Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1512183
68 M PS E . O R G perception, which merges with our hearing, but with regular audio recording, we lose this component. It needs to be recreated, usually using entirely different sounds. It's always interesting to find that unique touch that will make the sound stand out, giving it not just a formal fill but an emotional one. My uncle, artist Leonid Sokov, had a workshop close to the WTC during the 9/11 attacks. He told me that the sound wasn't like a big explosion or destruction in the movies. It was more like tearing a gigantic fabric, a very unexpected and unfamiliar sound, one that made his skin crawl and his legs wobble. In Stalingrad, there's a scene with a German Nebelwerfer rocket attack. They had a very distinctive sound and were colloquially called "Jackass," or "Moaning Mickey." There are a few chronological recordings, but no working examples have survived, so the direct association option was off the table. I consulted with colleagues; you (Charles Maynes), as always, generously shared your recordings, but they were, of course, not modern versions, albeit very good ones. I recalled that in my childhood, I heard a similar sound when melting plexiglass. If you ignite a strip of it, the dripping molten drops produce a very reminiscent sound. The cry of a crane, stretched and processed with a Doppler effect, added an interesting melancholic touch. When it came to recording, it turned out that modern plexiglass either doesn't burn or barely drips. I bought a variety of plastic items from the construction market and all of them either sounded too soft and inexpressive or had many extraneous overtones. Unexpectedly, I had the idea to set fire to the end of a large pack of trash bags. When it finally ignited, it was just right! Pitching down the recording, it sounded very similar. I also did several takes adding a natural resonator—a large plastic pipe. This added some depth and enhanced the flanger effect; moving the pipe introduced modulation. While searching for secondary associations, you inevitably create a sound tool, similar to what Jimmy MacDonald did at Disney or Vladimir Popov in Soviet theater. By adding resonators, controlling speed or other parameters, you make an object sound more expressive than a direct documentary recording. Even when recording a car, you can try removing the hood, adding a homemade resonator to the exhaust pipe, recording on the hill or placing extra weight in the trunk to make the engine work more expressively under load, asking the driver to constantly press the accelerator pedal and so on. I believe that the highest art in sound design is the ability to create the same sounds with varying degrees of abstraction and expressiveness. The richer the editing, the denser the dialogue, the more the viewer's brain resembles a person tied to a chair with a soldering torch waved in front of their face. They don't have the capacity to perceive nuances or details. However, as soon as the visual and verbal intensity decreases, the brain eagerly tries to discern the subtle details and nuances of the same object. This can be easily illustrated with paintings and pictograms. Imagine a castle. If you're rushing down the highway and need an informative sign pointing to a castle, you'd opt for a pictogram of the castle. But if you're walking through the quiet halls of a museum, pausing before each painting, a pictogram is unlikely to interest you; you'd stop in front of an oil painting. And the further the artist deviates from a classical style toward impressionism and abstraction, the longer you'll need to perceive the painting, and the more images it will spawn in your imagination. Similarly with sound: We must precisely understand where the viewer can only grasp a simplistic set of emojis and where we need to add all the intricate details for a complex and multidimensional auditory experience. If one can't create a clear image, the sound in a scene will not resemble a precise line in an artist's sketch, but rather look like a child's scribble with many small, imprecise strokes, attempting to hide its imperfection through sheer quantity. CM: Are there filmmakers you would like to work with, or people in the film sound community you would like to do work with? PD: I have been very lucky and have worked with so many directors whose films I grew up watching. Of course, I mean the Russians, but this is a great gift of fate. Now, most directors are younger than me and I especially appreciate this. Of course, I won't even dream about Lynch or Villeneuve. But interaction with foreign directors or sound designers has always given me such an impetus for development that I will always strive for further cooperation. During one of my trips to the USA, I was lucky enough to meet you, Charles; David Whitehead also came to Moscow for a couple of days— even such small meetings were very memorable to me and we were able to discuss a surprising amount of interesting things, I remember them with warmth. Not to mention those with whom we got to work together! It's amazing how small the world is;