The Great Divide: Titanic and Horner Fandom Redefined

by Doug Adams

I've been avoiding writing this article because it's so hard to find a diplomatic way to discuss James Horner's work among film music aficionados. He's our "grassy knoll"--the one topic that almost everyone has something to say about. But his score for James Cameron's Titanic is already on of 1997's most discussed scores, and it demands some attention.

To begin with, I thought that the movie was fair. The structure seemed a little weak- it should have been a two hour movie--but this wasn't some sort of intellectual exercise. It was emotional film making, and it's always impossible to really judge a film like this because it's designed to appeal to a highly individualized collective experience. In other words, I'm not sure that we actually derive our feelings from the film itself--at least as far as Titanic's love story goes. This part of the film seems to operate by begging us to put ourselves into the closest real life parallel we can draw to the story line, then emote vicariously. So anyone who's loved and lost will choke up at the film, because it's triggering our personal sets of emotional data. This is why I thought that the sinking ship story was the only thing that was genuinely well-crafted in the film. In essence, it's the only thing that was crafted. To be blunt, the love story in this film operated on the level of emotional pornography. It's triggering our knee-jerk physiological reactions... which isn't to say it's not effective, it's just aiming for the most convenient target. And since it's effectiveness can only be attributed to the viewer, should Cameron get the credit?

So what does this have to do with Horner? Everything. Horner is a controversial composer because one half of fandom finds him outrageously repetitive and one half finds him incredibly moving. And they're both right. Personally, I don't think that the post-Sneakers Horner has any interest at all in being a composer. However, I do think that he is interested in using music to creates moods. He's an "emotionalist", not a musician. That's not an insult, it's just calling a spade a spade.

Obviously, film music can rarely approach absolute composition in terms of overall sonic construction, but most film composers do what composers do--they organize sound into a largely unique whole. The ingredients themselves are rarely unique (which is fine, that's why music sounds like music instead of traffic--John Cage and friends excepted), but the synthesis, the larger picture is very original. Herrmann used the minor, major seventh chord (C Eb G B) extensively in both Psycho and Vertigo, but those two scores aren't going to be confused. So while composition may involve overall guiding structures--emotional requirements, some sort of timing or architectural pre- conceptions--it's largely organizing sounds first in order to engender some sort of effect. This isn't what Horner does.

To Horner, I believe, the emotional impact of the sound is everything. Sure, from time to time he's done works in which sound is king. The aforementioned Sneakers, Brainstorm, parts of Star Trek II, and even the derivative Wolfen are all composed as primarily organized sound. And they're very well done at that. But in most of his work, the sound itself is strictly a vessel to communicate his message. It's 1+1=2 versus 2=1+1. If that means that entire sections of other compositions are plunked down in the middle of something, that's fine. Capricorn One, Enya, Far and Away, and Michael Collins are in Titanic, and by these guidelines, it doesn't undermine his intent. You see, as an "emotionalist", Horner never repeats himself. He can repeat licks and steal riffs left and right, but viewed from a distance--the same way we're judging compositional originality--he never duplicates his emotional content. His gift for spotting films comes into play as well. Watch the scene with Jack and Rose kissing on the bow of the ship. Note how the climax of Horner's cue doesn't arrive until Jack wraps his hand around the back of Rose's neck--showing the exact moment that she surrenders her will to him. Horner writes the same combination of minor and major chords he always uses, but he's never used this exact emotional thrust, this exact emotional timing before. Compositionally, it's trite, it's simplistic, it's banal even. "Emotionalistically", it's unique and on the money.

Here Comes the Hate Mail

I'm almost sure I'm going to get dozens of e-mails telling me that Horner is a great composer and I don't know what I'm talking about, but Horner fans, stop and think a second. Is it really the music that you love--the pure abstraction of the sound--or the emotional effect it has on you? Maybe the best way to end the Horner feud is for everyone to be honest with themselves and acknowledge the actual forces at work.

However, once again we're faced with a huge problem. Emotion is strictly personal. Even if there are such things as basic, shared emotional experiences, there's no such thing as a collective musical experience. I knew a girl in high school who used to cry during songs by the rock group Poison. I thought (and still think) that it was musical garbage, but there was something in the content of the songs that spoke to her and her experiences, and that generated her response. But again, what does that say about the music? Nothing really, it says more about the audience. Horner's main theme in the beginning of Titanic is a re-working of his Rocketeer theme. They're both based on a block chords moving from IV to I. This progression's historical origins lie within ancient church music, and it's been used in hymn songs and folk tunes throughout history. It evokes a very effective sense of nostalgia and importance. Horner simply lays these chords into a full string section. Emotionally, it's totally effective, but that's not to Horner's credit as a composer. He hasn't really composed anything. Any reader out there could be taught to orchestrate two chords for strings and set a simple tune over it. Absolutely, Horner deserves credit for using this material in a way that fits the emotional requirements of the picture. There are a lot of other emotional devices that he could have used here that may not have worked as well. But the credit Horner deserves is for making an emotional achievement, not really a dramatic achievement since he's not doing anything but reflecting existing dramatic ideas, and certainly not a musical achievement.

In order to really judge this score, you have to decide how you weigh the elements of film composition. What balance of musical creativity, dramatic innovation, and emotional effectiveness are needed to create art? If emotion is weighed above others, then Horner is one of the best. If musicality is higher on your scale, then modern Horner is little more than Edelman with prestige.

To editorialize slightly, I weigh musical creativity high enough that I don't think much of Titanic's score at all. I do realize that each of these three components (emotion, drama, and compositional integrity) are needed in differing amounts for each individual project, but as film composition is still basically a musical art form, there is a certain prerequisite of musical literacy. This is why I never buy the old "But, it works in the film!" argument. However, I do agree that Titanic's musical needs were probably more emotionally based than compositionally based. One composer comes immediately to mind as suitable to strike a great balance between the two--Patrick Doyle. I finally got around to watching Donnie Brasco the other night, and I thought the score was interesting. It's big and brash, but somehow really effective. It's like Bernard Herrmann doing Goodfellas. I think that Doyle could have struck the perfect balance between uber-emotional writing and imaginative composition for Titanic. Here's wishing him a speedy recovery.

Next Week: I'm out of room, so come back next time for a Chicago opera critic's feelings about John Williams' Amistad. It'll make sense when you see it.

Doug@filmscoremonthly.com