Our narrator would be one of the residents. It would be someone who is less educated and sounds that way, swearing a lot and using a lot of colloquial language (poor grammar, “hey, man,” etc.). It should be a black male in his 30’s or 40’s with more of a “street voice” – heavier, raspier, like he’s lived a tough life. The resident would have found housing and would be looking back on the whole story after it happened, several months after finding housing. At first, he would be speaking like he is recalling what happened, and at the end, it would show him where he is now in his new residence.

He would start by introducing what happened in his own words (instead of just reading that description on the screen).  While scenes of the amtrak station flash on the screen.  Then he would almost be sitting back listening to his fellow residents and their opinions on what was happening to them at the time.  When the second scene starts our narrator intorduces the Amtrak relations officer stating: “This dude, ain’t know what happen, he thinks just cuz he’s got a degree he better than us.”  Our narrator then listens to what the man says.  When the man pauses our narrator interjects comments such as, “that’s bs.” “he wasn’t there.” “I’d like to see him live there for 15 years.” When the other residents are speaking, he could introduce them by saying what happened to them: “Now Mike here, he never did get himself a place to live, he’s livin’ in a **** shelter now.”

In the first trailer, we heard several different type of music as the keynote sound: upbeat, happy instrumental music, slow and mellow instrumental music, then upbeat, happy guitar and instrumental music. It led you on an emotional roller coaster, from happy to mellow to happy again. The signal sound was the voices of the narrator and characters and first and later of the singers (with the keynote sound being the instruments in the background). The guitar may have been a signal sound because when I (Krysta) associate guitars with a relaxed, laid-back feeling that the creators may have been trying to evoke. The narrator had an upbeat, almost teasing voice, which gave it a positive tone that contributed to the upbeat feeling of the trailer. We think this is a drama/comedy.

The keynote sound was the buzzing (bugs?). The other sounds over the buzzing (beating of drums, maybe, for instance) may have been the signal sound since there was no voice, but would have been a keynote sound had someone spoke. These sounds were a soundmark because the beat seemed to be coming from some sort of drum or other simple, tribal instrument. They evoked a feeling that the scene was somewhere in the woods, probably among a tribe or something – not in the middle of a big city. It drew you in at first because it started simple and grew more complex, but by the end it was so complex that you just wanted it to stop. The emotional qualities are that it made you uncomfortable, edgy, and basically just “freaked out.” The notes that the buzzing was in contributed to this – the buzzing seemed to take place in a minor key. This definitely seemed like a horror movie.

I noticed an interesting connection between the two readings: both support the argument that voice-over narration (VON) is a return to tradition, a return to what was necessary before technological advances and creativity opened new doors. In the book introduction, Kozloff makes this observation explicitly when she writes, “Cinematic storytelling is one of the youngest, most technologically dependent, and most expensive forms of narration; oral storytelling, the most ancient, fundamental, and widely accessible. ‘Narrated’ films are hybrids – almost implying a mix of centuries and cultures. . .” In the article, she doesn’t directly address VON being a return to old methods; however, she discusses how “lecturers” narrated magic-lantern shows before film was invented, then narrated early films before movies had sound. The use of an off-screen, displaced narrator is a throwback to the original, live narrators.

This could be a reason film snobs reject VON: it’s too primitive. Kozloff writes, “What makes film distinct and special, these theorists argue, is its capacity to convey information nonverbally—through mise-en-scène, editing, camera movement, POV, facial expression or pantomime.” Because VON has its roots in a very basic and timeless medium, whereas so many of film’s visual techniques were never possible with live-action entertainment, technophiles may blindly conclude that visuals must be superior to VON.

Kozloff’s article lists many other reasons people reject VON. Film is inherently visual and has unique potential for subtle visual cues; as such, some critics feel that it should rely as little as possible on audio to relay information. Similarly, they believe that VON, by conveying information directly rather than subtly and indirectly, is crude and unartistic compared to visuals. They also feel that successfully using visuals to express information shows skill, requiring careful planning and coordination of scenes; VON is a cop-out, a means of getting away with choppy visual work. The VON opposition also complains that the technique perpetuates “ideological biases” by planting a certain image in the audience’s head.

Like Kozloff, I disagree with the anti-VON attitude. The viewpoint that film must emphasize visual over audio whenever possible, that using audio detracts from the real purpose of film, is very close-minded. In fact, it almost surprises me that, in a culture where people will accept just about anything as art, people would complain that using audio in film where visual could have been used is essentially “doing art wrong.” There is a place for films that rely almost exclusively on subtle visual cues, but that doesn’t mean there is no place for a different style of film that gives audio a greater role. As Kozloff demonstrates, VON has not only practical but also artistic potential – for instance, it can “add a level of poetry to a movie.”

Besides, film snobs may delude themselves, but cinema isn’t just about art – it’s about entertainment. Movies are like food or music: there are people who want to savor a very high-quality, subtle, artistic experience, and then there are people who just want cheap thrills. Many people don’t care if a director masterfully conveyed layers of meaning through the most delicate of visual cues. They won’t even notice that. If the movie doesn’t make them laugh and cry, they’ll call it a flop.

I also find the “ideological biases” argument odd. Yes, a fluttering, girly voice, for example, could perpetuate the stereotype of the weak female. But doesn’t regular dialogue accomplish this, too? So should characters just not speak at all? Besides, is perpetuating these stereotypes in a movie a bad thing? What if you’re trying to create a stock character? Voice provides one more form of characterization. And don’t try to tell me that visuals don’t “enforc[e] ideological biases,” either. A character’s appearance is even more important than voice. Finally, just as VON can support these ideological biases, it can also run contrary to them. Suppose you see a very helplessly feminine-looking character onscreen, but she speaks in a tough, confident voice. This contrast disrupts the stereotype associated with her appearance. Or, if she has a girly voice in dialogue and the tough voice only in VON, the VON shows from the beginning how she is going to change over the course of the story.

Besides, while many VON critics may advocate using as little dialogue as possible, they don’t seem interested in giving up dialogue altogether. Why not? Don’t many of their arguments about VON apply to dialogue as well? Why don’t we return to silent films, for the ultimate in conveying information through visuals? And let’s not stop at cinema – let’s expand into live theater. How about creating silent plays? Sure, we the audience may not know what’s going on, but that just means there’s more for us to analyze and interpret… and oh, how artistically it’s presented!

Kozloff has very valid reasons for trying to defend VON. She recognizes valuable practical and artistic applications of the technique, as she mentions in her article, and she has seen films where it is used very skillfully and effectively. At the same time, she sees critics advocating for its total elimination because of irrational biases reinforced by encounters with shoddy VON. Because Kozloff believes fervently in the value of VON, sees such a strong movement unconditionally opposed to it, and observes that “few have murmured in its defense,” naturally she feels compelled to speak up. She makes her argument by listing some of the benefits it can offer, frequently backing up these claims with examples of films. She also quotes other reputable sources for support.

I watched a lot of Disney movies when I was little, but I have watched few films since then. Accordingly, I’m familiar with what VON is but haven’t seen too many examples of it. I saw at least part of the opening to Seabiscuit and all of A Christmas Story. I beliveve I also saw The Age of Innocence in class, but I didn’t even remember that it had VON. I’ve seen part of Forrest Gump – does that count as VON? You see the narrator occasionally, but for most of the movie, he is in a different space-time. I also saw The Great Gatsby, and I seem to recall VON in at least the first scene. From my very limited experience, which includes what I read in Nordstrom’s e-portfolio and Kazloff’s works, VON is a perfectly acceptable technique. Nordstrom makes an effective case for its value in Seabiscuit, and Kazloff offers many other examples of its value. The one good personal memory I have of a film that uses it is A Christmas Story. I didn’t and still don’t see anything wrong with its use there. A film snob might feel otherwise, but that’s just the point: most people who watch films are laypeople and just want an entertaining film. Given the huge popularity of A Christmas Story, how could anyone argue that VON should never be used and is always a mark of bad cinema? Anybody who argues so evidently feels that their film-snob standards should be the only way to judge a film and that all of us laypeople, who have different criteria for judging movies, are wrong.

Since A Christmas Story is the movie I’m most familiar with, I’ll probably analyze that.

 Edit: I just thought of another example of VON: the opening to Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, where a mysterious storyteller explains the background of the curse on the castle. I’ll keep this in mind as a backup to A Christmas Story. I don’t want it to overlap too much with Nordstrom’s analysis, though: both scenes are the introduction to the film, with simple visuals so that the focus is on the narrator.

Hey, North Seattle volunteers! Are any of you going to the Wednesday volunteer orientation? Want to meet beforehand to take the bus down together (and take the bus back together afterward)? Just to have someone to walk with after dark, especially given that recent assault just off campus…. e-mail me (krystay@u.washington.edu) or comment on my post if you’re interested.

Now, to my real topic. “Acoustic Cyberspace” went several yards over my head, and I suspect I’m not the only one. The trouble is that it’s written for a much different audience. The complex vocabulary, allusions to subjects such as the Renaissance, and difficult ideas are targeted at very mature, educated, intelligent, and intellectual listeners. Certainly I consider myself mature, educated, intelligent, and intellectual, but not quite to the extent or in quite the same way as the conference attendees. These people are all older than I am, perhaps businessmen, presumably with at least a bachelor’s degree for the most part. Notice that in my previous sentence, I not only say “not quite to the extent” but also “not… in quite the same way.” I am an exceptionally left-brained thinker, so I struggle with “abstract ideas” and “open-ended notions” – which Davis explicitly states to be the topic of his speech. I’m intelligent, but I pick up calculus and computer science much more easily than ideas such as those Davis proposes; I’m intellectual, but I’d rather sit down with a logic puzzle than some of the great classics.

McLuhan’s ideas confused me, but perhaps Davis summarized them too concisely to give them justice. I understand the metaphorical differences between acoustic and visual space: acoustic space, unlike visual space, has resonance and simultaneity. I just don’t understand why McLuhan concludes that, given these differences, electronic media are acoustic and print technology is visual. The idea of resonance is that “a small activity or event can gain a great deal of energy.” Ever heard of a book called Harry Potter? (Granted, McLuhan hasn’t – he died in 1980.) Harry Potter is arguably the strongest example of resonance. A woman nobody’s heard of, struggling to make ends meet in a corner of England, writes a humble little story and – poof – she’s launched a worldwide cultural phenomenon of colossal proportions. All thanks to print technology.

Quote: In discussing virtual reality, Davis writes, “Typically, people relegate acoustic dimensions to the ‘background’—a soundtrack or score that ‘accompanies’ a primary visual experience.” He, however, feels that “an immersive acoustic environment . . . is much, much, stronger than a visual experience . . .” Trying to understand why this is, he proposes that sound “affects different areas of the bodymind than visuals do. Affect is a tremendously important dimension of experience, and one of the most difficult to achieve in a visual environment. ‘Atmosphere’ might be a good way to describe this aspect: sound produces atmosphere, almost in the way that incense—which registers with yet another sense—can do. Sound and smell carry vectors of mood and affect . . .”

Davis’s educated audience is evident in these phrases. He uses elevated, professional/scientific diction (“relegate,” “vectors,”) where more accessible words would be sufficient. For instance, he could say “emotion” or “feelings” (thanks, dictionary.com) instead of “affect” when he uses it as a noun. The tone, consequently, is scholarly, intellectual, and perhaps even pompous - he almost seems to try too hard to show off his vocabulary.

In this quote, Davis laments that sound is underrated. Movies and TV push sound to second place, using it as a supplement to humbly enhance the visual. People obsess over video game graphics, yet I’ve never heard gamers get so passionate about the games’ music. And yet, sound is so emotionally powerful – a classmate once commented that the time people break down at funerals is when the music starts. To return to the video game example, when you’re rushing to complete a timed challenge, don’t you get much more worked up if the music is fast and has a “tick-tock” undertone? In Davis’s words, sound creates “affect” or “atmosphere.” The tremendous power of sound and the lack of emphasis it currently receives is one reason sound needs to be studied. Likewise, studying sound technology can help us use sound more effectively, better channeling its power and potential.

Megan Nordstrom’s portfolio, of course, was much more readable. Not only was it directed at 121 students, but it was written by someone at our level – meaning she probably couldn’t have written an argument as over-our-heads as Davis’s if she wanted to.

At one point, Nordstrom says, ” ‘It was obvious that the director wanted the audience’s main focus on the narrator’s voice instead of on the images’ (3). I observed that the visuals played a ‘background role’ to the vocals in the scene.” I thought this was interesting because Davis discusses how sound is unfairly used as the background to visuals. In the movie clip Nordstrom analyzes, the roles are actually reversed.

Quote: Nordstrom writes: ” ‘The narrator generates a picture of the “old fashion American man” in our heads, who could possibly remind us of our grandfather or even FDR’ (1).” Later, she also adds: ” ‘It is not necessarily what the narrator says about the production of car, but how he says it. He uses a slow, knowledgeable approach that helps gives a feeling of “Old America” ‘ (2).”

This quote has a much more familiar, casual tone than the quote from Davis. It doesn’t use elevated diction, instead using accessible wording (“helps gives a feeling of”). The colloquial phrases “old fashion American man” and “Old America” contribute to the informal air, as does the reference to “our grandfather” – inspiring feelings of familarity.

What I like about these quotes is that they show the importance of sound in narration. A major component of narration is the words themselves, which can be written on paper (or shown on the screen as captions) and thus stripped of any relation to sound. Nordstrom could have chosen to focus her analysis on the narration’s words and believed she was discussing sound, since narration is associated with sound. Instead, she cleverly avoids falling into this trap. She notes that in this movie clip, the words are not what matter - what matters is the fact that they are heard, not just seen. Her astute observation strongly demonstrates the importance of sound and, likewise, the importance of studying sound.

I volunteered for 1 1/2 years at Jubilee Women’s Center, an organization that provided transitional housing and other services for women in poverty. It was an experience that worked out better than I would have expected. I needed service hours for my school, and I was interested in helping in JWC’s computer lab. The building was only a few blocks from my school, I was interested in computers, and it seemed like an organization worth supporting. Due to communication and organizational problems, I never ended up working at the computer lab, yet it ended up being a great experience – probably an even better experience than if I had worked exclusively at the lab. I spent a lot of time helping in their boutique, where women can get free clothing. There was consistently plenty of work to do – more than I could get done in my 2-hour shift. I had been reluctant to work in the boutique because I have no interest in or experience with clothing, yet it ended up working out well - fashion experience wasn’t needed, and I felt like I was really making a contribution. Although that was my default position, I also bounced around plenty, becoming an all-around assistant who could do whatever was needed. Again, this made me feel that I truly was addressing the organization’s needs – I wasn’t just creating a service opportunity where it hadn’t really existed. My service ended when the organization moved. They had *immense* need of volunteer help during the move, and as it happened, the move coincided exactly with the time period when I had finished school and hadn’t started working, so I was able to put in lengthy hours.

This person’s theme is “the sounds of interaction and reaction.” I can see that most of the songs are indeed about relationships with others (friendship, love, judging others), and many of the sounds are the noises of interaction (a camera click could indicate taking a picture of a friend, a blowing nose could be someone crying on another’s shoulder, a whistle could represent playing sports on a team). I have trouble understanding the order of the tracks, though. I might have expected the beating heart and “December, 1963” to be together, since both are about love. Similarly, the blowing nose and “With a little help from my friends” could both be interpreted as one friend supporting another. On the other hand, perhaps s/he intentionally mixed up related sounds/sounds.

This person seems to be a very social person – a hermit probably wouldn’t choose the theme of interaction and reaction, and if s/he did, would choose negative songs. I like the person’s open-minded and positive outlook. S/he chose “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood,” indicating a desire to get along well with others and an open, welcoming personality. Bob Marley’s “Could You Be Loved” has a message of respecting all others. I expect the person also has a boyfriend or girlfriend, given the song about love and heart beating…