Bad sound for Woody? at DVinfo.net

Marco Leavitt · April 14th, 2005, 09:57 AM

Anyone seen "Melinda and Melinda?" I saw it over the weekend, and man, I don't know if it's just because I'm paying more attention to stuff like that these days, but I don't think I've ever seen a studio film with such bad audio. The only time it didn't sound boomy was when it sounded muffled. On one scene, the radio transmitter was clearly visible on the lower back of BOTH actresses. Say what you want about the man, but Woody Allen's films have always had very tasteful and high quality production values. Maybe they won't give him the money for a top-rate crew anymore? Very sad. The movie was bad too.

Barry Gribble · April 14th, 2005, 03:26 PM

Marco,

I haven't seen that movie, but I know that Woody definitely handles his sound differently than others. Most directors make sure that no one talks over top of each other, and basically the audio you get is always the audio from the closeup or ADR. Woody likes to run it all with one master short, mic everyone, and try to capture the more natural feel...

Regardless, it seems it should turn out better than you describe.

Imran Zaidi · April 14th, 2005, 03:52 PM

You're right about the mic transmitter - I almost choked on my Raisinets when I saw the big bulging pack on the back of one of the actress' silky shirts...

One thing of note - Woody's films are pretty much always in Mono. You'll notice this especially if you've ever bought one of his films on DVD. No Dolby Surround, Stereo, 5.1, nothing. Mono sound is all you get.

It's just his thing, and part of the atmosphere of a Woody Allen film - you either dig it or you don't.

The audio troubles you had might have just been your theater though - some have trouble with his mono style.

Side note - I didn't think it was all that bad. It's not saying much, but it's probably the most Woody-esque movie he's done in the last decade. Sweet and Lowdown was my most favorite of his more recent films though - a classic made more so by Sean Penn's phenomenal performance.

Marco Leavitt · April 14th, 2005, 05:43 PM

I'm a big fan and really wanted to like this one, but it just didn't work for me. The premise didn't even make sense -- he ended up with a tragedy that wasn't that tragic and a comedy that wasn't that funny. You're right about "Sweet and Lowdown." I think it ranks up there with his best. I kind of liked "Anything Else." On that one, I think he was mainly sabotaged by lousy actors.

You may be right about the theater having something to do with it. During the the last interior scene when they were in the Hamptons there was so much echo I could barely understand Will Farrel.

April 14th, 2005, 09:57 AM	#1
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	Bad sound for Woody? Anyone seen "Melinda and Melinda?" I saw it over the weekend, and man, I don't know if it's just because I'm paying more attention to stuff like that these days, but I don't think I've ever seen a studio film with such bad audio. The only time it didn't sound boomy was when it sounded muffled. On one scene, the radio transmitter was clearly visible on the lower back of BOTH actresses. Say what you want about the man, but Woody Allen's films have always had very tasteful and high quality production values. Maybe they won't give him the money for a top-rate crew anymore? Very sad. The movie was bad too.

April 14th, 2005, 03:26 PM	#2
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	Marco, I haven't seen that movie, but I know that Woody definitely handles his sound differently than others. Most directors make sure that no one talks over top of each other, and basically the audio you get is always the audio from the closeup or ADR. Woody likes to run it all with one master short, mic everyone, and try to capture the more natural feel... Regardless, it seems it should turn out better than you describe. __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

April 14th, 2005, 03:52 PM	#3
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	You're right about the mic transmitter - I almost choked on my Raisinets when I saw the big bulging pack on the back of one of the actress' silky shirts... One thing of note - Woody's films are pretty much always in Mono. You'll notice this especially if you've ever bought one of his films on DVD. No Dolby Surround, Stereo, 5.1, nothing. Mono sound is all you get. It's just his thing, and part of the atmosphere of a Woody Allen film - you either dig it or you don't. The audio troubles you had might have just been your theater though - some have trouble with his mono style. Side note - I didn't think it was all that bad. It's not saying much, but it's probably the most Woody-esque movie he's done in the last decade. Sweet and Lowdown was my most favorite of his more recent films though - a classic made more so by Sean Penn's phenomenal performance.

April 14th, 2005, 05:43 PM	#4
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I'm a big fan and really wanted to like this one, but it just didn't work for me. The premise didn't even make sense -- he ended up with a tragedy that wasn't that tragic and a comedy that wasn't that funny. You're right about "Sweet and Lowdown." I think it ranks up there with his best. I kind of liked "Anything Else." On that one, I think he was mainly sabotaged by lousy actors. You may be right about the theater having something to do with it. During the the last interior scene when they were in the Hamptons there was so much echo I could barely understand Will Farrel.