Apocalypse Now: The Synthesizer Soundtrack

Here's a reprint of a terrific article by Bob Moog from 1980. IMO, absolutely fascinating.
 
http://keyboardmag.com/ar...sizer-soundtrack/57396

Hi,
 
I think this shows something about Francis Ford Coppola that was under rated in his direction of some films. 
 
I can only explain it this way ... I did a small film, 6 to 7 minutes, and all it was, was an copy of my visions when I heard this music. And I "followed" the music with visuals. "Apocalypse Now" came out about just before this time, 1981 I was at UCSB doing this film, and the one thing that struck me, was that the visuals were "choreographed" to the music ... and I say that because it's harder, and not as clean, when you do the music AFTER the film ... for my seeing, it is not as intuitive. To translate, what you see, is easier, and could be done from the left or right, however, the film industry, as is well known, if tied to its "cliche's" for its very definition, otherwise you would not enjoy the majority of "entertainment" films, because they would be so weird and off their rocker. 
 
This is seen, clearly, in experimental film makers, whose work tends to upset people very strongly, and make them so uncomfortable that many people walk out ... for example Gaspar Noe's "Je Suis Seul" had about a third of the audience leave the theater. It is hard to say that was a bad film, or a good film ... how can you define it? On what basis? And the one sided interpretation -- strictly from the insane mind NON-STOP -- is very tough since everything he sees and does, is what is on the screen, and you have to relationship whatsoever to any "reality" whatsoever ... you can not define it. Thus, in his follow up films, guess what the relationship is about ... not you the viewer, but the "reality" that the camera is seeing, opposite your ideas of "entertainment".
 
For me, and a few other films at the time were also "improvised", this is where the creativity brought in new work, and this is what Godard, Truffaut and many others were famous for ... the unusual and the strange and often the "weird", as is the case in Godard, with his general fun with philosophy over the shoot, and a cup of coffee on the screen (joke on a film!), for example.
 
Some of the best musical composers, were allowed a certain "freedom", for the screen, and many directors allowed it to shine. Maurice Jarre was one, Vangelis another, Ryuichi Sakamoto is another, where the music was so strong, that one could not help allow it to shine, and film various parts of the film to it. You can't "script" that intuitive improvisation ... you just find something that works and adds to the "soul" of the film, and stuff like this, shows, how perceptive Coppola was about music, and how much he was aware of the musical ability of many folks.
 
For more on "Apocalypse Now", see the documentary on it ... it's insanely crazy and amazing at the same time. But it also shows, how well, Francis Ford Coppola could "adapt" to many things, which made him a good director. Not many folks are that good at improvisation, but a good visual director, can always find stuff that he can fit in, and make sense of. If this was not the case, the Fantasy films that had music by Bernard Herrman, would likely not be as well known today ... the music is still a powerful addon in "Jason and the Argonauts", or the Sinbad film, or a couple of the other films ... and the directors had no choice, but to make room for the music!

craigb

Moshkito
I can only explain it this way ... 

Yep, you can only explain it that way. 

It's hard and sometimes difficult and people accuse me of being this and that, when I'm trying to condense something like 100 films into a paragraph ... it's not easy, and not fun, and folks having no idea ... since they would have to see so much and so many different films over 50 years, and this part is the difficult to deal with. 
 
No one remembers, for example, the films that the church banned by Luis Bunuel ... and when you see them today, many of them still stand up as totally insane, and it makes you wonder where these things came from ... I did not find them a take on the church at all, but a call for a better definition of us inside ... instead of excuses and what not.
 
Film, in the 20th century, is the "philosophy" of the century. In it, there are in visual terms and dialogue, more philosophy than in the past 400 to 500 years combined. it creates a very confusing time period, because the history of philosophy and the arts, tends to be described in an organized fashion, that supposedly did this, which history can also support and go along with at the time. And then ... the 20th century ... and it's all over the place, and probably the most incendiary and change'able century ever. From the advent of the media, to the advent of electricity, and then to the advent of rock/pop music ... and making an effort to combine all these into an "idea" for the whole time, is not likely to happen for 100 years, after half of it gets forgotten, and it makes for an easier description, is my guess.
 
Film, and music, is very important to me.
 
The combination of both, as you can tell, is what "magic" is defined as for me.
 
The rest is what is called "hocus pocus" for those less inclined to believe in anything except what they are told! Films that can combine music/sound and visual, are always the ones that I enjoy the most ... they become a sensory experience, that one hardly ever sees and lives through in a lifetime.
 
Sorry ... no other words for it all! 
 
(Correction ... it's not his ex-wife's film .... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/?ref_=nv_sr_1  )
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/awards?ref_=tt_awd )

craigb
The part you are missing is that we are mostly into music here.  The last movie I actually saw in a theater was the premiere of the Rock, so condensing 100 films into one paragraph is still one paragraph too many sometimes!

Except that you missed the point? The thread and its videos was about the music ... and the film made to it. And that was what I was discussing, which is something that is difficult to discuss in film, because mentioning history here ... sometimes is so frustrating ... and Craig, most professors would be generous to give you a grade on that comment!