Sound observations+Murch responce

I actually had a very interesting and accidental sound observation in my intro to French cinema class earlier this week. We were watching a silent film, truly a silent film with no music or anything, in King 101, and all of the sudden I hear a very strange clicking. Something was rattling around inside air conditioning unit and it sounded virtually identical to the clicking of the the teeth in a film reel. It was very strange accidental and beautiful. Listening even closer I could hear all the electronics that occupy that horrible room: the projector fan whirling, the computer in the front, all the DVD players in the back, making their tiny electrical hums. It seemed to overwhelm the mild human noise of breathing, and sleeping. It was only interrupted by the shift in weight on the old chairs, which would squeak sharply. The best thing, and something I've noticed for the longest time, is it appears that the people who make the most noise while shifting their weight are those who try to make the least amount of noise. You can actually hear their slow and carefully strategized movements and followed by their embarrassment at their failures. Just by the rhythm and pace of the squeaks you can hear their surprise and disappointment.

My second sound observation was shortly after I turned my car off after returning home one night. The obvious sounds came in at first, the tiny clicks of the engine, the air coming to a halt, some mild wind outside the car, the keys, still barely moving, but I waited further, and pushed beyond this. It became very strange; I could hear noises outside, but they were very faint and distant since it was in the middle of the night. Instead the most dominating noise was this stillness, an almost deafening hum in the car that seemed to have no source. Perhaps it was just my ear drums (I do occasionally listen to music loudly) that were just reverberating, but it somehow sounded external, like every atom in the car was screaming and shaking violently, trying to escape from this prison of air.

This may sound like a strange statement to start off with for a response to Walter Murch's observation of sound, but I am obsessed with pregnancy. Every aspect of it seems infinitely interesting and mysterious to me. I have previously considered the use and function of sound in a pre-natal environment, but I felt the most interesting observation Murch pointed out was the sudden immersion to all the other senses once we are born. Obviously we don't remember or recall this, but it was something everyone consciously experienced. I try to relate these back to evolutionary terms. Obviously sight is most crucial to our (human) survival, but sound clearly plays a distinct and important roll as well, so it does seem strange that this sense would develop or, at least, be activated first. Perhaps it is for our own biological safety inside the womb, and we at least have some elements coming in from the outside world before we are actually born, but it is still very interesting to think about. My father is a known audiophile and has always had an ear for high and precise fidelity (personally I found low fidelity just as, if not more, interesting) so I've always been exposed to a large array of strange and interesting sounds. I've also attempted to remove myself from sound. I've taken two sign language classes, attempting to understand communication without any audio ability. Obviously, I will (hopefully) never truly understand what it is like to be deaf, but I do try to immerse myself in this experience, and I think that is the point of Murch: we are so accustom to sound, we almost the interesting elements of it. To sit down and concentrate, study, and observe sound, seems like an art in and of itself, despite the fact that we constantly do it, even at an unconscious level. It is something that must be paid attention to and appreciated much more, both in film, and our lives.

Manifesto/Responce 1

I can't say I've always been on the creative side of anything, but certainly became much more interested in it in high school. I've always been surrounded by art to some extent as my mother works with canvas and sculpture, often dealing with what she calls "caveman art" crafting paintings or objects that seem prehistoric and, in recent years, often relating to Judaism. In high school I gained more interest in art and after coming to college and taking a few film courses became much more interested in art and foreign cinema. I suppose I always preferred these films more, but had very limited exposure till high school and college. I remember during my freshman year at UNCW I took a intro class with James Kreul and enjoyed many of the experimental films he showed us. He also had an avant-garde night that semester in Lumina theater displaying all sorts of interesting avant-garde films and I was instantly in love with the variety and depth of these films.
It took another two or so years before I found myself back studying these types of films intensely. Last semester I took 6x1, History of Avant-Garde Cinema, and Intro to editing all at once, giving me a large exposure to avant-garde and experimental film, as well as plenty of time to explore and create it myself. Since then I've been much more passionate about avant-garde cinema and art as a whole, attempting to explore and define my own style as well as absorb the history of art and experimental are since the twentieth century. Though my style isn't completely defined (especially in cinema) I am interested in the idea of endurance, seeing what an audience can and is willing to endure watching and why, both in terms of content, length, and pace. I've also always been fascinated by humor and how it functions. I always try to make people laugh and take a certain avenue in my art attempting to elicit humor, while both understanding it, and pushing people to a breaking point where they must laugh, if only not to cry.

As far as the two articles go, I felt MacDonald's was a fair introduction to a brief history of avant-garde cinema and how it functions. He addresses many of the issues people have when they first view experimental films The problem I have with it is that there is no real accurate way to explain avant garde film as a whole, for him or for anyone else. After viewing avant-garde films, a school or series (post-modernism, beat films, etc), an avant garde filmmaker or a particular avant garde film, one can write, analyze, and discuss this work, but there is no good way to talk about avant garde films until you've actually sat down and watched several of them. People need the physical experience of being present in front of one, enduring it, analyzing and discussing it, and then attempting to break it down into its most finite components in addition to placing and relating it to the history of cinema, avant garde, and art movements. No article or reading can do this for someone who has never seen or only has a very limited interaction with avant garde cinema. Articles can only hope to expand or analyze films or movements for people that have an understanding of these films or movements.
I did enjoy Richter's article. I particularly like his thoughts on production and reproduction of an event, than relating it to how it becomes art, or how the camera affects the art. In addition, I found his relation to documentary film particularly interesting and often find myself asking similar questions and attempting to combine the idea of art with its use as a physical document and how people both view and use these documents, even though they may be fictitious or a work of art. I think these fields are surprisingly more connected than most people assume and am attempting to explore this theory as I watch all sorts of films.