Music versus Film: Superior Art Form?
 

Which do you believe is superior in conveying emotion--music or film?

I personally think its music because a film without music is likely to be very dull. A great film score is what gets my blood pumping and draws me in the most.

Both. I like them both. Maybe a slight swing for music but I could'nt live without them. Music is much better for dipping into whereas films you have to watch the whole thing generally to get a sense of what it is trying to convey. Alternatively films do sometimes get my heart beating faster and put through an emotional rollercoaster a little more.

A film without a score can still do it. Scum has one or two library tracks at the most and that film will blow you away.

Film of course because it can be taken in visually and audibly and while I don't think films need music to be great, I'll certain admit a great score can really elevate a good film near or to greatness. I think one of my favorite films, Forrest Gump, is a perfect example. The Nam scene where CCR's "fortunate son" is playing, the elvis angel,"san Fransisco", Three dog night, top to bottom great music on a very good film.

Music! A film takes upwards of several hours to say what a talented lyricist/singer can put across in one verse (or one line). Plus, there's the old argument that you can (indeed, sometimes have to) listen to a song hundreds or thousands of times; one or two viewings is sufficient for all but the best films.

But here's the best argument I have for music; whenever I'm feeling down for whatever reason, I don't think, "Gee, I'd like to see so-and-so movie." I play Astral Weeks or White Light/White Heat or Blood On The Tracks or Spiral Scratch (if I need a pick-me-up) and that's all it takes. There's no movie that can do that for me.


That said, I'm convinced that if the original version of The Magnificent Ambersons was ever found, it would trump every single one of my favorite albums. Even in its butchered version, it's amazing. Still, no other movie I've seen even comes close to it.

They are totally different forms of art. The cinema is the art of the motion picture. Plenty of emotion and atmosphere can be conjured up through visuals. It is ridiculous to claim that one medium is superior to the other at conveying emotion because that is entirely dependent on the experiencer.

A good example of how a score is definitely NOT needed to give a film great atmosphere and emotion is No Country For Old Men, which has virtually no non-diegetic music at all in the whole picture.

What's more, a great deal of emotions can be conveyed in a still picture, so what about a short 30-second moving one?

Rainard, I guess you are right. I think my question was way too subjective. There can't be 1 single superior art form for conveying emotion because, as you've said, it depends too much on the observer. For some it is music, for others film, literature, etc.

Thanks for taking the time out to answer my question.