Don Satz writes:

>>All attention goes to the movie itself - a natural presentation.  So
>>often, music is used to anticipate for viewers a change in movie pacing
>>or mood; I really dislike that exploitative technique.

An offspring of Wagner's leitmotifs, to be sure. Exploitative? Yes.
So what?

Karl Miller:

>The main reason I dislike music in a film is that I find that I listen to
>the music and am too aware of the effect the music has on my perception of
>the image.  On the other hand, many educational psychologists tell us that
>we remember better what we see versus what we hear.

Don't care for opera, either? If I read a book, I am "creating" the
imagery in my mind - as most would agree, a film adaptation of a book is
almost always less satisfying because nothing the film maker can *show*
us can live up to what we "create" within our own imagination in terms of
fufilling strictly personal expectations.  However, in films, the score (I
believe) makes some attempt at overcoming the limitations of the literal
interpretation by connecting to an emotional level purely visual imagery
can't reach.  Why were silent films almost always accompanied with music?
- it's an intrinsic element of film history.  Film scores, when done
well (as oppossed to the current trend of smashing together whatever pop
selections can fit onto the "soundtrack" CD) are surely a vital element of
the story telling.  What would "Psycho" be without Hermann's score? Or "Dr.
Strangelove" without Laurie Johnson's? If you are "too aware" of the effect
the music has on your perception of the image, you have disassembled the
goose while looking for golden eggs.  Unfortunately, you may never make
it back into fairy-land.

Mark
[log in to unmask]