Boys, let me thank you for all the postings about Herrmann and his successors.

It forced me to watch Psycho I again after many years. What a mindblowing masterpiece !

While also reading the TRON 2 thread here ( OMG, some really Shakespeare-like native speaker comments keep coming over there [:)]     )  I felt a little bit surrounded by a group discussing over the popular theme about "The glory of the good old times" .

IMO making a copy is O.K., as long as the quality is good and it brings a new feeling to the concept.

There´s no point in bashing the car companies because of the fact, that wheels had already been invented in ancient times.

But the problems with it seem to be comparable :

Why do so many people admire the "original" cars from the 60s/70s. All the "SteveMcQueen" Ford Mustang platforms, the old  Mercedes and Citroen DS ?

One point for sure is that many misjudge the good old time with the time when they were young. Everything was great back there.

I think nobody is free from that. The quote of everybodies parents that it was better in the past and the younger people would lack quality and competence is as old as mankind.

Nevertheless I totally agree with all your comments. In search of a proof that we still have great composers and films today I found it really hard to come up with something. The best example for something really brilliant and new for me was the Martinez soundtrack on Solaris. Musically and regarding the film itself as well. Being a copy of an older Tarkowski idea, I like the copy more than the original.

Mabye some die hard "art deco Bauhaus" fans will disagree, but the original is just too heavy for me, so I prefer the Hollywood style much more for that piece, even if it may be critiziced as more soap washed.The idea for the the soundtrack I still consider one of the most wonderful pieces in the last years.

There are also other ones, but somtimes you get caught in a trap.

The example for a really good soundtrack even on a TV series proofed as wrong to my surprise : The Band of Brothers Main theme would absolutely fulfill my criteria for a great score. Unfortunately I learned that Michael Kamen died in 2003.

So I hate to say it : Unfortunately it seems to be true. Or as a friend of mine used to put it : "I don´t go to concerts anymore. All the people I want to see are dead."

Greetings

kh

 Yeah, you are right we should not lapse into the "everything was great back then and bad today with these young whippersnappers" stuff.   I don't think that actually.  Though I disagree about Solaris which I did not like the remake of. It is true that Tarkovsky didn't even want to make a sci-fi film.  It is not a really successful film of his.  It was too much another author's work.  He was very much a "personal" auteur filmmaker, and if made to do a studio type film was being distorted.   Stalker is his real masterpiece.   Only suggestively sci-fi, and extremely philosophical/metaphysical.  It is one of the greatest of all films ever made, in addition to Nostalghia.    Now you've started me thinking about Tarkovsky.  I love The Mirror also.  btw Tarkovsky was extremely sparing in his use of film music.  Most of the time there is absolutely none at all.  [:O]

Re: Stalker

You're a better man than me William; I switched the video off somewhere in the middle of that interminable train-ride in silence... 

@William said:

 Yeah, you are right we should not lapse into the "everything was great back then and bad today with these young whippersnappers" stuff.   I don't think that actually. 

It would be interesting to look into the future and see what this forum would be like 30 or 40 years from now.  Those "whippersnappers" might be posting things like, "what happened to the good ol' days when we use to just write block chords and let our sequencer's arpeggiators do all the work?  Now everything has to be so thought out, planned and emotional.  Now, everybody is so concerned with score structure and craft.  Composers, if they want to call themselves that, are so concerned with writing themes and motiffs and counterpoint like those old boring Classical composers use to do.  You're all a bunch of HACKS!!!  You hear me?!?!  YOU HACKS!!!  By the way, can somebody tell me what the hell is an arpeggio anyway?  Nobody could ever write like H.Z.  Man those were the days.  Discussions could get quite heated like they do today.

Then of course Dietz would have to issue the dreaded stern 'I'm about to shut this thread down' warning but the posters wouldn't know what he's talking about because poor Dietz has gotten a little senile in his old age and he posted his warning in the wrong thread[|-)]

Just kidding Dietz[:D]  Happy New Year to you!

@Errikos said:

Re: Stalker

You're a better man than me William; I switched the video off somewhere in the middle of that interminable train-ride in silence... 

Yeah Tarkovsky was kind of hard to swallow for me too.  I thought The Sacrifice was kind of interesting up until the end when the woman just starts screaming on the floor for no apparent reason, then Tarkovsky just lost me. 

Hey Erikk,

I understand you're Greek?  What do you think of the director Theo Angelopolous?  I've heard some call him the Greek Stanley Kubrick.  I absolutely loved Ulysess' Gaze.  Some would find those long shots (some nearly four minutes in length) excruciating but I thought they were composed so beautifully.  Also, the film worked like a book where each shot worked like an individual chapter and could stand on its own.  Not to mention the things happening off camera that worked very well to tell the story.  It was kind of like the 'don't show the monster' method that works so well in the horror genre although Ulysess' Gaze isn't a Horror film (of course that depends on how you look at it considering the subject matter of the sometimes volatile Balkins).

However, I don't agree with the Stanley Kubrick label.  Aside from his other attributes, Kubrick had a way of painting his vision on screen with light.  The next Kubrick film you watch pay particular attention to how he lights his scenes.  Make no mistake, the DP in Kubrick's films was just an assistant to Kubrick.  Kubrick was in charge of all the lighting and photographic composition in his films.  I have yet to see any other film director master lighting the way Kubrick did.  Not even Angelopolous whose work I admire.   

Well, the train ride was in Solaris, not Stalker, but was indeed overly long.  In fact, insanely long. I don't know why he did that.  He was messed up by having to do a more "commercial" (using the term very loosely) film in the wake of 2001's success.   The Soviets didn't want a Space Movie Gap as Buck Turgidson might have put it.

However, you must change your way of watching a film with Tarkovksy, because they are not plot or even drama-driven but metaphysical and poetic.  And in this sense, Stalker, Nostalghia and The Mirror are considered among the greatest films ever made.  In fact, Bergman stated that Tarkovksy was the greatest of all filmmakers.   I tend to take old Bergman's opinions fairly seriously, as he was no slouch in the cinema department himself.  Ha-ha! 

Yup, why I remember back in the good ol' days when it weren't so easy to create block chords.  Why, even the great Hans had to get LIVE players to do 'em up good.  Nothing like these uppity younguns today, what with their polytonal fugal symphonies and multi-chorus 24-tone oratorios played right out o' their hard-head-wired phones.  Ol' Hans didn't have the benefit of turning his ears into playback monitors back in those days.

@William said:

Well, the train ride was in Solaris, not Stalker

Sorry, it was decades ago so I confused the two... I must re-attempt 'Stalker' one of these days.

@jasen Sorry about the hitherto dyslexia on my part, it's the 'e' that threw me, I've never heard the name Jasen before. Anyway, I also haven't heard the name of Angelopoulos (no 'u') mentioned in the same sentence with Kubrick's before, I find them very different. Angelopoulos learns more from Kurosawa, and I wish he learned a little about music from him too. Sadly, and as a result of 500 years of Turkish occupation and Platonic cave-like Marxist ideology, he is not interested in the art... He has one of the top D.o.P.s in the world working for him in those breathtaking panoramic dream-like sequences, and he is happy to accompany that with the commonest musical denominator of tack! It's not even minimal scoring (which again would be inappropriate), the woman he always uses (and worships) only knows how to do one thing (and not that well). Sadly, that's what he likes so others like me never even think of approaching him.

A funny anecdote: When Angelopoulos won the runner-up award in Cannes some years ago, he walked up the aisle to receive it, took the microphone and said: "I had no speech prepared for second place", and walked off... 

@jasensmith said:

 Kubrick was in charge of all the lighting and photographic composition in his films.  I have yet to see any other film director master lighting the way Kubrick did.

Yes, the lighting and every other element down to the promotion long after the film was done was finished was absolutely controlled and dictated by Kubrick to the degree of mania.  That is why his films will live forever.  They became unique - even in their flaws - documents of a mind. 

One thing that struck me when you said that about the lighting/cinematography is that Bergman's films shot by Sven Nykvist have the same total control of all visual elements to an unheard of level of perfection.  btw a film composer never talked about much here but who is really great and did a lot of Bergman films - Eric Nordgren.  Like his score for Wild Strawberries, absolutely beautiful. 

Speaking of Tarkovsky, did you know there was an "acclaimed" production of Boris Gudonov he directed?   The only opera he did but it is supposed to be the best production that has been put on film.  That might be worth seeing since anything by Mussorgsky is essential.

@Errikos (I'm pretty sure I spelled your name correctly this time),

I was first exposed to Angelopoulos' work when I was a film student and I was just blown away with the fact that he could get away with shooting an entire sequence in one shot keeping the subject matter interesting.  Some may say, so he shoots a sequence in one shot, so what?  Well, having worked on films as a student, this is no easy task, even for student films.  Think of any sequence in say, Apocalypse Now, filmed in one long shot.  It was so refreshing to see somebody thumb their noses at the established fad of the day with MTV styled rapid fire jump cuts and camera operators with A.D.D.  I could only imagine what his actors have to go through but it forces them to really reach down inside and perfect their craft because, like stage actors, they have to memorize their lines for the entire sequence.  Film actors today just piecemeal their lines together with the hopes that fancy editing and post production trickery will fix it all later.

I hadn't considered Kurosawa an influence on Angelopoulos but, you know, that's a pretty accurate observation.  I was thinking more along the lines of Sergio Leone sans Morricone but Kurosawa sounds even closer.

I hadn't seen Ulysses Gaze in a long but I do remember the music being unmemorable.  Pretty sparse actually.  It's a shame because I could only imagine what a competent composer could do with those glorious shots.  Still, I think his work is worth paying attention to.

About my name, my dear old mother is probably the one suffering from any form of dyslexia as she is the one who named me but you can call me Jasen, Jansen, Joe Blow, The Dude, or whatever suits your fancy.  From now on, I'm just going to use your complete name, Errikos, instead of trying to abbreviate it because I seem to put in too many 'R's or K's whenever I do that.        

Even though his subject-matters and plots are quite far from my own predilections, I'd love to score an Angelopoulos film. How often does a composer get a combination of virtually no dialogue and glorious panoramas going for minutes on end. To compose sequences that are minutes long, dressing the same scenery unfolding slowly, giving one time to absorb everything... Inexplicably, he has teamed with that woman for so many years now, I doubt he would venture out of that comfortable zone in his old age.

Anyway, Errikos is of course the Greek version of Eric, and in this informal milieu I also don't mind mild nomenclatural departures (Eric, Errik, Ludwig [;)], etc.)

Tarkowksi was a really hard brick for me, although I have to admit, that the film has some kind of charme and of course the theme is interesting. In the german version there is some nice bonus material about the philosophical idea behind it. The guy explaning it, indeed does the weirdest stuff with copies of circles, inside out twisted paperbands, mirrows and other things regarding to the problem.

I can understand that the die hard art loving people don´t like the remake so much. But even then, the sountrack is great. I´d never come to the idea ordering the Elements Library, if I haven´t seen that film. A little bit of it you can also find in American Beauty ( which is a nice one as well by the way).

So in the end the Solaris Original is an interesting film, but was no fun watching for me.

(Although far from worst cases like "Die Liebenden von Pont Neuf" or  "Die unerträgliche Leichtigkeit des Seins". I´ll never forget the comment in the cinema : "If this is the main actor, we´re fucked - and it was the main actor....  [:)] ).

When you name Kubrik and available-light photography, you should absolutely see Barry Lyndon. It´s not as popular as 2001, but an excellent demonstration what´s possible without using artificial light. Kubrik intensively searched for a special lens with extreme aperture made by Zeiss ( F=1:1.0 or even below with some optical tricks). The scenes shot  under candle light are unbelievably beautiful -  and the film itself is great as well.

By the way , Buck Turgidson ... wasn´t that the fancy guy in Dr. Strangelove ? 

Also an absolutely brilliant piece ( Ct J.D. Ripper is so great in it .....)

Iread a lot about "the good old times" and want to remember to attach "when the producer didn't consider himself a musician".The best thing, that can happen is a filmmaker who trusts the musical skills of the composer, but at the moment it's morecomparable to teenager talk: "I was like..hoho and then he answerded like..gigglegiglle but I felt like.. huaeeeee.."

I've seen (and that have been better cases), that often filmakers want music like this film with a little of that film.Command 120 min. music, but buy for 90% of the budged three pop songs from the charts to get more public (and worse, they do -but not for the film).Highlight were filmakers that knew exactely what they want: "a white lady noise" (serious citation !!), a rhythm like in that film ( the rhythm was a Tam-Tam clash) and so on. I think it is not so complicated to write in a short time a good score, as it is via internet very easy to contact very much composers (and they are often quite skills).But under the condition the filmaker trusts his crew there, where he has not achieved a competition! No my dear filmakers, even as much as I admire cinema, I don't know how to make  even a decent shot, I studied music. Please let me do what I can do best for your money.

In the end you have to throw away good music, because someone heard the supermario of his son an hour before the meeting.Than you have to smile, "maybe the  music is good but only the notes are wrong", comes very good by the way.Though you know that isn't the problem of the final cut or even the comments give you totally other very good ideas.

To an actor they describe the emotion of the scene, but why not to me? Why do I hear things like "the music there must be blue" ?

I think very much of us, not only those who have both profession (filmusic and "serious" music composition), can compose.

So, dear producers, search a filmcomposer because of his music, explain your emotinal dimensions, and  come later back.Like in a restaurant.

Yes, that is true  about Barry Lyndon and the lens they made for Kubrick.   It allowed shooting under every lighting condition that actually existed at the time including all the indoors scenes which were candlelit.  It is truly astounding cinematography.  That film is the most insanely perfect duplication of a historical period ever done.  Also, I remember hearing it takes as long to read the story as to watch the film.

Yes Buck Turgidson was in Dr. Strangelove, played by George C. Scott who proved he was as great at comedy as he was at drama. 

@William said:

Yes, that is true  about Barry Lyndon and the lens they made for Kubrick.   It allowed shooting under every lighting condition that actually existed at the time including all the indoors scenes which were candlelit.  It is truly astounding cinematography.  That film is the most insanely perfect duplication of a historical period ever done.  Also, I remember hearing it takes as long to read the story as to watch the film.

Yes  it is very good and what you notice most on a technical point when watching stuff that could either be for film or television (particularly television) - is when you get to interiors you get a lot of noise and vignetting when it's low quality equipment and lighting (not necessarily low quality anything else btw) due mostly to budget constraints.

But on lighting (and light and lighting with composition of the subject is just about everything) there are many many examples of superb cinematography. Film Noir immediately comes to mind. The cinematography of that example I posted the other day The Girl with the Pearl Earring by pure definition is fantastic cinematography and is shot like a Vermeer painting, apart from anything else because of the use of awesome lighting techniques. David Lean's films were known for great photography and so were Frank Capras. Tons of examples out there. The Third Man for instance and it's superb low light techniques and Psycho shot very flat and cold juxtaposed against the superb glossiness of North by North West. etc etc etc etc.

If you think about moving pictures - it is basically a collection of still photographs and when it's good, every still in isolation is good.

 very true Paul. 

And speaking of great cinematography, North by Northwest comes to mind as an example of Hitchcock's extreme control of all elements.  He was a director who knew the power of long shots.  Hitchcock - and also Kurosawa- showed time and time again how the most powerful shot can be the long shot just as much as closeup.  This is almost lost today. Many of the directors who use MTV fast cutting think that the closeup is the most powerful of all shots.  This is false.     If you look at the crop dusting sequence in North by Northwest it is the use of the long shots that make that so powerful and nightmarish.  One other thing about Hitchcock is he never moved the camera without a reason.  And so when he DID move it, it made a difference.  Now the cameras are flying everywhere constantly, and so the power of camera movement vs. camera still has been lost.

Yes - I hate that teen bollocks quick edit bullshit camera movement crap. It all started in that NYPD tv programme. It's a lazy crap way of trying to inject pace and all it does it make you want to hurl brought on by a form of sea sickness followed by a migraine for 4 hours.

One of the real masters of tight close - up was Sergio Leone. The opening 10 or so minute epic shooting of Once Upon a Time in the West is genius camera work, composition and editing.

On the other hand writing for the blit witch projrct would be cool.The films are not the problems for me.In fact cuting every 5m film makes it quite easy to find a rhythm, or writing for an old muted film where peoplr move first to fast and after a second to slow kills tempo.You ca, show a bunch of monkeys and it becomes very different with music.See kubriks  2000.However, moving the camera because the stand was to expensive can be as killing as georgian films where you see five minutes somebodie black coffe in the coffe cup, it's like the mic above the picture, where I'm tempted to bring a disney lotus pipe.

But more cruel to have a crap picture is a very good film, in wich the producer has no clue of music, but wants to "have his final word" with some embarissing ideas, becaus he hasn't the guts to admit where he is competend.Filmmakers are NOT musicians.And the end of the story are famous fikmcomposer that are proud, that they only wistled all themes ( like charlie chaplan or Alan S.).I had a case like that, he wistled that I had only the impression of a stoned squirrel.At least I could write any them I want, he couldn't REALLY tell the difference (I hope he doesn't recognize himself in this thread), he was "only" the composer and we where the staff.

But in the beginning you don't get great film do you ? I didn't.

@PaulR said:

Yes - I hate that teen bollocks quick edit bullshit camera movement crap. It all started in that NYPD tv programme.

Yes, I remember watching an episode of that show and thinking that the camera shaking was inserted in scenes that actually had no movement as an attempt to "make it real."   But that was actually far more artificial than if a tripod had been used. 

There is no relationship between hand-held camera and a person's natural movement, because the human brain FILTERS OUT the little jitters almost entirely.  As a result, when you look at a big landscape, you see only the absolute steadiness of the landscape - exactly how John Ford would shoot it with the camera locked down.   Likewise, when you are nervously walking toward a doorway that you are scared to enter, your viewpoint is not shaking all over the place like a goofball in the Blair Witch Project, but instead you see the slowly, steadily approaching doorway about to envelope you exactly like Hitchcock would show in one of his slow steady subjective dolly shots - such as Arbogast entering the house in Psycho.   When you are in a fight perhaps, or running in a panic, then things would be very unstable and shaky.  You see this contrast filmed perfectly in CLockwork Orange where Kubrick switches from tripod shots to shaky handheld in the street fight scene and it is all the more effective because of that switch.  If he had done EVERYTHING handheld it would have had NO EFFECT. 

When used to achieve an artistic aesthetic quality jump cuts and dynamic camera movement can be effective.  Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas immediately comes to mind.  But Scorsese also used long fluid continuous shots effectively in that same film too.  Also, the "you talkin' to me?" scene from Taxi Driver is a good example of the great things that come about when you just leave the damn camera alone!

In most film circles it's unfortunate that Hitchcock doesn't get the respect he deserves for being probably the most innovative director when it comes to making the camera a character in his films.  For some reason, Orson Wells is more revered in that regard I guess for his work in Citizen Kane which was a good movie and deserves 'Classic' status but IMO not "the best movie ever made."  Let's not forget, Hitchcock developed the, now overused, dolly zoom shot otherwise known as the Vertigo Shot from the film where it was first used.  It was kind of a trademark Hitchcock shot and was never used by anyone else until Steven Spielberg resurrected it in Jaws; the scene where the little boy is attacked by the shark and the camera zooms in on Brody's face while it dollys out at the same time.

One other thing about Barry Lyndon.  It's generally believed that the lenses were specially designed for the film during the lowlight sequences.  Actually, the lenses were specially designed for NASA during the Lunar projects.  The lens mounts to the camera housing were specially designed for the film because they were not compatible to any standard motion picture camera at the time.  This proved to be quite a challenge for the filmmakers because they had a hard time trying to find film stock that would accommodate the lightning fast lenses and somewhat match the rest of the movie.  Yeah, Kubrick will be missed.  He's the quintessential auteur.