Re: [mythsoc] Film Scores
- In a message dated 12/18/2002 8:11:29 AM Central Standard Time,
> a holdover from silent films, where the music was there toWhat I stated--or meant to state (perhaps lamely)--was somewhat more that
> add to the drama or comedy, and opera, as you state.
that. In a live production, there is a strong empathic interaction between
the actors and the audience, reinforced by the crowd mentality that kicks in.
This is extremely powerful and is felt by the actors, who in turn respond to
it, creating an increasingly powerful back and forth reaction.
This mutual rapport between actors and audience is, of course, lacking in
film, where the emotional response is entirely one way. It's even more
lacking in TV where (for the most part) the audience is a small group and
does not generate the crowd reaction. Yes, musical accompaniment began in
silent films--but I suggest that it was carried on to the present day because
of the need to supplement the emotional responses that occur naturally in
Just 2 final points and then I'll bow out. (1) The movies were not the first
dramas to use this technique. Leaving operas aside for now, Beethoven wrote
incidental music for _Egmont_, including a scene combining music and the
hero's final impassioned speech. And (2) what's wrong with being manipulated?
That's what we pays our money and plunks down our ticket for. Haven't you
ever said after a movie, "It didn't grab me"? Or put down a book and never
picked it up again because you just couldn't get interested in either the
characters or the story, didn't--in other words--care how it came out? In
both cases the author/actor/director failed in the task of using all his/her
art and technique to provide you with a satisfying experience--a form of
manipulation that, far from being a bad thing, is exactly what you wanted
that film or book to give you.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]