TAKING AN OLD PIECE OF MUSIC AND MATCHING IT PERFECTLY WITH YOUR FILM...GENIUS!

What are some of the best examples of a director taking an old piece of music and matching it perfectly with the visual? Perhaps the most famous example is Stanley Kubrick’s use of “Thus Spake Zarathustra” by Richard Strauss for “2001: A Space Odyssey”. However, a much more difficult (and cleverer) choice was made by Terrence Malick when he teamed Carl Orff’s “Musica Poetica” (1927) with his 1973 debut film “Badlands”. I love how the composition conveys such childlike innocence and beauty, exploding forth and filling one with sunshine and delight. It’s well-suited to the montage where Kit and Holly build the treehouse, yet strange given the film’s dark subject matter. It takes a special set of ears and eyes to do this properly. Norman Jewison’s Bach selection at the start of “Rollerball” is another example of this brilliance.

Another way to phrase this topic:

“Ruining the mystery of a great piece of classic music by laying it under a dumb little narrative”

I like all the films you mentioned, but it is a lame way to treat music. Mallick’s New World for example, repeated the same opening sections of a Mozart piece several times which seemed amateurish. It worked for the film, but it’s just kind of lame as well. I am blown away by New World, but would I have liked it as much without the Wagner piece that bookends it? not sure. I have mixed feelings about using other peoples art in your own. sorry to be a buzz kill!

One of my favorite scenes from BadLands is Nat King Cole singing " a blossom fell" as they drive through the barren plains in the middle of the night.

Two plus two,what you said could be the start of an endless discussion,cause it refers to,perhaps,hundred thousands of films?And also what do you mean:“using other peoples art in your own”?Then,if you have someone to write an original soundtrack for your film,you still use other people’s art.So,what should a director do?Write the music by himself?Kinda difficult.

“Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” from Inception?

Jake- if a director hires a composer for the film, the composer would have given consent to use his work. Would the devout Beethoven or the joyous Rossini given consent for Kubrick to use their work in the sadistic sacrilegious Clockwork Orange sequences? No. I am guessing Kubrick’s “point” would have not meant much to them. Perhaps the composer of “Singin in the Rain” always wanted it to be used in a good rape scene, or perhaps he needed the money, or perhaps he was dead already. I like Clockwork (though I think it is smug in its cynicism) but I am not entirely comfortable with it. Scorsese and Tarantino also love ironic uses of happy pop music during murder and torture scenes (why? to show off how glib they are? to invite snickering from the audience? don’t know) but obviously they got consent from the rights holders. I could be wrong. Maybe Beethoven would have loved seeing his 7th symphony used in “Knowing”. Maybe he would have been a huge Nic Cage fan. Maybe he would have loved how film editors cut out the pointless first hour of the 9th symphony to get to the good parts. that’s what I mean about “using other people’s art in your own”. Okay, in fairness, Bach would have loved Rollerball (but hated the remake)

wait wait wait,

“Singin’ in the Rain” isn’t about rape?

rich- very very funny. perhaps I do need to re-listen to that song.

“Would the devout Beethoven or the joyous Rossini given consent for Kubrick to use their work in the sadistic sacrilegious Clockwork Orange sequences? No.”

“Okay, in fairness, Bach would have loved “Rollerball” (but hated the remake)"

To quote the medic who attempts to get Jonathan E. to sign for the vegetative Moonpie in “Rollerball”:

“Who can say?”

But I do believe artists from several hundred years ago (musical composers, et cetera) would be totally blown away by the concept of cinema if they were magically transported to the 21st century and could see it for themselves. Wouldn’t you want your masterwork preserved for all time in some way or another?

What about a film that has a song playing on the radio in the background…is that using someone else’s art in an unfair manner? Maybe Holly used to twirl the baton to “Musica Poetica” before running away with Kit and it runs through her head as she reminisces about building the tree house.

Again, “who can say?”

I think it’s a challenge to match old music with a new scene (or vice versa) and what Terrence Malick achieved was simply gorgeous, period.

“I have mixed feelings about using other people’s art in your own”

But I don’t understand. Film is a collabrative medium. Even if they were to be using a composer’s original music, it is still the composer’s art and not the film makers.

Beethoven was not a film composer. His work was meant to stand on its own. He is not a willing collaborator. (He was a very famous curmudgeon, for one thing. He also labored very hard to have composers treated with respect.) He would not have wanted to have a minute long excerpt of the 9th symphony (which he took 15 years to write) ran through a synthesizer and placed under footage of dancing crucifixes. (I haven’t seen Clockwork Orange in a while- but I believe that is where the cue is used.) Does the filmmaker have the right to do this? Of course. I’m just standing up for the intentions of dead people. It’s a slow night.

Hanz Zimmer is a willing collaborator. He writes music to picture or with the understanding that it will be edited to picture. That is his art.

If you agree that the film maker has a right to do this, what are you arguing for?

I mean, I can understand someone being upset at say the use of Willim Tell Overture in “V for Vendetta” or 7th Symphony in “Knowing” as you said. But in the case of something like Badlands, that’s entirely different.

And what about Fantasia? Surely must be the greatest crime of all of cinema!

Beethoven is also dead—so I don’t think he’s capable of giving a shit anymore.

Gotta love playing Vivaldi’s “Winter” during the tooth pulling scenes from “Oldboy.”

Kristian: I confess the following: All I am saying is that when directors, even great directors, edit the crap out of music I love and put it to pictures, it bothers me. (It is less bothersome when it is celebratory, like Fantasia) Before I retire my argument, I will give an example. Let’s say in 75 years a filmmaker named John John Junior decides to digitally enhance 2001 by CGI’ing a religious symbol like a cross onto all the shots of the monolith,and the movie becomes a big hit among the religious (“it makes so much sense now!”) Could you imagine a guy in the back row (who knows the original) being very grumpy? I am that grumpy guy.

Rich: Beethoven is indeed dead. I just looked it up on wikipedia, and I think you got me there. sorry if I caused any confusion on that count.

I can go part way with Two on this one. If people remember when there was a big stink over Ted Turner colorizing old Black and white movies to make them more “palatable” to younger audiences, filmmakers were aghast that anyone would think of doing such a thing, but in essence, they do the same thing to a lot of classical music. By matching images to the scores they alter the way a listener hears the music from that time forward if that listener has developed an acute awareness of the film in which the music is used. It limits, or at least potentially limits, the way the audience will perceive that piece afterwards since images, unintended by the composer, will some to mind whenever that piece is played.

Or doesn’t this call anything to mind?

Not just classical either, how about this song? Bring anything to mind that really isn’t in the song?

Now Stealer’s Wheel may have decided it was a good idea to make some dough with their song, and that’s fine and dandy, but people who enjoyed the song previously and had attached some meaning to it in their own lives may not have been so keen on the new associations. Just as a lot of people get upset when a song they love is used for a commercial linking it in their minds to a product, which, understandably, may cause their previous warm feelings or memories attached to the song to feel debased in some way.

That said, it’s how things are and I won’t get to bent out of shape about it since i believe society benefits from allowing copyright protections to lapse over time and for artistic works to become owned by everyone. Culture relies, or even needs our artistic history to become free and open to use for all in order to keep growing. Trying to turn off a part of our shared history, or control it too tightly does us all some harm in a manner that is likely worse than the unintended associations created by those that ransack the past for their own use.

Ahh well I understand now. Especially when you compare it to the colourizing of films. However I think it’s a bit different when talking about say art from centuries ago, as opposed to decades ago.

But fair enough… I won’t argue, I respect your opinions.

When I first experienced “A Clockwork Orange” at age 17, I was horrified by the home invasion scene—but that was Stanley Kubrick’s whole intention. Just this year, 15 years later, I finally got around to enjoying “Singin’ In The Rain”. I can tell you right now, “Clockwork” did not dent the intended emotions behind Gene Kelly’s glorious title number one iota. I wept tears of joy as Gene pranced along the gutter, twirled his umbrella, sloshed around in the water and basically made a merry nuisance of himself in the middle of the street. What a gorgeous moment in cinematic history! I was fortunate enough to witness it on the big screen at the Astor Theatre, so it was truly a magical film event.

As for “Thus Spake Zarathustra” by Richard Strauss, I associate that with ‘The Nature Boy’ Ric Flair as much as I do with “2001: A Space Odyssey”, since I am a professional wrestling fanatic.

Music is designed to conjure certain emotions in people, so if Stanley Kubrick felt emotionally compelled to use Strauss in “2001”, why not? Mr Kubrick also put the composition back on the popular music charts—surely not a bad thing. Finally, let me just say, many pieces of music, such as “Musica Poetica”, would have been missed by me if not for their introduction through film. It’s like these blowhards who complain about rap music “sampling” soul music artists from the 1970s. A lot of people (Yours Truly included) gained a big appreciation for 1960s and ’70s music thorugh exposure to formats that “sampled” these earlier tunes. So again, I ask, how is this a bad thing?

What is the peice of music used towards the end of this clip? :)

I’m not in the mood to have a debate about this right now but classical music and soundtrack music are two very different things, even if they are related. The only soundtrack composers that say otherwise are guys like Phillip Glass who generally write shit music outside of film anyway ;-) most soundtrack composers are highly derivative of bigger and better composers. There are some exceptions, but the music is meant to work in tandem/synch with the image and rarely holds up outside the context of the imagery it’s meant to enhance. To that end, i’m generally weary of the use of great classical music in Hollywood, and most of it is used badly imo. Nobody has really used Arvo Part well, not even Gus Van Sant, although Fur Alina worked somewhat in Gerry. Scelsi wasn’t used that well used in Shutter Island, but thank god for that, because i would hate to associate his music with that film over the long term ;-)

overall i agree with Mark that it takes a particular kind of talent to make this work, and Kubrick fared better than most.

Samuel Barber’s “Adagio for Strings” in Oliver Stone’s PLATOON (1986).

Debussy’s “Arabesque #1,” and other Debussy themes, in William Dieterle’s PORTRAIT OF JENNIE (1948). This film’s soundtrack turned me on to Debussy.

Also worth exploring is the use of indigenous songs/folk tunes in movies. I’m thinking of “La Golondrina” from THE WILD BUNCH (1969), which I thought was used quite effectively.

I have Adaigio for Strings on my I Pod, computer, you name it, I just love that music and I absolutely love how it was used in the film Platoon. And I agree with the music in The Wild Bunch.

JOKS ‘’Nobody has really used Arvo Part well’’

I like the way Godard used Arvo Part in ‘’In Praise of Love’’ and ‘’Ten Minutes Older’’…

It’s well-suited to the montage where Kit and Holly build the treehouse, yet strange given the film’s dark subject matter. It takes a special set of ears and eyes to do this properly.

Yes, yes, yes a million times over! That tonal juxtaposition with the music is one of my favorite things about the film.

To answer your original question

“Barbara Allen” in Scrooge (1951)

“The Carnival of the Animals” in Beauty and the Beast

“Sao Gan” in Empire of the Sun : maybe the only time Spielberg has made an appropriate musical choice

I really liked Tykwer’s use of Pärt in WINTER SLEEPERS. And I really liked Horner’s rip-off of the same piece in his score for SNEAKERS….though I haven’t watched it probably since I learned it was a rip-off.

I love Herzog’s use of Studio Der Fruhen Musik at the end of HEART OF GLASS.

Pasolini’s use of Carmina Burana (and NOT ‘O Fortuna’ for once) in the end of SALO. Easily my favorite part of the movie, in spite of the violence. Chilling collaboration between image and sound, and one of the only moments radiating actual human emotion in the film.

Saint Saens’ ‘Aquarium’ in VISIONS OF LIGHT.

I thought the use of “Stuck in the Middle with You” by QT in “Reservoir Dogs” was one of the most inspired things he did. Can’t listen to that song the old way again.

What was really bad was Don McLean selling the rights to “American Pie” to be sung by Madonna in “The Next Best Thing.” That was truly awful. The sad part is that McLean defended his decision on his website.

“Thus Spoke Zarathustra” was monumental, but I really think that Schubert’s Piano Trio in E Flat for Barry Lyndon was superior. Or, Mahler’s Fifth Symphony for Visconti’s Death in Venice. That was..totally kick ass.

how about Blue Velvet ?