Judging Good Work pt 3
Judging Good Work pt 3
I am often asked by industry magazines and film critics to handicap the contenders for the Sound awards each season. My decision making is complicated by an array of challenges that include hearing each film in wildly different audio environments (my laptop or in an ATMOS cinema!) or deciding which aesthetic I apply to gauge the achievement (clever ideas but modest overall effect vs large impact but cliche'd approaches).
Similarly, as a guitarist the many "best Guitarist" polls have frustrate me because I hear and appreciate nuance in an artists performance that is unlikely appreciated by the general public. I come at it from a the perspective of a player not a listener. So too with cinema sound. As a practitioner, I feel I have a deep understanding of what is novel, inventive and/or boundary-pushing for the art-form and, as such, worthy of recognition. This generally excludes the kinds of sound tracks that civilians appreciate; loud and in-your-face. I' not sure why I think making populist pablum can't be considered high art or, for that matter, a skill that is mastered with dedication and thoughtfulness. Call me an elitist, I just do. And therein lay the dilemma I face when judging art that, if you think about it, never asked to be in a contest.
So, for this year, while Mank may not have much going for it extrinsically (bombast, loudness, sound design with a capital “D”) the thoughtfulness and attention paid to its intrinsic qualities (the “patina”, avoiding anachronistic sound, spot-on dialog treatments) make it a candidate for me. These intrinsic qualities, the ones I admire the most, are likely invisible to the average viewer to judge or appreciate. They require a bit of insider knowledge or industry experience. None the less, they work on a wonderful unconscious level, one that still moves or “resonates” with an audience. These subtleties enhance the viewing experience without ever being sonically obvious in the way that, say, a sexy space ship rumble or galaxy exploding does, violently grabbing the audiences attention as in so many Marvel and superhero movies.
Steve Soderbergh had an expression for these craven attention grabs. During the final mix, when he thought sound stood out too much, drawing attention to itself he would sarcastically utter "I’m still here!”. That was our signal to dial it back as he chided us for self-serving work that took the audience out of the movie. We’re all guilty of this, not just Sound Designers. Most film practitioners desire a level of attention for what is thought to be their good or innovative work. It is the rare film artist, however, that has the discipline to know when their these ideas aren't serving the film properly, however cool or novel they may be. And while you, dear reader, are surely a discerning practitioner incapable of such transgressions, there are directors we know and love who don't share such discretion.
So to those film critics, judges and voters with whom our collective awards fate lay, I say:
Loudness, like a punch in the nose, is the crudest and simplest way to get attention.
Complexity, when at the expense of clarity, is the easiest way to disguise a lack of vision.
Profundity is earned, and not enhanced by abuse of the subwoofer.
So please remember when voting this season, the awards are for "Best Sound"... not "Most Sound".
Tuesday, February 16, 2021