Howard-Smith wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:53 am
Problem is, the judges said that the sound for this scene was all wrong because clearly “the redubbed sound was recorded indoors”.
WRONG!! I know full well that recording indoors would be a big mistake for redubbing a scene that takes place outdoors which is why I re-recorded the actresses’ voices IN THE OPEN AIR in the middle of their gardens.
So I couldn’t help but feel a bit irritated!
And this is one reason in favour of a judging training and accreditation system. People are often unintentionally thoughtless in their critiques - very often when they are trying to be most helpful. I know I have been and I am aware of it so I try to choose my words very carefully nowadays (Howard may disagree with some of my comments, but I'm sure he knows I have considered them carefully.)
Should a critic just point out what they think is wrong (and right) or try to be helpful? Is it a BIAFF judge's role to try to educate?
One problem with the latter is they may get it wrong and, in the eyes of the film maker, this invalidates ALL their comments. I'd argue that in Howard's example, the judge got it RIGHT - it sounded wrong. What they got wrong was the CAUSE not the EFFECT.
I'd speculate that (in the example above), the critic noticed the audio was somewhat drier than expected and made the assumption it was recorded indoors. In the case of Howard a comment saying the dubbed sound seemed rather dry would be appropriate. However, the same issue when made by an inexperience film maker might well be because it had been recorded indoors and such a comment might genuinely have helped said film maker. The judge was wrong to assume, but trying to be helpful.
Possibly the correct comment here would be along the lines of "the audio (for this section) didn't match the environment in which the scene was filmed - as if it had been recorded indoors - thus clarifying to Howard in what way it sounded wrong, but pointing an inexperienced film maker to the fact one shouldn't try to dub external scenes with internal sounds. Of course any soundie worth his salt could probably match environmental audio anyway, but that's beyond what we're talking about here.
Funnily enough, in one of the first films I submitted to BIAFF, I made the opposite mistake. It was a documentary, of sorts, and I took great care to record the voice over under a duvet. Net result - a v/o which sounded far too dry so I added some reverb. The comment came back that it sounded like it had been recorded in bathroom (that's a fair comment - it didn't say I HAD recorded it in a bathroom).
The same film had some fairly wobbly hand-held footage and I was aware of this. One judge tried to be helpful by suggesting various ways in which I might improvise stabilisation. The thing is, I was already aware of those techniques, (but had neither the facilities nor the opportunity to utilise them) and so the comment came across as patronising - even though I understood it was well-intentioned.
Another film of mine was praised for its green screen. There wasn't any green screen - it was all in camera!
In conclusion, judges should never make assumptions about why something is as it is.
Much more difficult to deal with is when a judge doesn't understand a film/plot (which is usually obvious to the maker who may have been involved in writing, directing and editing). But that's a whole different discussion