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!jeffgeoff@ISM780.UUCP (03/16/85)
> 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. ... Well, I don't know about MOST movies. The point of a film score, like the point of film lighting, and continuity editing etc, is NOT to be noticed. If you notice the music in film, it's WRONG (unless, of course, the movie is "The Sound of Music" or something like that). None of the elements of a film should stand out above the film itself, to do so is to distract the viewer from what the director is trying to say. (Unfortunately, many director's don't HAVE anything to say, so any distraction is welcome 8^). ) > .... 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 It may be great music (I haven't seen the movie), but if you NOTICED it, something's wrong. Now, I love Oldfield's music, and I often like to listen to it all by itself, but that doesn't make it perfect for a particular film. This is a general statement, responding to a general comment. In this particular case you may be right, perhaps the score to _The Killing Fields_ DOES deserve an award, but NOT because it's great music, or because it's particularly noticeable. A score deserves an award IFF it enhances the film without distracting the audience. > 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 wouldn't listen to a record of Williams' music on a bet, but it is often very "right" for the film. Drivel it may be, but it's only supposed to set the mood, not steal the show. > 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... I don't know about MOST people, but I know MANY people believe as I do: To hear great music, go to a concert or buy a record. When one goes to a movie, expect to not notice ANYTHING which is not directly relevent to the plot (or message). (but don't be too disappointed if you do notice something, remember, 90% of everthing is S**T!) >...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? Well, what the Academy looks for is another subject entirely (8^)). No, I certainly don't. (But I sometimes suspect it has a lot more to do with commercial interests than with art.) Geoffrey Kimbrough -- Director of Dangerous Activities -- INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Santa Monica California. ihnp4!allegra!ima!ism780!geoff Nothing works, and nobody cares -- Woody Allen
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/20/85)
In article <167@ISM780.UUCP> geoff@ISM780.UUCP writes: > >Well, I don't know about MOST movies. The point of a film score, like the >point of film lighting, and continuity editing etc, is NOT to be noticed. >If you notice the music in film, it's WRONG ... >None of the elements >of a film should stand out above the film itself, to do so is to distract >the viewer from what the director is trying to say. > I find this point of view rather narrow. Firstly, you've just thrown out any film that tries to work on any level other than the naturalistic, as such films usually feature noticeable camerawork, editting, scores, etc. Even assuming you're willing to consign such films to the abyss, I still think you're going too far. For scores, consider the effectiveness of an often repeated, appropriate theme, such as that in "The Year of Living Dangerously", "Ryan's Daughter", any adventure film of the thirties or fourties. Or fine music suitable to the mood of the piece, such as Elmer Bernstein's score for "To Kill a Mockingbird". Think about how much Marvin Hamlisch's arrangements of Scott Joplin's rags contributed to "The Sting". I think most people notice particularly beautiful photography, without necessarily compromising the film. I would hate to have to defend the statement that Hitchcock's editing of the shower scene in "Psycho" was a mistake, or that it was not noticeable. Ditto Eisenstein's brilliant editing in "Potemkin". How about the sets and costumes in "Gone With the Wind", which definitely were noticed? A film is more than plot. Plot is just one element. I think it narrow to say that plot and nothing else should be noticed. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher