GUSTAVO SANTAOLALLA

Thor wrote
I'm one of those who think BABEL was absolutely brilliant, and the use of music was very worthy of the Oscar it got. Yes, I can understand the controversy in that a lot of it was culled from other sources (sometimes Santaolalla's own back catalogue) and so it was maybe not worthy as a score composed ORIGINALLY for the film, but the musical application....brilliant!

plindboe wrote
Hi Thor,

I've not seen the movie, just have the score. Do you know what the track titles for those scenes are?

Peter

Thor wrote


Ehm....OK? Anything particular that caused this?

Erik Woods wrote


Two words... BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.

-Erik-

Thor wrote


...which is a great score and instrumental in making this film a contemporary classic!

The whole "I hate Santaolalla because he doesn't compose the big orchestral music that I like" routine annoys me to no end.

Thor wrote
If you don't think it was worthy of an Oscar, you need to tell me WHY!

Thor wrote


There are absolutely ZERO arguments in what you say, Erik, except that you don't like the solo guitar music being used (and - if I know your taste right - you'd rather have a more traditional orchestral Western score a la Bruce Broughton, right? That would IMO have been a SERIOUS, SERIOUS misstep). If that's your preference, fine, but it does not allow you to comment on the film's "worthiness" as an Oscar winner. If you don't think it was worthy of an Oscar, you need to tell me WHY!

Thor wrote


You're ONLY talking about how it is as STAND-ALONE MUSIC here, not how it relates to the film, which is what the Oscars are for. I tried to give some reasons above as to why you can't judge a score's Oscar-worthiness by the sound of the music alone. You have to look at how it fits the film, its tone, its "mission" etc.

I don't mean to belittle Gustavo's award but I saw BABEL and the only music I really noticed was either from another movie or by someone else entirely. Gustavo's part seemed pretty minimal. Certainly too much so to be Oscar material. But that was then, this is now.

Once the music award went to works that were noticed, flashy, flamboyant, richly emotive, innovative, powerful, whatever. Not always the best, maybe, but usually noticeable. That's disappearing now. Two years in a row and counting...

Think what it would be like if the Academy did this with acting. You come out of a great movie and you say to your mate "who was the lead actor, I don't recall" and your mate says "I've forgotten what the main actor's part even was" and you say "I guess it was so good it wasn't even noticeable" and your mate says "Golly! It should get an Academy Award or at least a nomination because it blended in with the movie so well I can't even remember a single part... " and so on and so forth.

But that's where they went with the music this time. I certainly don't recall much in BABEL to write home about. I didn't for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, either, but I'd at least mostly gotten past it.

Thor wrote
1. By staying low-key and sparse, it avoids the "testosterone" of a more fleshed-out Western epic (even though this IS an epos in a different way). Like the film itself, the music goes refreshingly AGAINST convention. This is the major reason for why it was worthy.

2. It's spotted extraordinary well.

3. The theme has a "bittersweet", melancholy quality that hints towards the always unresolved relationship between Jack and Ennis. It pops up as a leitmotif for this relationship throughout.

4. By the end of the film, the recurring theme begins to haunt you. Throughout the film, it has been presented sometimes unfulfilled, sometimes more elaborate. But due to the sheer repetition, it becomes "one" with the narrative to an extent that hasn't been seen many times. Except maybe Raksin's LAURA or some of Williams' character "call cards" (SUPERMAN, INDY).

5. The majestic nature images often speak for themselves. The sparse music almost makes these scenes more "three-dimensional" than if you had filled it with an in-your-face orchestral theme or something.