Professional Documents
Culture Documents
guido heldt
Theory Tangles
‘Film-Music Theory’ is the obvious title for this chapter, but it may also
mislead. Its simplicity suggests that there is something we can call ‘film-
music theory’, an established body of thought a survey can chart. But
arguably there is not, and the first thing to do is to identify some of the
blank areas on the map of film-music theory, and some of the obstacles that
stand in the way of colouring them in.
The least problematic word in the title is ‘music’, but it, too, hides
questions, gaps and blind spots. Can film-music theory limit itself to
music, or is music so closely interwoven with other film sound that they
are one object for theory? Michel Chion criticized the idea with the
formula ‘there is no soundtrack’: that just because music, speech and noises
are all types of sound does not mean that they have to form a coherent
whole (1994, 39–40; 2009 [2003], 226–30). On the other hand, Chion has
done more than most to think about film sound and music within the same
theoretical horizon – a characteristic approach from the perspective of film
studies, which tends to see music as a subcategory of film sound. It is a valid
hierarchy, but it can obscure the specifics of music in film. Musicologists,
on the other hand, tend to treat music as a thing unto itself, though one at
times linked to other film sound. A minor question about the relationship
of music and sound in film is whether we always know which is which; an
example such as Peter Strickland’s Katalin Varga (2009), with its tightrope
walk between musique concrète and sound design, shows how that ambi-
guity can become creatively fertile (see Kulezic-Wilson 2011 and J. Martin
2015). Uncertainty regarding the sound–music relationship affects this
chapter too; depending on the context, it sometimes considers both and
sometimes focuses on music.
Some kinds of music in film have been more thoroughly theorized than
others: the scarcity of systematic discussion of pre-existing music in film is
the most obvious example. The most comprehensive study is by Jonathan
Godsall (2013); there is work on ‘classical’ music in film (for example,
Keuchel 2000 and Duncan 2003), and on directors known for their use of
pre-existing music, such as Stanley Kubrick, Jean-Luc Godard and Martin
[97] Scorsese (see Gorbman 2007; Gengaro 2012; McQuiston 2013; Stenzl 2010;
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
98 Guido Heldt
Heldt et al. 2015). Another gap opens up if we change perspective and look
at music not as a functional element of film. While it undoubtedly is that,
a focus on function overlooks the fact that film has also been a major stage
for the composition, recycling, performance, contextualization and ideo-
logical construction of music. It would be a task not for film musicologists,
but for music historians to give film music a place in the story of music in
the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
The word ‘film’ is more of a problem. In the rapid expansion of screen-
media musicology over the last generation, from the fringes of musicology
and film studies to a well-established field with its own journals, book
series, conferences, programmes of study, etc., music in the cinema has
become an almost old-fashioned topic, at least from the vantage point of
those working on music in television, in video games, on the internet, in
audiovisual art and so on. (See Richardson et al. 2013 for a survey.) Yet
even if this were an old-fashioned Companion to Film Music, it would still
need to consider the problem: what we mean by ‘film’ is becoming fuzzy,
and what film musicology has considered in depth or detail is less than
what one can now categorize as film. Most of us have an ostensive idea of
a ‘film’ – a narrative feature film, around two hours long, shown in
a cinema – and most film musicology deals with such films. Yet films
have had a second home on television since the 1950s; most of us have seen
more movies on the box via direct broadcasts or video than in the cinema.
The involvement of television broadcasters in film production means that
this is not just a secondary use, but is built into the economic foundations
of filmmaking. And what about music in TV films – is it within the remit of
film musicology or that of the emerging field of television-music studies?
And where in the disciplinary matrix are we when we flip through the TV
channels and stumble upon the movie Star Trek (2009) and then upon an
episode of the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987–94)?
Multimedia franchises are yet another solvent eating away at ‘film’; in such
a world, the idea of film musicology as a separate field may have had its day.
Moreover, with the digital shift in filmmaking and exhibition, the very
term ‘film’ has become anachronistic. (‘Movie’ has always been more
telling, and it may be only linguistic pusillanimity that has kept it from
becoming academically common.) Digital technology drags film out of its
former home in the cinema and transforms it into a dataset fit for an
increasingly diverse multi-platform media world.
On the other side of the methodological problem, much of what we can
see and hear in the cinema has been largely ignored by film musicology:
short films, abstract and other experimental films, documentaries, adverts,
trailers and so on. There is literature on cartoons (see, for example,
Goldmark 2001 and 2005; Goldmark and Taylor 2002; Jaszoltowski
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
99 Film-Music Theory
2013), but other forms have languished in the shadows. Music in advertis-
ing has been studied more from the perspective of television – under-
standable given its role in the economy of the medium (see Rodman 2010,
77–101 and 201–24; B. Klein 2010) – though most insights translate to
cinema adverts; music in documentaries has only produced a smattering of
studies (Rogers 2015 is the most substantial, though ‘rockumentaries’ and
other music documentaries have found interest: see T. Cohen 2009; Baker
2011; Wulff et al. 2010–11); and music in film trailers and in other filmic
paratexts, such as main-title and end-credit sequences, is only just emer-
ging as a field of study (see Powrie and Heldt 2014 for a summary and
bibliography). And then there is ‘theory’, where things get more tangled.
In the sciences, ‘theory’ is a relatively straightforward concept: a model of
part of the world that allows us to make predictions that can be empirically
tested, and where experimental falsification allows theories to be improved
to become better models. This summary glosses over complications in the
reality of theory formation and testing, but may help to throw art theories
into relief. Art theories, too, model aspects of the world in order to explain
how they ‘work’. But while the sciences have an established ‘scientific
process’, a particular nexus of theory, empirical testing and reality (how-
ever idealized), that relationship is looser in the arts, where the career of
theories rests on a less tidy set of circumstances: on their inherent plausi-
bility; on their fit with other theories; on their analytical power; on their
originality or their capacity to generate original interpretations; on trends
and fashions in a discipline and in the wider academic landscape (espe-
cially for small disciplines such as film studies or musicology, which
historically have depended heavily on ideas from elsewhere); and on
political, ethical and aesthetic stances that introduce a prescriptive element
to some theories that has no equivalent in the sciences.
Closest to the scientific model is the cognitive psychology of the effects
of film music. (For summaries of research, see Bullerjahn 2014 and
Annabel J. Cohen 2010 and 2014.) Music theory is another tributary,
informing how musicologists analyse the structures of music in films:
harmonic structures from local chord progressions to film-spanning fra-
meworks; metric, rhythmic and phrase structures that may affect how
music relates to on-screen movement or editing; or motivic and thematic
relationships. All of this is the small change of music analysis and usually
goes without saying; only recently has music theory approached film
musicology with more complex instruments (see Lehman 2012, 2013a
and 2013b; and Murphy 2006, 2012, 2014a and 2014b). A different appro-
priation of music theory – on the general level of music as an abstract
system – is music as a metaphor for formal aspects of film, in a move away
from understanding film as recording or representation of reality (see
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
100 Guido Heldt
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
101 Film-Music Theory
Theories in History
The challenge for film-music theory has been exacerbated by the unstable
currents of artistic and academic developments. Film is only 120 years old,
and sound film (as a commercially viable mass medium) less than 90, and
beyond the aesthetic change that is a constant in the history of any art,
revolutions in technology and media mean that film has been a moving
target for theory. Film studies as an academic concern is only two genera-
tions old and has imported many ideas (and scholars) from other disci-
plines. That influx may have been stimulating, but there has been scant
time for a disciplinary identity to emerge, much less so for a peripheral
topic such as music. And while there have been major studies of film music
since Kurt London’s in 1936, for decades these were few and far between;
only since the 1980s has development picked up and formed a new sub-
discipline (though whether one subordinate to film studies or to musicol-
ogy is not clear). That the birth of modern film musicology is often
identified with the special issue ‘Film/Sound’ of Yale French Studies
(Altman 1980) proves the point of the heterogeneous disciplinary history
that makes film-music theory precarious; that the title of the special issue
omits music – though five of its articles are about it – shows its peripheral
place in film studies at the time (and to this day).
This chapter can only offer a whistle-stop tour of some milestones in
the uncertain unfolding of film-music theory and try to trace how ques-
tions and ideas are threaded through the history of such theory. This
neither amounts to a history nor a metatheory of film-music theory;
given the sketchy nature of the matter, the chapter cannot be but
a sketch itself.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
102 Guido Heldt
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
103 Film-Music Theory
translation). While the reasons for music’s integral role in film were
historical rather than aesthetic – music was common in other forms of
dramatic storytelling, and it was part of the performance contexts in which
film first appeared – it was still tempting to justify it by looking for
a common denominator of film and music. Carl Van Vechten, for exam-
ple, in 1916 found it in comparing the wordless action of film to ballet: ‘and
whoever heard of a ballet performed without music?’ (2012 [1916], 20);
and the idea of movement linking images and music is still used by Zofia
Lissa (1965, 72–7). The flipside of Erdmann, Becce and Brav’s critique is
their call for coherence: ‘incidental music’ (that is, music as diegetic prop)
should be historically credible, and ‘expressive music’ should not ‘chase
after film scenes like a poodle’, but shape the emotional trajectory of the
film (1927, 46); music is understood to possess its own formal and stylistic
integrity that combines with the images to form the film. (For background
to the Handbuch, see Comisso 2012 and Fuchs 2014.) The ‘style-less
potpourris’ were still an issue when Rudolf Arnheim, writing in 1932,
bemoaned that music chasing after film scenes coarsened their effect
because it had not been part of the balancing of continuity and contrast
at their conception (2002 [1932], 253–4).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
104 Guido Heldt
music apart from ‘the film’ and categorized both as complementary ‘sym-
bol systems’ [1996, 141].)
For film theorists, the transition to sound sharpened the question of
what film was good for – a question not so much about film’s ontology as
one about its aesthetic potential. The technical recording process
involved in most cinematic images (and sounds) made it tempting to
ascribe to film a unique capacity for capturing reality – the view of mid-
century theorists such as André Bazin, for whom ‘the guiding myth’ of
cinema is ‘an integral realism, a recreation of the world in its own image,
an image unburdened by the freedom of interpretation of the artist’ (2005
[1967], 21), or Siegfried Kracauer, who distinguished between ‘basic and
technical properties of film’ and saw as its basic property that film is
‘uniquely equipped to record and reveal physical reality’, while of the
technical properties ‘the most general and indispensable is editing’ (1961,
28–9).
For Bazin, sound film ‘made a reality out of the original “myth”’,
and it seemed ‘absurd to take the silent film as a state of primal
perfection which has gradually been forsaken by the realism of sound
and color’ (2005 [1967], 21). But for theorists who had grown up with
silent film, its relative lack of realism focused attention on ‘the freedom
of interpretation of the artist’ enabled by the ‘technical properties’ of
film – an achievement threatened by the illusion of realism which
synchronous sound made that bit more insidiously perfect. And so
Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin and Grigori Alexandrov feared
that the realism of sound film might lead to sterile ‘“highly cultured
dramas” and other photographed performances of a theatrical sort’ that
would damage the aesthetic of montage which early Soviet films had
developed, because ‘every adhesion of sound to a visual montage piece
increases its inertia as a montage piece, and increases the independence
of its meaning’; they called instead for an ‘orchestral counterpoint of
visual and aural images’ (Eisenstein et al. 1928, 84); Arnheim warned
that sound film was inimical to the work of ‘film artists . . . working out
an explicit and pure style of silent film, using its restrictions to trans-
form the peep show into art’ (1957, 154); and Béla Balázs wrote that
sound film was still a ‘technique’ that had not ‘evolved into an art’
(1970 [1952], 194–5). Such scepticism was justified by film’s rapid
move towards using speech and noises primarily in a ‘realistic’ manner
(though exceptions such as René Clair’s films in the early 1930s show
that creative solutions were possible, as did cartoons, which were freed
from some of the expectations of realism).
One consequence of the shock of synchronized sound was to make
theorists map how such sound could relate to images. There were two
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
105 Film-Music Theory
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
106 Guido Heldt
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
107 Film-Music Theory
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
108 Guido Heldt
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
109 Film-Music Theory
the layers of sound film’ (ibid., 27, 65). Through historical convention,
music has become integral to film because it adds a dimension: unlike most
elements of a film, music does not represent a (fictional) reality, but is
a reality in its own right (though this does not apply to diegetic music,
which is representational), and while the images ‘concretise . . . the musical
structures’, linking them to specific meanings, they in turn ‘generalise the
meaning of the images’ (ibid., 70). The dialectics smack of an attempt to
justify music in film via an unnecessary reductive principle (there are
enough films without music that work perfectly well, after all), but the
idea of music as integral to a new multimedia art informs analyses of the
functions of film music, of the role of form and style, of music in different
genres and of its psychology that for the time were matchlessly detailed and
differentiated. One idiosyncrasy of the book – at least for readers in
Western countries – is that many examples are from films made in the
Eastern bloc (though for the German version references to Western films
were added; ibid., 6). Despite that, it is a loss that the book has never been
translated into English; though its interest today may be mainly historical,
for that reason alone a translation would still be worthwhile.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
110 Guido Heldt
to overcome the ontological gulf between the viewer and the story on
the screen, and that it has developed ways to suture that gap, to stitch
the viewer into involvement with the narrative (1987, 53–69). Visual
strategies were crucial to suture theory, for example shot‒countershot
sequences. Music offered another thread for the stitching of ‘shot to
shot, narrative event to meaning, spectator to narrative, spectator to
audience’ (ibid., 55), the more so since most viewers lack the concepts
to assess critically the effects of musical techniques.
Suture is just one concept from what Bordwell ironically characterized
as Grand Theory (1996): the confluence of ideas from (mainly Lacanian)
psychoanalysis, (post)structuralist literary theory and (post)Marxist
sociology that became a major strand of film theory in the 1970s (from
hereon written ‘Theory’ to distinguish this complex of ideas from the
generic term). Different strands of Theory try to show how cinema – as
an institution, as a technology, as a (prefabricated) experience, as
a narrative medium – and the structuring and editing techniques of film
create illusions: of realism, of continuity and coherence, of meaning, of
authority, of subject identity and connection, illusions reducing the viewer
to a cog in an ideological machine. Despite the tempting capacity of music
to help bring about the quasi-dream state cinema engenders (Baudry
1976), music has not played a significant role in Theory, nor the latter in
film musicology. (Jeff Smith [1996] criticizes the idea of ‘unheard melodies’
with regard to Gorbman 1987 and Flinn 1992; Buhler 2014b discusses
psychoanalytically grounded theories mainly with regard to film sound
overall, with few references specifically to music.) One reason may be that
film musicology discovered Theory when its heyday was coming to an end;
another reason may be that musicology does not have a tradition of the
ideas that informed Theory (and much film musicology was done by
musicologists). The cachet of Theory has waned, together with psycho-
analysis as a psychological theory, and with the socio-political ideas that
had entered cultural theory with the Frankfurt School of social philoso-
phers, Adorno in particular. Even if ‘critical theory generally understands
psychoanalysis not as providing a true account of innate psychological
forces . . . but rather as providing an accurate model for how culture
shapes, channels and deforms those psychological forces’ (Buhler 2014b,
383), the latter is not independent of the former, and Theory as a social
theory is no less problematic than as a psychological one. But ideas about
cinema as a dream-machine, and about sound and of music in it, may be
partly recoverable in other theoretical frameworks, even if their original
foundations have become weakened.
More durable may be the semiotic and narratological perspectives in
Gorbman’s book. Semiotic functions of film music had long been a strand
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
111 Film-Music Theory
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
112 Guido Heldt
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007
113 Film-Music Theory
Synthesis or Pluralism?
Trying to pinpoint the state of film-music theory is like taking a snapshot
of an explosion. Film musicology has expanded so rapidly over the last
generation – and is continuing to do so, and is already being subsumed
into the wider field of screen-media musicology – that any summary will be
outdated before it has been printed. Plus ça change . . . Writing in 1971,
Christian Metz saw a ‘provisional but necessary pluralism’ in film studies,
but hoped for a future time when the ‘diverse methods may be
reconciled . . . and film theory would be a real synthesis’ (1971, 13–14;
my translation). Not only has this synthesis yet to happen, it has not even
come any closer, and the provisional pluralism seems to be here to stay.
Perhaps we should simply enjoy the ride rather than worry too much about
mapping its course.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Royal Holloway, University of London, on 30 Apr 2018 at 22:13:48, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316146781.007