These clips are great examples of Aristotle's and your emphasis on the judicious use of song/music as embellishment (and my personal favorite use of music in a movie is still the theme from JAWS, which seemed to me to convey the shark's own unfathomable essence, as well as evoke sheer terror in the audience) - but must confess, what I really can't wait to hear is what you have to say about Spectacle for next week! Thanks again, Scott, for leading this awesome journey through the Poetics.

Sidney Lumet used little or no soundtrack music in some of his most revered films (and also directed "The Wiz", hmmmm). He mentions his philosophy on soundtrack music in an interview but I can't find it. Is the use of music to drive home every point in many of today's movies another sign of "dumbing down"?

I am coming late to this discussion, but have enjoyed catching up on all the preceding posts and comments. Thank you, Scott, for the opportunity to revisit this text. And thanks for the nostalgic clips this week. I certainly agree with you about the overuse of music these days. I did my own immersion study of the Poetics about 15 years ago when, after I had already been teaching screenwriting for a few years, I went back to graduate school to brush up on drama history. I soon learned that what I had been taught about the Poetics in film school was not entirely accurate. I decided to write a term paper on all the misinterpretations of the Poetics I was finding in screenwriting how-to books, a subject I found rather distressing, but that my (theater) professor thought was hilarious. Thus, I have since endeavored, as far as possible, to seek a deeper understanding. A couple of thoughts on the discussion so far: I think it’s important to keep in mind that the Poetics marks only the beginning of drama theory, not the end. Much more has come to be understood since then and more is yet to be learned. Also, it was written in a specific cultural and historical context that we can’t know fully, which is further complicated by our dependence on translations. I would caution, therefore, against getting too minute and too literal with the text. Better to simply appreciate the general principles. For example, there are those out there who would like to read Aristotle’s prioritizing of plot over character in a literal manner to justify cardboard character action films. But this doesn’t take into account that for Aristotle the word Character was with a capital C, meaning the inherent moral qualities of an individual, as opposed to personality traits or psychology, and that frequently, in those days, Character was portrayed through declamatory recitation, either by the chorus or the character himself. It was the tendency to describe a character’s inherent moral qualities through dialogue that Aristotle was arguing against by relegating Character to second place. This came from his philosophical belief that the true measure of a person’s moral character is in his actions. It was also why he considered Tragedy a superior art form to the Epic Poem, in that it provides the opportunity to show moral character through a person’s actions rather than just talking about it. It was the relatively new practice of revealing story elements through action that he was giving priority to by putting plot first. What does this tell us about screenwriting? First, we can let go of the idea that character is secondary to plot since our understanding of character by now is quite expanded from Aristotle’s, including as it does personality and psychology. He couldn’t possibly have meant character as we know it because it didn’t exist in his world. But more so, when Aristotle placed plot first, he was referring to structure, which is to say the manner in which the actions are organized. What distinguishes drama (Tragedy then, movies now) from narrative (the epic poem then, the novel now) is the ability to use action to tell the story. But in order to be successful, the action must be organized in a coherent structure. This was the radical new idea in Aristotle’s time that still holds true today.

Good points, Jennine. If Aristotle were alive today, I think he could not avoid saying more about Song (Music)-- and Spectacle -- if he wanted to be taken seriously as a critic or philosopher of drama. There are so many more possibilities; the technology makes possible an audio-visual experience that was impossible -- inconceivable -- in his time.

I also wonder if the overuse of Song (music) is a compensation for the failure to be able to deliver the goods (character intention and revelation, relationship beats, thematic and emotional import of a scene, etc.) through well made, interwoven strands of Plot & Character & Thought. Or as a means of meeting the challenge of selling movies [particularly franchises] to global audiences -- make them appeal to sensibilities conditioned by so many diverse cultures. Music is as close as we come to a universal language. After all, the tragedies Aristotle discusses are "Greek" to the us today, not just in language, but also foreign to our experience, our modern ethos.

[...] Studying Aristotle’s “Poetics” – Part 6(F): Diction Fourth, Song Fifth (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]

Hmm. Well, personally, have always understood Antigone's deep-seated need to honor her brother over their step-father/king's declaration that her brother was a "traitor to the State" - but perhaps that's just due to my own personal experience as a Scots-Irish redneck working-class gal from Arkansas (like Mama's Daddy always said - "Sister, you ever come up on a still that's smokin' out in the woods - you take a sip outta that tin cup, and put another log on the fire - so's they'll know you're not with the Revenue. Thataway, they won't shoot ya. . ."). :)

What Melanie said. Hegel used Antigone was an example of his theory of tragedy as a clash of antipodal and co-equal interests and moral claims.

Aww, pgronk. . .! (Just wish ya'd speak English, goddamn it. . .) :)

Let me note for the record, I love movie soundtracks. I have many of them on iTunes, ready to go for writing sessions including a selection of my favorites from "The Shawshank Redemption" which I can listen to over and over, and have an autographed CD from composer Thomas Newman. But your choice of phrase: "judicious use." Well said. Just like you can't have light without dark, good without evil, music can not have its intended impact without silence. Your mention of the "Jaws" theme is instructive. Watch this clip of poor Chrissie's last swim. Silence up to the 1:25 mark, silence after she disappears. Music only accompanies the shark attack itself. The silence sets up the attack, the ensuing silence us to absorb the horror of what happened... and imagine what the hell it was that assaulted the young woman from below the surface of the water. Moving forward, we then have that image in mind when the actual famous ta-da, ta-da "Jaws" theme happens later, its minimalist rhythmic dirge a perfect accompaniment to the shark's POV assault. What do you think, Melanie? Silence as important for effective accompanying music as the music itself?

hobbs001, your comment brought to mind the classic 1976 movie "Network". Check out this famous scene and try to imagine it with ominous music. Or this even MORE famous scene. I suppose one could argue that Chayefsky's dialogue is 'musical' in its cadence and tone, so one would have to be an effing idiot to slather it with accompanying music, but I think it's more reflective of the times. Re "dumbing down": My main point in the OP was just the CONTINUAL presence of music, movies with 75% of the scenes or more. But their use to hammer home precisely what the filmmakers presume we are supposed to be feeling is where I feel like they are playing to the lowest common denominator in terms of the audience. Thanks for your mention of Lumet. Have you read his "Making Movies"? Superb!

Jennine, I am enthused you have joined the conversation. Would you mind if I quote your comments and add to the original post, as I think they add valuable insight into our analytical process. I can't help but chuckle about your comments re "screenwriting how-to books." I'm afraid that is reflective of a few things. One, screenplays have always been the bastard child of literature because at their core, they are a blueprint to make a movie... or at least perceived as such. Two, screenplay form has its roots in theatrical plays smashed up against the exigencies of shot lists created ad hoc in the earliest days of producing movies back in the late 1890s and 1900s, so again something of a bastard child. It has only been in the last three decades or so where the selling version of a screenplay [not the shooting script] has managed untangle itself from camera shots and directing lingo to become something of a true literary form. But then #3: The spec script boom of the 1990s which spawned a glut of how-to books, most of them bent on selling formulas and paradigms aimed at the widest audience possible, and therefore reducing theory to the most basic form of approach. Fortunately the form continues to evolve and there are some terrific writers pushing that growth. What I'm trying to do in my own humble little way is push screenwriting theory beyond formula, a perspective that respects the organic nature of story, embraces the fact that there is no right way to write, a character-based approach as a counteractive to the preponderance of focus on structure, and bringing in some key concepts of Carl Jung who inspired Joseph Campbell, in effect reaching beyond The Hero's Journey to very essence of the Protagonist's narrative destiny grounded in their own psychological metamorphosis. Hence this study in Aristotle. I hope you and all the rest of our merry band continue to stay with this series as it promises to go on for the better part of a year. Hopefully we can through our shared conversation contribute something of value to the ongoing emergence of the contemporary screenplay. Again great to have you here!

pgronk, I think this is spot on. If you're in post, and a crucial sequence isn't conveying the desired emotional response through the setting, characters, events, and acting performances, why not slather on the emotionally wrought music? After all, that is one of the very last components added to a film. Just to show I'm not anti-music within the context of a movie, the escape scene in "The Shawshank Redemption" is a perfect example of music which you can see here and here. But note here how the sequence starts with silence, then music which slowly builds to that amazing crescendo with Andy reaches his hands up to the heavens. Pure awesomeness.

Okay, now two quit showing off! There are young 'uns here among us!

Oh, yes, that clip just gives me chills! and yes, I think you're so right about silence - reminds me of a quote from the wonderful book MARIA CALLAS: SACRED MONSTER (Stelios Galatopoulos) regarding the silences in opera, per her mentor, conductor Tullio Serafin: "Also, that pauses are often more important than the music, that there is a rhythm, a measure, for the human ear, and that if a note was too long it would cease to have any value after a while." (And am so delighted to meet Jennine tonight - both she and Pgronk are also the kind of mentors I've been hoping to encounter for this study!)

Thanks, Scott. Happy to be here. Feel free to quote my comment. Honored. "Bastard child" is exactly the metaphor I used in the opening to my term paper. So, yes, indeed. But I think that status sometimes motivates screenwriters to cling a little too close to Aristotle. Hence, my cautionary note. When I studied the history of drama with a bunch of theater people, they were far more inclined to take it with a grain of salt. A good beginning but not the whole story. Glad to see you using words like "evolving", "organic" and "no right way." These are notions that I don't think Aristotle was so tuned into. He was a scientist and philosopher first so tended to find comfort in absolutes. BTW, if you're curious, here's my piece on the how-to books: http://www.screentakes.com/the-uses-and-abuses-of-aristotles-poetics-in-screenwriting-how-to-books/ Looking forward to next week.

That Callas observation, same thing with stand-up comedy, which I did for two years before I broke in as a screenwriter. The goal: Make people laugh. So when you get on a roll and have what was known in my circle of comic cohorts "palm time" (as in you have the audience in the palm of your hand), the instinct is to keep going, keep pushing, keep working the material. And often, you go TOO far. I don't mean with the actual content per se so much as not pulling back and allowing the room to breathe. And by overdoing it, you can completely lose the crowd. Same goes with dialogue where less is more is a smart axiom. Find the balance. And that necessarily IMPLIES silence, room, space.

A very interesting paper, Jennine. I urge others participating in or eavesdropping on the discussion to read it.