• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Near silent film

Any tips on writing a script with only a few pages of dialogue? In the vein of "Only God Forgives" or " The Samurai".

Thanks in advance,

M
 
Silent films are not silent; there's score and there's sound effects & Foley. You have vast sonic resources available to you, even at the low/no/mini/micro budget level, so create an aural world as well. What do your characters hear that they can react to? What can sounds tell us about who/where/when they are?
 
Any tips on writing a script with only a few pages of dialogue? In the vein of "Only God Forgives" or " The Samurai".

Thanks in advance,
M
I often start by writing my stories as treatments (scenes as paragraphs without dialogue). I then will move my treatment into script form. At that point, the story should be visual so that it's evident what is happening without a word of dialogue. Then I can go back and add in dialogue as needed. Obviously that's not how I write every script. Sometimes a phrase or dialogue will come to me and inspire a story. As AudioAlcove mentions, silent films are never "silent". However, in terms of limited dialogue, the visual imagery needs to carry the story. David Mamet stresses that with all of his writers. And one test I use with how well a scene works, is to remove all the dialogue and see if the description/action statements convey the relevant story of the scene.
 
As AudioAlcove mentions, silent films are never "silent". However, in terms of limited dialogue, the visual imagery needs to carry the story. David Mamet stresses that with all of his writers.

That's a very strange thing to state! Often, when there's limited/no dialogue, the visual imagery does carry the story, sometimes the visual imagery only provides one aspect of the story, while music and/or sound carries another and other times the visual imagery may provide nothing more than a generic location and not carry any of the actual story at all. The actual story may occur off-screen or deliberately hidden/obscured in the visuals, say in the shadows and told exclusively through sound or music. There are so many examples of this, in pretty much all the great films and by pretty much all the great filmmakers, that it can be considered a pretty standard filmmaking tool. Carrying the story by visuals alone is a filmmaking tool, as is carrying it with sound alone, music alone, dialogue alone or more commonly by some combination. It's the combination and juxtaposition of these tools which gives the audience a more profound experience of the story. Most screenwriters are quite poor at looking beyond the dialogue alone or just the dialogue and visuals to tell the story and it's often up to the director (or director in collaboration with the Sound Designer) to flesh out the script and come up with more diverse and effective ways of telling the story. I'm very surprised that a writer of Mamet's experience and stature appears not to know or appreciate any of this! Are you sure you haven't mis-quoted, mis-interpreted or taken what he's said out of context?

G
 
I assume by near silent, you mean no dialogue because even films with no dialogue do have sounds and often times music. I think doing a film that way can be good, but it depends on what story you are trying to tell. Taiwanese filmmaker Tsai Ming-liang uses the lack of dialogue and music effectively in many of his films as he's trying to show urban alienation, but I would argue he still uses sound effectively as a tool to create a sense of setting. Another film that comes to mind is Alain Cavalier's Libera Me which is about a dystopian society where everyone is silenced, but again the little sounds of the film pop out and are almost violent in their force.

I think first you should think of the story you are trying to tell, its theme, and what tone you think is able to best tell that story then decide how about telling it. If you have a story that seems to work best with a lack of dialogue, then perhaps watching and studying how these other filmmakers engage the audience without dialogue or music can be helpful.

I think that telling stories purely with pictures is a myth because I doubt most of us would be able to understand the stories of 99% of sound films if we turn the sound off. Even silent films would suffer heavily with the elimination of title cards. I do think that for more popular forms of cinema, the ideal is to tell the story through images and sound with less focus on dialogue because it's easier to get a larger and wider audience that way, but that is only one form of filmmaking.
 
Thanks for all the feedback! What a should have said is "minimal dialogue". The story is told from the perspective of an isolated man who chooses each word carefully. My concern grows from first time jitters as this will be my first writing/directing/self-funded endeavor. People who read say that certain parts are confusing but I feel as if my master plan is pretty solid. I'm hoping this will come off like more than a film school experiment.
 
That's a very strange thing to state! Often, when there's limited/no dialogue, the visual imagery does carry the story, sometimes the visual imagery only provides one aspect of the story, while music and/or sound carries another and other times the visual imagery may provide nothing more than a generic location and not carry any of the actual story at all. ...G
I appreciate your perspective. However, you're confusing the final film with writing a script. A script has a description statement and an action line. We have limited options for sound effects such as a line that says "Knock at the door" or "Alarm rings", etc. Music and sound effects require post-production artistry that is based on the actual footage for its timing and execution. None of which the screenwriter has any control over. We're not even supposed to suggest specific music except for generalities, "Jazz music plays on the radio."

My point was simply that for the written script meeting the OP's query--a dialogueless script--needs to focus on action and description which supports the story directly. Part of that description may be sound effects and musical suggestions. However, the script is a framework that will be shaped by the director who will pass the visual elements off to a composer and foley artist. Have you ever been asked to write a score based solely on the script before the film has even been shot? For the screenwriter it's the other way round. The screenwriter is pre-production, music/sound FX are post production. The only exceptions to my knowledge are musicals and animations with songs where the composer works hand-in-hand with the screenwriter.

The writer's talent is the story/dialogue/structure realm. The art director, DP and director's realm is the visual. The composer and musical director's is the auditory. They must work together to make a compelling story realized by the audience's senses. As a writer, I appreciate the talents each brings to a production. But my role is not to score my script prior to submitting it for consideration by a producer. I'll let talented musicians do that in post after the director as converted my words to a visual story.
 
However, the script is a framework that will be shaped by the director who will pass the visual elements off to a composer and foley artist. Have you ever been asked to write a score based solely on the script before the film has even been shot? For the screenwriter it's the other way round. The screenwriter is pre-production, music/sound FX are post production.

It sounds to me as if you are confusing sound design with audio post! Sound design is as much about designing the film for sound as it is about designing the sound for the film. Audio Post is the practical implementation of the design phase and the Sound Designer is therefore often one of the first people employed during the earliest stages of pre-production. This is logical if you think about it, for sound to tell the story, say in the case of some action occurring in the shadows, requires that the scene has been planned and shot with shadows in the first place! Admittedly, the workflow of most no/micro/low budget films and most TV is for sound to be a purely post-production process. This approach though reduces sound to a purely reactive film craft rather than the collaborative film art as employed by the higher level directors.

I obviously wouldn't expect a screenwriter to have the knowledge or experience to specify the implementation of audio post, for example what the Foley team should record but I would expect or at least hope that they consider that the world their characters inhabit is not just a visual world but also an aural one and provide opportunities for the sound designer to tell the story rather than just for the actors and/or cinematographer.

BTW, yes, I have been asked on quite a few occasions to provide musical sketches and/or rough soundscapes from the just the script during pre-production. I have also reasonably commonly been asked to review scripts and attend pre-production meetings to advise and provide the director with options when designing the shot list to enable the director to realise the potential of sound as a storytelling tool. None of this is anything new, many of the better and best directors have been designing films this way for several decades, which is why I find it almost inconceivable that David Mamet doesn't seem to know it, at least according to your quote. Although as I said, it is a common failing of many/most screenwriters.

G
 
Yeah what APE said is true and I think it's pretty interesting, I've been studying how ever since the original Star Wars, the game was completely changed when George Lucas hired a sound designer long before getting the film into production. Now it's standard practice for Hollywood films to have a sound designer working from pre-production, production, and post-production. I wonder how sound design is handled in foreign film industries, independent film, and arthouse cinema. I'm sure higher budget non-US films, and higher budget indie films work this way, but I doubt other cinematic traditions can afford such a process. For example, up until about 1989, every Taiwanese film was post-synchronized and I found it interesting that it took an arthouse filmmaker (Hou Hsiao-hsien) to compel a change in the way their industry handled sound since usually it is the mainstream filmmaker that inspires technological advances (as with the George Lucas example). I suppose that arthouse filmmakers care about sound equally but are unable to afford a sound designer that works on the level of a Hollywood production, but I may be wrong about this. APE probably knows about this, but are there different kinds of sound designers that work with different kinds of filmmakers at different budgets? Or is sound also mostly handled in post production in these lower budget films?
 
I've been studying how ever since the original Star Wars, the game was completely changed when George Lucas hired a sound designer long before getting the film into production.

Yes, Star Wars is often quoted as a watershed film but sound design is not like say CGI for example, which effectively didn't really exist in the film industry until Star Wars. Filmmakers like Hitchcock, Welles, Kubrik and others designed their films very much with sound and/or music as a main storytelling tool, rather than just a support to the visuals/dialogue. They just did it themselves as part of their filmmaking style/ethos rather than collaborate with a Sound Designer during pre-prod.

For example, up until about 1989, every Taiwanese film was post-synchronized and I found it interesting that it took an arthouse filmmaker (Hou Hsiao-hsien) to compel a change in the way their industry handled sound since usually it is the mainstream filmmaker that inspires technological advances (as with the George Lucas example).

Actually I would say Lucas is a relatively poor example because although he became a bastion of Hollywood, at the time of the first Star Wars film Lucas was not yet a mainstream "Hollywood" director and Star Wars was technically an indie film, not a Hollywood film!

APE probably knows about this, but are there different kinds of sound designers that work with different kinds of filmmakers at different budgets? Or is sound also mostly handled in post production in these lower budget films?

The term "Sound Designer" is quite regularly abused in my opinion. At the lo/no budget level it is often the title given to the person who does all the audio post but this role is purely editing, sourcing and mixing sound rather than helping to design the film for sound. It's extremely rare in my experience that low budget indie filmmakers give sound any serious consideration at all until the post phase, with the exception of trying to capture clean production dialogue. This is due to most indie filmmakers coming from a TV background, where it makes sense for sound to be a purely audio post process in the vast majority of programming, or from a film school background, where even audio post is taught poorly and actual sound design often barely even mentioned, or, from an amateur filmmaking background where very few even recognise the existence of sound design and fewer still have any interest in it.

I suppose that arthouse filmmakers care about sound equally but are unable to afford a sound designer that works on the level of a Hollywood production, but I may be wrong about this.

I don't think that's it. Arthouse and no/lo budget indie filmmakers in general, don't usually have the budget for anyone or any department which works on the level of a Hollywood production. They can't afford a Hollywood level Producer, actors, camera department, etc., that doesn't stop them from trying to make films though! They just have to mainly use amateurs, aspiring pros or learn how to do it themselves. For some reason, they rarely seem to apply this approach to sound design though, I think it's more a case that the majority are just blissfully unaware of how powerful a tool sound design can be and even those with a superficial appreciation tend to view it largely as an optional extra/luxury item which they can't afford, rather than an essential which they've somehow got to cover.

To be honest, I'm more than a little surprised by the situation. With so many more amateur filmmakers today and a veritable ocean of lo/no budget indies being produced, it's surprising to me that more don't take the risk and try to distinguish themselves from the masses who either ignore sound design completely or just include the odd moment. I don't deny though that it's extremely difficult or even near impossible. For example, where would one find an amateur or aspiring sound designer who would work for free/peanuts and who has any knowledge/experience of designing a film for sound or the actual envisioning/design process of the sound itself? It's not taught in audio or film schools, there's virtually no demand for it until the higher budget levels, there's no decent books about it and with few exceptions no internet articles from those who really know about it, so where is one supposed to learn this stuff outside of the higher budget industry itself? I don't pretend to have the answer but there again, I don't know how many of the more talented amateur filmmakers achieve what they do in other filmmaking areas/crafts with their seemingly insurmountable lack of budget.

... are there different kinds of sound designers that work with different kinds of filmmakers at different budgets?

Very much so but that's largely because of how broadly the term "Sound Designer" is applied. At one end of the spectrum are Sound Designers like Randy Thom and Richard King who have multi-million dollar sound budgets and at the other are those who charge a few hundred dollars a day. But at this lower end of the scale, budget limitations mean that these sound designers are usually only employed for 4-12 weeks, are purely post-production employees, are therefore forced to be reactive rather than collaborative and usually have to concentrate all or nearly all of their efforts on the technical basics of audio post rather than on design issues. I'm sure there maybe some exceptions to this general rule but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

G
 
Last edited:
... say in the case of some action occurring in the shadows, requires that the scene has been planned and shot with shadows in the first place! ... but I would expect or at least hope that they consider that the world their characters inhabit is not just a visual world but also an aural one and provide opportunities for the sound designer to tell the story rather than just for the actors and/or cinematographer.

BTW, yes, I have been asked on quite a few occasions to provide musical sketches and/or rough soundscapes from the just the script during pre-production. I have also reasonably commonly been asked to review scripts and attend pre-production meetings to advise and provide the director with options when designing the shot list .... Although as I said, it is a common failing of many/most screenwriters.

G
Thank you for sharing your insights. As you mentioned above, you still come into play AFTER the script is written to add your artistic stylings. You haven't added to the script but contributed to the director's realization. Again, a screenwriter isn't asked to make musical sketches. That's not a failing but a division of talent. Much as in an orchestra you have the conductor leading the strings, woodwinds, percussion, etc to create the symphony; the screenwriters are the violins, the DP is the woodwinds, the audio experts are the percussion, etc led by the director to create a film. Our roles are complementary though largely exclusive in contribution to the final product. There's no reason to keep beating your drum. Music is important to the film as a whole.

I take exception that you call it a failing. This forum is about writing screenplays. If you care to contribute specifically how you would write your music into a screenplay, we'd love to learn from you. So far all you've done is say "Screenwriters are stupid" which isn't constructive. To be clear, you're referring to the film not the script where your contributions to the director are important. That you're inspired by the script to compose is a tribute to the writer's ability to create a mood with words.

Please post a screenplay or excerpt illustrating how what was written inspired you to score that scene. I realize by "soundscape" you mean more than just music. That would be instructive for the OP and for the rest of us screenwriters. I'm not belittling your talent, but writing the script is a different beast. We're composing the film's "melody" while you're adding the "countermelody". If there is a way to craft the words to inspire a composer, I'd be interested in learning. Just insulting screenwriters is not appropriate and rather boorish. This is the screenwriting forum, not the music forum. Please be respectful.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Star Wars is often quoted as a watershed film but sound design is not like say CGI for example, which effectively didn't really exist in the film industry until Star Wars. Filmmakers like Hitchcock, Welles, Kubrik and others designed their films very much with sound and/or music as a main storytelling tool, rather than just a support to the visuals/dialogue. They just did it themselves as part of their filmmaking style/ethos rather than collaborate with a Sound Designer during pre-prod.

Yeah that's what I meant, specifically about the Sound Designer role. But many great directors already cared about sound, and to add a non-Anglophone one you can include Kurosawa in that list.

Actually I would say Lucas is a relatively poor example because although he became a bastion of Hollywood, at the time of the first Star Wars film Lucas was not yet a mainstream "Hollywood" director and Star Wars was technically an indie film, not a Hollywood film!

Yeah but he was making mainstream films, I didn't necessarily mean Hollywood mainstream. American Graffiti was a huge hit, and both that film and especially Star Wars seem to be crafted as mainstream films aimed at a large audience unlike say the work of the filmmaker I mentioned, Hou Hsiao-hsien who only aimed at a domestic audience and failed there and only succeeded in the festival circuit. I'm pretty sure that most technological developments in most national cinemas come from mainstream filmmakers, but I may be wrong about that.

The term "Sound Designer" is quite regularly abused in my opinion. At the lo/no budget level it is often the title given to the person who does all the audio post but this role is purely editing, sourcing and mixing sound rather than helping to design the film for sound. It's extremely rare in my experience that low budget indie filmmakers give sound any serious consideration at all until the post phase, with the exception of trying to capture clean production dialogue. This is due to most indie filmmakers coming from a TV background, where it makes sense for sound to be a purely audio post process in the vast majority of programming, or from a film school background, where even audio post is taught poorly and actual sound design often barely even mentioned, or, from an amateur filmmaking background where very few even recognise the existence of sound design and fewer still have any interest in it.

Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see the sound designer as being the kind of essential person in crafting the aural elements of a film in the same way as the director of photography and production designer handle the visual elements of the film (under the guidance of the director). Most directors (at least most less-experienced directors) choose to collaborate with the director of photography or production designer more than the sound designer. The ideal director takes all elements of the production into consideration. That's why to bring up an obvious director, Stanley Kubrick is one of the great directors, he really took everything into account. And although not every director needs to fully understand the technical specifics of sound, just as they do not need to for cinematography, they should consider the way their sound designers as well as the technicians at work can use sound to enhance their 'vision' (a flawed term since it only implies the visual).

I'll be completely honest in saying that even though we've argued so much, I think that our conversations here on Indietalk have been some of the most helpful discussion I have had about cinema that will help me both in studying films and making films. I have learned so much so thank you for all of your posts!

I don't think that's it. Arthouse and no/lo budget indie filmmakers in general, don't usually have the budget for anyone or any department which works on the level of a Hollywood production. They can't afford a Hollywood level Producer, actors, camera department, etc., that doesn't stop them from trying to make films though! They just have to mainly use amateurs, aspiring pros or learn how to do it themselves. For some reason, they rarely seem to apply this approach to sound design though, I think it's more a case that the majority are just blissfully unaware of how powerful a tool sound design can be and even those with a superficial appreciation tend to view it largely as an optional extra/luxury item which they can't afford, rather than an essential which they've somehow got to cover.

Yeah now that I think about it, I was really only considering the outstanding arthouse directors like Jean-Luc Godard, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Wong Kar-wai, and other masters of 'arthouse' cinema. But yeah, I suppose MOST arthouse directors don't really care about sound, budget or no budget and that is problematic in trying to create good films.

To be honest, I'm more than a little surprised by the situation. With so many more amateur filmmakers today and a veritable ocean of lo/no budget indies being produced, it's surprising to me that more don't take the risk and try to distinguish themselves from the masses who either ignore sound design completely or just include the odd moment. I don't deny though that it's extremely difficult or even near impossible. For example, where would one find an amateur or aspiring sound designer who would work for free/peanuts and who has any knowledge/experience of designing a film for sound or the actual envisioning/design process of the sound itself? It's not taught in audio or film schools, there's virtually no demand for it until the higher budget levels, there's no decent books about it and with few exceptions no internet articles from those who really know about it, so where is one supposed to learn this stuff outside of the higher budget industry itself? I don't pretend to have the answer but there again, I don't know how many of the more talented amateur filmmakers achieve what they do in other filmmaking areas/crafts with their seemingly insurmountable lack of budget.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me sad because it's so true. The greatest work in sound design is essentially only available to the largest budget Hollywood productions, it isn't available to arthouse filmmakers, filmmakers in other nations, or lower budget filmmakers within the US. But I think in many ways, they don't need to have Gravity standard sound design, but they should take sound into greater consideration and do the best they possibly can. I think that being aware of the problem is the first step, because filmmakers in any industry can find innovative solutions to problems when they confront them. I'm not going to give many examples from film history right now, but I think if more amateur filmmakers and lower budget filmmakers simply started thinking seriously about how they can implement sound, they'd be able to achieve greater artistry in this area of filmmaking even if it doesn't match Hollywood standards (for obvious budgetary reasons).

Very much so but that's largely because of how broadly the term "Sound Designer" is applied. At one end of the spectrum are Sound Designers like Randy Thom and Richard King who have multi-million dollar sound budgets and at the other are those who charge a few hundred dollars a day. But at this lower end of the scale, budget limitations mean that these sound designers are usually only employed for 4-12 weeks, are purely post-production employees, are therefore forced to be reactive rather than collaborative and usually have to concentrate all or nearly all of their efforts on the technical basics of audio post rather than on design issues. I'm sure there maybe some exceptions to this general rule but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I see. Do you think if a filmmaker would actually try to collaborate more with these lower budget sound designers that better results would be produced? I get the feeling that even with a lower budget, being more conscious of the way sound is being used would still revolutionize the way lower budget films sound even if only on a small-scale. Maybe I'm being a little idealistic, but I think lower budget filmmakers have to make a start, particularly if they are trying to find work in the big mainstream industry of Hollywood, I personally don't want to but I also acknowledge that standards are raising globally. The only industries that can really accept this bad level of sound are the amateur indie festivals you've mentioned to me, Nollywood, and other national cinemas from developing nations. From my understanding, even arthouse filmmakers that want to succeed need to have a certain quality of sound in order to participate in the more important film festivals.
 
Last edited:
As you mentioned above, you still come into play AFTER the script is written to add your artistic stylings. You haven't added to the script but contributed to the director's realization.

Yes, I come into play after the script is written but in effect I both contribute to the director's realisation and "add" to the script. While a production designer and cinematographer are exclusively concerned with what appears in the frame, a sound designer is concerned with the wider world, the environment the actors are in (which obviously includes the "frame"). Furthermore, as a sound designer (and previously as a composer), while I am obviously concerned with the actual words themselves, I'm also concerned about the character's wider motivation behind those words, not just their emotional state at the instant those words are delivered but what has lead to that emotion state, maybe the character's background and history. This information maybe explicitly detailed in the script or it maybe presented in vague/generic terms, it may exist through implication/inference or it may not be presented at all. All I know is that as a sound designer or composer, my discussions with the director are generally dominated by the need to "flesh out" the script in some way, either in terms of the characters, the story or the environments they're in. For example, as a sound designer, when I see a scene heading like "INT. SITTING ROOM - DAY", my first questions would be; what type of abode is that sitting room in? Where is that abode located? What is that abode near? These and other related questions may have no impact on the script, plot or story at all but where someone chooses to live is an expression of their personality, their background, aspirations and/or socio-economic circumstances, some or all of which may have a profound impact on the plot/story. Let's take an example:

Two people in the sitting room of a poor apartment, situated in a deprived neighbourhood. During their conversation, our characters hear the muffled sound of a toilet flushing in an adjacent apartment and the sound of something unsavoury travelling through the plumbing. Our characters may react with nothing more than the briefest facial flicker of recognition while they continue talking or they may react with a much stronger expression of disgust and actually make some comment, maybe due to embarrassment. This example raises some points to consider:

1. The reaction of our characters tells us something about them. A strong reaction implies the character is not habituated to this occurrence, maybe they come from a wealthier background but have recently hit hard times. Maybe one character is habituated to it but is embarrassed because they believe the other, visiting character, is not.

2. I can't remember reading a script which did not have any references to sound but usually these are references to either the sonic component of some physical action happening on (or just off) screen or references to help set the location, say background music in a mall or bar, cicadas in an EXT summer scene, etc. The example I've given does help to set a specific type of location and does reference a physical event but this event is entirely irrelevant and it's primary function is not to help set the location. Primarily it is a storytelling device to establish/develop the character/s and can be used to expand on or support the dialogue or even better sometimes, as an alternative to dialogue, in which case it's very much a script issue rather than a purely audio post issue.

3. This is a sound design example of using an individual sonic event to tell the story itself (rather than just support the story) and occasionally employing this type of storytelling device can/will create a richer, more involving storytelling experience for the audience but this is only one aspect of sound design and not even the primary aspect to which I've been referring! What I've primarily been referring to is the provision of general sound design opportunities rather than specific individual "events". For example, let's say our lead character's development/behaviour is based on childhood experiences of an alcoholic/abusive father. Maybe our character lives in a detached house in a quiet corner of suburbia and his father was a car salesman. Alternatively, maybe our character lives in a house/apartment near a car repair shop, train station or factory and his father was a steel worker, furniture maker or construction worker/supervisor. The first scenario provides relatively little sound design opportunity, the second provides all manner of opportunities, both in terms of telling the story itself and in terms of supporting the story telling. For example, one or more car repair shop sounds, heard in the background of our character's locale could be used to tie our character to the related sounds/experiences of his father's work as a construction site manager, either subconsciously (in the minds of our audience) or more overtly, to say trigger and maintain the illusion of a nightmare, flashback or some other, more subtle change to our character's POV. Alternatively or in addition, the rich palette of background noise/sounds implied by the latter scenario, provides a range of sonic colours/emotions to aid the storytelling, rather than actually telling the story. For example, more aggressive type background sounds to support and punctuate our character's angry delivery of his/her dialogue or maybe some other emotion or maybe just to create general sonic interest and aid the perceived pace of the scene. I obviously wouldn't expect (or want!) a screenwriter to detail all of these sounds or even necessarily any of them (!) but I would hope they would consider both the use of the occasional sonic story event AND consider at least the provision of general opportunities for sound design to weave it's more subtle (and arguably more powerful) magic in the background.

4. This and virtually every other example I've given, is not based purely in post production! If it were purely a post process then it could only be used as incidental to the story, maybe to help set the location and even then, it's far more believable/effective if it's supported/established somehow in the visuals. If we want to use sound design as a device to tell the story itself, as per the example, then the characters' reaction needs to be filmed. Either way, sound design starts with the script, continues in pre and then production and then is finally implemented in post.

I take exception that you call it a failing ... So far all you've done is say "Screenwriters are stupid" which isn't constructive.

I certainly never said screenwriters are stupid! In fact, as a generalisation, in my experience screenwriters often tend to be amongst the most intelligent of all the diverse personnel involved in filmmaking. This doesn't mean they are immune to having any failings however! Some screenwriters naturally think in terms of their characters' perceptions of and reactions to their situations/environments as always including sound, most do not! Most take the term "screenwriter" literally, only write for the screen (IE. visually) plus dialogue and think about sound only occasionally and even then, usually only in terms of it being window dressing to "sell" the dialogue and visuals to the audience rather than in terms of it being a fundamental filmmaking tool and storytelling device in it's own right!

We're composing the film's "melody" while you're adding the "countermelody".

A fairly apt analogy, although it contradicts your assertion that sound design and screenwriting are at opposite ends of the the filmmaking timeline and are largely separate processes! When performed concurrently, a counter-melody may only support the melody, just as likely though, it will completely change the perception of the melody and turn it into something new. Some new emotion or feel which may not be directly related to the feel of either the melody or counter-melody. When composing a melody, a composer will therefore consider that it will need to function with a counter-melody, even though the counter-melody has not yet been composed. When it does come time to actually compose the counter-melody, it obviously needs to have some type of relationship to the melody. Depending on the desired "feel" of each individually and in combination, it would be entirely common to change or modify the melody accordingly.

It is precisely because there is such a close relationship between sound designer and screenwriter, even though they may never physically meet, that I am taking the time and effort to respond to a screenwriting post. Hopefully, what I've written here will provide the OP with some alternative potential avenues to explore.

G

PS - MiniJamesW. I do want to respond to your post but it is rather off-topic and I'm short of time. Maybe in a few days I'll be able to get round to replying.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see the sound designer as being the kind of essential person in crafting the aural elements of a film in the same way as the director of photography and production designer handle the visual elements of the film (under the guidance of the director). Most directors (at least most less-experienced directors) choose to collaborate with the director of photography or production designer more than the sound designer. The ideal director takes all elements of the production into consideration.

No need to correct you, because you're not wrong! What you're describing is relatively new though. The role of the Sound Designer as an early and highly influential member of the pre-production team was more of an evolution, than something which popped into existence on a particular film. I don't think Kubrik specifically had or consulted anyone who fulfilled the role of Sound Designer during pre-prod and I don't know how much he consciously thought about sound at that stage. I do know, having spoken with an audio post person who worked on some Kubrik films, that when audio post started Kubrik already had a very precise "vision" of the sound and feel of the sound he wanted. Kubrik had little knowledge or interest in the technical/technology side of implementing sound, which combined with his very precise "vision", resulted in a lot of difficulties.

While there are many examples of films being well designed for sound, as a consequence of the director having some consideration for sound plus a visual style very conducive to sound design, it's not really until Apocalypse Now (1979) where we find the full modern role of Sound Designer being employed (and credited for the first time). Coppola basically said to Murch: "What are we missing which we could be taking advantage of?". The result was that Murch effectively edited the script, even to the point of writing a completely new scene, and the film was thoroughly sound designed by an actual Sound Designer.

The greatest work in sound design is essentially only available to the largest budget Hollywood productions, it isn't available to arthouse filmmakers, filmmakers in other nations, or lower budget filmmakers within the US. But I think in many ways, they don't need to have Gravity standard sound design, but they should take sound into greater consideration and do the best they possibly can.

Here, IMHO, we start to get to the heart of it. Yes, the best sound design work is only available to those with very substantial budgets but isn't this also true of all the other film roles/crafts as well? That doesn't stop serious no/lo budget filmmakers from learning and trying to be DOPs, Picture Editors, Screenwriters, etc., or collaborating with other amateurs who fulfil those roles rather than just ignoring the picture editing or not having anyone fulfil the role of DOP. But this does often seem to be the case as far as sound design is concerned.

I think here is where we need to make the distinction between the indie and amateur hobbyist types of filmmaker. Hobbyists make films for their own enjoyment ... because they enjoy filmmaking. However, no one enjoys every single aspect of filmmaking! An individual hobbyist may primarily enjoy being a camera operator or directing the actors' performances or some other role. It's generally the production phase that hobbyists seem to enjoy the most and therefore that is where the majority of their effort goes; either directly in the production phase itself or geared/aimed towards the production phase. IE., Pre-Production is minimised as much as possible and limited to the planning of the design and logistics necessary for the production phase to occur. Post-prod also tends to be minimised and is essentially the process of "showing off" the results of production phase to it's best advantage. All this is of course fine, I've got no objection at all to hobbyist filmmakers and it would hardly be a hobby if one had to spend almost all of one's time engaged in aspects of filmmaking which were not interesting or enjoyable. A problem arises though when experienced serious hobbyists want to differentiate themselves from the newbies or less serious hobbyists (and/or monetise their film) and instead call themselves indie filmmakers! I frequently hear the serious hobbyist/no budget filmmaking mantra of "we do the best we can with what we've got" but this is a self deceiving lie or at least a lie of omission. It's a lie because in practise "the best we can" is not actually "the best we can do" but the best we are prepared or willing to do! Or to put it another way, "what we've got" is limited not only by financial resources but by a lack of interest or desire in the detailed design, planning and implementation of ALL the film crafts, either individually or in combination. To make this mantra true rather than just hyperbole, we need to be asking exactly the same question that Coppola asked of Murch!

I get the feeling that even with a lower budget, being more conscious of the way sound is being used would still revolutionize the way lower budget films sound even if only on a small-scale. Do you think if a filmmaker would actually try to collaborate more with these lower budget sound designers that better results would be produced?

It would of course depend on the filmmaker and the sound designer. Baring in mind that at the amateur, student, grad and even semi/low pro level, hardly any of those offering their services as "sound designer" actually have any knowledge or experience of designing film for sound. At the very low budget level, almost regardless of audio knowledge/experience one would have to think in terms of the "sound designer" as virtually a complete sound design newbie. So, there is certainly a lot of potential for foul-ups, for things not to work in practise how they were envisioned and the film to suffer. On the other hand, apart from maybe the odd rare or specific occasion, the actors' performances and the visuals in general have no opportunity to collaborate with sound and the sound editor/mixer very limited opportunity to aid the pace, flow and emotional response of the film, all of which leads directly to the usual public response to low budget indies as boring and uninvolving. As someone involved in the professional filmmaking industry, "boring and uninvolving" is THE cardinal filmmaking sin and I'd rather take the risk of fouling up the film by trying to avoid this sin than playing it safe and virtually guarantee committing it!

G
 
Back
Top