# Are movies changing? Why?



## Musicologo (Nov 29, 2014)

Spin-off of "where has the melody gone?" discussion to a particular direction:



> I did an interview years ago with Graeme Revell. In it he told a story about meeting a "veteran" famous composer at an industry event who asked him if he lamented not being able to write long expressive melodies in a film anymore. Graeme's response was that the film's themselves had changed, not the music. The way they are edited now, with constant relentless edits, leaves little room for melodic development.
> 
> When I watch an older film like Star Wars or Raiders now with my kids, they can't sit still. The pacing and editing speed of those films are glacial in comparison to the modern movies they are used to watching.




1. So, are movies changing? Why? 
Is it because *technology* has disrupted the newer generation perceptions and changing the way brains are wired? People have no more power to focus, attention and patience for contemplation, everyone needs "fast pace", "instant gratification" and "constant flows of information" or enters immediatly in a worrisome state of boredoom?

2. If movies are indeed changing are they having a direct consequence on the way music is composed? Are *the vanishing melodies of the west* a consequence of the way things are changing due to technology?

3. What new compositional values are emerging out of this? Why the melodies vanish and instead the pulsating rhythms, the_ drone_ and the plethora of timbral varieties increase? What does this _means_?

Have fun!...


----------



## JohnG (Nov 29, 2014)

Not long ago, the major US studios got 70-80% of their box office from North America, the "rest of world" was, therefore, not as high a priority.

That has completely reversed. As a result, action and pace, which don't need to be translated, work better than intricate dialogue or even intricate plots.

I couldn't say whether this fact has changed movie making more than the predilections of the Internet generation(s) for multi-tasking and a horror of being bored for one second. No doubt both have an impact.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 29, 2014)

My son loves older movies. Raiders was his favorite for a long time so I don't know what Graham is talking about.

We saw the original Jurassic Park in the theaters when it was re-released. It was awesome. Totally held up even after 20 years. At no point did I think "wow, that's dated". Quite the reverse actually, it looked better than most of the stuff coming out today

If movies have changed it's only due to the fact that there are more accountants and business people making creative decisions. They're really terrible at making movies but surprisingly they've proved very adept at giving the market something they will buy. And as John says the market is at least 70% foreign market driven these days. The last truly American market is on TV.

Chris Nolan I feel is a very traditional type filmmaker. Kind of doing hip modern films with older techniques.

I think it all depends on the filmmaker. How powerful he his and how much he's willing to keep the financial interest at bay to express his own unique vision.

But there are definitely two film types these days. The corporate greed mass market type film like Guardians of the Galaxy. And the more filmmaker driven type films like Interstellar. I don't mind. They're films for different purposes and both types of film are making money.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 29, 2014)

(ha, just posted in the other thread)

I'm not sure I buy the premise. Casablanca (1941) rips a long at a right old lick. Hunger Games 3A, which I've just seen, is thoughtful and reflective in its pacing (unusually so for a blockbuster). Michael Bay was crazily cutting every 18 frames way back in the 90s.

But that said, there is something in reduced attention spans. My kids are a nightmare to be honest, it's harder and harder to persuade them to devote 2 hours to one story, rather than throwing themselves into Minecraft. However, mindless fast relentless action isn't inherently interesting. It doesn't grab their attention at all.

You know what does? Comedy. If they laugh, they'll get immersed. As I said elsewhere today, we bailed after 30 mind-numbingly tedious minutes of Avengers Assemble, though there was no shortage of action. But the kids loved Mission Impossible 4. Reason - Simon Pegg (whom they didn't know beforehand) made them laugh in the first 90 seconds. They were grabbed (this, incidentally is a trick of which William Goldman approves - I forget which film he referenced where the audience laughed with the lead character on a throwaway gag during the opening credits, but he said the movie was on tramlines after that).

But that's my house. Hollywood is playing to a different audience.

The problem is the geeks. The geeks have inherited the Earth. The biggest comedy on TV in the world right now is the Big Bang Theory (which i adore, incidentally). What would have been so niche it would never have gotten made even 20 years ago is now squarely in the mainstream for men and women of all ages.

It's basically Star Wars' fault. As the kids who watched it grew up, the series was good enough to keep the fanbase into adulthood. But with adulthood, there is greater awareness of the shades of grey in life, all 50 of them. So - retrospectively - the aging fanbase leans on the darker, weightier stuff in Empire Strikes Back, not so much the swashbuckling derring do of A New Hope. That starts to shape the market. Throw in 9/11 and its fallout, and blockbusters started to become unified in their bleakness, their darkness and misery. Joy need not apply.

I mean, don't get me wrong, there is clearly an audience for films as mindless and head-bangingly boring as Transformers. But Guardians of the Galaxy was a big clue - make 'em laugh, and they will come.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 29, 2014)

Wow. My kid must be very strange. We just sat down to watch Treasure of the Sierra Madre and he loved it. Sat through the whole thing and really liked the story development and the characters as well as the action.


----------



## dahnielson (Nov 29, 2014)

Actually, the average numbers of cuts per time unit in a movie has been pretty much constant since the 1920's according to the book _FilmCraft: Editing_ by Justin Chang. However, if your only reference point is action movies, then I can understand you sense that something has changed, something you maybe exactly can't put your finger on. What you have encountered is probably "Chaos Cinema".

Watch this video essay in three parts to get an analysis of what have changed in action movies:

Chaos Cinema Part 1: https://vimeo.com/28016047
Chaos Cinema Part 2: https://vimeo.com/28016704
Chaos Cinema Part 3: https://vimeo.com/40881319


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 29, 2014)

And then there's Alfred Hitchcock, dahnielson. 

Anyway, we go to screenings of maybe three movies a week this time of year. In addition to all of the above trends in some films (especially the "big" ones), I've noticed that a lot of them are getting longer. That's not necessarily in actual running time, I mean they're longer than they need to be.

My theory is that digital distribution is cheaper so directors are under less pressure to get rid of unnecessary footage!


----------



## AC986 (Nov 29, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Nov 29 said:


> Wow. My kid must be very strange. We just sat down to watch Treasure of the Sierra Madre and he loved it. Sat through the whole thing and really liked the story development and the characters as well as the action.



I saw that at the cinema when I was a kid. It's one of life's great films and I'm not surprised he loved it. Funnily enough, I bought the dvd a couple of weeks ago. 

Plot, storyline, great dialogue, 3 very diverse characters, brilliant performances, and what the film really gets across is hope. Marvellous film. Walter Huston was a revelation. The bar room brawl scene is still one of the most realistic of its type in any film to this day, and John Huston was a great director. What more can you want.

Nick, Alfred Hitchcock is an anolamy. :lol:


----------



## Arbee (Nov 29, 2014)

Why are movies changing? A couple of ideas:

Rapid editing is cheaper and easier than staging real stunt scenes.

Consumers are punch drunk and attention poor from constant overstimulation, therefore you just need to keep hitting them harder and harder. This point just reminds me how refreshing many of the non-mainstream movies are these days!

The line between real and virtual is now so blurred (in audio, photos, movies etc), people don't really believe much of what they see and hear any more, and perhaps trivialise it as a result. I've always claimed that "digitised = devalued" in any field, and sadly nothing has convinced me otherwise based on the evidence.

.


----------



## Living Fossil (Nov 30, 2014)

Movies are changing because culture uses to change from time to time...

I recently rewatched Citizan Kane twice. Once, just the movie, then the movie with the audio comment the DVD provides. It was quite interesting to focus on the details of the photography: A person speaks, but you can barely see more than his nose.
A person is in the center of the image, but his face is all in shadow. Etc.
Probably those things weren't too common when the movie came out....

I don't think it's a bad thing when things change. What's bothering somehow, is the fact that i think commercial aspects in big productions get more and more self fullfilling prophecies: It's known fact that target audiences get younger and if you try not to ask too much of the DPV [dumbest possible viewer] than the standard level starts spiraling down. In the same time, every movie that's presented with big prestige advertising shapes the expectations of the audience: here starts the conditioning.
Nevertheless, i don't think there are less good movies than in past times. They are usually not produced in Hollywood and they reach small audiences only, but they do exist. 

To the question concerning "vanishing melodies":

As i stated in the other thread, focussing on "the melody" doesn't gets to the point.
It rather the development of melodic lines which has usually become quite simple.
But that's rather a side effect on musical styles that don't rely very much on an ongoing harmonic development (modulations etc) but rather use patterns. And the impression of melodic lines is stronger if there is some sort of counterpoint that lifts up the structural complexity.
But then again: That's a mere stylistic diagnosis. 
150-100 years ago there were thousands of composers writing music with lots of counterpoint and lots of ongoing modulations etc etc. and nevertheless their music wasn't great. [you can find funny remarks about that kind of "Kapellmeistermusik" when you read some texts of Schönberg or Mahler].

So, I think that in every style it is possible to write masterpieces and technical complexity is no guarantee for a high level. 
There's one good constant in art: with time passing quality becomes usually clearly visual and overhyped [but dumb] things lose their attraction.
And i'm sure, when looking back to our ongoing time in 20 years,People will find a lot of quality in these days.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 30, 2014)

Actually thanks Jose for reminding me about The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I forgot that I bought it and dug it out just now. I'm going to watch it tonight for the first time in 40 or 50 years. Great film. Certainly in my top 10 of all time. Max Steiner score if memory serves. Bam Bam Bam bam Baaaaaa stuff. Great. :lol: 

Just imagine in that film if they had brought in the dreaded token female. Someone like Sophia Loren running around as a scantily clad daughter of a Mexican farmer or something. Film just wouldn't have worked. You would spend the entire film looking at her (or whoever) and the entire premise goes up in smoke. They did that so many times in those days (and probably still do). The curse of the token female role.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 30, 2014)

dahnielson @ Sat Nov 29 said:


> Actually, the average numbers of cuts per time unit in a movie has been pretty much constant since the 1920's according to the book _FilmCraft: Editing_ by Justin Chang. However, if your only reference point is action movies, then I can understand you sense that something has changed, something you maybe exactly can't put your finger on. What you have encountered is probably "Chaos Cinema".
> 
> Watch this video essay in three parts to get an analysis of what have changed in action movies:
> 
> ...



Thanks very much for those links, just watched part 1. Nails that's phenomenon completely. What is interesting is that some of the techniques of chaos cinema - if used with skill - can still work well. Sometimes making the audience feel disorientated and completely immersed in a situation can be very effective. However, more often than not those techniques aren't used with skill and everything becomes an incomprehensible wall of noise (the point about sound was well made - when the sound and images compete to be the loudest, we're all in deep trouble). What should work for a moment is played out over two relentless hours.

I vividly remember the hell that was Quantum of Solace. At no point in an action scene did I have any idea of whom was doing what to whom, where anything was or anything that was going on at all really. It's worse on the big screen too. What happens is that your brain gets sensory overload and shuts down. It's a counterintuitive way of taking you out of the film. Rather than immersion, it produces disengagement. Despite all the excitement, it becomes not only boring, but unpleasant and boring.

It's not the complete answer to whether or not films have changed of course. Action thankfully isn't synonymous with either blockbusters or Hollywood as a whole. Again, I reflect on the Hunger Games Mockingjay pt1 - it's not an action film per se (which has displeased some I know), but it remains an extremely exciting example of how you can put intelligent ideas into a well paced blockbuster and even get teenage girls to lap it up. The Hunger Games (certainly in the 2nd and 3rd films) is actually very traditional in the sense of making character the centre of the film - and the action. In the end, that's why audiences went nuts for Die Hard, it was a well made character piece. With action. And humour. Wow, imagine.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 30, 2014)

Sorry, mods: an iPad slippage led to me sending a report about this post. Please disregard!!


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 30, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Nov 29 said:


> I couldn't say whether this fact has changed movie making more than the predilections of the Internet generation(s) for multi-tasking and a horror of being bored for one second. No doubt both have an impact.



This is not only sad, it makes them sick.


----------



## handz (Nov 30, 2014)

Yes they do, as music do. Because everything is more and more ccold, alculated producer bull*hit. Everything is made so artifically that it lacks soul. Of course, there are some exceptions but...


----------



## G.E. (Nov 30, 2014)

There are many reasons but at the end of the day, to me, it's very simple and I can only see one main reason. Movies have changed because directors and composers THINK they know better (even if they don't) and the audience definitely doesn't know any better. That's a match made in heaven.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 30, 2014)

What was written first? The picture or the music?


----------



## PMortise (Nov 30, 2014)

Arbee @ Sat Nov 29 said:


> …The line between real and virtual is now so blurred (in audio, photos, movies etc), people don't really believe much of what they see and hear any more, and perhaps trivialise it as a result...


I was just thinking the same thing this past weekend while watching the Chriss Angel show in Vegas. He did a few really good Houdini-style metamorphosis tricks, but the applause from the audience was barely louder than the yawns.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 30, 2014)

adriancook @ Sat Nov 29 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Nov 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. My kid must be very strange. We just sat down to watch Treasure of the Sierra Madre and he loved it. Sat through the whole thing and really liked the story development and the characters as well as the action.
> ...



Being a young lad my son was all about the bar room fight. It was really realistic and all characters get quite a beat down. It took a little getting use to as the sound was of real flesh hitting flesh and not bam, pow, bang kapow!!


----------



## Zardoz (Dec 2, 2014)

I made the original comment that the OP is referencing. I said this in the original thread but just to reiterate - I wasn't (nor was Mr. Revell I think) suggesting that this is some sort of universal absolute. Of course the demands of each film are different and there will often be films even today that are more slowly paced or have rich melodic development in the score. But I do notice a trend away from coherent structure and pacing in films and their music. 

I think the most pronounced change I have noticed in filmmaking is a dramatic decline in artistic literacy. Many modern scriptwriters seem to only be able to reference other films, while previous generation's writers were steeped in literature and history. Many modern composers seem to only be familiar with pop music and other film soundtracks. Guys like Korngold, Rozsa, Herrmann, Williams, et al were/are highly educated with regard to the rich and complex history of Western and world music. 

This illiteracy leads to degeneration of the art form over time I think. Part of writing a good story is understanding dramatic structure and characterization and that is learned in part by studying the classics. Part of being a competent composer comes from understanding structure by studying things like Sonata form, etc and simple things like voice leading. 

As smart ass college students my peers and I were convinced there was no need to learn all this outdated nonsense since none of us ever had any intention of writing a symphonic movement in sonata-allegro form, but our teachers were constantly reminding us that you have to learn all the rules before you can break them. I think there's a lot of truth in that.


----------



## KEnK (Dec 3, 2014)

Zardoz @ Tue Dec 02 said:


> ..I think the most pronounced change I have noticed in filmmaking is a dramatic decline in artistic literacy. Many modern scriptwriters seem to only be able to reference other films, while previous generation's writers were steeped in literature and history. Many modern composers seem to only be familiar with pop music and other film soundtracks. Guys like Korngold, Rozsa, Herrmann, Williams, et al were/are highly educated with regard to the rich and complex history of Western and world music.
> 
> This illiteracy leads to degeneration of the art form over time I think...


An astute observation Dr. Zardoz!
You've really captured the conundrum here.
That gets really right to the central flaw in contemporary films from my perspective.

k


----------



## givemenoughrope (Dec 3, 2014)

A huge thing is streaming. I can watch almost any movie and no one is talking behind me or kicking my chair. If I want the theater experience, it's there...too bad the content isn't (with new mainstream American films anyway). I usually go to revival/'art house' (hate that term) theaters anyway. 

Funny, I saw Interstellar twice in 70mm at the Cineramadome and for all the talk about the 'immersive experience' and all that I think the first episode the British show Black Water (written by Charlie Brooker, now streaming on Netflix) had me by the tail times ten. Same goes with the film Blue Ruin (a 50k kickstarter film) in a few spots. Granted, i'm sure it would be better sitting among an audience but the point is that the content is what matters. Low budget streaming allows for more daring films...which will then play at the revival house next year. You would think that Hollywood is over...


----------



## givemenoughrope (Dec 3, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Nov 29 said:


> Casablanca (1941) rips a long at a right old lick.



Good observation there. Try watching His Girl Friday while glancing at your phone.


----------



## Neifion (Dec 3, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Nov 29 said:


> So - retrospectively - the aging fanbase leans on the darker, weightier stuff in Empire Strikes Back, not so much the swashbuckling derring do of A New Hope. That starts to shape the market. Throw in 9/11 and its fallout, and blockbusters started to become unified in their bleakness, their darkness and misery. Joy need not apply.



So true!  As an adult, my favorite is of course Empire, but as a kid, I was all about Return of the Jedi purely because of the awesome space battle at the end that, to this day, has not been surpassed by any of the CGI crap since. I used to find the Dagobah part so boring, but now its like, the best part.


----------



## eric aron (Dec 4, 2014)

most movies are a good mirror of the real world as it is now.. and we are not in an era that promotes depth, soul, meaning, culture, human connection, long term, growth. short term cash value from disposable cheap products heads in first line to serve the strategy. there is no room for art in such basket

how then expect anything other than the endless copies of the same empty scenario, repeated ad nauseam until full lobotomization of the masses 

Yared told me, and Bruno Coulais, and i read or heard so many similar comments, if you are inclined to write Music, don’t ever think about going into the now music industry. even if there can be rare exceptions to the rule


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 4, 2014)

There are some really good films around now. Mr. Turner, Dear White People, Whiplash, The Humbling...those are my favorite. The Imitation Game is excellent, and Theory of Everything is very good.

None of those is shallow crap.

We also saw several fantastic documentaries this year, but I don't think they're around. Keep On Keepin' On, the documentary mainly about Clark Terry, is great. Happy Valley, about the Penn State/Sandusky sex scandal, is a great morality play - more so than I think the fimmaker knows (it would be great for philosophy classes).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2014)

Birdman is also very good. I knew there was another one.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 6, 2014)

What about Nightcrawler, Nick? 

Whiplash has one of the best endings I've seen all year.


----------

