-
Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks
"If they want respect, they should write symphonies" (Page 2)
Archive of old forum. No more postings.
Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2Author
Topic: "If they want respect, they should write symphonies"

Lou Goldberg

Standard Userer

It's very true that a silent shot can communicate a great deal on its own without sound let alone music. It's also true that when an image is combined with sound, attention to both the sound and the image is halved in a way: you don't hear the score as much as you do when its on your speakers away from the image and each element, both sound & picture, can potentially act as "noise" against a clear absorption of each element. In a sense, movies, when compared with everyday reality, are too much information to begin with. Also, more recent cinema seems out to overload the senses with sight, sound, and spectacle, though I'm not sure I understand why since this doesn't always create the emotion filmmakers hope they are creating this way. I have to agree that music is but one element of hundreds that film has at its disposal but it seems to be a significant one. Dinko may feel film music is obsolete or redundant, that it provides more information than is required, but filmmakers don't seem to agree with him yet. They still use it.And I understand why. I just saw Capote. As music, it's score is nothing spectacular: just piano & synths, nothing we haven't heard a lot of before. But you've got a story about 2 kinds of killers. One killer is a guy with an artistic bent who "goes out the back door" and kills a family for mysterious reasons involving lack of love & appreciation growing up. The other killer "goes out the front door", he too has artistic talent, a need to be appreciated as well, but has had much better success and yet, even so, is willing to kill in order to get the story he wants and to fulfill his ambitions. Once again as you get so often in films, you have a lot of surface detail that alludes to more interior thoughts and emotions. And that's where the score comes in, is necessary, really. The score, even though it's not all that special as music, becomes the soul of the film, the key to the gravity of what is going on underneath the sequential surface events. Without the score you have almost a docu-drama, but with it, you "hear what they feel", you get an added layer of meaning that isn't more info than you need, but the opposite, info you have to have to get a handle on what these people are feeling as they use each other to meet their needs and pursue their various ends. Now the score alone doesn't shoulder the whole burden: pace of the dialogue, use of close-ups, the entire lighting scheme tell you when things are going from public to more private, but even so, the image is weaker on its own than compared to how it is with the score. The score is necessary. Without the score, the communication would still be along the same lines, but it would be partial and incomplete. There's nothing wrong with having to work a little to get something. Maybe that's better than having it all put in your lap. Still, the score isn't just simplfying or making more blatant and less subtle the message, the score is the message, or a good deal of it. So, I'm back to that reductive equasion again: image+music=greater meaning than image or music alone.
[Message edited by Lou Goldberg on 03-04-2006]
posted 03-04-2006 01:35 AM PT (US) 
Lou Goldberg

Standard Userer

I just remembered why that equasion was ringing bells. It's Eisenstein's theory of montage. That Shot A + Shot B = a meaning greater than Shot A or Shot B by themselves. The juxtaposition creates a 3rd "shot" between the other two, a 3rd meaning that would change or not exist if say Shot A and another shot, a Shot C, were cut together. As I recall, Eisenstein had some odd and ridiculous ideas about how music and image should fit together (a descending diagonal line on screen matched with descending musical notes) but I'm sure they were based on his montage theory as well. Yes, in a way, all of film music is a combination or juxtaposition of image and music in the sense of Eisensteinian montage. If you think of the music as "just another shot incorporating information" than Shot A + Music A = Image/Sound unit AA.That said, using equasion may help explain, but doesn't mean successful creation. In the end, despite the sound stages, the scripts, the location vehicles, the money spent, the talent involved, art is magic.
posted 03-04-2006 01:45 AM PT (US) 
Thor

Standard Userer

Actually, Eisenstein's "third meaning" was the result of CONFLICT between shots, not necessarily a complimentary relationship between shots. There's a crucial difference there.
posted 03-04-2006 05:21 AM PT (US) 
Lou Goldberg

Standard Userer

Well, I haven't read Film Form & Film Sense for over 20 years. But as I recall, he was comparing montage to Hegel. Thesis+Anti-theis=Synthesis. But elements between shots or between shots and their sound and music don't have to be in conflict for a 3rd meaning to arise. There may be a crucial difference between Eisenstein's theory and what I'm saying but I'm not sure the end result isn't the same.
posted 03-05-2006 12:56 AM PT (US) Old Infopop Software by UBB
