Both have their advantages and disadvantages to beeing seen or heard by themselves. Personally, i've always found sound to evoke more emotion than vision. For example, watch a horror film without sound and it becomes devoid of scariness. Listen to a horror films sound track and you may still have the hairs on the back of your neck standing up.
On the other hand, I find that a picture can set a scene in a much more effective way then a sound. This obviously, because you can actually see the scene and what it encompasses, wheareas with a sound-byte, you can only guess what is in the scene.
While both have their strengths, each will struggle to exist without the other in film. Without sound, the audience will become bored, the same as if there is too long without an image. As stated in the reading "Sight and Hearing", the sound and the image work together to create the film and do not have to be equal at all times. If there is a striking image, then have a far for subtle sound and with a more intense sound, have a subtler image as the two can clash. I would argue that this is correct for almost all film, bar a few scenes. An example of this would be in a horror or thriller film, when the cinematographer wants to shock the audience they may use an extreme image and an intense sound to cause the audience to jump out of their seats.
All in all I would argue that neither sound nor sight are superior, but both need to work together to create a final product worth consuming.
No comments:
Post a Comment