The Hobbit (Film)...?

I was just thinking about what I thought was Peter Jackson's upcoming film adaptation of Tolkien's story "The Hobbit". I was going to begin: "So they're making a film of The Hobbit". But they aren't! They are nearly making a film of The Hobbit. The original plan was to make it then go on to film the three episodes of The Lord of the Rings all at the same time. But that was a long time ago. It seems there are problems about a number of things, particularly who owns the production rights, who owns the distribution rights (not the same people, I think, unfortunately), and a law suit which has apparently offended New Line Cinema and made them vow never to use Peter Jackson for anything ever again...so I hear, at least. I don't know what is true, but it seems there is some trouble with this project getting off the ground.

So is it still worth writing my thoughts about the music for this film? Of course! Let's go!

Now, The Hobbit is a good story. It's a very good read. I always feel with Tolkien that it is somehow offensive to "right-thinking literary people" because it is a little bit naïve and doesn't subject its literary form to any radical exploration or expansion. Yes, it's not Finnegans Wake. Well those imagined opinions undoubtedly have some truth to them, but you could also say that since Tolkien goes back to the sources he knew so well - the Sagas, Eddas, poems and prose of Northern Europe which are our surviving mythological and legendary heritage - and since he tries to make a real story like stories used to be told, maybe that is a radical thing to do, in a way. But it's true that it's not avant-garde. It's rather conservative in that it wants some things to remain a certain way. Certainly in The Lord of the Rings the peaceful way of life of the Hobbits living in the Shire is threatened by the "development" and "progress" that comes out of the land of Mordor. It may mean several things but one is certainly that rural life is threatened with extinction by the Industrial Revolution. Plus there is world war, too - I'm sure people have looked into all this in plenty of detail.

So anyway, it's not a great work of modernist fiction, but I will include it as an important work of modern fiction because whatever is good or bad about the writing, the idea and its world have found many ears eager to hear more. It's a good story, like The Three Musketeers or a James Bond novel. I mean it's a GOOD story - I'm praising it, not belittling it!

All of which is not to complain about the book, but to examine why I feel I should be slightly embarrassed to be discussing it in public. Well, I'm not. It's a proper story, so there. Ha!

The Hobbit is fun because you can read it in a day (if you have all day). There are plenty of excitements, some spooky bits, some magic and comedy too. And plenty of escapism if you enjoy reading about home comforts. The Hobbit, it seems, is a homely creature who enjoys his bit of supper. Often more than once!

I was thinking about the music for this projected film. I imagined it would be in the mode of The Lord of the Rings, which I feel is an extremely strong score (from Howard Shore). Its use of Leitmotiv (a theme for each character or thing, so you can see how they are interacting in the story, associated most with Wagner - very appropriate for a legendary story about a ring) provides a great way to unify all three films, almost as good a unifying factor as Peter Jackson's brain, which must be enormous to have made all three films at the same time!

On the other hand, once you have your motifs worked out, not much has to change. Because Wagner operas are mythological, they are supposed to be beyond the scope and compass of mortal time, so time gets stretched out. There is climax, or course (see Isoldens Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde) but time is a bit flattened out. So maybe leit-motifs prevent a more natural flow of musical events? Maybe, maybe not. Anyway they definitely made the right choice for those three films.

But the embarrassing moments for me are: the "Happy Shire" music, intended to be antic and comically endearing, but rather annoying for me, and the songs.

A big song in a film (or "movie", as they are called) is normally a signal for you to go out and buy the record (or "CD" as they are called). Yes, it is a marketing opportunity, almost a moment of "branded content" - entertainment that is actually selling you something. But if the song has a dramatic purpose, that's different. If not...why is it in a film? Do they stop the story to say "buy Simpson's Shock-Absorbers"? Yes they do. It's called product placement. However, that doesn't happen all the time.

But it's the little songs I'm worrying about here. Why do they go wrong? In fact, musical examples of "real music" in films go rather badly - look at Mr. Holland's Opus! The Piano! Dear me. Supposedly examples of great music and would be fine on the soundtrack but not when you take the same level of musical discourse but expose it on a completely different level.

I'm talking about songs because there are quite a lot in The Hobbit.

Far over the misty mountains cold,
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away ere the break of day,
To seek the pale enchanted gold.

has potential (could still be ruined though) but

Chip the glasses and crack the plates!
Blunt the knives and bend the forks!
That's what Bilbo Baggins hates -
Smash the bottles and burn the corks!
...So, carefully! Carefully with the plates!

could go badly wrong. You see, musical music (as used in an opera by someone who is intending the music to carry important meaning) has a great emotional and expressive range which includes comedy as well as more serious thoughts. But "background music" (which film music is not when it is one of the characters in the story but which it easily can be) doesn't have much range. It can illustrate or echo what is happening on-screen, but it needs more wide possibilities of expression, obviously, to express more things. Bad examples go like "Aha there is something nasty happening me better make loud noise bang bang!", but in a good example you hear an added level of story. Maybe it would be more dramatic with quiet music. Or no music. And so on.

So the score needs to be thoughtful, but it should think on a different level when the music gets exposed and we are asked to listen to it as "real music" in the story.

You have to think carefully, though, because a film score mostly can't have quite the same depth as music on its own in a concert, because film + music is the totality of the offering, each playing its part which should add up to 100%. But that's about good partnerships. When person X is doing something important, person Y should try to help...perhaps even by doing nothing.

Style is difficult for songs in a film because one assumes the audience has a very limited imagination of what songs should sound like. Songs are...well, anything from pop music, or "a folk song". What is a folk song? Why it's Irish of course!

Yes why does it always have to be Irish? Come on, you've got more choices than that! Or could it perhaps be because most films are aimed at the USA? Where there are a lot of people who think of Ireland as "home"? Or the home before this home? Could be.

Yes there are perhaps limited references to work with when you want to engage with the audience, but I still think you should give it a try. People are more intelligent than you might think. Still, they have to sell the picture. I understand.

If The Hobbit has embarrassing aspects, then they may extend to the film version too...and that may include the songs. Let's wait and see.

But Tolkien wasn't embarrassed, and neither are the fans of the stories. You have to get into the world to learn how to show people what it looks like. Being intelligent about it doesn't mean it has to sound "clever". It just will take people there, that's all.

I'm sure it will TURN OUT FINE!

The Great Interpreters

People think they have to discover something about themselves that they then put into the music they play. They think they have to have something to say, or some special way of saying it.

Maybe they think that because they see "the great interpreters" playing and see that it's very distinctive. There is some unique character there that you would recognise immediately no matter what they were playing.

Now, a good player has learned how to play well - they were not always able to play as well as that, they had to learn - but the basic character you hear was always in them from the beginning.

So what does somebody do who thinks they are not one of the great interpreters? How can they improve?

As I said, one way people try to do it is by "putting themselves into the music". But is that really what Glenn Gould or Sviatoslav Richter were doing? It's obviously them playing, you know immediately with no doubt. And the uniqueness comes from them. But the reason for it is that that's the way the music flows through their system. It's not something they add, it's a live connection to the music direct. On a bad day, they would tell you they were not connected, but on a good day the difference is that there is less of "them" and more of the music.

So the answer is not to add more of yourself. That is adding more ego. What is important, you or what you are playing? What is more important, telling the audience something you already know or discovering something new? Showing your heart or just pretending?

If you don't feel you are great, don't worry because the great people weren't great either. They thought they were rubbish. I'm telling you.

If you think you are good, you are wrong. If you think you are bad, you are wrong too. The only answer is to keep looking. Even if it's going well, there is still more to find. And if it is going badly, that's an excellent sign because you know you have got somewhere to go.

How to get better? How to get great?

Don't try to add things. Take things away. The more you put in, the less of the composer we are hearing.

Can you control your beating heart and the allocation of hormones and adrenalin and blood and electric communications in your body? I don't think so. So don't interfere.

The little "I" is not much help. All it can do is be selfish, which gets it a few advantages but only in the short term. The big "I" is a genius and you find it by being interested in what is not you.

For example the music. You have the score - read it! Enjoy it! The composer had a special reason for writing it and that reason still exists but we have to discover it. He saw something special and important. Now you have to show people where to look to find it themselves. Point in the direction. Or even carry them there. It's all in the music. READ IT!

And you know if you get it right or wrong, and you know if you don't know enough, and you know what you have to practise. You are the one who learns to get better, nobody can tell you how to be good. But people will help you. Everybody knows something nobody else knows - that's why there's more than one person in the world. That's why we need you!

Don't try so hard, try LESS HARD! But try your best! Your improvement will depend on how hard you look for the answers. Plus, bear in mind that you already know all the answers....if you look....

Corporation

Good heavens.

I really don't know what to say about this. I'm glad not all the notes are together, though. (There is a "rubato" in the main theme, but I'm not sure why it's in a samba rhythm - it's a minuet!)

Fear

The things you fear are like shadows in the half of the room that you don't want to see. Your half is not in shadow, because you have chosen to look at it. But what's in the other half?

There is a monster under the bed, and one in the wardrobe too. Dark things come out at night and we clothe them in our own fear.

But in the daylight we can see what is there.

The things we fear are everywhere because we don't want to look at them. So when there is darkness - under the bed, in the wardrobe, or somewhere else we are not sure about - our fears appear. Whenever you sense some unknown thing coming towards you (in space or in time), you shape it into the thing you are afraid of.

The only question is, what is really there?

I think the answer has to be, there is something there. Or, there appears to be something there. What though? It's our choice whether we look closely or not.

Let's think of a situation. General fears around this area (where I am now) are: being robbed, being attacked somehow, losing things, or fear of a general disaster (of whatever type is popular in the media at the moment). Let's take fear of non-specific attack or robbery. OK, so you are afraid of that happening. When it is dark you are more afraid. That may be reasonable because there are fewer people around in the dark. However, that's rather the product of the fear of the dark that we talked about before. If it's dark then you put something there. If you can't see what is there, you imagine what could be there.

As uncertainty increases, this hypothetical person we are talking about gets more afraid. He creates more threats as his knowledge decreases. We can see that fear of attack gets worse when we have less information: if it's dark; if the place is unfamiliar; if we are alone.

However! We can do better than that!

Let's forget about the BlockbusterAttackMode way out. This approach says that the more prepared I am for attack, the less I will be affected by it. Look at these people, they learn a million-and-one-ways of defending themselves, nine-and-a-half exotic martial arts, carry six guns, a knife, and a flamethrower. And that's just for looking out of the window! Are they less afraid? No, and I think they are becoming a bit of a threat themselves actually. Yes, they did get more prepared, that's sort of taking a step, but they did not solve the problem.

The only problem was the original fear, fear created by the darkness we mentioned at the beginning. Then we were talking about a real darkness (the one under the bed, for example), but it's really the same thing if it is physical or a kind of mental darkness which comes from the unknown.

So given that we are afraid of something, we can see the following. First, we are creating more threats wherever we are unsure about something. We talked of a fear of attack but it can really be anything. There are plenty of uncertainties so there are plenty of fears to choose from!

Have you noticed that now? Whenever there is uncertainty, you turn it into a threat. Yes, I agree, the accident could happen now, your job could disappear this week, that heart attack you've been expecting could have happened five minutes ago. But does it make sense to be on panic alert all the time? OK, statistically there is probably a chance of these things happening. Probably each of them happened to somebody in the world yesterday. But you are not a supercomputer. The human mind is very powerful (or capable of being) but you are not helping matters by using that power to imagine how badly things could go wrong. Getting a scratch that goes septic and you die - chances are 2,987,453 to one. A chance. Yes, every second. Even twice a second! All the same...I don't want to upset your reasoning process, but it may not be your day for misfortune. Sorry, it must just be bad luck, I guess.

First of all, you are seeing your fears when you cannot see clearly. You can solve that by: recognising what you are afraid of, and trying to be objective (learning to see other sides of a situation, not just the one you are used to seeing). Low Grade Panic Alert is rather a vague state so it helps to identify what the perceived threat is. What are you afraid of? Write it down. Ok I think it is slightly less frightening already. Slightly is a good start. Then by learning to "see through other eyes" you can see where you went wrong before. Illusion is the product of isolation. "I'm afraid of..." is already wrong because it starts with "I". You think you are separate and you have your own problems. But you must be connected to someone else in some way. You have seen another person before, right? Right, so you are not really alone. Then who is this "I"? It is the fearing part. The part that does not fear is called "We" or "Us". Learn about it.

Finding ways to attack a problem will never solve it. Because you are afraid of attack, you are always attacking. Don't fight, invite! Your hostility makes hostility outside you. If you welcome the world and its chances of...failure or...success, then you are shining a bit of light on your fear and you will have more chance of seeing what is really there.

What is really there? A few naughty people doing naughty things. But not all the time. They want things the easy way and can't be bothered to put much effort in. And accidents do happen, but not to everbody and not every day, and when they do we have to stop and think how we got into that situation and maybe learn how to avoid it next time. Health problems do occur but not every minute. A system under stress has to release the stress somehow, and the results can seem unpleasant. But symptoms that come out are the product of something called health. If you are worried about your health then you must know why you are worried. Is it something you are doing wrong? If it is then you can change it. Your body is the only one you have and looking after it will help you a lot. Your life is your life and can change this world for the better. Our world is our world, too, though we are supposed to look after it rather than drain it of goodness. These are all good things. The bad things exist but they are not everywhere. They may not even be bad! They are probably just "things" until you decide they are going to be bad.

We should be afraid. There is a lot to be afraid of. But it is not meant to freeze us in our steps before we have started the race. We are not meant to stop climbing before the first peak has come into view. Fear is allied with caution, respect, care, and guides experiment. Each of those ensures the harvest comes in safe next year. They may mean the ship gets into port safe and sound. The eggs all get back from market in one piece. But where do the plans come from? What makes experiment? Total caution would have zero result. Now I have a message for you. You are not the victim of a dice game, neither coldly and without intent, nor maliciously twisting the threads of your fate. You are not the victim. You have the power to imagine danger for a very good reason - because of the power to imagine. Why do you have that power? To stop? To shut the shop and sink the ship, to shatter and fail and founder and grind to a halt? Or to see in your mind's eye what lies behind the hill, what lives on the other side of the world, what breathes where there is no air and swims without water?

What crawls in the morning, stands upright at noon, and crawls again at evening? The answer is man, from baby to adult to old age, but we should rather ask: What asks riddles? Who invents the impossible? The answer is the mind of man but what that really means is something we are still learning. Don't expect to read about it in the newspaper. With these things, it's better to try and find out for yourself. Believe me.

Now you are brave again!

You only got to be brave by admitting that fear exists. Well done. Now do more!

Slight Mistake

OK what I did was this.

I put a dishwasher tablet into the washing machine with my shirts.

They have survived so far...though they smell unusual!

Perhaps I was thinking about something else?