Why is music such a strong tool that is frequently used in films? I have always found music in movies to be great, but I am starting to realize that music is found in so many different types of film and range from dramas to animated films. Disney for instance thrive off of a successful soundtrack, but then a film like Perks of Being a Wallflower also thrives off its musical choices. My question could probably be answered with one word, but I want to know some deeper reasons people think music helps create magic in movies.
In Music History, we actually had a class devoted to this topic! (In fact, much of our course was devoted to the psychological effects of music)
Music has such an effect on our perception; it's such an emotional thing. One very basic example is that minor music is often automatically perceived as sad, major as happy, etc. It automatically creates an emotional response, and the composer's musical choices often suggest certain themes or ideas (i.e. more bombastic music is often perceived as "masculine", while more legato and lyrical music is perceived as "feminine" - certain musical instruments are often gendered, as well).
Music is necessary in film because it conditions the audience to feel a certain way. It promotes an emotional and psychological response, regardless of the film. It can help us empathize with a character (perhaps it's indicative of the character's own emotional state or struggles). It can create suspense or set the mood (i.e. many movies set in Asia will have music with a Western perception of orientalism). It can also "bend" time... have you ever watched a scene without the sound? It can turn horror movies into very long, boring things. Music tells a story on its own; it naturally supports the visuals of a story. This is a HUGE topic, actually!
In regards to your specific examples, think about how music is used in each of these situations. Disney movies have music that often serve as monologues; we get a peak into what each character is feeling in a moment (of course, they have instrumental music that is valuable as well). If I remember correctly, The Perks of Being a Wallflower had more mainstream music, which was appropriate to the setting of the movie. It also had themes that coincided with the movie's themes. Each musical choice in a movie is so carefully chosen; it completely impacts our reactions to characters and events (i.e. would we like a hero as much if he was accompanied by a villain's music?).
These are just some examples, but I hope they give you an idea of how music can be an effective tool in films! It could be quite interesting to compare/contrast the music of two very different films (such as a Disney film and The Perks of Being a Wallflower) and look at how each impacts the viewer's perception. Alternatively, you could look at what these movies would be like without music. Would they have the same impact? – laurakej9 years ago
One aspect of this question that might be worth exploring is the relationship between music in film and, say, MTV. Footloose, for example, was one of the first movies for which a soundtrack comprised of new songs was promoted on MTV before the movie's release. Prior to that, most live-action films utilized popular songs that, because of their widespread consumption, could be counted on to evoke a given emotional response. The success of Footloose as a film was largely due to its soundtrack's promotion on MTV. And sense then, the use of music in film has changed. How then, has the further evolution of the music industry (including but not limited to MTV) affected the use of soundtracks/scores in film? – arharrison9 years ago
Wonderful topic for one of the most important aspects of film. A well compiled soundtrack or well-made musical score can really make or break a film. – Austin Bender9 years ago
Music sets the tone, and it gives an opportunity for characters to show what is in their hearts. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
Woody Allen is a jazz musician himself and always feature jazz soundtracks in his films. Analyse the use of soundtracks in Woody Allen films. How do they add to his style, to the characters, to the narrative, to the atmosphere? How do they vary in his American films and in his European films? Share some titles!
Do you think narrowing the scope to specifically Woody Allen movies cuts off fertile ground for criticism and analysis? Just off the top of the dome: The Coen Brothers, Tarantino, Romero, Woo, and Burton strike me as directors/writers whose music selection is as, if not more, important to their movies as the acting, script, etc. Could the topic be expanded to include a critical discussion of the ways specific genres of film (noir, western, comedy, drama, etc) use specific genres of music (jazz, country, rock, pop, etc.), or would that confuse the issue? – Bo9 years ago
That's true but that would mean an extensive and very long article, whereas focusing on one filmmaker in 1 article allows more depth in the analysis. A series of articles could be done like that - one on Tarantino, one on Burton... But I know a lot of people have already written on these directors and their taste in music, whereas the interest in Woody Allen's soundtracks is lower. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
I do agree with Rachel, this is such an extensive topic on its own that adding more would probably hurt the articles overall effectiveness. – Austin Bender9 years ago
Look at Dutch Angles in cinema. Say what they are, and then have a little think about why they are pretty much just jokes now. Could be an intresting progression. A good place to start would be old horror movies (obviously) and then move on to other stuff. I know Decker season 3 has a lot of them.
Though they're definitely scoffed at a lot now, I think a piece in defense of the dutch angle could also be interesting. There are contemporary examples that are not seen as tacky or passe, such as the sparing (keyword) use of dutch angles in The Dark Knight. So perhaps an examination of what makes a dutch angle effective vs. laughable and why would be more nuanced, rather than assuming they are always bad now. – ElizabethMcCauley9 years ago
Good to see another "deckerhead" is on here. I think this is interesting, but can be combined with other examples which are often derided, such as jump cuts or speeding up footage or whip panning. This would support a contention that no technique is less or more worthy than any other technique, but is dependent entirely on the context. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
Deconstruct the representation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and its psychological implications. What does this say about the internal battle between moral and physical desires, between duty and desire, between Id and Ego? How do social conventions repress wicked desires in the novel and film? Finally, a more broad question, does Dr. Jekyll represent humankind?
What makes a story get reused over and over again? From The Wizard of Oz to The Lion King and Mary Poppins, whats makes a story so popular and loved that is can be recycled from medium to medium with reboots and sequels? Stories like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory have been made into movies, plays and musicals while others like Star Wars and The Incredibles were left in their original mediums despite being loved by many.
I think this is an interesting topic, especially due to the way you approach it. At first, while reading it, everything seemed obvious, until I came to your points about Star Wars and The Incredibles. Why have these ridiculously popular franchises not been introduced in a different medium? Then I did think of what is taking place at Disney with the Jedi Academy. I guess, maybe, this is a more accessible means of representing this franchise? This is a good topic that I would love to read what someone writes about this. – danielle5779 years ago
This is an interesting topic. In the article, I suggest the writer address the effects of translating big movies, like "Star Wars" and "The Incredibles" to the small stage--play or musical. Some stories work well in different formats. "The Wizard of Oz" can work in different mediums, but technically advanced movies like "Star Wars" and "The Incredibles" rely on special effects and technology to bring the story to life. In the article, you can discuss the challenges of adapting certain movies to a different medium, and how it can or cannot work. – RoderickP9 years ago
Do not forget that Star Wars actually has a very large expanded universe crossing multiple mediums (though currently no longer canon). Most of this takes place outside of the film saga and includes books, television shows, and video games. You can play Lego versions of the six movies, experience key battles on the front lines in Battlefront and Rogue Squadron games, and even explore the galaxy far away an even longer time ago during the Old Republic era in an MMO and two acclaimed RPGs. Your point still stands, that some are adapted more often than others, and it is still an interesting point to examine. – nsnow9 years ago
I would also recommend writing about the creators of works that fight or have fought to keep their work out of the theatre or off the big screen. – Austin Bender9 years ago
Analyze the difference between Soul Man (1986), a movie that shows the length people will go to get an education, and Tropic Thunder (2008), a film that features a white actor portraying a stereotypical black soldier. The former is maligned among audiences and critics and has a 14% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The latter is beloved for its skewering of Hollywood, and netted Robert Downey Jr. and Oscar nomination. Where did Soul Man go wrong, and what did Ben Stiller and company do right?
Interesting topic! I would warn you to be wary of contrasting these so starkly, however; RDJ actual did receive some serious flak for Tropic Thunder (http://gokicker.com/2013/10/28/blackface-never-okay/) and there are scholars that hold that blackface is never okay, regardless of the popularity or overall acceptance of the practice under certain circumstances. I don't know where your argument will go with this, but tread carefully. You should hesitate to paint the practice in any positive light, and maybe focus more on the blatant racism plaguing Hollywood and the Academy Awards. – Eden9 years ago
I don't think this should be limited to just these two films (which are already good places to start). But another film that should probably be spoken about is Spike Lee's Bamboozled. This film features two African-American actors putting on blackface for a television show, which is set up by an African-American writer and the company headed by a white man. This was a satirical approach intended to show the ridiculousness of blackface as well as trying to fight traditional stereotypes of African-American characters (Ie the buck, the coon etc.).
I think Tropic Thunder's use of blackface is similarly a piece of satire, but it is used more as a tool to comment on the extremity of method actors. It doesn't really crrate a discourse on blackface itself, however
If you really wanted you could try and talk about African-American actors whitefacing, although unfortuneately the oly example of this I can think of is White Chicks, where we also see men dressed (or rather disguised) as women. – Jamie White9 years ago
Wow, amazing idea. I do agree that the you could expand to more than two films. It is sort of a tightrope kind of article, go too much in one direction and you could potentially offend of a lot of people, but this could end up being one of the most entertaining and informative articles if done right. – Austin Bender9 years ago
With the upcoming Marvel and DC films Suicide Squad, Deadpool, Batman vs. Super Man, and even Captain America: Civil War there seems to be a growing prevalence in the popular portrayal of the "Antihero." That is, a hero with next-level superhuman abilities that achieves peace and justice through rather morally ambiguous and convoluted avenues. Starting with The Dark Knight Trilogy, we begin to see major progressions from the normal ol' crime-fighting, always-right-and-fair batman to a much more complex, dark, and cynical character than previously represented in the superhero genre. Bleeding into the Iron Man trilogy you again see a rather morally ambiguous character doling out justice, and monopolizing fan and marketing favoritism over any other character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Now with the tremendous outpouring of "versus" movies and appeals to anti-heroic characters, the question of "Why?" must be asked.
Do we, the fans, love moral ambiguity presented through these characters more than the straight-laced justice previously advertised? And if so, why do we love it so much? Do morally ambiguous characters seem more real and genuine to us as a society today? And if so, what are these "truths" these characters are telling that we so crave to hear?
The intention is to fully and chronologically analyze the progession of the "Antihero" starting with the Dark Knight Trilogy and leading up the phenomenon of the emergence of Antiheroes in today's mass media and what this says about our society.
This can be a really interesting article! I don't think this is new though, as these characters seen in comic books were written as very complex "heroes" with conflicting morals. However, this idea of 'breaking the rules to get the job done' is new to the big screen, and is becoming more prevalent in these big budget superhero films-- I think that's why Guardians of the Galaxy was such a success. (You should definitely include that movie in your article) But mainly what I'm trying to say is that maybe discuss why film production companies decided now to get deep and complex with the characters in these super hero films, and starting off so shallow in the past when superhero movies were so new and not yet so mainstream. :) :) – madistyle949 years ago
I think that a lot of people enjoy the idea of two heroes fighting each other because it promises an exciting battle! On the real, I think that people appreciate moral ambiguity because it makes the heroes more realistic, but there can also be a downside to that too, making it seem like immoral conduct is something "okay" because "even heroes slip up". That's true, of course; good people, even heroic ones, make mistakes all the time. But the idea that making immoral choices and offering the notion that "it's okay" is a lie. Just some food for thought.
This should make a great article! Thanks for the topic! – Dominic Sceski9 years ago
I think is a very interesting topic that you can run with and greatly expand. From Batman V Superman to Captain America: Civil War, where Cap and Tony are at odds with each other, there is a high appreciation for superheroes that are at odds. There is a huge debate on which superhero is cooler, Batman or Superman? Usually the reason that people do not choose Superman, is because, he's is too perfect and is invincible, while, the reason people choose Batman, is because he's conflicted and is so human, that they relate to him. As people, we tend to gravitate towards characters that are like us, complex and human. So, it is not a huge surprise when audience root for the antihero. – ADenkyirah9 years ago
'Rock the Kasbah' (2015) has been in theaters for only a few days, and already, reviews of the film express a lack of interest and the wonderful feeling of being "Murray-ied'. Critics and public viewers alike are unimpressed and can't stand how slowly the film moves through a plot which flat-lined within the first half hour. Through all of the unrest regarding the movie, one critic I have not been seeing is how the movie was loosely based off a riveting and touching documentary "Afghan Star" (2009).
The film centers around Bill Murray's character, a Hollywood music manager. He goes to Afghanistan with a musician on a U.S.S tour, she ditches him there, and a few bad decisions and wacky circumstances lead him to find a Pashtun woman who is a (surprise) talented singer. Salima (played by Leem Lubany), goes on the Afghan version of 'American Idol', 'Afghan Star'. She risks her life to do so, and a truly inspiring ending is the result; however, this film is dedicated to a real woman, Setara Hussainzada.
Who is she, you may ask? Hussainzada was a female contestant on the real-life show "Afghan Star" and was the first of four to be eliminated. Her final goodbye was inspiring, she danced freely and without her hijab. She recieved death threats and became a social outcast for her scandaless performance. Lema Sahar, a Pashtun woman, was another contestant on the show and was eliminated after Hussainzada.
The film takes a beautiful, empowering moment in Afghanistan current culture and white-washes it to the point where a white, male, American is not only the center of the film, but is responsible for Lubany's characters bold demonstration of feminine strength. It can be argued such changes were made to not only get Murray in a film but also to make it more appealing to American audiences, but this is where the problem resides. This film could have been an American take on the stereotype-breaking event of two empowered Afgah women; in the end, the credit was given to a fictional American man. This could have been a movie to celebrate two women who risked thier lives to express themselves without forcing an American in to help 'liberate'. Hussainzada and Sahar did that themselves, but you wouldn't know that from the film they inspired. How is this a reflection of American bias against Afghan people and culture?
Thank you! I understand exactly what you are speaking to regarding mainstream acceptance; that these women would not be capable of expressing themselves and their freedom if not for the obligatory white male hero. – Venus Echos9 years ago
