Recent Viewing Part IV

I really wanted to like this, but I had major problems it; mostly to do with some charicatured and overplayed portrayals (esp. the"bad guys"). I had also hoped it was more nature-oriented (more malickian 'faith' as mirrored in 'God's nature'), but it didn't really grab me on that level either. So I mostly fluctuated between being bored or indifferent and being annoyed, even though I recognized several values as well.

While I appreciate many films of Scorsese, he's never been a favourite of mine. I remember when people -- including my colleagues -- went all bananas over WOLF OF STREET, but to me it warranted no more than a special mention that year. I think it has a lot to do with his reliance on dialogue (and often information-heavy dialogue) that robs me of the audiovisual experience.

who wrote the music for the film? or is it standard copy paste salad soup from various different things here and there like mallick etc?

It's practically non-existent in the film. I'm saying "practically" only because of two short moments in which I was aware of a soft choir. Maybe some of the other sound effect tracks on the album were present in the film, but that I would firmly call "sound effects". And I'm usually incredibly aware of any kind of music in film.

Pf. Scorsese and Mallick are the worst with music.

Exactly, that seems to be the contradiction; the directors who are most knowledgeable of and hands-on with music, without being an actual composer, tend to also be the ones who want to control it the most, as they also have the strongest opinion of what the music should do to their films, as opposed to directors without such knowledge who are more eager to hand over this responsibility to someone who knows what he's doing and can advise them.

Being control-freaks as they are, especially the auteurs with their own stamp on their films, want to keep it in their hands the most, resulting in the use of pre-existing music instead of giving that responsibility away in the hands of someone else. In that way they can have the most control over the shaping of their film. Case in point, also: Quentin Tarantino. Unless they can find someone they trust unequivocally, for example with Wes Anderson and Desplat who was able to create a sound that fits Anderson's personal style to a T, and which for Tarantino turned out to only happen with Morricone (sure, and Rodriguez, but only with Kill Bill vol.2 and I'd argue that this hurt the film).

Otherwise, as with Malick, these directors tend to want someone to compose a symphony of music based on their script so they can then treat that music as if it were precomposed source but without any limitations of purchasing fees and rights, and still have to freedom to do with it as they like, or leave it whenever they don't find it suits their vision the most.

That's a rather odd statement to make, as the director is not only there to direct the actors, but -- ideally -- to have some sort of overarching vision of the whole film, and its many elements. Including the music. That doesn't mean he should know how to compose, but that he should know what the music should do in any given sequence.

In case of Silence it's actually a huge part of the design as the characters are Jesuits.

The thing with Jesuit spirituality is that you have to focus on your senses. It actually highly affected even Baroque poetry, what is called the use of the senses (applicatio sensuum). As part of the meditation retreat (because the "spiritual exercises" are essentially, ideally, a month-long retreat) you have to "feel" the Earth Jesus walked on and so on.

If you manage to notice the score in the film you have a stronger sensory focus. You are watching it with stronger intent, you focus on detail. The film becomes a meditative experience. Considering the fact that the main character actually quotes Loyola's book at one point and the actors went through the exercises. According to the Jesuit who consulted the project (James Martin, SJ) everyone was really down to include whatever he had to say about the "Jesuit experience" and everything they talked about was included.

Why are you linking your main page? You make it seem like your website was cheesy fun

I thought the cast in both those movies was underwhelming. Hiddleston and whats-his-face-from-Kick-Ass respectively are both pretty bland. Both films are at their best when focusing on the monsters.

And yet they will complain that the old physical models looked so much better...

someone suggested that Ridley Scott knew the xenomorphs aren't really scary any more, so he had a new creepy character instead: David. I agree that the 'twist' was obvious, but I think it was supposed to be. If I were the screenwriters I would've [spoiler]explicitly shown David kill Walter and not even feign an attempt to hide it[/spoiler]...

I felt that if "Alien" was horror and "Aliens" was action, this was more straight sci-fi, attempting to tell an interesting story about a strange, puzzling planet (David's lair was really fascinating!) instead of attempting to be 'scary'.

Well, I've made it pretty clear in earlier postings -- I think ALIEN: COVENANT is one of the best films of the year, and the score one of the year's best as well.

The Poseidon Adventure (1972)

Am I the only one who finds the capsizing / ball room flooding scenes in this version much more scary than those in the 2006 remake? The cast and the iconic score by Williams make this a classic disaster flick.

Volker

While I never wanted to own it on CD, in context it works great.