Iceberg Ahead! More Titanic

Compiled by Lukas Kendall

I know, I know. Enough already. I so enjoyed most of 1997 because James Horner, tied up on Titanic, was virtually absent from other movies. But, it's time to pay for that little vacation. People who are completely sick of this, we love you. Come back tomorrow for real news, I promise.

However, I am going to do something a little differently today. I will answer all the questions put to me honestly and objectively. I will try to be completely clear vis a vis my feelings towards Horner's music: it may make my opinions understood, or it may get me in even more hot water with "the people." But I'm game if you are.

From: Andrew McCaskill <opalwood@rie.net.au>

I was just wondering why is it that you dislike Horner and his work so much?

I am a huge fan of Horner and it mystifies as to why you really almost loath him, surely there is some explanation, it can't just be because he recycles his music is it?

And why the pointless comment of him having a fake accent, excuse me but what the hell does that have to do with anything?

I saw the Golden Globes last night and to me he seems to be a very pleasantly spoken and presented man, who also has extreme talent in film composing.

So, you might be able to understand why I can't understand your attitude to him, it's a shame that you can't enjoy such a grand musical achievement as Titanic with the rest of the world... remember, it's number #1.

The man's a genious. [sic]

I dislike a good deal of Horner's work on a personal level because I simply don't respond to it. That's my gut reaction. (Many of his works I do respond to, however: Field of Dreams, Sneakers, Brainstorm.) On a theoretical level, I have a problem with many of his scores because I feel they manipulate the audience in very obvious ways: they paint scenes "scary," "emotional" or "triumphant" in such a way as to create a mainstream, traditional reading of the film. (By "mainstream" interpretations I mean that they reinforce traditional class, gender and racial roles which are by definition oppressive; cf. Ransom.)

Simultaneously, even while pushing traditional buttons he has musically stripped his writing to bare essentials which I find dull to listen to. In other words, I find most of his albums ambient and coloristic at the expense of the formal musical structures and coherence which composers like John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith conscientiously create.

Interestingly, Horner has directly stated his intentions to this end in recent interviews--that he prefers to think on terms of moods and colors and "paints" those to manipulate the audience in a subliminal way. He is very successful in this regard, but I do not find his manipulative choices artistically interesting the way I find the choices of, say, Howard Shore consistently provocative.

And furthermore, yes, I feel Horner has indulged in plagiarism of his own work and of the works of others in ways which are not aesthetically or theoretically justified by his respective projects.

I do not personally loathe Horner although I will admit to a personal bias in that his representatives have been deliberately unhelpful and nasty to me in the past. Such a thing should not be relevant when making critical judgments, but as a human being sometimes it's impossible to help.

I point out Horner's fake accent and certain details of his background only in response to collectors who would make incorrect presumptions. As fans it can be hard for us to believe that someone who writes music we love might not be equally lovable in person. Many composers are "nice" people, many aren't. I know many details about Horner's background and behavior--first hand reports from a variety of people--that would portray him as a very not-nice person. (Real life story: assistant film editor is at workprint screening of Braveheart, Horner in attendence. Horner beckons her over, drops some quarters in her hand and says, "Could you refill my meter? It's the Porsche"--and there are like four floors of cars outside.)

I know, this isn't like he murdered someone, but I just wish people could spend some time with His Majesty and then reevaluate. We're talking about someone who has systematically alienated and abused many people who have helped him over the years; most recently, he dropped Shawn Murphy as his recording engineer because Murphy wouldn't break a prior engagement to record Zorro.

Anyway... I wish we could keep our discussion on the music and not the man, but when I see people completely blend the issue, refer to him by his first name, or by nicknames which he never actually uses, it makes me want to set the record straight.

To those concerned about my comment last week about Horner being a "Jew from the valley," for one thing I too am Jewish, so my comment was not meant as anti-Semitic anymore than Richard Pryor's routine is meant to show he's a racist. I was merely pointing out that Horner paints himself as a classic Hollywood outsider--British educated, socially withdrawn--when in fact he comes from a well-connected Hollywood background.

Finally: yes, Titanic is the #1 selling album in the U.S. Many soundtrack fans are now gleeful to mention this when they usually decry the bad taste of America regarding what's usually on the top of the charts. "Bestselling" has nothing to do with artistic evaluations.

From: Henry/SkyMaker <SkyMaker@aol.com>

There is no doubt at all that James Horner will win the Oscar for best score and best song. This will all be proven in March. Perhaps with all the commotion concerning Horner ripping from himself many a times and from Enya, I don't think we all need to go into the political argumentative arena of Horner's work on the Titanic whether it is original or not, but judge the merits of his work from the effectiveness of his music. Sure, he sounds similar all over the place here and there, even everywhere, but the potent question that needs to be asked is whether his music pulls our heartstrings or not. Does his music makes the necessary statements of it's intentions, if so, then who cares whether it's similar to his previous works. If it touches your heart, let it continue to be so, and then don't over analyse to the point that logic takes away from the emotion of the moments. Let your heart enjoy any music written and not be hindered that it sounds similar to this or copies that, but let it be music and move you. Otherwise, it'll be like not willing to enjoy honey because the bees that harvest them are not supposed to be able to fly according to our modern understanding of aero dynamics. Just let go of logic and bathe yourselves in the moments. I promise that you'll find you are more emotionally stimulated by this procedure.

I will first introduce myself by saying that I am moved by all sorts of music, both classy and cheesy, with an eclectic taste. Most recently I found the selection "Mama's Dead" from Black Caesar (1973 blaxploitation movie, James Brown) heartbreaking.

I have given Titanic the opportunity to "enter my heart" and it didn't. I don't see how SkyMaker has the clairvoyance to dictate what my heart should accept any more than I can dictate the same for him. I think in Titanic the music does fulfill its intentions--actually, I think the Enya style was a brilliant move on the part of the filmmakers to achieve a popular hit--but I have aesthetic problems with those intentions. I think the movie is a tremendous success because it combines a mythical type of fairy-tale love story, reinforcing traditional gender roles, with the kind of technically mindblowing, obsessive attempt at photorealism that craftsmen with populist leanings confuse with art (cf. Walt Disney's drive to make "realistic" animation in the 1930s and '40s).

I can understand how some people do not want to analyze things that they like in this manner. However, the alternative is this: "Titanic is great!" "No, it sucks!" Which do you want to read? I find it presumptuous that anyone is going to tell me that the reason I don't like something is because I didn't "open my heart" to it. You know the one movie I actually did respond to in that way this winter? The Postman, a movie almost universally disliked--and moreover, unwatched.

I'm prepared and eager to discuss my emotional reactions in a non-dogmatic way, and I'm separately happy to explain myself re: the "political" stuff. I'd appreciate it if some people could explain what they found moving in something without calling me an idiot for not feeling the same way.

The following and final letter today was written in response to Doug Adams's recent piece on Titanic:

From: Israel David Groveman <idg@wam.umd.edu>

I trust you see that I don't think that James Horner is the best composer from all aspects. We all, as imperfect beings, even in our greatest accomplishments, have evident weaknesses that can become successful eclipses to whatever our deeds are. I have never met a perfect man, or composer, and I don't expect James Horner to be either. How is Horner's use of IV/I in the opening of Titanic any more simplistic than B. Herrmanns application of the Major-minor seventh in Psycho? In plenty of scores, Horners writing employs expansion of themes, orchestration, rhythmic weave and complexity, modulation, application of secondary-dominants, and more. All these in mind, it really doesnt even matter what chord-progression he is employing. If you were to carry your block chord argument any farther, you would almost begin to suggest that musical creativity is found solely in atonal dissonance, or some other category.

You seem to suggest that emotionally effective film writing is as simple as 2+2. Do you forget that many composers strive to achieve the emotional effect that Horner does and never come close? You seem to think that if we all threw some IV/I chords into the string section, we would be nominated for Academy Awards over night, would have endless numbers of film producers, directors, and writers, as well as the general public, clamoring for our music.

You mention that Horner's music does not change, that he only alters the emotional timing as the film requires. Is this not going too far in your judgment of his music? Allow a composer the room to establish his own identity. Although Horner's technique does follow him around from score to score, it is hardly anything to criticize as anti-musicianship. I will be the first to say that Horner's music is very similar, even in many places. I will also be the first to say so about any other composer, whether film or classical. At random, Mozart, Haydn, Bruch, and Shostakovitch all are similar within their own works to the point of recognition by ear, and all, every single one, are guilty of using pieces from other works, whether their own or others, and reworking such as new material.

According to your article, Horner's application of a pre-existing idea by referring to ancient church music leads to justified disqualification of his musicianship. All creative actions infer and refer in some way. There has never been an original idea on planet Earth. If Horner had grown up on mainland China in the 1800s, he would be writing Buddhist monk chants. So would have Mozart. All composers employ some manner of artistic reference. Are you thus saying that all those other infinite cases of such application are on the same par? When John Williams suggests college football march style music in his theme to Raiders of the Lost Ark, is his Academy-Award nominated score then "not composition?" When Jerry Goldsmith uses native chants in The Ghost and the Darkness, which are by themselves other-worldly and ethereal, to suggest the sheer demonic wildness of the African lions and the desperate condition of their human victims, is this then "mere reference" and thus "not composition?" Very few musical compositions exist (film or classical) which do not refer to something else in some manner of reliance. In classical works, the form itself is a pre-determined entity. For example, the concerto even pre-sets the speed and thus almost the character of the three movements. We hear no complaints of poor musicianship and lack of creativity here. To say the least, your example of ancient church music is far from a just reason to deny Horners credibility as a musician and composer. If Horner takes his musical batch that was successful in one film, which you yourself admit, and uses it for another, often similar film, who are we to complain?

Horner, as you pointed out, is very good at weaving a unity between the music and the visual. Although he has similar veins in his music, he almost always writes a score that fits the film like a glove. I have listened to many of his CDs - I recognize skeletal similarities with much reworking. Not for the shoddy sake of disguise either! Even with all the similarities, he expresses the individuality of the film, placing one right in the midst of its feeling, its world, and its heart. Alan J. Pakula, director of The Devils Own, was so pleased with Horners music for his film that he decided to re-shoot certain scenes that Horners music gave him inspiration for. According to James Cameron, director of Titanic, "James Horners score for Titanic is all I had hoped and prayed it would be and much more. It deftly leaps from intimacy to grandeur, from joy to heart-wrenching sadness and across the full emotional spectrum of the film while maintaining stylistic and thematic unity." That is far grander than what some refer to as warm fuzzies. This "warm fuzzies" perspective also leaves out his success with the action-adventure genre, such as Clear and Present Danger and Patriot Games. The closest these come to the warm fuzzies is the feeling you might get as a bullet pierces the side of your head.

Almost all reformations and transitions in what we refer to as Classical music began with some group of artists that were bored and decided to reject old standards and encourage new approaches with experimentation and organization. In the Baroque, the Classical, and the Romantic eras, each time there was a reformation, the emotive aspect of the new music was a primary goal. Isnt emotion the goal of music? Ask the Irish man why he likes his music, ask the African, the Indian, the German; ask the grunge rocker, the rhythm and blues performer, the jazz musician, the film buff. Technical reasons such as "IV and I chords," or "coloristic entities" would be sparse, and emotional reasons would be primary. Music is in itself an emotional messenger; why else is it an assumed character in virtually all films? Look at all the hit songs ever written; look at every good soundtrack ever composed. I think that if James Horner is as good emotionalist he is definitely in the right field.

You are flirting with danger when you attempt to separate musical creativity and emotional expression. You accuse Horner of anti-musicianship for simply using the sound to communicate a message. Isnt this what the very definition of composition, and thus, music, is? Good music is emotional; it causes emotion. I am not ashamed of the emotion in Horner scores. That, in fact, is the very reason I buy them! You have given us the very reason we enjoy Horners music. If emotion is so strictly personal as you say, and the thing that appeals to all of us in Horners music is only the emotional aspect, then I would say it is safe to infer from your article that Horners music appeals to a lot of people. =-)

I speak to many people that know much less about film music than I do. As people regularly do in conversation as they find out my interests in film music, they quote movies that come to mind that had effective music. About three-fourths of the time, something that Horner has done pops into their mind. For those of you who can't listen to his music without looking hungrily for patchwork from his other scores, please relax. Sit back, close your eyes, and let this so pitifully belittled emotionalist speak to you with his rhythms and harmonies. When you get a new Horner score, resist the temptation to play God with his music. Sure it may be trash to some of you, but with Horners accomplishments, he doesnt need to look for new chord progressions. Listen for what he does with a film. I encourage you to step back and "get the big picture," if you dont mind me stealing your quote. Horner will continue to do as you complain of, as long as he writes. Even with all the so-called self rip-offs, Horners music does have an ability to stand alone. You cite a specific time when Horner stopped composing. Maybe he simply started making money!

Well, I lied. This is too long for me to respond to point by point. Doug and I both salute the man who gives us the sentence, "The closest these come to the warm fuzzies is the feeling you might get as a bullet pierces the side of your head."

Here is my official 20th century theoretician response to why I don't like Horner. Completely skip it if you hate this stuff. If you read this and are confused or annoyed, it's your own fault!

I'm serious! I don't want hate mail! The following is analytical! You've been warned!

All movies are constructed. You are watching light on a screen. A movie's meaning comes from the ways we interpret what we see and hear. James Horner as a composer tends to reinforce a patriarchal reading of the movies he scores: he makes the hero good, the bad guy bad, the love scenes romantic, and suspense scary. You will probably say this is what film music is supposed to do, and you'll be correct, but Horner, unlike composers like Goldsmith, Barry and Morricone, is exceptionally un-ironic about it. We live in a 20th century world where many of the above tropes have been identified and analyzed. They are a part of our culture and conditioning. It is dishonest to call upon them sans acknowledgement--witness the irony of the James Bond movies, and even the irony through lack-of-irony to the Star Wars films. Horner's music, with its shuffled plagiarisms and triumph of color over form, deliberately clouds the identification of these tropes. It is a product of postmodern culture--but not art--that appeals to the lowest common denominator of the viewing public, one that wants the thrills of these signifiers without the responsibility of knowing what they mean and imply.

Finally, I will close by saying that I agree Horner is exceptionally good as a craftsman of what he does, which is why argument about his scores is so passionate. It is also interesting to note that since 1990 his scoring choices have been almost exclusively children's films--Jumanji, The Pagemaster, etc.--or high profile mainstream fare which also emphasize traditional western heros and stories--Apollo 13, Braveheart, Titanic, the Jack Ryan movies. With the sole exception of Sneakers, which remains inexplicably good, Horner's scores for more adult, ambiguous fare have been for movies that disappeared without a trace: House of Cards, Jack the Bear, To Gillian. Except for Sneakers, he simply self-destructs on movies that disallow "the obvious" (not to mention plagiarism) and mandate more sophisticated formal structures.

Good lord, I'm gonna get it today. Send your responses: MailBag@filmscoremonthly.com