Interesting reaction to orchestra music in a film at a festival.

I attended a film festival where I live last year and I noticed an interesting reaction from the audience on one of the movies.

The movie had a really big orchestra sounding musical score. Lots of instruments like something John Williams or Danny Elfman would have composed on an epic action adventure movie. I loved it and it was something different cause a lot of indie films do not have near as big of scores to them usually.

It was sort of horror thriller type story, but a lot of the audience did not like the score. They said it was way too overdone for such a low key low budget thriller, to the point where it causes unintentional laughs. I talked it over with them and there is one scene where a gangster criminal type character enters the room, and they really play the orchestra hard to emphasize that danger is coming. It reminded me of when Darth Vader would first enter a room in the Star Wars movies. They said that that works a lot better for Darth Vader, than a regular killer in an indie film though.

I guess I found it refreshingly stylistic, where as the others found it overdone, and not right for a low key thriller. What do you think? Are big orchestral scores not fit for indie movies, and they should stick to low key synthesizer pieces, as usual?

What's the name of the film? It's nice to see creativity and freedom of expression isn't dead. I've been thinking of doing something like that myself but with less instruments. Digitalized music is overdone in our society, people need a change.

Sorry, I can't remember! If I find it again I will let you know.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

About what? Using music that the audience thinks isn't appropriate? Using music that causes an audience to laugh in inappropriate areas? I'm not sure if it's a good choice.

Here you go again: tying to make a rule about what instruments should be (not) used.

It isn't about instruments, it's about atmosphere, tone of voice, emotion and feel.
Does the music fit and enhance the film/scene?

If the huge classical score makes people laugh without having that intension, does it mean it is wrong to ever use a huge classical score?
Or does it mean that that composition with that instruments didn't really fit?
Maybe another composition with the same instruments could have worked. Or not.

There really isn't a rule except: "does it enhance the feel of the scene?"

Or as Ritchie Blackmore allegedly said when Deep Purple started recording their Classic album 'Deep Purple in rock': "If it's not exciting, we shouldn't put it on the record."
In other words: is it effective?

The audience should not even be taking note of the underscore if the film is good at all; that kind of defeats the purpose of it. It should be enhancing and supporting the on screen action and story. If the underscore is drawing them away from the story and they are laughing at it, it ain't working. It has nothing to do with the orchestration used.

H44, you really are talented at creating logical fallacies, which can be quite a useful filmmaking skill to possess. Unfortunately/sadly, you don't create fallacies as a filmmaking tool, as say a character/plot device to fool/manipulate an audience, you create them to try to explain the filmmaking process itself. You do this time and time again, the consequence is that sooner or later you always run into some filmmaking problem caused by the fact that somewhere along the line your understanding is based on a fallacy. This is not an uncommon problem with new/inexperienced filmmakers, filmmaking is a complex business and trying to understand the breadth and depth of it necessitates simplification which commonly results in logical fallacies. Your problem though, is that you do not learn, you fall victim to one of your own logical fallacies and instead of learning the danger of logical fallacies and learning to avoid them, you simply continue to create and rely on them and therefore continue to run into filmmaking difficulties which others find absurd. You need to break this cycle, otherwise you will continue to go round in circles ad infinitum!

This particular case appears to be one of your favourite logical fallacies; a correlation fallacy: X occurs in correlation with Y, therefore X causes Y. In this case, an orchestral score (X) occurred in correlation with the audience laughing when the score (Y) comes in, therefore the use of an orchestral caused the audience laughter. Maybe a couple of different examples of a correlation fallacy will help you to understand: As ice cream sales increase (X), the rate of drowning deaths increases (Y), therefore ice cream consumption causes drowning. Or; Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level (X) and obesity levels (Y) have increased sharply, therefore atmospheric CO2 causes obesity. X and Y are both true and happen in correlation but it's obviously absurd to suggest X causes Y! In all these cases there are further variables involved (which are being ignored) and it's these variables which are causing X, Y and the correlation between them, rather than X causing Y.

In your example, it's like WalterB states; it's the other variables you've ignored, such as the when and how of the composition itself, which is far more likely the culprit than the fact that it's an orchestral score. Furthermore, it's possible (though very unlikely) that your basic premise might be correct, the production value implied by the orchestral score conflicts so severely with the production value of some other filmmaking craft/s, say the acting for example, that it causes unintentional laughter. However, the fact that you might have arrived at correct conclusion based on a logical fallacy is likely to cause issues further down the road, such as subsequent illogical conclusions! For example, even if you are correct, which I very much doubt, what you seem to be saying is that the solution to minimising a huge production value imbalance is to reduce the quality of the craft with the higher production value. This is utterly illogical, unless you are actually trying to make the worst film possible! Logically, don't you need to raise the quality of the poorest/weakest filmmaking craft/s to minimise this imbalance, rather than lowering everything to the weakest/poorest common denominator?

G

Okay thanks. You're right, perhaps I am too black and white about things. One of the reasons I am that way mainly, is because I want to please audiences in order to be a good filmmaking. If the audience says they have a problem with something, than I feel I would like to discuss or debate it, to try to know how to do it to audience expectations. I feel that that the customer is always right, and if the majority of customers complain about something, I feel that perhaps one should not do it.

Even if the problem was not the score exactly and other things like the acting, or the context of the score, than the fact that is orchestral. If that was the problem with the movie, than the audience members should have said it was that, rather than saying that it sounded too 'orchestral' for a low budget movies as someone worded it that way, and the others concurred. But even if the music was out of place in another way, I didn't feel that way at all, myself and felt that perhaps the audience was looking too hard. Or I could just liked the music so much that I felt like it added an extra layer. But yes, I shouldn't be creating fallacy's but at the same time, need to be mindful of the customer being right.

"If people notice your work you haven't done your job right."


Great filmmaking is when everything meshes together, all the audience experiences is the story unfolding before them.
Nothing in the film should pull the audience out of the artificial reality intended by the filmmaker.

harmonica44 said:

But yes, I shouldn't be creating fallacy's but at the same time, need to be mindful of the customer being right.

Click to expand...

This statement is contradictory and absurd. On the one hand you say you are perhaps too black and white and shouldn't be creating fallacies and then in the next breath there you are creating another fallacy and being as black and white as it's possible to be?!!

"The customer is always right" is a rule taught to newbie salespeople but in reality it is a fallacy! The reality is nowhere near as black and white as you are making it out to be. The reality, as any experienced salesperson will tell you, is that the customer is frequently wrong (!) however, a salesperson should generally never this point out or make the customer feel they are wrong, which is why newbies are taught that the customer is always right. In practise, the customer is always right about what they feel but frequently wrong about the underlying cause!

harmonica44 said:

Even if the problem was not the score exactly and other things like the acting, or the context of the score, than the fact that is orchestral. If that was the problem with the movie, than the audience members should have said it was that, rather than saying that it sounded too 'orchestral' for a low budget movies as someone worded it that way, and the others concurred.

Click to expand...

If the audience you spoke with were all world class filmmaking experts maybe you could blindly trust their diagnosis of what caused the problem .... were they all world class filmmaking experts? In other words, you are assuming the audience is always right about everything, which is a fallacy, especially when it comes to film!

As ever, once we get into the guts of one of your "issues" the real truth starts to come out! The real truth is that you are basing this thread and trying to make a filmmaking rule from the words of one member of an audience?! Yes, others concurred with those words but instead of asking yourself why those words were used and why others concurred, you just accept it as the black and white basis for yet another one of your fallacies. Most of what goes into making a film is deliberately hidden from the audience and in addition, most audiences are blissfully ignorant about how films are made, so how can you possibly assume they are capable of accurately diagnosing the problem? The fact they were pulled out of the scene/s is certainly noteworthy and worth investigating but audiences are rarely correct about exactly what pulled them out of a scene, at best they are usually only partly correct and at worst they have absolutely no idea and are just guessing.

In film, as with life in general, almost nothing is black and white, pretty much everything is some shade of grey and therefore any rule or theory you come up with which is based on black and white is virtually guaranteed to be some sort of fallacy. Unless you can find a way to break this tendency of yours, you will still be here in 10 years time, asking the same ridiculous questions, making the same ridiculous assertions and excuses and running into the same problems and issues as you have been for the last couple of years or so!

G

@H44:
yes you think in black and white ALL the time.
And that distorts your view on reality.
Combined with giving incomplete information it makes you almost impossible to communicate clearly and logicly.

In Dutch the saying goes: "The client is king"
The rebel in me adds: 'and some kings need to have their head chopped off.'

And now some smart-ass market-research remark
Did you base your conclusions on a significant part of the target audience?
If not, not only did you draw the wrong conclusion, the input data could have been statisticly wrong.

Weren't you a costumer yourself while watching that movie and didn't you like the score?
According to your fallacy you were right as well.
Think about that.
Opposing opinions that are both true!!!
What a magical world!

Or...
the cosumer isn't always right

Actually, your friends seem to have a tendency to search for problems, you probably often hint at in the first place. (Just like your colorgrade quest: you told them to tell you what was wrong, while not asking the question could have led to a situatuin where they didn't notice anything.)
And then 1 of them says something and the rest just seems to nod.

(At least, that is how it comes across to me.)

I want to please audiences in order to be a good filmmaking.

Click to expand...

If you attempt to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

The problem with this statement, you'll find some twisted way to excuse poor audio, shoddy camera work, slack editing, non-existent lighting, dull acting and so on.

Alcove Audio said:

"If people notice your work you haven't done your job right."

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with this line of thinking when it comes to music. Yes, the music should support the scene, and not draw negative attention to itself. But in the right context, of course the music should be noticed.

As far as the OP, if people are laughing, then the music probably wasn't handled right. But as a general rule I see nothing wrong with a strong orchestral score when the situation calls for it.

Cole McLeod said:

I don't necessarily agree with this line of thinking when it comes to music.

Click to expand...

I agree with you "when it comes to music" but we're not talking about music, we're talking about film.

Cole McLeod said:

But as a general rule I see nothing wrong with a strong orchestral score when the situation calls for it.

Click to expand...

Ah, that's the point though, isn't it? Narrative filmmaking is storytelling, if the audience are thinking about the music rather than about the story then regardless of whether or not it's a "strong" score, it's poor filmmaking! In other words, "the situation" you're talking about is the exception rather than the rule, that's why it's called "incidental music". "As a general rule", what Alcove said was spot on!

G

AudioPostExpert said:

I agree with you "when it comes to music" but we're not talking about music, we're talking about film.



Ah, that's the point though, isn't it? Narrative filmmaking is storytelling, if the audience are thinking about the music rather than about the story then regardless of whether or not it's a "strong" score, it's poor filmmaking! In other words, "the situation" you're talking about is the exception rather than the rule, that's why it's called "incidental music". "As a general rule", what Alcove said was spot on!

G

Click to expand...

I'm talking about film as well. The score can draw attention to itself in a positive way.

For example:
Foreshadowing - In Jaws, you hear the sharks' theme, and you know it's coming, providing a means of foreshadowing and building suspense
Opening Credits - The music is often alone at this point, setting the stage for the tone and general vibe of the film to follow
Get inside a character's' head - By playing a recognized theme, the score can reveal what a character is thinking about or struggling with without them having to vocalize it

I understand that filmmaking is storytelling, and I agree that nothing should distract from the story. But music can be used in ways that enhance the story, in ways the audience notices without it feeling unnatural. So if it fits the story and is handled properly, sure go big with the score.

Cole McLeod said:

I'm talking about film as well. The score can draw attention to itself in a positive way.

For example:
Foreshadowing - In Jaws, you hear the sharks' theme, and you know it's coming, providing a means of foreshadowing and building suspense
Opening Credits - The music is often alone at this point, setting the stage for the tone and general vibe of the film to follow
Get inside a character's' head - By playing a recognized theme, the score can reveal what a character is thinking about or struggling with without them having to vocalize it.

Click to expand...

You seem to be arguing against yourself with these examples: In the example of Jaws, you want the audience to be looking for/expecting the shark, to want to warn the characters of the shark's presence as if they were a participant, you do not want them to be thinking about the music itself, the scoring, orchestration, etc. Likewise with your example about getting inside a character's head which, by definition, means you want the audience to be getting inside the character's head, not thinking about the musical composition. The same is also broadly true of the opening credits, the end credits would have been a better example to support your argument.

G

AudioPostExpert said:

You seem to be arguing against yourself with these examples: In the example of Jaws, you want the audience to be looking for/expecting the shark, to want to warn the characters of the shark's presence as if they were a participant, you do not want them to be thinking about the music itself, the scoring, orchestration, etc. Likewise with your example about getting inside a character's head which, by definition, means you want the audience to be getting inside the character's head, not thinking about the musical composition. The same is also broadly true of the opening credits, the end credits would have been a better example to support your argument.

G

Click to expand...

I guess we're getting confused over semantics. When I say "notice the music", I suppose I'm referring to it in a subconscious sense. Yes, you shouldn't be sitting there distracted from the plot, analyzing the composition (although sometimes I do, haha), but the music should be effecting your experience of the film, not just droning away in the background nondescript. If it makes people laugh during a horror film, then yes, someone messed up. But grandiose music CAN work in a horror film, provided the context and technique are appropriate.

I have a feeling we're actually closer to the same opinion than this conversation makes it seem

Cole McLeod said:

When I say "notice the music", I suppose I'm referring to it in a subconscious sense. Yes, you shouldn't be sitting there distracted from the plot, analyzing the composition (although sometimes I do, haha), but the music should be effecting your experience of the film ...

Click to expand...

I would go a step further; although sometimes one wants the audience to only be aware of the music on a purely subconscious level, a lot of the time one wants the audience to be consciously aware of it ... but even being consciously aware of the music does not mean specifically "noticing" it. Using your example of Jaws again, one wants the audience to be consciously aware that music is present and obviously aware of the emotional/psychological response it's causing (in combination with the other filmmaking crafts) but we don't want the audience being consciously aware of the work that's gone into creating that response! By this I mean we don't want the audience to be aware of; the specifics of the composition or mix, any of the "how or why" the music has been designed/used to create the desired response or even qualitatively judging the music. Note that Alcove did not state that people should not notice your music, he stated they should not notice your work! The goal is to have the audience experience the film, not analysing/judging/noticing the actual filmmaking itself.

Cole McLeod said:

I have a feeling we're actually closer to the same opinion than this conversation makes it seem

Click to expand...

If this is true then it contradicts your first statement, that you don't necessarily agree with Alcove's statement.

G

It's a very good point. However, since the festival was filled with fellow filmmakers and people in the business or trying to break in, could it be that they were analyzing the technical aspects a lot closer, than the average moviegoer would? Perhaps, they were looking hard for problems or what they would do differently?

AudioPostExpert said:

I would go a step further; although sometimes one wants the audience to only be aware of the music on a purely subconscious level, a lot of the time one wants the audience to be consciously aware of it ... but even being consciously aware of the music does not mean specifically "noticing" it. Using your example of Jaws again, one wants the audience to be consciously aware that music is present and obviously aware of the emotional/psychological response it's causing (in combination with the other filmmaking crafts) but we don't want the audience being consciously aware of the work that's gone into creating that response! By this I mean we don't want the audience to be aware of; the specifics of the composition or mix, any of the "how or why" the music has been designed/used to create the desired response or even qualitatively judging the music. Note that Alcove did not state that people should not notice your music, he stated they should not notice your work! The goal is to have the audience experience the film, not analysing/judging/noticing the actual filmmaking itself.



If this is true then it contradicts your first statement, that you don't necessarily agree with Alcove's statement.

G

Click to expand...

I suppose it does, and looking back my objection was incorrect. I interpreted his statement as support for anonymous, unnoticeable music in movies.

There seems to be a growing movement in Hollywood of film scores that are devoid of thematic writing, completely restrained emotionally. Something like Gone Girl, which amounts to 2 hours of brooding electronics, with no real feeling or purpose. These kind of scores disappoint me, and I hope they don't continue to grow in popularity.

Everything you said in this post however, I agree with. Notice the music, but not the "work".