I feel like we’ve done a pretty decent job of educating some of our readership on the difference between Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing over the last five years here at In Contention. It struck me that we haven’t really covered it in a focused way this season, and the Oscar Guide seems as good a place as any to recap.
Sound editing, which we covered Friday, concerns the manifestation of artificial sound effects and the overall manipulation of the sonic identity of a film. Sound mixing concerns the balance of those various elements, in addition to music and dialogue, as well as the on-the-set maintenance of production audio. This year’s slate was an eyebrow-raising one to say the least.
The nominees are:
“Inception” (Lora Hirschberg, Gary A. Rizzo and Ed Novick)
“The King’s Speech” (Paul Hamblin, Martin Jensen and John Midgley)
“Salt” (Jeffrey J. Haboush, Greg P. Russell, Scott Millan and William Sarokin)
“The Social Network” (Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick and Mark Weingarten)
“True Grit” (Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff and Peter F. Kurland)
Sound mixing has a lot in common with sound editing, but the distinctions are still critical. While both clearly relate to what we hear in the theater, sound editing specifically relates to the creation of artificial sounds (“sound effects”) while sound mixing brings everything together — from effects to music to dialogue (recorded on set or during post-production) to music – into the overall soundscape of a film.
Last week, while discussing the sound editing category, I explained the difference between that art form and sound mixing. The Oscar for the latter is shared between two (or more) persons who construct the soundtrack of a movie. The re-recording mixers bring together everything – dialogue, sound effects, music – into what we hear in the theater. The production sound mixer is also awarded for capturing the sounds during shooting, an undoubtedly arduous task.
The most recent predictions