I hate the practice of parasitically exploiting classic music for movies. Kubrick recycled Johann Strauss & Richard Strauss & Ligeti in *2001*. And Beethoven in *A Clockwork Orange*. And Ligeti again in *Eyes Wide Shut*. Ingmar Bergman boringly & predictably used *Carmina Burana* in *The Seventh Seal*. I'll never forgive George Roy Hill for using Bach in *Slaughterhouse-5*. And what the hell was "Nessun Dorma" from *Turandot* doing in *The Witches of Eastwick*?

It's a practice that reeks of directorial arrogance. On the one hand, I respect these directors for their good taste in music. But on the other hand, they're taking away commissions from living composers. Living composers need all the support they can get. Frank Zappa was fond of quoting a line from Edgard Varese: "The present-day composer refuses to die!" Indeed. Even if supercilious fancypants directors refuse to employ them.

Are we to condemn directors just because they want to take outside music and put it in their movies? I truly hope not.

Yes, some movies do exploit it, as you have said. But in some cases, the music is so grand and used in the right way that it only helps to heighten the experience.

. . . one I'm sure I'm about to be called on any minute now.

Tough old world sometimes, isn't it!

In certain cases, the director's choices may be purely dramatic, and he/she may feel that the work of the composer isn't what they had in mind. This is, honestly, the director's fault for the most part, as they are unable many times to take the time out (or bothered to learn the basic vocabulary neccesary) to communicate what it is about the work in the temp track that they like.

In other cases, changes are made that are kind of understandable... in the case of "The Witches of Eastwick," I believe that Williams' music for the ballroom scene would have been infinitely more dreamy than "Turandot," but I understand why "Turandot" is there. It is source music, plain and simple (you even see the boom box playing it). Considering the importance of the score to the rest of the film, I doubt that the decision to replace the original cue was one that was just off-the-cuff. It was probably a long and arduous decision that tortured Miller for a very long time, until he finally settled on using "Turandot." I say this because the film/music interaction in "Eastwick" is very sophisticated, so I doubt that Miller just slavered over the temp-track.

In the case of "2001," I have to say that while the rejection of Alex North's fantastic score was unfortunate, I think that the reaction the film got from the world was very much indebted to Kubrick's selection of familiar music. The Richard and Johann Strauss music (and less so the Khachaturian and Ligeti works) made it more accessible. Therefore, as I see it, the North score would have made "2001" a better film; Kubrick's selections make it a better movie.

Kubrick comes to mind in this regard. I remember reading somewhere (on FSM I think) that he hated giving up that much control of the movie to a composer.

At any rate, in "Elizabeth," a film which was brilliant, I think, the score is pleasing enough and supportive enough to more than assist the film. I'm guessing that's why it won an Oscar, although I didn't think it (or "Shakespeare in Love") worthy of an Oscar for scoring.

That said, I was deeply involved in the film right up to near the end when Elizabeth and Geoffrey Rush's character are in a (Catholic)chapel discussing the steps she took to strengthen her hold on her crown.

What should have been a consequential scene was shattered for me by the playing of Elgar's "Nimrod Suite" from "Enigma Variations," a piece of music written more than two hundred years later and totally against the style of the film.

My recognition of it was instantaneous and it just ripped me out of the movie and spat at me.

I guess the director did not expect a lot of people to know this quite famous piece -- at least, not to recognize it for what it is and for what it was intended to represent -- but it had nothing whatsoever to add to the scene under which it played.

Damn every director to HELL for temping and then choosing the "temp" cues they use over original music.

One is as a dramatic/emotional booster, "invisible" in the overall context.

Another is the artistic intervention, the use of music that deliberately calls for public attention (re: Brecht's "verfremdungseffekts").

Naturally, the use of pre-existing classical music should be used within the second category if it is not part of the story, like in CLOCKWORK. For example, "The Blue Danube" waltz in 2001 might not be as effective dramatically as a potential original North composition, but as a deliberate invervention by the director, it's highly effective (i.e. playing on the audience's familiarity with the music contrasted with unfamiliar spacecrafts, thus creating a "ballet" and a "synthesis" of the two).

<<In response to Ron's post, I certainly understand what he's complaining about. But I'm wondering if it is any less distracting to be watching BEN-HUR and hear a modern symphony orchestra, developed approximately eighteen hundred years after the events in the movie took place? Or to be watching TITANIC and hear synthesized, pseudo-Enya music, which is about 70 years too early?>>

I think it's a matter of the viewer's willingness to suspend belief. We've all grown accustomed to movies that talk and sing and dance and have symphonic music behind them, as well as pop/rock songs as a predominant music source throughout a soundtrack.

From the git-go of each film, we either accept what's being presented or we don't. If we do, it's all that more crucial that nothing be done that could take us out of the story. I suspend belief quite easily. I can't suspend my disbelief and remain in the story.