Is it Magical because of or in spite of?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The other night I was on a Star Trek kick, usually when this happens I don't watch entire movies, just sequences.

The movie Insurrection is not a great movie, barely even a good movie, but it has one or two sequences that are magical.

The moments are sort of a which came first, the chicken or the egg, situation.

The moments involved are when Picard is taught how to live within a moment of time, they are beatifully concieved and executed scenes. Jerry Goldsmiths music is at its best in these sequences, and there-in lies the question

Is the scene magical because of the JG's music, or in spite of it? And the question isn't tied to just this film.

ET, Jaws, other Star Trek, LOTR's, and other perhaps most films. We are such fans of movies and especially John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith here that we often make the mistake of saying our beloved composers took a good scene, and made it great, when in reality I think they have taken great scenes and made them greater.

In most cases its just a moment or two in a film, but in others its the entire movie itself. In some cases the films become trancendant such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

I think you know the scenes, or the films. Its those moments like in Ferris Buellers Day Off when the trio is at the art museum posing, and the music puts you in the moment as well, or say in King Kong where for an instant Peter Jackson puts you in that perfect moment where you know this is what film is supposed to do when King Kong is playing on the ice, James Newton Howard adds his magic, and suddenly its is a momentarily joyish experience, perfection if only for a few fleeting seconds.

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

I thought those Trek scenes were ok, but not particularly magical. By far the most magical bit in the score (and perhaps the movie) is Children's Story.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Well-done movies are usually better than the sum of their parts. To de-compose them (and give all the credit to one aspect like cinematography, acting or music) is pointless, so yeah, we might as well call it magic.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

There's no such thing as magic!!!!

[Quintus 5,399]

JW is definitely the magician behind Spielberg's magic. I think Spielberg himself would be the first to agree with that. Spielberg made Elliot and ET fly, but it was Williams who made the audience take flight with them.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

I would honestly say that the majority of E.T.'s magic comes from the the score. Try watching the opening scene of ET wandering in the woods without the sound and you'll see what I mean. The same goes for the flying sequences and the entire final 15 minutes of the film.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The absence of music doesn't necessarily take away from a scene, but it merely changes the direction of a scene. Most people don't tend to understand that distinction. If I take the music out of the woods in E.T., the scene will be just as effective although perhaps in different ways. What music does is give the audience directional cues, which is fine and dandy, but it's also why John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith are better than Hans Zimmer or Brian Tyler. There is almost always a certain amount of ambiguity in every note they've written, and I can actually think of no better example than the E.T. in the woods cue.

An effective death scene will carry emotional punch with or without music, but the music may make it a more lively, depressing, glorious, melancholy, or ambiguos scene.

Or think of it this way. You are going on a date with someone you really like. If your love/chemistry is top notch, then regardless of where you are, your love will shine through, per se. But if I put you two in a room with disco lighting, you'll probably more flirtatious and humorous with each other. If I put you in a room with candle light you might be more ooshy-gooshy. If I put you in an unlighted room...wel...you know. Ultimately you display your love, just in different ways. Music acts as that candle, that disco ball, and its absence is that unlighted room.

[indy4 155]

Nicely said!

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Film is such an incredibly collaborative effort that there's no way to do justice to this type of question without considering it on a case-by-case basis.

It's fairly easy to say that the composer can and does often take a scene and make it magical. And that often happens (used to often happen, at least; it's becoming rarer).

However, let's talk E.T. for a second. Yes, it's hard to imagine certain stretches of the film without the score, and those sections of the movie would certainly have suffered without it. But I think it would be folly to suggest that Williams "saved the movie," or anything like that, and there's a simple reason for that: by that point in their collaboration, Spielberg would absolutely have been composing shots and structuring the film with Williams in mind. He wouldn't have had any way of knowing the specifics of what Williams would do, but Spielberg is an awfully canny fellow, and he's a lifelong film-music junkie. If anybody knows how to plan a movie around the idea of there eventually being a score -- and maybe even having an idea early in the process of what type of music he will want in a given scene -- then it's Spielberg.

I would guess that it gets to be that way with most long-term director/composer collaborations.

However, there are going to be just as many cases in which you really and truly can say that the composer brought something close to magic to a movie. It's been too long since I saw Insurrection for me to comment on what Joey had to say about Goldsmith above, but I can say this: Goldsmith massively enhanced Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I think that what was there was fairly magical (if also a bit static) to begin with, but there are numerous scenes of that movie that turn into pure gold under Goldsmith's touch. Robert Wise was no slouch, so he may have been thinking in musical terms with some of those scenes; hard to say.

Another great example is Conan the Barbarian. Think of the "Atlantean Sword" scene, or the "Theology/Civilization" scene. From the little I know of John Milius, I'm inclined to give Poledouris the vast majority of the credit for those scenes. Again, I think the movie was good already; Poledouris made it great.

This is an interesting topic.

[Adam S. 0]

I'm probably rephrasing somewhat what was just said but the last 15 minutes of ET is wonderfully directed and, yet, completely flat without music or, I would imagine, inferior music. I think Speilberg's ability to direct scenes in a very musical kind of way (particularly earlier in his career) is one of the things that is rarely appreciated among critics who write about his career. In the right kind of film, that kind of approach and with the collaboration of Williams, can allow his films to be so much more ambitious in terms of where it takes the audience. But that's a hard thing to pull off because the film has to stand on its own in terms of the acting and the production value and, yet, has to feel very incomplete sometimes with a director having the confidence that the music will tie things together. Jaws is another example where Speilberg, seemingly intuitively, directed the action in a very musical way. Its great direction and, yet, completely flat and that's not a contradiction. That was one of the things the Boston Pops did at least once, showing a shark attack sequence without music and then, again, with music just to highlight the contrast.

- Adam

[Williamsfan301 11]

…the stock phrase on my movies is that, whenever something goes wrong on the set, we always say, ‘Never mind, Jerry will save it later.’” -- Joe Dante referring to his working with Jerry Goldsmith

I think that sums it all up.

[King Mark 3,626]

Most people don't tend to understand that distinction. If I take the music out of the woods in E.T., the scene will be just as effective although perhaps in different ways.

riiiight,then you have Elliot speaking to a plastic alien. you can do it,just cut off the sound...

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Just because you're old cranky gramps and can't bring imagination to the table doesn't mean anything, King Mark.

Music is a lens, not an image.

[Ollie 1,059]

I agree with Joe and Blumenkohl.

I do remember watching a special that had the Carbon Freeze sequence from Empire with and without the music, and while the scene is well done it just felt flat without Williams' music.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

the very best John Williams movies were enhanced by his music,

There was magic in Jaws without the magic, it was still a film of great performances, great action and adventure, stunning editing.

ET had images that were heartwrenching. Elliott/Henry Thomas mourned the death of ET without the benefit of John's music. The magic was there, waiting for even another layer of magic to be added.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The magic was there, waiting for even another layer of magic to be added.

Not necessarily another layer in my opinion, but rather a sort of reminder to the audience of all the emotions involved that may not be in focus during the scene.

If that were to happen in the real world there'd be such a plethora of emotions you'd feel in that moment that you wouldn't even recall a tenth of them five minutes after the event.

That to me is what music does in those really special moments...it takes you from just feeling basic emotions and reminds you to think of all the other feelings and emotions that interact together under a dominant emotion in such a moment.

For instance the Insurrection example you mentioned. The elation, awe, and peacefulness of that scene is carried in the actual film very clearly. Those things are dominant.

But then if you pay very close attention to Picard's look, you see something solemn...as if "Why can't every moment be like so?" and the music very subtly highlights that very emotion and brings your focus to it. Here is a man who has put aside so much for his career, think of all the perfect moments he has given up. And there is a somber and noble quality to the music that reminds you of that.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The magic was there, waiting for even another layer of magic to be added.

Not necessarily another layer in my opinion, but rather a sort of reminder to the audience of all the emotions involved that may not be in focus during the scene.

If that were to happen in the real world there'd be such a plethora of emotions you'd feel in that moment that you wouldn't even recall a tenth of them five minutes after the event.

That to me is what music does in those really special moments...it takes you from just feeling basic emotions and reminds you to think of all the other feelings and emotions that interact together under a dominant emotion in such a moment.

For instance the Insurrection example you mentioned. The elation, awe, and peacefulness of that scene is carried in the actual film very clearly. Those things are dominant.

But then if you pay very close attention to Picard's look, you see something solemn...as if "Why can't every moment be like so?" and the music very subtly highlights that very emotion and brings your focus to it. Here is a man who has put aside so much for his career, think of all the perfect moments he has given up. And there is a somber and noble quality to the music that reminds you of that.

I disagree about the moment in ET. Believe me I used that music at my late partners funeral, there wasn't a dry eye in the chapel, but the acting in the moment by Henry Thomas was magic, all by itself. Never before or since has a child actor approached what he achieved, not Bale, not Osment, etc...

As for Insurrection I must go back and examine it again.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Well I was speaking in the context of the actual film.

Of course outside of the film it can bring out emotions within you that you may have kept in or not even remembered. But even so, it doesn't add that emotion to you but rather helps you realize it.

Or so I think anyway...

[Adam S. 0]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the points but it seems to me if we went to see the Nutcracker Ballet without music it wouldn't be a very good experience. Sure the dancing and direction would still be great but it would be a very incomplete experience. That's an extreme example but its the same principle for some films. Sure, a lot of scenes would hold up without music or would simply be experienced in a different way. But something like the finale to ET would be downright strange to watch without music playing for the final 15 minutes. It would feel naked or awkward or something. Those are the kind of examples I'm talking about.

- Adam

[JoeinAR 1,949]

if we went to the Nutcracker Ballet that would be so gay.

but you kind of get it because as you said the dancing and direction would still be great.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

Or think of it this way. You are going on a date with someone you really like. If your love/chemistry is top notch, then regardless of where you are, your love will shine through, per se. But if I put you two in a room with disco lighting, you'll probably more flirtatious and humorous with each other. If I put you in a room with candle light you might be more ooshy-gooshy. If I put you in an unlighted room...wel...you know. Ultimately you display your love, just in different ways. Music acts as that candle, that disco ball, and its absence is that unlighted room.

To me the music in a film is more than just a romantic (or otherwise) location. The music is very much a part of the film, in fact it makes up part of the character of the film. If I apply this sentiment to your analogy the music actually becomes an important aspect of the girl's personality, and may affect whether I like her or not in the first place. The ET scene in the woods looks very pretty without the music, but with the music it becomes an astonishingly beautiful moment, one that I love. Without the music I probably wouldn't think twice about it.

That's not to say all great moments in film need a musical accompaniment, of course they don't. Some scenes are astoundingly "right" precisely because they have no music.

[Adam S. 0]

Actually, I should be more precise and say that The Nutcracker directed in the same way to not have music would be bad direction because ballet needs music and people would be bored watching people hop around without music. However, its good direction in so far as it recognizes the need for music and uses it appropriately. The same goes for films. If Speilberg wanted to make ET without music, the way he did in 1982 it would be poorly directed as the final 15 minutes (more than that actually) would feel bizarre and make the audience uncomfortable but its brilliantly directed from the point of view that he reocgnized on some level the role music would eventually play.

- Adam

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Ballet is dance buddy. That's like saying going to a symphony without instruments would suck.

No sh*t Sherlock.

But simplicity aside, your argument still holds no water, because you forget two things. One, there was dance long before there was music. And two, the Nutcracker is not a story-driven ballet. Try something like La Bayadere and tell me the same thing.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

there was dance long before there was music.

Sure? I think the existance of dance presupposes the existance of music. The two are so strongly connected.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Granted I'm new here, but Blum doesn't strike me as someone who's too open to other peoples ideas...

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Sure? I think the existance of dance presupposes the existance of music. The two are so strongly connected.

Dance is mankind's first humanity. Most archaeologists and anthropologists agree it developed around the same time as speech/language.

Granted I'm new here, but Blum doesn't strike me as someone who's too open to other peoples ideas...

If your idea is well presented with a touch of intelligence, I am completely open to it. Welcome to the boards.

P.S. Being presumptuous and using it as fuel for personal attacks is not a form of intelligence.

[Henry B 50]

Sure? I think the existance of dance presupposes the existance of music. The two are so strongly connected.

Dance is mankind's first humanity. Most archaeologists and anthropologists agree it developed around the same time as speech/language.

Ah, but did singing not go hand in hand with speech?

[Adam S. 0]

Ballet is dance buddy. That's like saying going to a symphony without instruments would suck.

No sh*t Sherlock.

But simplicity aside, your argument still holds no water, because you forget two things. One, there was dance long before there was music. And two, the Nutcracker is not a story-driven ballet. Try something like La Bayadere and tell me the same thing.

First of all, my analogy is obvious regardless of your final point though I can understand why you would rather nitpick it. I said that this is an extreme example (dancing) but that the principle still holds for the reasons that are pretty clear but that you didn't deal with at all. Its no coincidence that JW often talks about his music providing a "balletic" effect for a scene. Lots of action scenes are like choreography with music providing a very crucial role in giving scenes their energy and kinetic pull. Another obvious example would watching the scene where ET flies - without music it would just lie there dead on the screen. I don't even consider this that controversial. We're not able to dial out music but take something like what the Boston Pops did, where they dialed out the music for the Barrel Chase scene and then played it again with the music and this point becomes pretty clear IMO.

- Adam

[Melange 446]

I am reminded of the 'Bedtime story' sequence from Capricorn One (which incidentally is showing late night on BBC One on Tuesday) and Jerry's music for that scene where the camera ever so slowly moves in on the wife is on the bed reading Dr Seuss to the children of the Astronaut they both think is dead. Without Jerry's music, much of the impact would be missing.

The same goes for Horner's 'Michael's Gift to Karen' music used in that sequence in the movie Brainstorm.

Horner's music takes those scenes and makes them fly with emotion.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

Sure? I think the existance of dance presupposes the existance of music. The two are so strongly connected.

Dance is mankind's first humanity. Most archaeologists and anthropologists agree it developed around the same time as speech/language.

Ah, but did singing not go hand in hand with speech?

Absolutely. Babies sing naturally long before they learn to speak. And to say that dancing was around before rhythm is clearly incorrect. Dance and rhythm are two sides of the same coin.