 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Leos Janácek posted by ephemere on April 05, 2004 at 12:59:28:
What about Kubrick in "2001..." and "Barry Lyndon"? What about "Elvira Madison"? What abut "The Elephant Man"? What abut "Platoon"? Etc...
Follow Ups:
What about Kubrick in "2001..."2001 is an example of both what is rarely right and what is almost always wrong with classical music in movies. The Ligeti, like the Janáček and Copland in the aforementioned two films, is organically integrated. But most of the rest of it is stuck on, contrived and jarring from a musical standpoint, and pretentious from a thematic standpoint (e.g., Nietzsche for the epiphany, a waltz for the docking, a ballet for the exercise laps, all so clever). 2001 is a superb movie, but the music is one of the weaker elements overall. I realize that most people disagree.
"Barry Lyndon"?
The classical music used in this beautiful and underappreciated Kubrick film is more organically integrated than 2001, but still does not unseat my benchmarks. The "problem" is that it's a period piece, and the use of period music in the soundtrack is unavoidably (and probably intentionally) self-conscious. However, I do like the improvisations on the Schubert piano trio, such as reducing it to rhythm during the climactic duel scene, reminiscent of some of the best soundtrack moments based on existing music in PATHS OF GLORY and DR. STRANGELOVE.
What about "Elvira Madison"?
I have not seen this movie.
What abut "The Elephant Man"?
I don't remember any classical music in this movie. I may have forgotten.
What abut "Platoon"?
Shamelessly manipulative and self-consciously heavy-handed use of classical music in an overrated movie. Typical Oliver Stone, to bash the audience over the head with a baseball bat. Not even on the map. Also, unlike most of the aforementioned movies, there just isn't enough of it to play an integral role from beginning to end.
I am trying to imagine 2001 WITHOUT the music and I cannot. 2001 is one big silent movie and depends on its music to put it across. I have the Alex North score on CD (OK, it's only half the movie) and I can readily understsnd why Kubrick stuck with his working tracks. To call the use of the Blue Danube "jarring" is, I think, really stretching to make a point. Like the William Tell or the Barber of Seville overtures, I can no longer hear them without thinking of the Lone Ranger, Bugs Bunny, or 2001. If you agree to the Ligetti's for the discoveries, how can you dismiss the Strauss for the opening
and the learning/transition scenes? I think the best thing about 2001 IS its use of familar music (Ligetti excepted in 1968).
The film music of " 2001 " was change at the last moment..Maybe always already told here, but ..In case not...
According to the liner notes of the Alex North "2001..." score on CD, Kubrick never intended to use an original score but went along with the business people at MGM to use an original score and to use North, who they pushed on him becuase of the rousing success of his "Spartacus" music. After North had composed about 40 minutes oif music Kunrick informed him that he was going to stick with just the music North had done up to then and use brething and other effects for the remainder of the film. This was in December of 1967. North was stunned at the premiere in April of 1968 to hear only the "temporray" tracks.
nt
I agree yours is a valid viewpoint, and I know I am in the minority.
I haven't seen the Lighness in years, so I couldn't comment on your benchmark, but a couple of comments on others. Regarding Barry Lyndon... what else would you expect in a movie like this if not "period" music? And surely Schubert hardly could be considered "period". I didn't feel it was self-conscious, it fit naturally. I think it is not the type of music that is usually important, but its fit.How do you see All the Mornings in the World and ITS music in that context?
And furthermore, was the use of Mozart in Amadeus also something you would not consider the most proper? Or in the two above cases only the period music was appropriate?
I think this got twisted around. Let me clarify...When I said that TULoB and HGG are my benchmarks for effective use of classical music in movies, I wasn't counting movies that are themselves about classical music, such as the two you mentioned. This is not a criticism of such movies. On the contrary, the music in All the Mornings in the World and Amadeus is wonderful, and is about as organically integrated into the films as you can get.
But in my opinion it's much harder for movies to make use of classical music simply in the role of a soundtrack. At one extreme, there are innumerable egregious examples that sound like the producers simply couldn't spring for an original score and slapped in some classical music as a quick fix. At the other extreme, TULoB and HGG are my benchmarks of total success. Those movies use classical music almost exclusively throughout, with great attention to detail and without any real flaws or awkward or self-conscious moments, in my opinion. Both movies would be significantly weaker without the scoring.
As for Barry Lyndon, I think that you interpreted my post as criticism. I do think it is an excellent example of classical music in a movie, and my attempts to explain briefly why it is not my absolute benchmark should not be mistaken as a blunt slam. To answer your question 'what else would you expect in a movie like this if not "period" music?' , the answer is: an original score. TULoB and HGG could have used original scores, also, but it would have been even harder than BL to match what they already achieve with Janáček and Copland, respectively.
That makes more sense now. I had strong agreement with you regarding the Platoon. Amazingly though, a similar music used to great effect in Gallipoli did not rub me the wrong way - I am talking of course about the use of the two famous adagios in those two films - Barmer in the Platoon and Ablinoni in Gallipoli. Is it simply the fact that the Gallipoli was first, or rather the difference is in the quality of the overall work? I do consider the Platoon a very weak film, a speculation and opportunistic piece, really, and the Gallipoli, while not a breakthrough film, an honest and touching, even if naively, quiet masterpiece.
I have not seen Gallipoli. Thanks for the reference.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
