I was watching Hitchcock’s Vertigo this evening, and I realized the score did nothing for me. It was just a gross cue, like big red superimposed letters saying “TENSE MOMENT HERE!!!” or “BRIEF LULL IN THE ACTION” or "LEISURELY DRIVE THROUGH SAN FRANCISCO’ or other such, instructing me what my emotional response was to be at various points in the film.
Not only in this film, but in many other films I find the score intrusive and unnecessary. I’ve been aware of other films’ score and the vast majority of the time I would prefer to have no music at all. For me, it adds nothing to the visual experience. If anything it detracts. “Wait, where did that orchestra come from?” sort of thing.
Yes, mostly.
But there are exceptions… Perhaps for another thread? The original ‘Italian Job’? Spaghetti Westerns?
However, what really irks me is the music on the wonderful BBC nature and wildlife programmes (sorry) presented by David Attenborough. Wonderful visuals and explanation, with ‘Mickey Mouse’ music.
I am not a fan of the “score” in most films. It’s not really music to my ears, just nondescript melodies & notes that act as needless filler and detract from the film. And it’s often way too loud & compressed. I have to “fight through” the horrible score in order to see and hear the film.
A few years ago I watch a film with no musical score whatsoever. It was such a pleasant experience. You could actually hear the dialog, and subtle outdoor sounds like wind rustling the trees.
On the very rare occasion I genuinely enjoy the music in a film. Films such as Suspiria, Liquid Sky, and A Clockwork Orange come to mind. And I love the stuff Ennio Morricone came up with.
I have to disagree. There are movies that , I agree, are better without music (there’s virtually no music in Tod Browning’s 1931 Dracula, for instance, aside from the opening credits and the music you hear in the theater – which isn’t really a score). But I think that John Williams’ scores add immeasurably to the movies he’s worked on. Ditto for Edward Herrmann, James Horner, Max Steiner, Dimitri Tiomkin, and a host of others.
Herrmann is a good case in point, since the OP specifically says it doesn’t like his score for Vertigo. Not one of my favorites, I admit, but I would grieve to lose his scores for Hitchcock’s North by Northwest or The Man Who Knew Too Much or (arguably his most famous) Psycho. Not to mention his scores for the Harryhausen films Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, Jason and the Argonauts, *Mysterious Island", and others.
I particularly like his “quiet” or “contemplative” music in all of these2, which sets a mood whiule nothing is going on. You may dislike the “prompting” the score gives, but I think most of the films listed would be much less enjoyable without the musical backing. The filmmakers don’t resent the scoring. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg plan for an accompanying score, and have praised Williams’ contributions.
There are some score-heavy older films that haven’t aged very well. For instance, having silly music during comedy scenes as an indicator to “BEGIN LAUGHING NOW”. But I don’t think I would prefer to have no score at all in every movie; I think it can serve a point in adding tension (e.g.).
I like the steel drum score in “Commando” that really adds a ticking clock feeling to what would otherwise be just a random collection of fight scenes.
Only in Christoper Nolan films. For some unknown reason he prefers the music to completely obscure the dialogue. Edited to add: For some films, like “Sinister”, I like how you can’t tell where the music stops and the sound effects start, perfectly blended.
Mary Poppins without movie music would be much sadder!
Many, many years ago I had Star Wars with multiple tracks, which was being used as source material for the “de-specialized editions,” and having thought the same thing as the OP when I was a kid, I tried watching it without the soundtrack. It was boring, and provoked very little emotion. I felt like I was watching the movie being filmed rather than the movie.
Which, of course, leads me to point out, it must be terribly hard to direct a film without some type of internal soundtrack, because half of the emotion is missing.
Ironically, I don’t really dig music on its own. It’s just not important to me. I mean, I’ll listen if it’s there, and I have preferences, but it’s not something that I ever seek out or have any strong feelings about. Kind of like poetry.
I have a deep appreciation for movie scores, as they have the potential to greatly enhance the atmosphere and overall enjoyment of a film, provided there is a skilled composer and a well-crafted movie to complement it. At times, a film’s score can contribute immeasurably to its emotional impact, leaving an indelible mark on the viewer. Movies like “The Exorcist,” “Star Wars,” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” immediately come to mind in this regard.
More recently, I was truly captivated by the music score of the series “Succession,” which was composed and orchestrated by the exceptionally talented Nicholas Britell. His fusion of haunting classical melodies with elements of hip-hop was nothing short of remarkable. The classical segments, reminiscent of Chopin nocturnes, in particular, stood out to me. They not only set a profound tone but also elevated the show’s overall quality from an 8 to a perfect 10 out of 10 in my book.
However, I do have one minor reservation. It would be greatly appreciated if they could adjust the volume of the music during dialogues or perhaps consider turning it off altogether on occasion. The combination of a robust score and the sometimes inaudible speech of modern actors can be a challenge, requiring me to resort to closed captioning. Although it’s a minor concession, I would prefer a slight departure from realism in favor of more articulate enunciation from the actors, as it would greatly enhance the overall viewing experience while preserving the integrity of the visuals.
I may not like the music in a movie. The music may be too loud but I don’t go out to a theater that often so it’s easy to turn down the sound on the TV. Why on earth would I resent the music? I saw Don’t Worry Darling the other day and I could reasonably resent a movie that spends 2 hours on a premise followed by nothing, but I didn’t, I simply regretted wasting my time on it.
Well, in the case of Vertigo and me, I’m asking the screen, “Do you really suppose I need that awful intrusive music right there to tell me this is a tense moment? Could you maybe tone it down a bit? If I’m not already on the edge of my seat, anticipating what will happen to Jimmy Stewart now, why would you think the music will get me there? I’ll either appreciate the acting, the story, the camera movements, and so on, or I won’t, but I do not need schlocky music playing loudly to heighten my emotional response.”
Stanley Kubrick apparently used classical music as a “stand in” for the score that would later be written by Alex North, who had scored Kubrick’s movie Spartacus. Kubrick eventually decided that he liked the classical music better, and ended up using his provisional score, to historic effect.
I’m probably prejudiced by having seen the film so many times with that classical score, but I have to admit that, having heard North’s score, I think Kubrick made the right decision. The classical music works so much better, especially The Blue Danube for the space flight scenes, and most especially the opening from Strauss’ Also Sprach Zarathustra, a piece I’ll bet no one today would be familiar with otherwise.
As someone who composes music, I rather enjoy film scores when they are done well. I can’t imagine seeing classic films like Shawshank Redemption, Indiana Jones, On Golden Pond, The Godfather, etc, without the music. I don’t think those scores detract from the films at all.
Having said that, I’m not much of a fan of the scoring that has been done in the last 10-20 years. But that’s because I think it is a dying art and that newer composers don’t measure up to their predecessors. Then again, there are only a few movies made in the last two decades that I thought stood up as movies, let alone their score.
The idea of resenting music in any form baffles me though, sort of like when I hear someone say that they don’t like music in general. To me, this is a recent phenomenon and shows a lack of music appreciation in general. If I go back 20 years or so, I don’t ever remember hearing anyone say that they disliked music. Maybe there were styles that they didn’t like, but music in general? No, that’s new to me. I think past generations had the benefit of some sort of music appreciation in schools, but we killed most of that, as well as art appreciation. As a result, most modern music is far more simple than the music of the past. That’s probably why it doesn’t move people to the extent that older music does, and becomes more background noise than anything.
I have to be up front and say that I’m not a very musical person to start with. I don’t know if I can appreciate how someone with a better musical sense would react to a poorly scored movie. Doesn’t make that much difference to me, but other flaws in movies certainly can bother me so I can understand that the music might make you feel that way.
Movie music, music cues, can considered to be a trope I suppose. An art form that, overused, used to be clued into the contemporary viewer, but becomes overused and is more selfconscious than illuminating.
Vertigo’s ending for example. The nun startles Kim Novak, she falls, like a psychopath the nun’s reaction is to go ring the bell, The End card, music coda, movie is over.
There’s nothing wrong with this format, it’s a movie, a novel is a novel, they are artificial constructs. Just like editing in a movie, dissolves, establishing shots, crane shots, these are all movie devices and not real. Over time I think that this way of ending movies, someone dies or a clever last line, cueThe End and music coda, became too tropish and it was better received when movies ended a different way.
So it’s certainly possible that some viewers are no longer receptive to music cues or background music as a part of a movie. It’s interesting that some of the really early sound movies have very little if any background music.
In a recent thread about Conan, many posters raved over the soundtrack. I didn’t even notice it other than as generic background music.
Also recently, I found the background music to Oppenheimer overly loud, it added nothing, and it detracted by making the dialogue difficult to hear.
Every once in a while I’ll notice that a film has little or no background music. When I do notice that, I generally welcome the absence.
My kids put in a great deal of time in concert bands. They played A LOT of “program music” - which usually bored my wife and me to tears.
Once in a while it will really get me engaged, like when some cool aggressive tune starts when the action is heating up. But more often, it seems manipulative, and almost a crutch. I don’t need to be constantly told, “Cry/cheer/fear here!”
I don’t know that I “resent” it, but I’d be happy for it to be less prominent.
I generally dislike scores in movies unless they are used sparingly, perhaps for scene changes (IMO that’s generally how music is used in 2001, for example) and not to enhance the action. I personally find that music is usually used so often and so loudly that the lack of music is more emphatic.
Awesome examples of the lack of music being really effective are the hatch-blowing /emergency airlock scene in 2001, and the D-Day scene in Private Ryan. I can easily picture how awful and cheesey those scenes would have been like if made by someone else.
I feel the opposite: I love movie music, when done well. But I’m a huge music lover. Most times, I’d rather listen to music than watch a movie or TV show.
