. Even if that was a real room and even if that was the reverb captured at the time (both of which I very much doubt), Kubrlk would have had that dialogue looped without a second's thought, unless he was sure it was exactly what he wanted artistically!

I can't be absolutely certain of what I've just written, it was one of Kubrik's earliest films and I've never heard any sound design stories about it but his next film after Paths of Glory was one of the great film sound mixes of it's day and was incidentally the last film done by the great Jack Foley (who had been demanded by Kubrik).

G

The referenced scene was shot on-location at Schleissheim Palace outside of Munich. It is a very live room.

This is a time in production when boomed mics were the rule, and radio mics were not. Watching the scene, it's obvious to me that the differences in reverb are dictated by the width of the shots. The wider shots, where the mic was not able to get in as close, are more reverberant. The close-ups, where the mic can be mere inches away from the actor, have the same reverb but minimally in the background. Thus, the sound perspective changes naturally with the visual perspective.

You seem incapable of understanding or accepting this fact and instead all you do is keep asking essentially the same question over and over again but from a different angles, in the vain hope that you will stumble across a question whose answer gives you the set of rules you seem so desperate for.

You've interpreted what I've said incorrectly because you are so fixated on finding/having a set of easy sound design rules to follow!

And this comes as a surprise because... ?

This is pretty much par for the course with harmonica44 (ironpony on another forum). He always comes in asking for clarification on some ridiculous piece of advice that he's gotten from one of a plethora of unnamed collaborators and "industry professionals" whom, I suspect, may not even exist. The intent may not even be to get a useful answer, but rather to intentionally waste the time and attention of good-natured people. The questions will persist and keep the conversations running in circles with no resolution.

So, ironp-... I mean, harmonica44... if you really are here to learn something useful, instead of pressing the question after you've gotten an answer (multiple times over), why not put the advice into action, then come back with a sample and see if it works? How about that? Put something tangible behind all this attention you get.

Ask a question, get an answer, try to use that answer, then come back with a clip if you aren't certain that it worked.