Clint Eastwood goes Shyamalan-y with "HEREAFTER"

Film, TV & DVD » Clint Eastwood goes Shyamalan-y with "HEREAFTER" (Posts 31 to 49 of 49)

- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010
"That probably qualifies as "childish and undeveloped" in your ears too"

No, it's far more developed it's just not the style i usually like. Santaolalla however, is much more of a composer anyway - granted he has a very, well, odd and unique style - than whatever Clint will ever succeed in the musical area and all you describe above could perhaps be applied in Santaolalla's case; not Eastwood's however. And save your lectures on film music Thor and also stop putting words in my mouth, stuff that i never said. I know pretty well what it is and how it is supposed to functions. Clint's music is a simple canvas of undeveloped improvisational piano chords against films, which usually are far more serious and weigh a lot more than his music can provide. Face it that he;s probably too egoistical to let go of the musical side to someone more professional. Nobody suggested that 'more professional' necessarily equals full blown orchestral fanfares so don't beat that dead horse again. And you didn't even read what i wrote, you're just continuing on the same field. You might like it, but compared to anything else out there is significantly lower in all musical levels and it doesn't aid its films, rather the contrary, it drags, tones them down and instead of helping the visuals and narrative, it continuously drags and attracts attention to the same ridiculously repeated and simplistic main theme shouting 'here i am' in your ears, without development, significant arrangements or orchestrations.
Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010 edited
Christodoulides wrote

"That probably qualifies as "childish and undeveloped" in your ears too"

No, it's far more developed it's just not the style i usually like. Santaolalla however, is much more of a composer anyway - granted he has a very, well, odd and unique style - than whatever Clint will ever succeed in the musical area and all you describe above could perhaps be applied in Santaolalla's case; not Eastwood's however. And save your lectures on film music Thor and also stop putting words in my mouth, stuff that i never said. I know pretty well what it is and how it is supposed to functions. Clint's music is a simple canvas of undeveloped improvisational piano chords against films, which usually are far more serious and weigh a lot more than his music can provide. Face it that he;s probably too egoistical to let go of the musical side to someone more professional. Nobody suggested that 'more professional' necessarily equals full blown orchestral fanfares so don't beat that dead horse again. And you didn't even read what i wrote, you're just continuing on the same field. You might like it, but compared to anything else out there is significantly lower in all musical levels and it doesn't aid its films, rather the contrary, it drags, tones them down and instead of helping the visuals and narrative, it continuously drags and attracts attention to the same ridiculously repeated and simplistic main theme shouting 'here i am' in your ears, without development, significant arrangements or orchestrations.

And yet, you still haven't mentioned a single case where the music was somehow inappropriate for the type of film he was making. It's still very much only a musical evaluation you're making, not a filmic. Which would have been fine, had we been talking about a guitar solo album or something. But we're not.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010 edited
PawelStroinski wrote

Southall wrote

Timmer wrote

PawelStroinski wrote
Yeah, Niehaus is still orchestrating for Eastwood anyway.

Did you know that Zimmer tried to get the scoring job on Unforgiven, but was told by Eastwood himself that he's got a composer already?

No, I didn't know that? I'm glad Zimmer didn't get the scoring duties.

I can't imagine anyone further from Eastwood's own scoring sensibility! I wonder if the reason he does it himself is that he thinks a "proper" film composer would be too overbearing. I'm sure he'd find someone if he looked far enough.

Well, depends. Zimmer can do an understated work (Frost/Nixon anyone?) if asked for it. Knowing the year when Unforgiven was filmed and release... Zimmer wasn't known as the overbearing composer he is known for being today. His only "properly" Hollywood action work by then was Backdraft, usually he was doing smaller dramas (Regarding Henry). OK, K2 is from that year.

I think something like Unforgiven would be interesting to hear from him. Broken Arrow doesn't really count as a western, now does it? (Even with all the Morriconian inspirations). I know that he *always* wanted to score a western. He would do something Morricone-inspired for sure.

Since Clint's music ultimately derives from a mix of light jazz and country music, I can't see Zimmer operating well within that sensibility. He's a bit too deliberate for the lightness of that sort of jazz. (Not talking big band jazz, of course, which works in a very different way.)

The one current composer I can see working well with Eastwood is Terence Blanchard. (Although the Eastwood/SpikeLee spat may have hurt the chances of that ever happening.)
A butterfly thinks therefore I am
- CommentAuthorsdtom
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010
Christodoulides wrote

"That probably qualifies as "childish and undeveloped" in your ears too"

No, it's far more developed it's just not the style i usually like. Santaolalla however, is much more of a composer anyway - granted he has a very, well, odd and unique style - than whatever Clint will ever succeed in the musical area and all you describe above could perhaps be applied in Santaolalla's case; not Eastwood's however. And save your lectures on film music Thor and also stop putting words in my mouth, stuff that i never said. I know pretty well what it is and how it is supposed to functions. Clint's music is a simple canvas of undeveloped improvisational piano chords against films, which usually are far more serious and weigh a lot more than his music can provide. Face it that he;s probably too egoistical to let go of the musical side to someone more professional. Nobody suggested that 'more professional' necessarily equals
full blown orchestral fanfares so don't beat that dead horse again. And you didn't even read what i wrote, you're just continuing on the same field. You might like it, but compared to anything else out there is significantly lower in all musical levels and it doesn't aid its films, rather the contrary, it drags, tones them down and instead of helping the visuals and narrative, it continuously drags and attracts attention to the same ridiculously repeated and simplistic main theme shouting 'here i am' in your ears, without development, significant arrangements or orchestrations.

If it bothers you that much don't go and see the film and write him a letter giving your opinion. Overall, the man is one of the greater success stories in the history of Hollywood. Thor is right his music doesn't take away from what he is trying to do.
Thomas
Thomas
listen to more classical music!
- CommentAuthorsdtom
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010
I will admit that if Clint decided to remake Prince Valiant his music would be a bit out of place.
Thomas
listen to more classical music!
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010
sdtom wrote

If it bothers you that much don't go and see the film and write him a letter giving your opinion. Overall, the man is one of the greater success stories in the history of Hollywood. Thor is right his music doesn't take away from what he is trying to do.
Thomas
Thomas

I didn't diminish his work nor disputed that he's an icon in the industry; only his compositions.

And what a mature answer anyway
Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
- CommentAuthorBobdH
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010
sdtom wrote

BobdH wrote
Erm, IMDb says he is scoring this himself again. Unfortunately...

You know it is his money that he puts up. Your like someone who has $20 to spend on a book and your telling them what to buy. Or your telling them what to eat when they go out with their own money. The man is a billionare. His pictures are wildly successful so why should he change. Now if 20 million people write to him and tell him that is a different story. Your answer is simple. Don't go see the movie, don't buy the score, and write a letter to Warner Brothers complaining that the soundtrack is so terrible it makes the film unwatchable. What about Woody Allen? No original material only classical. Tarentino similiar situation. Everything in the world doesn't have to be this complex frame by frame Lord of the Rings type soundtrack. Even one of my favorites Max Steiner had a way of too much music.
Thomas
Thomas

I'm fine with a film that has a minimalistic score that doesn't draw attention to itself, numerous of those type of score are my favorites. But I prefer a score I can listen to and enjoy outside the film itself, and Eastwood's scores don't do that for me. Mystic River is a great film but I lament the fact it has such a weak score, I certainly would enjoy his films a lot more if he didn't score it. A missed opportunity, if you ask me. And making money is not what defines a great film. Otherwise, Big Momma's House 2 and the Saw franchise would all be masterpieces of filmmaking, surely you agree?

I do not wish to be patronized for simply stating my opinion, and in a subtle way at that. Apparently, my opinion doesn't count simply because it's not the opinion of the masses.
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010 edited
BobdH wrote

sdtom wrote

BobdH wrote
Erm, IMDb says he is scoring this himself again. Unfortunately...

You know it is his money that he puts up. Your like someone who has $20 to spend on a book and your telling them what to buy. Or your telling them what to eat when they go out with their own money. The man is a billionare. His pictures are wildly successful so why should he change. Now if 20 million people write to him and tell him that is a different story. Your answer is simple. Don't go see the movie, don't buy the score, and write a letter to Warner Brothers complaining that the soundtrack is so terrible it makes the film unwatchable. What about Woody Allen? No original material only classical. Tarentino similiar situation. Everything in the world doesn't have to be this complex frame by frame Lord of the Rings type soundtrack. Even one of my favorites Max Steiner had a way of too much music.
Thomas
Thomas

I'm fine with a film that has a minimalistic score that doesn't draw attention to itself, numerous of those type of score are my favorites. But I prefer a score I can listen to and enjoy outside the film itself, and Eastwood's scores don't do that for me. Mystic River is a great film but I lament the fact it has such a weak score, I certainly would enjoy his films a lot more if he didn't score it. A missed opportunity, if you ask me. And making money is not what defines a great film. Otherwise, Big Momma's House 2 and the Saw franchise would all be masterpieces of filmmaking, surely you agree?

I do not wish to be patronized for simply stating my opinion, and in a subtle way at that. Apparently, my opinion doesn't count simply because it's not the opinion of the masses.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with Tom's appeal to the film's financial success. That's not MY argument, anyway. My argument lies only in judging a score by how it works in the film, i.e. only an aesthetic concern. Not by what instrument is used, how many times the theme is repeated, not by how orchestrated or not it is or how it isn't the type of music that the critic prefers to listen to on his stereo. None of those are valid arguments (or at best secondary arguments) when judging a score. You only need to ask two questions:

1. What do you think the film (or the director) wants to say in this scene? What style, tone, theme does he want to convey?
2. How does the music respond to that?

If there's a negative response that comes out of that, then fine, but it needs to be within those terms.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorBobdH
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010
I wasn't exactly stating my word 'unfortunately' based upon my view as a critical and objective listener. Also, following that logic, a composer should only make an effort to perform the bare minimum of what is asked on a project. I prefer to look a little further.
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010 edited
BobdH wrote
I wasn't exactly stating my word 'unfortunately' based upon my view as a critical and objective listener. Also, following that logic, a composer should only make an effort to perform the bare minimum of what is asked on a project. I prefer to look a little further.

So do I. But that lies very much in the conversation between director and composer. Or in this case, the same guy. I firmly believe in the auteur theory which gives the artist full freedom to communicate his ideas any which way he wants; to give us HIS vision - whether it's a particular acting style, a cinematographic touch, a certain thematic idea or a musical approach that the artist feels fits his vision.

You can dislike it all you want, but then I do at the very least ask that you be specific and say HOW it doesn't hold up in the film; how it doesn't answer to film's properties otherwise. Not just easy blanket statements based on the music alone.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorErik Woods
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010
Thor wrote
My argument lies only in judging a score by how it works in the film, i.e. only an aesthetic concern. Not by what instrument is used, how many times the theme is repeated, not by how orchestrated or not it is or how it isn't the type of music that the critic prefers to listen to on his stereo. None of those are valid arguments (or at best secondary arguments) when judging a score.

With the exception of the last point (judging a score based on personal taste) the other points are INDEED valid. A wrong instument, wrong orchestration, a repeated theme or motif over and over and over again can take a viewer completely out of the film, convay the wrong emotions and interfere with the story being told.

-Erik-
host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeSep 26th 2010
Erik Woods wrote

Thor wrote
My argument lies only in judging a score by how it works in the film, i.e. only an aesthetic concern. Not by what instrument is used, how many times the theme is repeated, not by how orchestrated or not it is or how it isn't the type of music that the critic prefers to listen to on his stereo. None of those are valid arguments (or at best secondary arguments) when judging a score.

With the exception of the last point (judging a score based on personal taste) the other points are INDEED valid. A wrong instument, wrong orchestration, a repeated theme or motif over and over and over again can take a viewer completely out of the film, convay the wrong emotions and interfere with the story being told.

-Erik-

There's no way you can generalize like that. You'd have to be more specific.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorErik Woods
- CommentTimeSep 27th 2010 edited
Of course you would have be more specific but those points above, if brought up by some one evaluating the use of music in a film, would be valid.

-Erik-
host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeSep 27th 2010 edited
Erik Woods wrote
Of course you would have be more specific but those points above, if brought up by some one evaluating the use of music in a film, would be valid.

-Erik-

I just don't understand how you can have a "wrong" instrument or a "wrong" orchestration or whatever without having the film in mind. I don't normally like the kind of wacked-out electronic "noise" ambiance in films like FORBIDDEN PLANET or TERMINATOR, but there's no doubt they are PERFECT scores for their respective films.

Same with Eastwood's scores, really, even though it's not something I generally listen to or even find particularly exciting as music. But it's what the films called for, it gets Eastwood's points across. What I like to listen to on my stereo is completely irrelevant.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorErik Woods
- CommentTimeSep 27th 2010
Thor wrote
I just don't understand how you can have a "wrong" instrument or a "wrong" orchestration or whatever without having the film in mind. I don't normally like the kind of wacked-out electronic "noise" ambiance in films like FORBIDDEN PLANET or TERMINATOR, but there's no doubt they are PERFECT scores for their respective films.

I agree... but there could be an instance (I can't think of an example right now) where the wrong use of a instrument or wrong orchestration could convey the wrong emotion or tone for the scene.

Thor wrote
Same with Eastwood's scores, really, even though it's not something I generally listen to or even find particularly exciting as music. But it's what the films called for, it gets Eastwood's points across. What I like to listen to on my stereo is completely irrelevant.

I agree... and throughout this thread when ever I was talking about Eastwood's music (The Changeling to be more specific) I had the film in mind - ie the repetition of the scores main theme. It set the wrong tone and took us (my wife and I) out of the film when ever it was used. While it's use to set the time period of the picture was spot on the rest of the score as heard in the film lacked development and failed to convey the loss, grief, anger and confusion of Jolie's character.

-Erik-
host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeSep 27th 2010 edited
Erik Woods wrote
I agree... and throughout this thread when ever I was talking about Eastwood's music (The Changeling to be more specific) I had the film in mind - ie the repetition of the scores main theme. It set the wrong tone and took us (my wife and I) out of the film when ever it was used. While it's use to set the time period of the picture was spot on the rest of the score as heard in the film lacked development and failed to convey the loss, grief, anger and confusion of Jolie's character.

-Erik-

Finally a film-specific comment! Curiously, THE CHANGELING keeps coming up (the same film came up in the equivalent FSM thread), and while I've seen it, I can't remember everything in detail. I do, however, remember the music in scenes involving anguish and strong emotions. I thought it was a quite novel and non-traditional approach (i.e. staying more in the background and letting the emoting stream fully through the characters instead), and very effective. To me, musical restraint in films like these are crucial to get the biggest impact. These aren't traditional melodramas (except maybe BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY). Still, they aren't dogme films either, so you need have some musical "ambiance"; some kind of musical index finger pointing you in the general direction. I think Clint's music does this perfectly, even though I'm not a particularly big fan of his films or scores.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorErik Woods
- CommentTimeSep 27th 2010
I like Clint's restraint and simplicity in his scores. I just found that The Changeling was a huge misfire musically and dramatically.

-Erik-
host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
- CommentAuthorsdtom
- CommentTimeSep 27th 2010
Erik Woods wrote

With the exception of the last point (judging a score based on personal taste) the other points are INDEED valid. A wrong instument, wrong orchestration, a repeated theme or motif over and over and over again can take a viewer completely out of the film, convay the wrong emotions and interfere with the story being told.

-Erik-

Which Clint would change in a heartbeat if need be.

My point with the money and Clint is purely based on how Hollywood judges.$$$$= success=another picture. Has absolutely nothing to do with the picture. He can do what he wants in addition because he uses his money to back the films. People go and see his films partly because his name is on it. Directed by Thor wouldn't bring a million people to the box office unless he had a track record of hits behind him.

Bob you have an opinion as well as anyone else and are just as entitled to give it. I'm really just coming from a more practical realistic point of view.

Eastwood and his music are a lot like what Stravinsky felt about music in films which it was nothing more than wallpaper or filler material. The wildly popular soundtracks had a song to go along with them for the most part which is another way of making more money. Not always. The days of Korngold, Williams, and Steiner have passed us by. Now if you went to Eastwood and could guarantee him another 100 million dollars in sales if he used your material he might think about it with the understanding that if it didn't you would get nothing or have to pay him if it was a distraction to audiences.

I'm glad we have the music we do and I enjoy it everyday of my life.
Thomas
listen to more classical music!
- CommentAuthorjustin boggan
- CommentTimeSep 28th 2010
Timmer wrote

PawelStroinski wrote
Yeah, Niehaus is still orchestrating for Eastwood anyway.

Did you know that Zimmer tried to get the scoring job on Unforgiven, but was told by Eastwood himself that he's got a composer already?

No, I didn't know that? I'm glad Zimmer didn't get the scoring duties.

Seconded.
The views and opinions of Ford A. Thaxton are his own and do not necessarily reflect the ones of ANYONE else.

31 to 49 of 49

Categories

Clint Eastwood goes Shyamalan-y with "HEREAFTER"