jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (03/12/85)
In most movies, the film score is pretty well totally unnoticeable.
It really does nothing to actively increase the effectiveness of a scene,
it kind of just sits there and provides a background. However, occasionally
there will be a film score that really adds a lot to the effectiveness of
the movie as a whole. The best example of this I can think of is "2001: A
Space Odyssey". In my opinion, this quality is what makes a great film score,
while scores that do not have this quality are merely ordinary.
For that reason, I find it difficult to understand why Mike Oldfield's
score to "The Killing Fields" was not one of the many Academy
Award nominations that that film got. His score was certainly noticeable
and effective and although I've seen only one of the films that were
nominated for best film score, I can't believe that any of their scores are
better than The Killing Fields. The only nominee I've seen is "The Natural".
I thought it was a great film, but I didn't even notice the music. There
were two John Williams scores nominated, and in the Williams-scored movies
I have seen, the music was only slightly noticeable, and was certainly
nowhere near as interesting and innovative as even the worst piece of music
that Mike Oldfield has ever done. I can think of only two possible
explanations for this omission: either my opinion of what makes a great
film score is not shared by most other people, or the academy is too
closed-minded to appreciate a truly brilliant composer who does something
interesting instead of the usual drivel. Does anybody know what the academy
actually does look for when picking the best film score?
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff