There are an incredible amount puzzle pieces that go into making a film great but one of the aspects that isn’t talked about as much as it probably should is music.  There are upward of a thousand examples I could give when it comes to iconic musical moments in films like the music over the opening text crawl in every Star Wars movie or the Indiana Jones theme or the first ten minutes of the film “Up” (Docter, 2009) that made everybody cry but, for this discussion, I’d like to use one specific example to talk about storytelling through music.

“How to Train Your Dragon” (Sanders, DeBlois, 2010) is, for those unfamiliar with it, an animated DreamWorks film about a viking boy, Hiccup, who is expected to kill a dragon in order to complete his tribe’s initiation into adulthood.  Instead of doing that, he befriends the deadly Night Fury, who he names Toothless.  The specific scene that I would like to discuss is about midway through the film.  Hiccup has nursed Toothless back to health and the two have become tentative friends despite the fact that Hiccup was the one who originally injured the dragon.  Although Toothless is healthy again, his tail fin is missing on one side, meaning he cannot steer himself in the air.  Hiccup, feeling guilty for the part he played in the injury, builds Toothless a prosthetic tail fin.  The only problem is that Toothless cannot control it on his own.  He needs Hiccup to help him fly and thus, Hiccup becomes the first dragon rider.

The scene below is the first time that Hiccup and Toothless have tried to fly freely since the dragon was injured.  When the scene opens we hear bagpipes playing Toothless’ theme, established earlier in the film (0:00:00 – 0:00:38).  As Hiccup tests out a few maneuvers using his cheat sheet, his theme joins in on the horns(0:00:39 – 0:00:58).  Both themes are audible during this segment but they aren’t working together.  It feels as though on is always overpowering the other.

Next, Hiccup makes a few mistakes with his maneuvers, causing Toothless to bump into some stone pillars (0:00:59 – 0:01: 03).  The two established themes continue to move back and forth, never really coming together, symbolizing that while they are working together, Toothless and Hiccup are not truly in synch with Toothless not used to needing help from someone else to maneuver and Hiccup relying too much on his cheat sheet.

As Toothless begins to climb upward, toward the clouds Toothless’ theme builds and builds until Hiccups cheat sheet slips out of its holder and begins to flutter to the ground (0:01:04 – 0:01:20).  As Hiccup grabs for the sheet and his harness becomes unhooked from the saddle leaving Toothless unable to fly and Hiccup plummeting back to earth and we hear some peril music.  It is discordant and tense, intended to evoke anxiety and anticipation in the audience as both Hiccup and Toothless struggle to right themselves (0:01:21 – 0:01:52).  It culminates in the moment where Hiccup manages to hook himself back into the saddle and he lets his cheat sheet go as he finally starts flying on instinct.  We get a key change with both Hiccup and Toothless’ themes finally working together as the characters find their synchronicity (0:01:53 – 0:02:27).

During this whole scene there is very little dialogue but you can tell everything that these characters are thinking and feeling through the music.  Partially, this works so well because of the fact that the themes for these characters are strongly established very early in the film.  Having themes that are so strongly associated with certain characters means that a composer can manipulate those themes in order to evoke different feelings from the audience.  In “Up” the “Married Life” theme, a fairly short and sweet melody, is used over and over during those first ten minutes with the main alteration being tempo and that changes the entire mood of the piece but it appears again much later in the film and the audience associates it with those first ten minutes all over again.  This is a big part of the reason that music can be so effective when used in an interesting way.  It allows the audience to make connections back to other characters or moments that were established earlier and can be just as effective at drawing emotion from an audience as the acting or the dialogue, even on a subconscious level.

If you find this subject interesting at all, I would recommend going back and watching your favourite movie again, paying particular attention to the music.  You might find some interesting connections that you’s never noticed before.

I find it very interesting that there is a sort of universal film language that everyone understands, regardless of how immersed in the world of film analysis they are.  The idea that what the audiences is shown matters just as much, if not more, as what they are told.  A film that showcases this is, oddly enough, “Transformers” (Bay, 2007), specifically, Meagan Fox’s character.

Honestly, I have had to look up the name of her character several times during the process of putting my thoughts together about this phenomenon and I’m willing to wager that you don’t remember it either.  I would also bet that if I asked you to tell me one character trait that she displayed that had nothing to do with physical appearance, you wouldn’t be able to.  Or you’d say something like, “Oh, well she was just there to be objectified in the middle of a mediocre to truly not good action movie for men.”  Probably not those exact words but you get the gist.  Also, if this is a film that you really like, that’s totally fine!  My favourite film is “Clue” (Lynn, 1985) and I don’t think that there are a lot of people that would try to argue that it’s some kind of underrated masterpiece.  I certainly wouldn’t.

Strangely enough, if you just look at the actual script for the first transformers film, Mikaela Banes, is the most worthwhile and well rounded character of them all (very subtle Michael Bay.  Very subtle).  Not to mention that she is the only main character that has any skills that are relevant to the plot.  Namely, she’s the only one who understands how cars work.  Sam, Shia LaBeouf’s character, accidentally stumbles his way into being the main character of this film.  However, we forget all of that because of how Mikaela is framed, in the most literal sense of the world.  She is treated like an object by both Sam and by the camera through which the audience experiences the film.   We don’t remember what we are told in the script about Mikaela because in visual media, the audience remembers what the camera tells them.

The point of all of this is that the visual language of film is in some ways ingrained into the way we watch films.  I recently read an article from film critic, Roger Ebert, where his breaks down some of the basics around visual composition and how there are certain ways of composing shots that have an intrinsic weight.  However, these are not rules and ” To “violate” them can be as meaningful as to “follow” them.” (Ebert, 2008)  These may or may not be consciously applied, but they can be consciously analyzed.

Below I have attached both the article from Roger Ebert and a video from film analyst and author Lindsay Ellis who goes much more in depth regarding Megan Fox, dissonance of framing and the whole “Transformers” franchise.  If that’s something that sounds interesting to you, you should definitely check it out!

Links:

The Roger Ebert Article

One summer evening, when I was about eleven years old, I sat down on the ratty old couch in the basement of my parents house and watched the Lord of the Rings all the way through for the first time.  I’m talking about the extended edition box set which consists of about eleven hours of film and about 8 hours of behind the scenes content per movie.  It was the first time that I had seen something that went so in depth into how a film came to be and the work it took to bring this series of movies to fruition.  In the behind the scenes, they talk to make up artists, costume designers, and set designers as well as directors and writers and producers about every little detail and process of creation.  They’re like little documentaries entirely dedicated to creating movies.  It was the first time that I realized that films didn’t just have to be mindless entertainment.  There is intent behind the things that are being shown to you and there are things that are not intentional that inform the viewers experience of the film.  This experience made me start watching films differently.

In order to complete a degree in Visual Arts from Uvic, you have to have a certain number of art history courses under your belt.  It just so happens that all of Uvic’s film studies courses fall under the umbrella of art history.  I took two film studies classes in my second year of university and I was hooked immediately.  Any opportunity I had to take more classes I did and then, when I had my final meeting with an advisor to declare my major for graduation, I was informed that, by the time I graduated I would have enough credits to get a minor in film studies.

Since then I have kind of lost an outlet for this kind of discussion.  You can only annoy your friends and family with in depth analysis on a movie that came out twenty years ago before they’ve had enough and tell you to “Please be quiet and just let us enjoy this for what it is”.  I am hoping to use this free inquiry project to help reconnect with writing about film and being critical while exploring some of the big ideas behind film critique and analysis.  Questions like how much authorial intent should factor into an analysis, what exactly makes a good analysis and exploring bad faith criticism and good faith criticism.  I am also very interested in the concept of death of the author and all of the complications surrounding that.

That overwhelming feeling that I had initially is continuing to fade as I get a better handle on whats expected of me in this course and in my other courses and I’m finally getting excited about starting this project!