電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)

電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)(文檔含中英文對照即英文原文和中文翻譯)HollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990s

TheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevision

ExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContextAnnetteDavison.,HollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990s.Aldershot:Ashgate,2004,221pp.K.J.Donnelly.,TheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevision.lLondon:BritishFilmInstitute,2005,192pp.CarolVernallis.,ExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContext.NewYork,NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2004,341pp.

\o"Footnotes"NextSectionThelasttimeacollectionofscreenmusic-relatedbookswasthesubjectofaScreenreview,thereviewerSimonFrithwasmovedtonoteeachwork's‘self-defeating…needtodrawattentiontotheirsubject'sneglect’aswellastheverylimitedmannerinwhichtheauthorsseemed‘tobeengagedwitheachother’.1Judgingbythebooksgroupedtogetherinthepresentreview,thescholarshipintheareaisnowmuchmorecollegiate,andtherequirementontheauthorstoself-diagnoseacademicisolationseemstohavebecomeunnecessary.AnnetteDavison,K.J.DonnellyandCarolVernallisshareaplethoraofcriticalreferencesonmusic–imagerelationships,fromTheodorAdornotoPhilipTaggandmanypointsinbetween.Asubstantialcanonofacademicwritingonmusicinnarrativefilmnowexists,anditcannolongerbeclaimedthatmusicvideoisascholarlyblindspot(asVernallisadmits).Ofthevariousmediaformatsdiscussedinthebooksunderreview,onlytelevisionmusicremainsrelativelyunder-representedacademically(thoughDonnelly'stwochaptersonthesubjectbegintheprocessofaddressingthisabsence).Inthiscontext,theauthors'taskwouldappeartobetopresentalternativestoexistingwork,ortobringnewobjectsofstudytocriticallight.Allthreestudiesmakeclaimsfortheirownoriginalitybyreferencingamodelof‘classical’narrativefilmmusicpractices:aconceptualizationofthesoundtrack'sroleasfittinginwithclassicalcinema'sperceivedstorytellingpriorities.Forallthebooks'individualmerits,theregularrecoursetonotionsoftheclassical,evenintheserviceofitsrefutation,raisesinterestingquestionsaboutthepossibility(orimpossibility)ofdoingwithoutsuchaconceptentirely.Thus,theseworksrevealthe‘classical’tobeacategoryasproblematicyetinsistentinwritingonmusic–imagerelationsasitisinotherareasofscreenstudiesenquiry.Asitstitlesuggests,Davison'sHollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990sengageswithclassicalfilmmusictheorymostexplicitly.Indeed,aboutaquarterofthebookisdevotedtotheexplicationof,first,ClassicalHollywoodCinemaasithasbeenconceivedacademically,andsecond,theclassicalscoringpracticeassociatedwithit(whichDavisonseesrevivedintheso-called‘post-classical’Hollywoodofthemid1970sonwards).ThisprovidesthegroundonwhichDavisonmakesherkeyclaim:Thecentralargumentofthisbookisthat,byoperatingasasignifierofclassical–and,indeed,NewHollywoodcinema–theclassicalHollywoodscoreofferedthosemakingfilmsoutsideandonthemarginsofHollywoodcinemainthe1980sand1990safurthermeansbywhichtheycoulddifferentiatetheircinemasfromHollywood's,throughtheproductionofscoresandsoundtrackswhichcritiqueorrefertothispracticeinparticularways(p.59).Therefollowcloseanalysesoffourfilmswhosesoundtracks,accordingtoDavison,refertotheclassicalmodelatthesametimeastheyofferanalternative.Throughhersequencingofthecasestudies,Davisonoutlinespossibilitiesofalternativepracticethatrangefromatotaldeconstructionoftheclassicalsoundtrack'sconventionalstorytellingfunctions(aswitnessedinJean-LucGodard'sPrenom:Carmen[1983])totheidentificationofascoringpracticethatmimicscertainaspectsoftheclassicalinitscollaborativenature,yetprovidesautopianalternativetoit(asseenthroughDavidLynch'sWildatHeart[1990]).Inbetween,sheexploresthenotionofthesoundtrackasa‘liberating’force(DerekJarman'sTheGarden[1990]),andthepotentialforacompromisetobefoundbetweenclassicalandalternativemodels(WimWenders'WingsofDesire[1987]).Davison'sreadingofeachfilmisimaginativeandverywelldetailed.Shedemonstratesaparticularfacilityforidentifying,andascribingasignificanceto,differenttypesofsoundonthesamesoundtrack.ThisisdonewithparticularsuccessinherreadingsofTheGardenandWingsofDesire.Heranalysisdoesnotseektohideherevidentmusicaltraining,but,innearlyallcases,remainsintelligibleandpersuasivetonon-musicologistssuchasmyself(whowilljusthavetoaccepttheoccasionaluseofmusicalnotationasprettypictures).Itisquestionablehowmuchoftheextremelycomprehensivescene-settingundertakenbyDavisoninthebook'searlysectionsisnecessaryforanappreciationoftheindividualfilmanalyses.Nevertheless,hersummariesofdiscussionsaboutclassicalandpost-classicalHollywoodcinemaandtheclassicalfilmscoreareexemplary,andtheyareconductedwithathoroughnesswhichisunderstandable,perhaps,inabookwhichtakesitsplaceinthepublisher'sPopularandFolkMusicseriesratherthaninascreenstudiescollection.Thereremainsamismatch,however,betweentheconcentrationonHollywoodasaninstitutional,industrialandideologicalforceintheearlychaptersofthebook,andtheauteuristbentoftheanalysisthatfollowsinlaterchapters.Forexample,thechapteron‘NewHollywoodcinemaand(post-?)classicalscoring’concludeswithstatisticalinformationaboutUScinema'sgrowthintheoverseasmarketduringthe1980s.Yetthisdetailseemsunnecessaryinthelightofthesubsequentinterpretationofthevariousnon-Hollywoodsoundtracksasimaginativeresponsestomainstreampracticesonthepartofindividualfilmmakers.ThedivisionbetweendescriptionsofHollywoodasintransigentlyinstitutional,andtheimplicitunderstandingofart-housecinemaasaspaceforthefreeexpressionoftheauteur(madeexplicitinthecelebrationofLynchinthefinalcasestudy)ismadetoocomplacentlyandmeansthatDavisondoesnotfulfilherpromisetoengage‘withinstitutionalissuesinrelationtofilmsoundtracksandscores’(p.6)ineverycase.Inthisrespect,thebookdoesnotfullyrealizethepotentialofitsmanyexcellentparts.ThecriticaltoneofDonnelly'sTheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevisionalsofluctuatessomewhatfromsectiontosection,althoughthereaderispreparedforthisbytheauthor'searlyclaimthatthebookis‘a(chǎn)rumination,aninvestigationofsomeoftheelusiveandfascinatingaspectsofscreenmusic’(p.3)ratherthanamorestrictlyhypothesis-basedaccount.Nevertheless,moreconcretejustificationisgivenforthebook'sattentiontoapleasinglyeclecticrangeofmaterial,whichincludestheworkofcanonizedauteurssuchasDavidLynchandStanleyKubrick,butalsomakesroomforadiscussionofthesoundtracksofSpace:1999,awholerangeofhorrormovies,andtheroleofmusicintelevisioncontinuitysegments.Donnellycharacterizesscreenmusicassomethingmoreintangiblethanisclaimedinthemoreclassicalaccountsfocusingonthescore'sovertstorytellingfunctions.Inspired,inparticular,bytheincreasinglycomplexsounddesignoffilmsproducedforreleaseincinemas,Donnellyargues:Whilefilmmusictraditionallyhasbeenconceivedaspartofnarration,workingforfilmnarrative,insomewaysitwouldbebettertoseeitaspartofthefilm'srepositoryofspecialeffects(p.2).Determinedtoexplorescreenmusic'smore‘unruly’qualities(atleastwhensetagainstanarrativeyardstick),Donnellyriffsaroundnotionsofmusic's‘ghostliness’inanimaginativemanner.Particularlyinrelationtocinema,heseesthehauntingactivitiesofthesoundtrackasconstitutingakindofsensuouspossessionoftheviewer.Donnelly(somewhatcontentiouslygiventhemedium'stechnologicaladvances)islesswillingtoadmittothepossessingcapabilitiesoftelevisionsoundtracks,butconcentratesinsteadonanotherkindof‘haunting’:thehabitualuseoffamiliarmusicintelevisionthatevokesthespectreofits‘lives’elsewhereasmuchasitappliesitselftoaparticulartelevisualcontext.ItisthenotionofscreenmusicasalwaysindicatinganotherplacethatmostusefullytiesthedifferentstrandsofDonnelly'seclecticstudytogether.Throughthisinterestinthe‘elsewhere’ofscreenmusic,Donnellysuccessfullyprobesareasoutsidethereachofclassicalnarrativefilmmusictheory,whichattendstothehereandnowofthesoundtrack'sinvolvementinaparticularfictionalscenario.However,thevalueoftheinsightswhichensuefromthissuccessfulescapefromamoreclassicalapproachissometimestakenforgranted.Donnelly'sanalysesasawholelacktheattentiontodetailwhichisoneofthevirtuesofDavison'scasestudies.Theauthoranticipatesthiscriticismearlyonbyacknowledgingthatthebook‘providesa“l(fā)ongshot”,allowingthesortofsynopticviewunavailabletodetailedanalysis,ratherthanthepredominant“close-up”ofmanyprecedingfilmmusicstudies’(p.3).Theloss,intermsofanalyticaldepth,thatthiscriticalstrategynecessitates,isnotalwayscompensatedforbythebook'scommendablebreadth.Forexample,arelativelysustainedanalysisofLynch'sLostHighway(1996)isnotasconvincingasitmightbeduetoanunwillingnesstoprovidesufficientevidenceforitsclaims.Onthefilm'sheavyuseofpre-existingpopsongs,Donnellycomments:Arethesesongappearancessimple‘commentsontheaction’?Idon'tthinkso.Itismoreasiftheactionemanatesfromthesongsthemselves,particularlyfromtheirgrainofsoundandrhythmicaspects(p.28).Thisassertionisallowedtofendforitself,intheabsenceofmoreparticularcommentaryabouttheinteractionbetweentheactionandsongineachspecificcase.Thevalueofinvestigatingscreenmusic'sless‘submissive’qualitiesinrelationtonarrativeprincipleswouldbebetteradvocatedthroughadetailedinterpretationthatalsoengageswiththepossibilitythatthesoundtrackfulfilsmoreconventionalstorytellingfunctions.Characterizingthe‘elsewhere’ofscreenmusicsurelybecomesmoreinterestingifitsrelationshiptootherspacesisacknowledgedanditsownterritoryismappedindetail.Vernallis'sExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContextcombinestheimaginativefacilitythatfiresDonnelly'sbookwiththeattentiontodetailthatcharacterizesDavison's.Herstudyisextremelycomprehensiveinfulfillingitspromisetotake‘themusicofmusicvideomostseriously’(p.x),thereby‘a(chǎn)ttemptingananalysisthattakesmusicalcodes,processes,andtechniquesasprovidingmeansbywhichvideoimagecanbestructured’(p.209).Ononelevel,asVernallisadmits,thisisabelatedconsolidationoftheinitiativestakeninAndrewGoodwin'sfoundationalmusictelevisionstudyDancingintheDistractionFactory:MusicTelevisionandPopularCulture.2Initsimplementation,however,Vernallisfarexceedsthisbrief.Therearechaptersonnarrativeandediting,asyoumightexpectfromastudywhoseaimitistodeconstructtheformofthemusicvideo;lessexpectedistheattentiontoaspectssuchassupportingperformers,propsandthesensualqualitiesof(auralandvisual)space,colour,textureandtime.Eveninthemorepredictablesections,Vernallisexploresrelationshipsbetweensongandimagewhichexpandacriticalunderstandingofthemusicvideo'spossibilities.Forinstance,inthechapteronediting,shegoesfarbeyondthestandardnotionthatvideoscuttheirimagestotherhythmofthesong,tosuggest:Obviously,editingcanreflectthebasicbeatpatternofthesong,butitcanalsoberesponsivetoallofthesong'sotherparameters.Forexample,longdissolvescancomplementarrangementsthatincludesmoothtimbresandlong-heldtones.Avideocanusedifferentvisualmaterialtooffsetanimportanthookoradifferentcuttingrhythmatthebeginningsandendsofphrases.And,ofcourse,theseeffectscanswitchfromone-to-onerelationshipstosomethingthatismorecontrapuntal(p.49).Thesekindsofexpressivepossibilitiesarethenillustratedthroughagreatrangeofexamples,allanalysedwithaninterpretiverichnessthatmakestheinclusionofthreeextendedcasestudychaptersattheendofthebookalmostfeelliketoomuchofagoodthing.Inherafterword,Vernallisclaimsthatherbook‘a(chǎn)ttemptstolayoutthebasicmaterialsofmusicvideo,muchasDavidBordwellandhiscolleaguesdoforcinemainTheClassicalHollywoodCinemaorFilmArt’(p.286).ExperiencingMusicVideowillcertainlyproveusefulasatextbook,andsomeoftheunnecessaryrepetitionbetweenchaptersmaybeexplainedbyanexpectationthatthebookwillbeconsultedinseparatechunksonindividualweeksofacourseratherthanasawhole.However,IfeelthatVernallisissellingherselfshortwithhercomparison.Thereisanimaginativeandidiosyncratic,yetdisciplined,interpretiveimpulsebehindheranalysiswhichTheClassicalHollywoodCinema3explicitlyrejects.HerbookhasmoreincommonwiththepoeticcategorizationsofsoundtheoristMichelChionor,castingthenetmorewidely,thesensitiveresponsestotheintricaciesofafilmedfictionalworlddemonstratedbyGeorgeM.Wilson'sNarrationinLight:StudiesinCinematicPointofView.4BothWilsonandVernallisseizeon‘moments’whichtheauthorsthenseektoexplaininrelationtotheirfictionalworld,whetherthatbeasettingstimulatedbydramaticpossibilities,asinthecaseofnarrativefilm,ormusicalparameters,asisthecasewiththemusicvideo.AsVernallisstates,byattendingtothesmallestofmoments,‘itwillbepossibletoworktowardseeinghowthevideobuildstowardthismomentandmovesawayfromit’(p.202).Onanumberofoccasions,evenanattentiveandimmersedcriticlikeVernalliscannotresistthetemptationtocomparesong–imagerelationshipsinthemusicvideowiththeperceived‘typical’conventionsofclassicalcinemaandclassicalnarrativefilmmusic.Thisnecessitatesadiversionfromthebook'sprimary,andmostlaudable,aimtofullyunderstandtheinfluenceofthemusicofthemusicvideo.Inallthreebooks,theacknowledgementofabodyoffilmmusicwritingthatcanbecategorizedas‘classical’providesevidenceofanowmaturefieldofstudy.Thisliteratureisnotalwaysintegratedseamlesslywiththeauthors'ownarguments.Allthreeworksprovideilluminatinginsightsintotypesofscreenmusicthatarenotaccountedforadequatelybyclassicaltheory.However,theargumentsworkbestwhenengagingcarefullywiththespecificrelationshipsobservableandaudibleintheirchosenobjectsofstudy,ratherthanlookingovertheshouldertowardsmodelsofclassicalnarrativefilmmusic,orassumingthevalueofananalysissimplybecauseitdoesnotfittheclassicalmould.Inthekindoftext-basedcriticismpursuedbyallthreewriters,themostgenerouskindofcriticalactivitycanalsobethemostmyopic.Vernallis'sbook,inparticular,showstherewardsofaclosereadingofparticularmoments,asitproducesinsightswhichmayinspirethereadertounderstand,innewandsurprisinglights,notonlythatmoment,butotherstheyencounterthemselves.IanGarwood\o"PreviousSection"PreviousSection

Footnotes?SimonFrith,Screen,vol.41,no.3(2000),p.335.?AndrewGoodwin,DancingintheDistractionFactory:MusicTelevisionandPopularCulture(Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinneapolisPress,1992).?DavidBordwell,JanetStaigerandKristinThompson,TheClassicalHollywoodCinema:FilmStyleandModeofProductionto1960(London:Routledge,1985).?GeorgeM.Wilson,NarrationinLight:StudiesinCinematicPointofView(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1986).

《好萊塢理論、非好萊塢實(shí)踐：20世紀(jì)80年代至20世紀(jì)90年代的原聲帶電影》——聲音的魅力：電影和電視劇中的音樂體驗(yàn)型的音樂視頻：美學(xué)與文化語境最后一次收集的屏幕與音樂有關(guān)的書籍是主題為屏幕的專業(yè)評論，評論者是SimonFrith，她很感動(dòng)，并注意到各項(xiàng)工作間的弄巧成拙......需要提請注意的是她們忽視主題以及非常有限的方式，在這種方式中，作者們似乎愿意相互幫助以完成工作。從目前收集到的評論書籍中可以判斷，和以前相比，該地區(qū)大部分學(xué)術(shù)成就是分學(xué)院的，并且要求對作者進(jìn)行的自我診斷和學(xué)術(shù)隔離似乎已經(jīng)不太成為必要。AnnetteDavison、K.J.Donnelly以及CarolVernallis分享了大量關(guān)于音樂形象的批判參照書籍，這些書籍覆蓋了從TheodorAdorno到PhilipTagg，以及大量兩者觀點(diǎn)之間的書籍。如今，存在著大量經(jīng)典的音樂學(xué)術(shù)作品，這些作品都是基于敘事電影寫作的，并且它可以不再聲稱那個(gè)音樂視頻是一個(gè)學(xué)術(shù)的盲點(diǎn)（正如Vernallis所承認(rèn)那樣）。專業(yè)評論角度下，書中討論的各種媒體格式，只有電視音樂仍然具有相對的學(xué)術(shù)代表性（盡管Donnelly的兩篇關(guān)于這個(gè)問題文章開始了解決這種缺失的進(jìn)程）。在這種情況下，作者的任務(wù)似乎已經(jīng)變成提出可替代目前現(xiàn)有工作的觀點(diǎn)，或把新研究對象帶到學(xué)術(shù)界批判的眼光之下。所有三項(xiàng)研究成果都為她們自己學(xué)術(shù)的原創(chuàng)性做出了聲明，而且這些聲明都是通過引用經(jīng)典敘事電影音樂實(shí)踐模型的方式做出的：一個(gè)概念化的原聲帶的角色，在經(jīng)典電影中與講述優(yōu)先級的感知故事相配合。對于所有書，其每本書的價(jià)值在于，即使在其駁斥的論述中也可以引發(fā)一種有趣的問題，該問題就是研究中完全不使用這種理論的可行性或不可行性。即經(jīng)常求助于經(jīng)典于概念，即使是在事務(wù)中駁斥了，引發(fā)了可能（或不可能）的完全沒有這種概念做有趣問題。因此，這些作品成果揭示出'經(jīng)典'也有可能是一種疑難問題，它一直還運(yùn)用于音樂形象關(guān)系的學(xué)術(shù)寫作中，如同在屏幕學(xué)習(xí)探索領(lǐng)域的應(yīng)用一樣。如其標(biāo)題所示，Davison的《好萊塢理論，非好萊塢實(shí)踐：20世紀(jì)80年代至20世紀(jì)90年代的原聲帶電影》非常明確地運(yùn)用了經(jīng)典的電影音樂理論。事實(shí)上，大約有四分之一的這本書進(jìn)行了這樣的解釋：首先，假設(shè)古典好萊塢電影理論已經(jīng)獲得學(xué)術(shù)上的地位；其次，古典的得分實(shí)踐與之相聯(lián)系（其中Davison認(rèn)為在20世紀(jì)70年代中期出現(xiàn)的后古典好萊塢復(fù)興正在繼續(xù)）。這就為Davison提出她關(guān)鍵的理論提供了依據(jù)︰這本書的中心論點(diǎn)是，通過操作經(jīng)典的信號物——而且事實(shí)上，新好萊塢電影——古典好萊塢評分在1980年代和1990年代提供了進(jìn)一步制作那些質(zhì)量在好萊塢電影外面和邊緣的電影的手段，她們可以區(qū)分她們從好萊塢的電影院，通過產(chǎn)品的分?jǐn)?shù)和配樂她們可以區(qū)分自己的電影與好萊塢電影，這些產(chǎn)品的分?jǐn)?shù)和配樂通過特殊的途徑批判或涉及這種實(shí)踐。通過對四部電影的配樂的跟蹤分析，根據(jù)戴維森，指在時(shí)間為他們提供另一種同樣的經(jīng)典模型。她通過測序研究的情況，戴維森概述替代實(shí)踐從總解構(gòu)經(jīng)典電影配樂的傳統(tǒng)講故事的功能到一個(gè)練習(xí)，模仿經(jīng)典的某些方面在其合作性質(zhì)的認(rèn)定范圍的可能性，但它提供了一個(gè)理想的替代。在這兩者之間，她探討了電影配樂的概念是一種“解放”的力量，在古典與另類的模式之間找到了一種妥協(xié)的可能性。戴維森的每部電影里閱讀是想象力和非常詳細(xì)的。她展示了一個(gè)特定的識別設(shè)備，并賦予不同類型的原聲意義。這一點(diǎn)在他的《花園和欲望的翅膀》完成的特別好。她的分析并不試圖隱藏她的明顯的音樂訓(xùn)練，但是，在幾乎所有的情況下仍然是可理解的這樣的非音樂的說服力。戴維森在書的開頭部分所進(jìn)行的非常全面場景的設(shè)置，認(rèn)為這是必要的單個(gè)電影的欣賞分析，這一點(diǎn)是多少值得商榷的。不過，她對古典和古典后好萊塢電影和經(jīng)典電影配樂討論的總結(jié)是有示范性的，并且總結(jié)的方式也是容易理解的，也許是在發(fā)布的流行和民間音樂系列需要這樣一本書的地方而不是在一個(gè)屏幕研究。但是好萊塢的意思在書的前幾章的機(jī)構(gòu)，工業(yè)和意識形態(tài)的力量，以及導(dǎo)演在后面的章節(jié)后面的分析之間仍然存在不匹配。例如，在“新好萊塢電影和經(jīng)典進(jìn)球”的一章總結(jié)有關(guān)20世紀(jì)80年代在海外市場的美國電影的成長的統(tǒng)計(jì)信息。然而，在各種非好萊塢電影配樂的細(xì)節(jié)，以個(gè)人電影制作人的部分主流做法，富有想象力的響應(yīng)后續(xù)解釋的不是必要的。藝術(shù)電影院的導(dǎo)演的自由表達(dá)空間心領(lǐng)神會(huì)好萊塢的描述為頑固機(jī)構(gòu)之間的分工，是由太沾沾自喜，意思是戴維森沒有完全按照他在書中任何情況下“與體制問題有關(guān)的電影配樂和分?jǐn)?shù)”。在這方面，這本書并沒有完全實(shí)現(xiàn)其許多優(yōu)秀部分的潛力。Donnelly在聲音的魅力中寫道：電影和電視音樂每階段都有不同，但讀者可以通過作者的早期理念：這本書是“費(fèi)盡心思做一些難以捉摸的調(diào)查，為此做好了準(zhǔn)備和影視的音樂“（第3頁），而不是嚴(yán)格的基于假設(shè)表面。然而，更關(guān)注這本書的是具體的給出的理由，各種范圍內(nèi)的材料，包括經(jīng)典的導(dǎo)演如戴維林奇和斯坦利庫布里克的作品，也是一個(gè)配樂討論室：1999年，一系列的恐怖電影，和電視連相比就是音樂的作用。唐納利的影視音樂相比在更經(jīng)典的作品，得分之處是更無形的專注于的講故事。這一點(diǎn)讓他受鼓舞，特別是由電影制作的電影的日益復(fù)雜的聲音設(shè)計(jì)，唐納利認(rèn)為：傳統(tǒng)的電影音樂被看作是一種敘事的一部分，在電影敘事中，在某種程度上，它會(huì)更好地把它看作是電影中的一部分。下定決心去探索音樂的更多屏幕任性的素質(zhì)，唐納利的即興演奏在音樂的魔力的概念，用形象的方式。特別是關(guān)系到電影院，他認(rèn)為配樂可以構(gòu)成一種觀眾的感性上的占有。唐納利是不愿意承認(rèn)電視原聲帶的具有功能，但集中而不是另一種魔力：在電視臺，一個(gè)特定的電視背景一樣的熟悉的音樂的習(xí)慣性使用配樂對他在生活別處也