電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)

電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)(文檔含中英文對(duì)照即英文原文和中文翻譯)HollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990s

TheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevision

ExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContextAnnetteDavison.,HollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990s.Aldershot:Ashgate,2004,221pp.K.J.Donnelly.,TheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevision.lLondon:BritishFilmInstitute,2005,192pp.CarolVernallis.,ExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContext.NewYork,NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2004,341pp.

\o"Footnotes"NextSectionThelasttimeacollectionofscreenmusic-relatedbookswasthesubjectofaScreenreview,thereviewerSimonFrithwasmovedtonoteeachwork's‘self-defeating…needtodrawattentiontotheirsubject'sneglect’aswellastheverylimitedmannerinwhichtheauthorsseemed‘tobeengagedwitheachother’.1Judgingbythebooksgroupedtogetherinthepresentreview,thescholarshipintheareaisnowmuchmorecollegiate,andtherequirementontheauthorstoself-diagnoseacademicisolationseemstohavebecomeunnecessary.AnnetteDavison,K.J.DonnellyandCarolVernallisshareaplethoraofcriticalreferencesonmusic–imagerelationships,fromTheodorAdornotoPhilipTaggandmanypointsinbetween.Asubstantialcanonofacademicwritingonmusicinnarrativefilmnowexists,anditcannolongerbeclaimedthatmusicvideoisascholarlyblindspot(asVernallisadmits).Ofthevariousmediaformatsdiscussedinthebooksunderreview,onlytelevisionmusicremainsrelativelyunder-representedacademically(thoughDonnelly'stwochaptersonthesubjectbegintheprocessofaddressingthisabsence).Inthiscontext,theauthors'taskwouldappeartobetopresentalternativestoexistingwork,ortobringnewobjectsofstudytocriticallight.Allthreestudiesmakeclaimsfortheirownoriginalitybyreferencingamodelof‘classical’narrativefilmmusicpractices:aconceptualizationofthesoundtrack'sroleasfittinginwithclassicalcinema'sperceivedstorytellingpriorities.Forallthebooks'individualmerits,theregularrecoursetonotionsoftheclassical,evenintheserviceofitsrefutation,raisesinterestingquestionsaboutthepossibility(orimpossibility)ofdoingwithoutsuchaconceptentirely.Thus,theseworksrevealthe‘classical’tobeacategoryasproblematicyetinsistentinwritingonmusic–imagerelationsasitisinotherareasofscreenstudiesenquiry.Asitstitlesuggests,Davison'sHollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990sengageswithclassicalfilmmusictheorymostexplicitly.Indeed,aboutaquarterofthebookisdevotedtotheexplicationof,first,ClassicalHollywoodCinemaasithasbeenconceivedacademically,andsecond,theclassicalscoringpracticeassociatedwithit(whichDavisonseesrevivedintheso-called‘post-classical’Hollywoodofthemid1970sonwards).ThisprovidesthegroundonwhichDavisonmakesherkeyclaim:Thecentralargumentofthisbookisthat,byoperatingasasignifierofclassical–and,indeed,NewHollywoodcinema–theclassicalHollywoodscoreofferedthosemakingfilmsoutsideandonthemarginsofHollywoodcinemainthe1980sand1990safurthermeansbywhichtheycoulddifferentiatetheircinemasfromHollywood's,throughtheproductionofscoresandsoundtrackswhichcritiqueorrefertothispracticeinparticularways(p.59).Therefollowcloseanalysesoffourfilmswhosesoundtracks,accordingtoDavison,refertotheclassicalmodelatthesametimeastheyofferanalternative.Throughhersequencingofthecasestudies,Davisonoutlinespossibilitiesofalternativepracticethatrangefromatotaldeconstructionoftheclassicalsoundtrack'sconventionalstorytellingfunctions(aswitnessedinJean-LucGodard'sPrenom:Carmen[1983])totheidentificationofascoringpracticethatmimicscertainaspectsoftheclassicalinitscollaborativenature,yetprovidesautopianalternativetoit(asseenthroughDavidLynch'sWildatHeart[1990]).Inbetween,sheexploresthenotionofthesoundtrackasa‘liberating’force(DerekJarman'sTheGarden[1990]),andthepotentialforacompromisetobefoundbetweenclassicalandalternativemodels(WimWenders'WingsofDesire[1987]).Davison'sreadingofeachfilmisimaginativeandverywelldetailed.Shedemonstratesaparticularfacilityforidentifying,andascribingasignificanceto,differenttypesofsoundonthesamesoundtrack.ThisisdonewithparticularsuccessinherreadingsofTheGardenandWingsofDesire.Heranalysisdoesnotseektohideherevidentmusicaltraining,but,innearlyallcases,remainsintelligibleandpersuasivetonon-musicologistssuchasmyself(whowilljusthavetoaccepttheoccasionaluseofmusicalnotationasprettypictures).Itisquestionablehowmuchoftheextremelycomprehensivescene-settingundertakenbyDavisoninthebook'searlysectionsisnecessaryforanappreciationoftheindividualfilmanalyses.Nevertheless,hersummariesofdiscussionsaboutclassicalandpost-classicalHollywoodcinemaandtheclassicalfilmscoreareexemplary,andtheyareconductedwithathoroughnesswhichisunderstandable,perhaps,inabookwhichtakesitsplaceinthepublisher'sPopularandFolkMusicseriesratherthaninascreenstudiescollection.Thereremainsamismatch,however,betweentheconcentrationonHollywoodasaninstitutional,industrialandideologicalforceintheearlychaptersofthebook,andtheauteuristbentoftheanalysisthatfollowsinlaterchapters.Forexample,thechapteron‘NewHollywoodcinemaand(post-?)classicalscoring’concludeswithstatisticalinformationaboutUScinema'sgrowthintheoverseasmarketduringthe1980s.Yetthisdetailseemsunnecessaryinthelightofthesubsequentinterpretationofthevariousnon-Hollywoodsoundtracksasimaginativeresponsestomainstreampracticesonthepartofindividualfilmmakers.ThedivisionbetweendescriptionsofHollywoodasintransigentlyinstitutional,andtheimplicitunderstandingofart-housecinemaasaspaceforthefreeexpressionoftheauteur(madeexplicitinthecelebrationofLynchinthefinalcasestudy)ismadetoocomplacentlyandmeansthatDavisondoesnotfulfilherpromisetoengage‘withinstitutionalissuesinrelationtofilmsoundtracksandscores’(p.6)ineverycase.Inthisrespect,thebookdoesnotfullyrealizethepotentialofitsmanyexcellentparts.ThecriticaltoneofDonnelly'sTheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevisionalsofluctuatessomewhatfromsectiontosection,althoughthereaderispreparedforthisbytheauthor'searlyclaimthatthebookis‘a(chǎn)rumination,aninvestigationofsomeoftheelusiveandfascinatingaspectsofscreenmusic’(p.3)ratherthanamorestrictlyhypothesis-basedaccount.Nevertheless,moreconcretejustificationisgivenforthebook'sattentiontoapleasinglyeclecticrangeofmaterial,whichincludestheworkofcanonizedauteurssuchasDavidLynchandStanleyKubrick,butalsomakesroomforadiscussionofthesoundtracksofSpace:1999,awholerangeofhorrormovies,andtheroleofmusicintelevisioncontinuitysegments.Donnellycharacterizesscreenmusicassomethingmoreintangiblethanisclaimedinthemoreclassicalaccountsfocusingonthescore'sovertstorytellingfunctions.Inspired,inparticular,bytheincreasinglycomplexsounddesignoffilmsproducedforreleaseincinemas,Donnellyargues:Whilefilmmusictraditionallyhasbeenconceivedaspartofnarration,workingforfilmnarrative,insomewaysitwouldbebettertoseeitaspartofthefilm'srepositoryofspecialeffects(p.2).Determinedtoexplorescreenmusic'smore‘unruly’qualities(atleastwhensetagainstanarrativeyardstick),Donnellyriffsaroundnotionsofmusic's‘ghostliness’inanimaginativemanner.Particularlyinrelationtocinema,heseesthehauntingactivitiesofthesoundtrackasconstitutingakindofsensuouspossessionoftheviewer.Donnelly(somewhatcontentiouslygiventhemedium'stechnologicaladvances)islesswillingtoadmittothepossessingcapabilitiesoftelevisionsoundtracks,butconcentratesinsteadonanotherkindof‘haunting’:thehabitualuseoffamiliarmusicintelevisionthatevokesthespectreofits‘lives’elsewhereasmuchasitappliesitselftoaparticulartelevisualcontext.ItisthenotionofscreenmusicasalwaysindicatinganotherplacethatmostusefullytiesthedifferentstrandsofDonnelly'seclecticstudytogether.Throughthisinterestinthe‘elsewhere’ofscreenmusic,Donnellysuccessfullyprobesareasoutsidethereachofclassicalnarrativefilmmusictheory,whichattendstothehereandnowofthesoundtrack'sinvolvementinaparticularfictionalscenario.However,thevalueoftheinsightswhichensuefromthissuccessfulescapefromamoreclassicalapproachissometimestakenforgranted.Donnelly'sanalysesasawholelacktheattentiontodetailwhichisoneofthevirtuesofDavison'scasestudies.Theauthoranticipatesthiscriticismearlyonbyacknowledgingthatthebook‘providesa“l(fā)ongshot”,allowingthesortofsynopticviewunavailabletodetailedanalysis,ratherthanthepredominant“close-up”ofmanyprecedingfilmmusicstudies’(p.3).Theloss,intermsofanalyticaldepth,thatthiscriticalstrategynecessitates,isnotalwayscompensatedforbythebook'scommendablebreadth.Forexample,arelativelysustainedanalysisofLynch'sLostHighway(1996)isnotasconvincingasitmightbeduetoanunwillingnesstoprovidesufficientevidenceforitsclaims.Onthefilm'sheavyuseofpre-existingpopsongs,Donnellycomments:Arethesesongappearancessimple‘commentsontheaction’?Idon'tthinkso.Itismoreasiftheactionemanatesfromthesongsthemselves,particularlyfromtheirgrainofsoundandrhythmicaspects(p.28).Thisassertionisallowedtofendforitself,intheabsenceofmoreparticularcommentaryabouttheinteractionbetweentheactionandsongineachspecificcase.Thevalueofinvestigatingscreenmusic'sless‘submissive’qualitiesinrelationtonarrativeprincipleswouldbebetteradvocatedthroughadetailedinterpretationthatalsoengageswiththepossibilitythatthesoundtrackfulfilsmoreconventionalstorytellingfunctions.Characterizingthe‘elsewhere’ofscreenmusicsurelybecomesmoreinterestingifitsrelationshiptootherspacesisacknowledgedanditsownterritoryismappedindetail.Vernallis'sExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContextcombinestheimaginativefacilitythatfiresDonnelly'sbookwiththeattentiontodetailthatcharacterizesDavison's.Herstudyisextremelycomprehensiveinfulfillingitspromisetotake‘themusicofmusicvideomostseriously’(p.x),thereby‘a(chǎn)ttemptingananalysisthattakesmusicalcodes,processes,andtechniquesasprovidingmeansbywhichvideoimagecanbestructured’(p.209).Ononelevel,asVernallisadmits,thisisabelatedconsolidationoftheinitiativestakeninAndrewGoodwin'sfoundationalmusictelevisionstudyDancingintheDistractionFactory:MusicTelevisionandPopularCulture.2Initsimplementation,however,Vernallisfarexceedsthisbrief.Therearechaptersonnarrativeandediting,asyoumightexpectfromastudywhoseaimitistodeconstructtheformofthemusicvideo;lessexpectedistheattentiontoaspectssuchassupportingperformers,propsandthesensualqualitiesof(auralandvisual)space,colour,textureandtime.Eveninthemorepredictablesections,Vernallisexploresrelationshipsbetweensongandimagewhichexpandacriticalunderstandingofthemusicvideo'spossibilities.Forinstance,inthechapteronediting,shegoesfarbeyondthestandardnotionthatvideoscuttheirimagestotherhythmofthesong,tosuggest:Obviously,editingcanreflectthebasicbeatpatternofthesong,butitcanalsoberesponsivetoallofthesong'sotherparameters.Forexample,longdissolvescancomplementarrangementsthatincludesmoothtimbresandlong-heldtones.Avideocanusedifferentvisualmaterialtooffsetanimportanthookoradifferentcuttingrhythmatthebeginningsandendsofphrases.And,ofcourse,theseeffectscanswitchfromone-to-onerelationshipstosomethingthatismorecontrapuntal(p.49).Thesekindsofexpressivepossibilitiesarethenillustratedthroughagreatrangeofexamples,allanalysedwithaninterpretiverichnessthatmakestheinclusionofthreeextendedcasestudychaptersattheendofthebookalmostfeelliketoomuchofagoodthing.Inherafterword,Vernallisclaimsthatherbook‘a(chǎn)ttemptstolayoutthebasicmaterialsofmusicvideo,muchasDavidBordwellandhiscolleaguesdoforcinemainTheClassicalHollywoodCinemaorFilmArt’(p.286).ExperiencingMusicVideowillcertainlyproveusefulasatextbook,andsomeoftheunnecessaryrepetitionbetweenchaptersmaybeexplainedbyanexpectationthatthebookwillbeconsultedinseparatechunksonindividualweeksofacourseratherthanasawhole.However,IfeelthatVernallisissellingherselfshortwithhercomparison.Thereisanimaginativeandidiosyncratic,yetdisciplined,interpretiveimpulsebehindheranalysiswhichTheClassicalHollywoodCinema3explicitlyrejects.HerbookhasmoreincommonwiththepoeticcategorizationsofsoundtheoristMichelChionor,castingthenetmorewidely,thesensitiveresponsestotheintricaciesofafilmedfictionalworlddemonstratedbyGeorgeM.Wilson'sNarrationinLight:StudiesinCinematicPointofView.4BothWilsonandVernallisseizeon‘moments’whichtheauthorsthenseektoexplaininrelationtotheirfictionalworld,whetherthatbeasettingstimulatedbydramaticpossibilities,asinthecaseofnarrativefilm,ormusicalparameters,asisthecasewiththemusicvideo.AsVernallisstates,byattendingtothesmallestofmoments,‘itwillbepossibletoworktowardseeinghowthevideobuildstowardthismomentandmovesawayfromit’(p.202).Onanumberofoccasions,evenanattentiveandimmersedcriticlikeVernalliscannotresistthetemptationtocomparesong–imagerelationshipsinthemusicvideowiththeperceived‘typical’conventionsofclassicalcinemaandclassicalnarrativefilmmusic.Thisnecessitatesadiversionfromthebook'sprimary,andmostlaudable,aimtofullyunderstandtheinfluenceofthemusicofthemusicvideo.Inallthreebooks,theacknowledgementofabodyoffilmmusicwritingthatcanbecategorizedas‘classical’providesevidenceofanowmaturefieldofstudy.Thisliteratureisnotalwaysintegratedseamlesslywiththeauthors'ownarguments.Allthreeworksprovideilluminatinginsightsintotypesofscreenmusicthatarenotaccountedforadequatelybyclassicaltheory.However,theargumentsworkbestwhenengagingcarefullywiththespecificrelationshipsobservableandaudibleintheirchosenobjectsofstudy,ratherthanlookingovertheshouldertowardsmodelsofclassicalnarrativefilmmusic,orassumingthevalueofananalysissimplybecauseitdoesnotfittheclassicalmould.Inthekindoftext-basedcriticismpursuedbyallthreewriters,themostgenerouskindofcriticalactivitycanalsobethemostmyopic.Vernallis'sbook,inparticular,showstherewardsofaclosereadingofparticularmoments,asitproducesinsightswhichmayinspirethereadertounderstand,innewandsurprisinglights,notonlythatmoment,butotherstheyencounterthemselves.IanGarwood\o"PreviousSection"PreviousSection

Footnotes?SimonFrith,Screen,vol.41,no.3(2000),p.335.?AndrewGoodwin,DancingintheDistractionFactory:MusicTelevisionandPopularCulture(Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinneapolisPress,1992).?DavidBordwell,JanetStaigerandKristinThompson,TheClassicalHollywoodCinema:FilmStyleandModeofProductionto1960(London:Routledge,1985).?GeorgeM.Wilson,NarrationinLight:StudiesinCinematicPointofView(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1986).

《好萊塢理論、非好萊塢實(shí)踐：20世紀(jì)80年代至20世紀(jì)90年代的原聲帶電影》——聲音的魅力：電影和電視劇中的音樂(lè)體驗(yàn)型的音樂(lè)視頻：美學(xué)與文化語(yǔ)境最后一次收集的屏幕與音樂(lè)有關(guān)的書(shū)籍是主題為屏幕的專(zhuān)業(yè)評(píng)論，評(píng)論者是SimonFrith，她很感動(dòng)，并注意到各項(xiàng)工作間的弄巧成拙......需要提請(qǐng)注意的是她們忽視主題以及非常有限的方式，在這種方式中，作者們似乎愿意相互幫助以完成工作。從目前收集到的評(píng)論書(shū)籍中可以判斷，和以前相比，該地區(qū)大部分學(xué)術(shù)成就是分學(xué)院的，并且要求對(duì)作者進(jìn)行的自我診斷和學(xué)術(shù)隔離似乎已經(jīng)不太成為必要。AnnetteDavison、K.J.Donnelly以及CarolVernallis分享了大量關(guān)于音樂(lè)形象的批判參照書(shū)籍，這些書(shū)籍覆蓋了從TheodorAdorno到PhilipTagg，以及大量?jī)烧哂^點(diǎn)之間的書(shū)籍。如今，存在著大量經(jīng)典的音樂(lè)學(xué)術(shù)作品，這些作品都是基于敘事電影寫(xiě)作的，并且它可以不再聲稱(chēng)那個(gè)音樂(lè)視頻是一個(gè)學(xué)術(shù)的盲點(diǎn)（正如Vernallis所承認(rèn)那樣）。專(zhuān)業(yè)評(píng)論角度下，書(shū)中討論的各種媒體格式，只有電視音樂(lè)仍然具有相對(duì)的學(xué)術(shù)代表性（盡管Donnelly的兩篇關(guān)于這個(gè)問(wèn)題文章開(kāi)始了解決這種缺失的進(jìn)程）。在這種情況下，作者的任務(wù)似乎已經(jīng)變成提出可替代目前現(xiàn)有工作的觀點(diǎn)，或把新研究對(duì)象帶到學(xué)術(shù)界批判的眼光之下。所有三項(xiàng)研究成果都為她們自己學(xué)術(shù)的原創(chuàng)性做出了聲明，而且這些聲明都是通過(guò)引用經(jīng)典敘事電影音樂(lè)實(shí)踐模型的方式做出的：一個(gè)概念化的原聲帶的角色，在經(jīng)典電影中與講述優(yōu)先級(jí)的感知故事相配合。對(duì)于所有書(shū)，其每本書(shū)的價(jià)值在于，即使在其駁斥的論述中也可以引發(fā)一種有趣的問(wèn)題，該問(wèn)題就是研究中完全不使用這種理論的可行性或不可行性。即經(jīng)常求助于經(jīng)典于概念，即使是在事務(wù)中駁斥了，引發(fā)了可能（或不可能）的完全沒(méi)有這種概念做有趣問(wèn)題。因此，這些作品成果揭示出'經(jīng)典'也有可能是一種疑難問(wèn)題，它一直還運(yùn)用于音樂(lè)形象關(guān)系的學(xué)術(shù)寫(xiě)作中，如同在屏幕學(xué)習(xí)探索領(lǐng)域的應(yīng)用一樣。如其標(biāo)題所示，Davison的《好萊塢理論，非好萊塢實(shí)踐：20世紀(jì)80年代至20世紀(jì)90年代的原聲帶電影》非常明確地運(yùn)用了經(jīng)典的電影音樂(lè)理論。事實(shí)上，大約有四分之一的這本書(shū)進(jìn)行了這樣的解釋?zhuān)菏紫?，假設(shè)古典好萊塢電影理論已經(jīng)獲得學(xué)術(shù)上的地位；其次，古典的得分實(shí)踐與之相聯(lián)系（其中Davison認(rèn)為在20世紀(jì)70年代中期出現(xiàn)的后古典好萊塢復(fù)興正在繼續(xù)）。這就為Davison提出她關(guān)鍵的理論提供了依據(jù)︰這本書(shū)的中心論點(diǎn)是，通過(guò)操作經(jīng)典的信號(hào)物——而且事實(shí)上，新好萊塢電影——古典好萊塢評(píng)分在1980年代和1990年代提供了進(jìn)一步制作那些質(zhì)量在好萊塢電影外面和邊緣的電影的手段，她們可以區(qū)分她們從好萊塢的電影院，通過(guò)產(chǎn)品的分?jǐn)?shù)和配樂(lè)她們可以區(qū)分自己的電影與好萊塢電影，這些產(chǎn)品的分?jǐn)?shù)和配樂(lè)通過(guò)特殊的途徑批判或涉及這種實(shí)踐。通過(guò)對(duì)四部電影的配樂(lè)的跟蹤分析，根據(jù)戴維森，指在時(shí)間為他們提供另一種同樣的經(jīng)典模型。她通過(guò)測(cè)序研究的情況，戴維森概述替代實(shí)踐從總解構(gòu)經(jīng)典電影配樂(lè)的傳統(tǒng)講故事的功能到一個(gè)練習(xí)，模仿經(jīng)典的某些方面在其合作性質(zhì)的認(rèn)定范圍的可能性，但它提供了一個(gè)理想的替代。在這兩者之間，她探討了電影配樂(lè)的概念是一種“解放”的力量，在古典與另類(lèi)的模式之間找到了一種妥協(xié)的可能性。戴維森的每部電影里閱讀是想象力和非常詳細(xì)的。她展示了一個(gè)特定的識(shí)別設(shè)備，并賦予不同類(lèi)型的原聲意義。這一點(diǎn)在他的《花園和欲望的翅膀》完成的特別好。她的分析并不試圖隱藏她的明顯的音樂(lè)訓(xùn)練，但是，在幾乎所有的情況下仍然是可理解的這樣的非音樂(lè)的說(shuō)服力。戴維森在書(shū)的開(kāi)頭部分所進(jìn)行的非常全面場(chǎng)景的設(shè)置，認(rèn)為這是必要的單個(gè)電影的欣賞分析，這一點(diǎn)是多少值得商榷的。不過(guò)，她對(duì)古典和古典后好萊塢電影和經(jīng)典電影配樂(lè)討論的總結(jié)是有示范性的，并且總結(jié)的方式也是容易理解的，也許是在發(fā)布的流行和民間音樂(lè)系列需要這樣一本書(shū)的地方而不是在一個(gè)屏幕研究。但是好萊塢的意思在書(shū)的前幾章的機(jī)構(gòu)，工業(yè)和意識(shí)形態(tài)的力量，以及導(dǎo)演在后面的章節(jié)后面的分析之間仍然存在不匹配。例如，在“新好萊塢電影和經(jīng)典進(jìn)球”的一章總結(jié)有關(guān)20世紀(jì)80年代在海外市場(chǎng)的美國(guó)電影的成長(zhǎng)的統(tǒng)計(jì)信息。然而，在各種非好萊塢電影配樂(lè)的細(xì)節(jié)，以個(gè)人電影制作人的部分主流做法，富有想象力的響應(yīng)后續(xù)解釋的不是必要的。藝術(shù)電影院的導(dǎo)演的自由表達(dá)空間心領(lǐng)神會(huì)好萊塢的描述為頑固機(jī)構(gòu)之間的分工，是由太沾沾自喜，意思是戴維森沒(méi)有完全按照他在書(shū)中任何情況下“與體制問(wèn)題有關(guān)的電影配樂(lè)和分?jǐn)?shù)”。在這方面，這本書(shū)并沒(méi)有完全實(shí)現(xiàn)其許多優(yōu)秀部分的潛力。Donnelly在聲音的魅力中寫(xiě)道：電影和電視音樂(lè)每階段都有不同，但讀者可以通過(guò)作者的早期理念：這本書(shū)是“費(fèi)盡心思做一些難以捉摸的調(diào)查，為此做好了準(zhǔn)備和影視的音樂(lè)“（第3頁(yè)），而不是嚴(yán)格的基于假設(shè)表面。然而，更關(guān)注這本書(shū)的是具體的給出的理由，各種范圍內(nèi)的材料，包括經(jīng)典的導(dǎo)演如戴維林奇和斯坦利庫(kù)布里克的作品，也是一個(gè)配樂(lè)討論室：1999年，一系列的恐怖電影，和電視連相比就是音樂(lè)的作用。唐納利的影視音樂(lè)相比在更經(jīng)典的作品，得分之處是更無(wú)形的專(zhuān)注于的講故事。這一點(diǎn)讓他受鼓舞，特別是由電影制作的電影的日益復(fù)雜的聲音設(shè)計(jì)，唐納利認(rèn)為：傳統(tǒng)的電影音樂(lè)被看作是一種敘事的一部分，在電影敘事中，在某種程度上，它會(huì)更好地把它看作是電影中的一部分。下定決心去探索音樂(lè)的更多屏幕任性的素質(zhì)，唐納利的即興演奏在音樂(lè)的魔力的概念，用形象的方式。特別是關(guān)系到電影院，他認(rèn)為配樂(lè)可以構(gòu)成一種觀眾的感性上的占有。唐納利是不愿意承認(rèn)電視原聲帶的具有功能，但集中而不是另一種魔力：在電視臺(tái)，一個(gè)特定的電視背景一樣的熟悉的音樂(lè)的習(xí)慣性使用配樂(lè)對(duì)他在生活別處也