Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ARTICLE
I Preamble
The present time sees a reassessment of the lineage of
music for motion pictures, paralleled by a reevaluation
of its cultural or social significance and of adequate
methods for its analysis.
The classic narrative of the history of film music
has been of a genre aspiring to the status of an art,
and generally being seen as falling short.1 There has
also been a more specific connection made to opera.2
In the reassessment currently under way, two elements
have been identified as neglectedindeed, some might
say, marginalizeduntil recently: theatrical music,
1 Consider, for example, the title of Prendergasts 1977 book, A Neglected Art.
2 A connection which persistssee Joe and Theresa 2002.
Copyright the International Film Music Society, published by Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013, Unit S3, Kelham House, 3 Lancaster Street, Sheffield, S3 8AF.
IV
So in which specific cases, and how, might priority be
established? One aspect to bear in mind is that our
purview takes in different generations of film music
and film composer, each with differing priorities and
limitations. As a minimum, we might separate silent
cinema and sound cinema; perhaps the prehistory
of cinema should be added (Mlis, the Edison
films, Porter) and the brief transitional period of the
early talkiesto add categories within the assumed
subcategory, a model of reframing or refocusing akin
to Deleuze and Guattaris substitution of the various
machines for the presumed unified subject.16 At a later
stage, it can be broken down further by asking whether
there is potential value in considering individual
practitioners priorities and limitations.
The advantages of library music for the silent
cinema are clear: while a pianist could watch the
screen and improvise, the composition of live
ensembles in different movie houses was variable,
limiting the scope of a specially composed score,
and so music had to be chosen to suit each film.
Sound film, by contrast, embodied the move from
the individual player or players and their more or less
improvised live accompaniment to multiple analogs of
15 Runciman 1983, 1989, and 1997. This is not to proffer the assumption that
Runcimans work is authoritative or conclusive in any respect, nor, perhaps,
without (as is often the case) its own political program; but it opens up some
directions which avoid the univocal explanatory model under discussion
here, and is unusual in recent decades simply by virtue of broaching broader
questions of social theory on the large scale. With respect to film studies,
Nol Carrolls advocacy of piecemeal theorizing (Carroll 1996: 58; see
p. 2) has some similarities to the idea of multiple influences rather than
monolithic determinations; Carroll is writing against what he understandably
capitalizes as Theory, meaning the sweeping brushstrokes of Althusser,
Lacan, and Barthes and those who have applied their ideas to film. For
Carroll, piecemeal theorizingmeans breaking down some of the presiding
questions of the Theory into more manageable questions (p. 58). This
approach to film studies and the approach to social theory proposed here
share a common pragmatic wish to focus on useful, answerable, questions.
The polemic against what the present author has elsewhere termed creative
misunderstanding (of, in this case, the Continental theorists) underlines
the dangers of importing specialist concepts and terminology into another
discipline, and thereby reinforces what usefully might be a new golden rule
for intellectuals: dont dabble.
16 Deleuze and Guattari 1984: 1, 36, 284-85.
V Phenomenological Perspective
In turn, might it be important to examine what the
composers thought they were doing, their own statements
and views? Which composers saw themselves as
continuing a tradition emerging from art music? Or as
jobbing tunesmiths? This opens up questions which
would require considerably more than another paper
for effective consideration. Is it defensible to accept
the subjects own categories and work within them,
or is it more useful to apply the general categories
of the discipline? When is it appropriate to place the
researchers interpretation above the subjects own
statements? Whatever the answers, it still will be
necessary to choose a position between an objective
and a subjective methodology and to follow through
the consequences of that position.
The latter has a longer history, but the former
has been fruitfully developed over the last century
in developments of phenomenological method in
philosophy, psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, and
sociology. The broader issue at stake in this part of
the argument is the old methodological chestnut: how
can the object of study be comprehended, rather than
simply confirming existing patterns and expectations?
A related problem is carry-over or lagthe
tendency, well explored in the sociology of science,
to give undue weight to preexisting methodologies
and conceptual connections, at the risk of overlooking
what is unique, and at the expense of generating
a methodology better suited to the new subject.
Historical and structural connections often tempt
writers into reductive thinking.
One of the regularities of the social construction
of the discourse of a given field is that the range
of examples (the musical repertoire or corpus, for
example) on which the argument is based is much
narrower than one might expect, making it what
might be dubbed a covert synecdoche. For example,
what little work has until recently been carried out
in relation to cinematic performance seems to lead
inexorably to Charlie Chaplin,18 without any explicit
evaluation of whether studying one actor (Chaplin)
within one point in the history of cinema (silent
cinema) can give general lessons.
References
Baron, Cynthia and Sharon Marie Carnicke. 2008. Reframing screen performance. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Berger, John. 1972. Ways of seeing. London: B.B.C./Penguin.
British Broadcasting Corporation. 1931. B.B.C. Year Book of 1931. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.
Carnap, Rudolf. 1932. The elimination of metaphysics through logical analysis of language, Erkenntnis 2;
reprinted in Logical positivism, ed. A. J. Ayer, 60-81. New York: Free Press, 1959.
Carroll, Nol. 1996. Prospects for film theory: a personal assessment. In Post-theory: reconstructing film
studies, David Bordwell and Nol Carroll, 37-70. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Chion, Michel. 1999. The voice in cinema. Trans. Claudia Gorbman. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles and Flix Guattari. 1984. Anti-Oedipus. Trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R.
Lane. London: Athlone Press.
Eisenstein, Sergei. 1977. Film form. San Diego: Harvest.
Flaubert, Gustave. 1950. Madame Bovary. Trans. Alan Russell. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Frazer John. 1979. Artifically arranged scenes: the films of Georges Mlis. Boston: G. H. Hall.
Hubbert, Julie, ed. 2011. Celluloid symphonies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Joe, Jeongwon and Rose Theresa, eds. 2002. Between opera and cinema. London: Routledge.
Krows, Arthur Edwin. 1930. The talkies. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Kunzle, David. 1973. The early comic strip: narrative strips and picture stories in the European broadsheet from c.1450
to 1825. Berkeley: University of California Press.
. 1990. The history of the comic strip, vol. 2: The nineteenth century. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
. 2007. Father of the comic strip: Rodolphe Tpffer. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Lacassin Francis. 1971. Pour un neuvime art: la bande dessine. Paris: Christian Bourgois.
. 1972. Pour une contre-histoire du cinma. Paris: 10/18.
Naremore James. 1988. Acting in the cinema. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Prendergast Roy M. 1977. A neglected art. New York: New York University Press.
Runciman W. G. 1983, 1989, 1997. A treatise on social theory, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanderson, Richard. 1977. A historical study of the development of American motion picture content and techniques
prior to 1904. New York: Arno Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.