Well I’ve got my philosophy...

February 5, 2008 - 05:07 AM

A film is about conveying an idea. Generally. To convey something, the audience must understand…something – usually something about a character – and understand what that character is feeling and perhaps feel it themselves.

Some music (good music) can facilitate the audience in focusing their attention on the film. Perhaps it seems counterintuitive to consider that having to process both visual and auditory stimuli would make focusing easier - and in some cases (when the music isn’t so great) music does interfere, causing you to say, “what the hell is that?” (The film Shopgirl comes to mind.) But if the music is efficient, with justification for each musical decision made, it glides along, supporting the film, enhancing the action on screen, and going almost unnoticed by the audience. (Although they may still come out humming themes, it doesn’t hinder their understanding of the visuals. More on this in a few paragraphs.)

To clarify what I mean by “efficient music”: Every note, rhythm, and timbre is a decision. If they aren’t there because of some reason related to the well-being of the film, it will probably be less effective than it could be. That isn’t to say that a composer can’t sit down and improvise some music and have it work, but the composer should understand (at least vaguely) why it works. The music itself still needs to be music, though, with a structure and rhythms that make it interesting. But the film should help dictate that structure and even the rhythms.

The most famous film music seems to have the commonality of having a melodic theme. So for example, the Indiana Jones theme music has a sense of adventure (I think the articulation, rhythm, and phrasing have a lot to do with this aspect) and a sense of heroism. (This may be due to the structure of the motives that make up the melody; the pitches are ascending, and land in a soaring way on the highest pitch of the motive.) But the music itself is not complicated. It is, for the most part, melody over a rhythmic figure. Simplicity gets the job done (efficiently).

But this theme isn’t slapped all over the film. It’s used very sparingly because most of the film is not heroic. Indy is losing the battles (loses the golden head thingie that he finds in the cave, doesn’t save the female lead, gets thrown in an underground pit with snakes, etc.) up until the final major conflicts. When it is used, it’s just there to highlight the points where Indy succeeds, like when he finally does save the female lead from inside the fighter plane. Only a little bit of the theme is used here because John Williams efficiently uses it.

Now, back to why we remember some themes so well - and this ties into efficiency. I think most everyone agrees that we tend to remember things more the more we are exposed to them. (I’ll keep using Indiana Jones as an example.) Even though the theme is used sparingly, it is repeated. There are a bunch of transitional moments throughout the first half of the film where the melody is alluded to very very subtly. Once we are in the heroic part of the film, it is introduced little by little, adding a phrase or two each time, and is usually scored with different arrangements, so it’s more interesting and relates slightly different feelings such as a sense of tension with brief bursts of heroism. This idea of variation keeps the music from being monotonous. (That’s it’s reason for being there, thereby, making it efficient.) And, perhaps the most important thing, the theme should be a solid structure, always giving the audience a sense that the music knows where it’s going and is deliberate in it’s pace getting there; in other words built like a Swiss watch - efficiently.

To recap on the efficiency of the Indiana Jones theme music: the music itself is efficient in the amount of musical elements at work, and the music is used efficiently throughout the film.

I can’t think of a time when there is reason not to be efficient. If there were reason, wouldn’t that make it efficient? (For instance, the most efficient way to piss off my dad is to inefficiently squeeze toothpaste from the top of the tube.)

The point here is that efficient music allows the audience to more easily focus on what’s happening. I don’t know for sure why, but I think it’s true. Studies (I think by Annabel Coen) have shown that people focus more on film without music (or sound altogether, I’ll have to look this up later), and while I seem to remember the author swinging the article in the direction implying that music interfered with peoples focus, I think this supports my argument beautifully in that it shows that people have to focus more and work harder without help from music. Although, inefficient music does seem to take away focus that should be on what’s happening in the film and push it toward understanding why the music is doing what it’s doing. The audience should never have to question that (or think to) if the music is written efficiently.

So go, be eff…. You know.