III Philosophy
1. Is it morally acceptable to use another artist's work and change the original meaning?
As mentioned above, it is not a question of morality. Another way to look at new scores for silent films: the composer is creating a site-specific work, with perhaps as much specific concern with the site as a dance performance at a Holocaust museum, or seemingly as casual concern as Verdi in Central Park, or as transgressive as punk rock at Carnegie Hall. If I were to score a Nazi film, would it be morally acceptable to NOT to comment on the meaning?
And again, what is the director's original meaning? How do we know?
2. Would the director have appreciated my scores?
I do think of this sometimes.
Eleanor Keaton (Buster's widow) saw SHERLOCK JR and told us that Buster would have loved it. She played the video for all her friends (I heard this from Van Dyke Parks) I take pride in this.
Francis Lederer, Dr Schoen's son in PANDORA, loved our score when he saw it at the Nuart in 1995.
But it doesn't matter. Would Leonardo have enjoyed Duchamp's moustache?
Did Stravinsky appreciate Disney's dinosaurs romping to LE SACRA in FANTASIA? (he didn't)
3. How audiences have changed.
Audiences are always changing. The audience's tastes generally reflect the times, maybe with a little delayed reaction. Look at EASY RIDER a mere 40 years after it was made - a pinch of the eternal mixed in with a document of the zeitgeist.
I postulate that audiences from the 1920's were more sentimental and more earnest than contemporary ones - cinematic expressions that were accepted as sincere then are now viewed from an ironic viewpoint. But again, the earnest expressions of one generation will be interpreted with ironic insight by a later one.
I don't see how a composer could not be blind to this disconnect. But with it comes an opportunity to comment on the changing mores and styles. A composer could decide to write intentionally "old-fashioned" sentimental music (to give the audience a taste of the earnestness of the expression) or go with a more contemporary ironic outlook (which will seem to film purists as "making fun of the movie").
As for myself, this generally happens intuitively.
4. Should every piece of film music mean something?
Generally yes - just as every shot in a great film has a story to tell, every sound has a purpose. But even great films have their narrative flaws, perhaps due to studio mandated cuts, for example the Van Helsing sections of NOSFERATU or the inexplicable swordfighting in METROPOLIS (Moroder version). What's a composer to do?
5. What is unique about the silent film art form.
a. Heightened sense of fantasy - more akin to theater or dream. Sound film tends to be a depiction of reality.
6. Are contemporary scores for silent films a unique art form or a subset of the craft of film scoring?
A unique art form, joining with the silent film image to promote a fantasy. Scoring silent film also has aspects of site-specific art work, commenting on the film itself and the director's intentions. That said, I have always found the scoring of Nino Rota to be remarkably similar to the approaches I take to silent film. That is because Fellini is a director of fantasy, not realism.
I see the development of an narrative art form in which theater, music, and filmmaking contribute equally. I've been calling this genre "Cinema Opera" or in my case "Expressionist Cinema Opera".
7. Future plans for silent films
I'm most interested performing with contemporary silent films, especially in an operatic, theatrical, or live performance context. As hinted in the question above, projected video with singing and instrumental music is a feature of all of my current projects. I'm excited to unveil THE SOUL OF THE ROBOT MARIA.
No comments:
Post a Comment