The title itself, "Berlin: Symphony of a Great City," suggests a composition of sorts similar to one found in a great musical composition. A symphony for example. (Who would've thought!). A musical symphony is generally composed for an orchestra made up of instrumental sections, and is composed in movements (classically, four). These movements typically are characterized by different forms, and tend to exhibit alternating moods. Beethoven mastered the story-telling component of the symphony, arranging it in an arch, using related themes to build tension and drag us through series of events leading to a culminating climax and resolution. This organization resembles that of a human life, or even one day. The moods and themes, problems and solutions of one single day can easily be paralleled by the symphony's motion. Carl Mayer takes this a step further and paints a day in the life of Berlin in terms of a symphonic structure.
Particular themes recur in the film, as they would in a Beethoven symphony. The train is the greatest example of this. The train works as the Ode to Joy in the Ninth, a constant, whose personality changes and evolves to match whichever movement it inhabits. The individuals filmed are another great example of recurring thematic material. Their presence is fairly constant, yet their role changes and evolves throughout the symphony. While, at times, they are used to represent the busy movement of the "work day," later similar faces are used to convey "nighttime play" just as the orchestra is used in a symphony to convey both moods.
The film is obviously a visual symphony with movements carrying a vast orchestra through changing textures, themes, and moods. To complicate matters, though, we must account for the version of the film we see today, incorporating Timothy Brock's musical interpretation of the film, written in 1994*. Since the film clearly stands alone as a symphony, is Timothy Brock's score necessary? Did it add to the film for you? Or can it be said that it adds a second, unneeded layer? I want to hear what you all have to say about this. I see it as the latter, personally. If the film is a symphony in itself, Brock's interpretation adds aural moods, themes, and textures, when we already have many visual moods, themes, and textures to pay attention to. Sure, the score makes watching the film a lot more interesting, but one hears Carl Mayer's silent symphony at half the decibel with the added score.
*His website says 1994, the film says 1993. I don't know who to believe.
I'm inclined to politely disagree, feeling that Timothy Brook's score was a lovely addition to the film. Rather than detracting from Mayer's symphony, it worked to compliment it. Yes, it adds a visual mood all its own, but the music also works to grab our attention and focus it on certain events and images on screen that might otherwise pass us by unappreciated. For instance, the scenes at the end of Act I, with the masses of people walking through the streets to work and the machinery starting up for the day, is mirrored by the increased tempo in music. Same thing for the end of Act II, where we are shown men taking out their ledgers for the day and the typewriters being lifted out of their cases. Though I lack the terminology to properly describe it, the accompaniment helps to draw that connection between the bustling people and the furious pace that is Berlin. More than that, the music helps point out that while Berlin itself was becoming more and more mechanized, a certain mechanomorphism of the German people was also occurring.
ReplyDeleteI think maybe I was too quick to take an exact stance on this (or maybe I was feeling rather convicted that day), but I totally agree with you. I think Brock's score was really lyrically involved in the film. I just wonder whether or not Mayer and his fellow filmmakers ever intended for the film to have such an "involved" or descriptive score, since the film itself was meant to be a symphony.
ReplyDeleteAnd just by the way - Matt Malsky's score was a lot less descriptive, I thought. I felt it often took a more neutral tone. It did not walk hand-in-hand with the film the way Brock's score did. As for preference, it depends on what you are looking for in a score for the film - one will prefer Brock if they enjoy the added, complimentary layer of music, another will prefer no score at all if they believe the film was meant to stand alone, and yet another will prefer Malsky's score if they are searching for a happy medium between these two takes. Malsky's score provided an aural component as accompaniment to the visual work, instead of doubling as a solo instrument as Brock's did. (I have to apologize for that shameless music metaphor...It was pretty cheap...)
Well, let's remember this isn't really Carl Mayer's symphony. It was his original idea but once Ruttmann did his own thing Mayer's idea was out of the picture. I think that what this post is getting at is part of the reason Mayer disagreed with it. I'd have to take a look at the reading again.
ReplyDeleteI was definitely bored a few times with Brock's score. Malsky's seemed more fun...I know nothing about music so I do not know how to sound intelligent here.
Thanks, Arianna, for clarifying--Walter Ruttmann is the director of this film. Carl Mayer worked with him and eventually parted ways, although not over the music.
ReplyDeleteAs for the music, I'm SUPER SUPER sorry that I didn't get the edition of Berlin Symphony of a Great city with Edmund Meisel's scoring. As Matt Malsky might have explained to you all, Berlin Symphony of a Great City had an orchestral score, by Edmund Meisel, who had done the scoring for Eisenstein's "Potemkin." The score was thought to have been lost, but was found in a piano form quite recently. It was reconstructed as an orchestral version and premiered in 2007. I have a copy with the Meisel score, which I'll bring to class-I haven't been able to find it in the States, for which reason we don't own it in Goddard.
I don't know anything about musical composition, but in my opinion, the film can stand alone--without a score--as a purely visual work. I believe that the score certainly makes the film more interesting to watch in terms of entertainment value, but the visual composition (especially considering the year in which this film was released!) is incredible. I don't have a particularly intelligent way that I came to this conclusion--I just watched the first part of the film without sound, then with a score added. It's not as if the score has absolutely no effect on the film (on the contrary, it definitely determines mood when it is considered along with the visual field)--only, the film without sound can stand equal to a version with it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting post! I feel the music added only as much to the film as something to play in the background, so the silence was not distracting. It did not match up quite as well with the visual as I would have liked. As someone who has experimented a little bit in both visual and audio (art and instrument), I would have liked to see some more cohesion. Work more into a train chugging rhythm, or a better melody for the scenes where it showed hundreds of peoples feet going to or coming from work.
ReplyDelete