Do you think the sound mix is chosen for art, or for purely technical?

What I mean is, is when a filmmaker chooses a sound mix for their movie, do they choose for artistic reasons, or are they choosing cause one is technically superior to the other. Is Mono or Stereo sound better for some types of movies, art wise, or does 5.1 surround sound beat them both, just cause it's better for anything?

I remember when I was in film school and the movie Gravity came out. I thought that since the movie is from the point of view of astronauts in space, and that all they can hear in space, is what comes through their radio head receivers, that the whole movie should have been in mono, to reflect their POV of radio head receiver communication.

But other students in the class thought that would have been a terrible idea, and that surround sound is better than mono or stereo, and it's not a question of what artistically feels right.

Do you think that's true though?

Regarding Gravity and it's sound mix....your idea of a mono sound mix would be great for a serious science film, but Gravity was a popcorn entertainment film. IMO the big and splashy sound mix in Gravity was perfect for the type of film that it was (entertainment) and for what the audience wanted (a fun time).

Oh okay. Why would mono be good for a serious science film particularly?

Mono might be ok for something made in modern day, but in B&W.
Like an art house style movie or something.


Other movies like Texas Chainsaw use sound, namely the visceral sounds of screaming and laughing, and the harsh-edged chainsaw noise to make the audience feel uneasy.
The Dark Knight used a specific sound in the Joker's music to put the audience on edge. The constant rising tone of thousands of violins that never ends makes the viewers' toes curl.


Most of the time, filmmakers go for technical prowess with the sound mix.
The 9.8000+ super-dolby surround-megamix hootenanny with optimal noise reduction with whistles and bells, as far as filmmakers go, is always the preferred choice.

__________________

Also...




Wat?

It's chosen for both, it depends on the movie/crew making the film.

Sound is often more important than visuals in a movie because it relays information not always caught by the camera and helps assist with hard edits where a cross fade won't do.

I think if sound is done right it's an art form by default so the question is kind of odd in that it kind of answers itself with some common sense.

Agree and will simplify it a step farther: depends on your intent and the audience you want to target.

Period.

Now to ramble a bit cuz I'm taking a break from chores...

Compare this to color. Why WOULD you (not you, Citizen! I just don't want to make a second post to reply to the OP, lol) use B/W for broad commercial appeal when everyone and their brother accepts color as default? Well if your intent is art over masses (or to get around the NC-17 rating), then B/W is perfectly fine. Just accept the risk of alienating an audience that may not necessary be your audience.

Same for audio, IMO. Are you making a statement with the audio? Because mono will most certainly get attention. If not, then dont attract attention. I think most movies do at least go so far as to allow certain immersions for the character's perception, such as clicky audio over low tech comms or what have you, but the audience probably needs more than hardline realism to hold their attention.

Besides, in the case of Gravity, most of the movie used environmental sounds, no? Shouldn't your argunent instead be, "why was there sound in a vacuum?" Still, from the perspective of the character, what they COULD hear would have been in stereo anyway. Because two ears and all.

Oh okay, I didn't think mono would get much attention or even be noticed today, since most audiences are use to watching movies on their tablets, or one speaker laptops or phones.

Also, why would B & W get around an NC-17 rating?

I was thinking of the scenes with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney floating in space. If the sound was mono for those scenes it might give the feeling of hearing sounds coming through the space helmet. Even though like ynwth said that would be stereo, still if the communications sounded like a 'tin can' or distant then it would impart a feeling of isolation due to outer space.

Oh yes, and that's what I meant before is that mono would sound like it's coming from the space helmets. But if astronauts have stereo communication though, why is it stereo? I thought that astrounaut's heard the exact same thing in both ears, and not different things in different ears, when communicating with each other. Why would they?

They hear it differently because it's a make believe movie meant for a general audience, and not a documentary. Hollywood always gets the cold, hard facts wrong, and part of being a filmmaker is realizing this right away. It's true.

And documentaries get it wrong, too. It's all manipulation in one way, shape or form. So being stringent on something like a sound mix - and being dead accurate to real life, is something only a select group of film makers do.

Oh well I'm not saying it has to be dead on accurate, it just gives a feeling. Like in 2001, Kubrick is one of the very few filmmakers who chose not to have sound in space, and that is hardly a documentary or real life, of course.

I think it boils down to sensibilities vs. studio politics or throwing in the towel once you've completed pricipal photography and an assembly edit.

Some "directors" choose to let the sound engineers do the deed, more often than not doing the mixes dirty (not accurate and for the effect of audience compensation)

bottom line thinking, Some film makers wanna just walk away because maybe at that point they'd had enough and wanna find a new script. Let the mix be what it is, they're sure it'll make the studio a profit, they would hope - kind of attitude.

I think this thread is asking to be called "Auteurs - nailing the sound mix- the vision of one man, or like-minded men alike"

But 2001 is trying to be authentic (it's not Star Wars). 2001 gives the feeling of being in space to the audience. That's why it's slower paced in the way it's filmed, everything seems like it's in slow motion. The lack of sound in the space scenes takes the audience one step closer to what real space would be like.