A study in Bo Burnham’s effortless transgressions toward Claudia Gorbman
Theory
In the world of film music theory, we approach the notion of diegesis, unquestioningly with the precedent of Claudia Gorbman’s Unheard Melodies, specifically the first chapter, where she describes the sources of music with reference to a film as either diegetic (“arising from primary narration”) , non-diegetic (“narrative intrusion upon the diegesis”), and then, without much elaboration, as if an afterthought, metadiegetic (“pertaining to narration by a secondary narrator”). The implied exclusivity in itself becomes problematic, but the more striking problem with Unheard Melodies is, as Ben Winters points out, the instant dismissal of nondiegetic music as merely an intrusion on the ongoing levels of narration. We may, therefore, assume that “non diegetic music might be part of the narrative as it unfolds (in the same way as other parts of the mise-en-scene), not an intrusion that signals an external level of narration”. It was obvious, when adopting literary theory, that music being a narrative device on multiple levels would be hard to fit into these sub-optimal models. This is not to say, however, that Gorbman was onto something, just, perhaps a little reductive, as many have criticised. An incursion into the narratological treasury of theory has produced some tweaks and alternatives that weave music into the narratological fabric of film theory much more seamlessly. Take, for example, Winters’ mention of the Russian neo-formalist differentiation of syuzhet and fabula, where syuzhet is “all the sounds and images presented in a film”, and the fabula is “abstracted narrative constructed by the spectator”, which is clearly reminiscent of the first (semantics/pragmatics) node of Poryfry’s Tree for the concept of fictional worlds. In this world of apparent binary models, Poryfry’s Tree offers a subdivided set of binaries, each node in a binary exclusive i.e an alternative to the other. A study by Lubomir Dolezel into this tree concludes, amongst other things that “A possible world is converted into a fictional world when it is authenticated by a felicitous (i.e authoritative) fictional text”. An expansion of this theory, where the term ‘text’ encompasses all the sensory stimuli that paint the canvas of our film. Here, we would have non-diegetic and diegetic music on a narratologically equal standing. This discrepancy can thus be considered fixed, for the purposes of this essay. Let us take now, Guido Heldt’s summary chart as a model for the differentiation of music in a film from a narratological perspective, here we see three factors, namely, Narration, Focalization and subject of focalization. This makes for the four following categories:
‘Realistic’ Diegetic MusicDiegetic Music from a particular point of audition Metadiegetic MusicNondiegetic music as a representation of interiority
This can be a subdivision on Gorbman’s initial model, rather than an expansion, and thus, can be a more precise differentiator for analysing the differences between the sources and function of the music encountered in film. Finally, then, we have David Neumeyer’s model which works on the cognitive side of this discourse, viewing the objective functionality of the digesis/nondiegesis separation in the process of spectating as a temporal process, preceded by a sonic “anchoring” of the spectator to the film, and followed by the cognition of the specific narrative role of the music. He goes on to say that this model asserts the distinction as one “concerned with space and thereafter with time (specifically the time of narrative unfolding)”. We are thus approaching four distinct spatiotemporal levels of functioning of film music, with a clear grounding in the anchoring->diegesis->narration model, to make clear the cognitive distinctions made by the spectator.
Cases
We take, for our examples, a look at a format and genre of film that has gained massive popularity in this last decade: The Introspective Netflix Comedy Special. To combine this niche with the study of music, we shall look at the two comedy specials of Bo Burnham. These are live performance recordings, but use music in novel and diegetically ambiguous ways. Besides, the crossing of the line between diegesis and non-diegesis can be seen as the punchline of a joke, where the build-up of one, transitioning unexpectedly to the other can be seen as the same cognitive sensation as getting punchline of a joke. The crossing of these boundaries is what makes the distinction all the more effective. In his study, Heldt discusses just this phenomenon in detail, stating, “Transitions can also be naturalized in films with homodiegetic narrators. If what we see and hear is filtered through the subjectivity of a diegetic character, ‘illogical’ uses of music (illogical by the measure of our experience of external reality) can be ‘explained away’ as subjective perception; we do not see and hear what happened, but how it appeared to the narrator.”. Taking this logic further, we can describe a solo stand-up comedy act as a homodiegetic narrator as the sole enactor and controller of the narrative. In a live filmed special, such as the ones we are looking at, we find ourselves in a position of spectating the spectators, so to speak, subconsciously realising that we are different from the audience physically present, but take addresses to the audience as addresses to us, nonetheless. Returning to Porfyry’s distinction, we live in a possible world where we are just as present as the audience in the room with the performer, and can thus refer to the reality we are spectating as a perceived fictional one. Let us begin, then, at the end: ‘Can’t Handle This Right Now’, the epic finale to his second (and last) comedy special, Make Happy. He precedes the piece by talking about a Kanye West concert he went to recently, on the Yeezus tour. He tells of how Kanye spoke into a mic with autotune over an instrumental track at the end of the show. An instrumental begins to play as Bo goes on to confess his wish to do something similar. He then begins to sing, addressing the audience at first, still wearing his narrator hat, his self-acknowledged ‘stage persona’, asking if he can “Say his shit”, he then sings into the mic, with an instrumental backing track playing. He makes comedic observations about Pringles cans and the incompetence of the employees of the Chipotle fast food chain. He manipulates his vocal processing unit to produce melodic variation, performs the chorus of the repeated phrase ‘Can’t Handle This Right Now’, and then the music slows to a hushed pedal, and he begins singing with the minimum amount of processing on his voice. He now begins to sing a confessional to his audience of how he fears them and would like to please them, but doesn’t want to, he then performs the chorus of the song in its second iteration, now stripped of all comedic meaning, and speaking of his mental condition. He then goes on to keep singing, and acknowledges that he is a comedian and this is a digression, and then performs the chorus again, with a more energetic and dense arrangement. The first section, with comedic observations, is obviously realistically diegetic, we see the comedian making jokes to an audience. The confessional is within the song and hence diegetic, with a point of audition, figuratively being Bo’s point of view, right? Well, maybe it’s Nondiegetic as a representation of interiority, in that the character that Bo is playing on stage is revealing his inner thoughts through the music, which is perfectly conforming to Heldt’s definition. The final section is a finale, with the refrain about Chipotle being repeated with an uptempo arrangement, leading to a deconstructed, climactic chorus, rescinding into the diegesis, but now metadiegetic, since he has made the duality of his persona apparent. This three movement structure is so blatantly Wagnerian, and is thus perfectly in keeping with Gorbman’s view of film music. If this iteration of music is too ‘present’, too performed for the traditional understanding, let us go to slightly before the halfway point of his first special what. He mimes typing, while pastoral pizzicato strings accompany a melodious pan pipe, sustained string sections join in as his typing appear to reach an end, swelling to create suspense as he finishes typing. There is a second of silence, and then, all at once, he mimes masturbating to an electronic synth beat, creating a comedic effect, given that all music is concurrently and identically experience by both live and home audiences. This traditional use of instrumental music accompanying action is commonplace and not of much interest. It is when he plays with the levels of diegesis and understandings of them that we find the most useful examples. For instance, we could take the Left Brain/Right Brain sequence from earlier in what. He is performing a standard joke and is interrupted by a voice emanating from the loudspeakers, displacing the spectator’s sonic anchoring. He interacts with this voice, which comes accompanied by a low register synthesiser pedal along with futuristic sci-fi-esque electronic bleeps and sounds. His conversation with the “disembodied voice”, as he calls it, grow more heated, synthesiser ostinato sequences join the pedal and bleeps and help build to the climax, as the voice counts down, and then there is a silence as darkness falls in the venue, as Bo’s left and right brain are split (according to the stated intent of the voice). Suddenly, the lights begin to strobe chaotically, and there is manically robotic synthesiser music and electronic drums. Simple unprocessed drums accompany the Left Brain character, and a choir and band accompany the Right Brain, reflecting the characteristics as they are being sung out. There is a conversation that follows the introduction, an interaction between the two characters, played, remember, by a homodiegetic narrator. So, now, instead of addressing the audience, they address each other. The conversation becomes spoken and the accompaniment music now functions as score music, with processed drums and a synth bass pedal playing under Left Brain’s angry monologue. Some minor chords suffice to encompass the reaction of Right Brain to this attack, as the character is seen crying. The Robotic music returns as the disembodied voice commences reassembly of Bo’s brain. The music that accompanies the voice is clearly Nondiegetic as a representation of interiority, signifying that this is a being of knowledge and strength more advanced than ours, hence the spectator is conditioned to question the concept of this being splitting a brain in two less than they would otherwise. The music during the supposed act of this split indicates a higher level of technology at work. The character themes are written specific to character, the Left Brain’s is uncomplicated and functional. Right Brain’s are more harmonised and layered, creating dense musical layers, signifying complex and layered emotions. This music is not mere score, though, lest we forget that these themes are accompaniment to their character’s personal introductions, thus they function on both the Nondiegetic and Metadiegetic levels, and somehow, since they are depicted by the film cameras, Gorbman would have us believe that they are the one thing they really are not: Diegetic. The music becomes purely nondiegetic for the end of the piece, still changing as the focus shifts between his portrayals of characters. At the beginning of this special, he introduces a song called ‘A World on Fire’. The audience, with little context, already expect him to travel to the realm of music, and he plays on this expectation, by screaming and randomly hitting keys, taking the song title literally.
Conclusion
Bo Burnham flits effortlessly between levels of diegesis that he constructs, deconstructs and then freely mocks. He is by no means an example of the typical Hollywood writer. He does, however, tell his stories in every single way that I outlined at the beginning of this essay: He modulates his voice for emotional and dramatic effect, he uses music at every turn and constructs worlds within worlds, with the music doing exactly what Claudia Gorbman says it does: Lulling the spectator into a submissive state of acceptance, ready to believe that this possible world where brains are split and comedians mime masturbation is possible. He takes this accepted state and plays on it as well, transcending any distinctions we try to place on the music in his films, proving, thus, that these spaces we’ve created, as storytellers and documented as academics exist within the minds of spectators and work in tandem to create a world that we believe in. His introspection is what lifts the curtain. When Bo Burnham leaves his stage persona behind to tell the audience what he actually feels as a young millennial artist struggling with fame and identity. That is his non-diegetic existence. All the comedy is diegetic, and he creates little pocket worlds in that diegesis, with new ideas and premises with every four chord piano ballad. Bo Burnham’s disregard for diegetic boundaries is what shows their effect his singing and score are all part of the show and the show would ring hollow without either. Bibliography Dolezal, L. ‘Porfyry’s Tree for the Concept of Fictional worlds’, in A. Bell, M. Ryan (eds.), Possible Worlds Theory and Contemporary Narratology. (Unknown: University of Nebraska Press, 2019). 47-61 Gorbman, C., Unheard Melodies: Narrative film music (Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1987), 1-26. Heldt, G. Music and Levels of Narration in Film (Brighton: Intellect, 2013), 20-133. Neumeyer, D. ‘Diegetic/Nondiegetic: A Theoretical Model’. Music and the Moving Image, 2, 1 (2009), 26-39 Winters, B. ‘The Non-diegetic Fallacy: Film, Music, and Narrative Space’, Music and Letters, 90, 2 (2010), 224-244.
Leave a Reply