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.    

" 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."

Nice one - will put it on as a screenaver tomorrow in the office :)

But you´re right, it came as a mixture of CSI Miami and MTV Video (although they don´t show any music videos there at all now, do they? Another proove that the world is going crazy....  ) .

As long as it stayed on TV it was just some kind of cheep art. But then "Bourne Identity ultimatum" came to the cinema and the first 30min were kind of  "Damn what´s going on here in the vomit chamber.... ?" Totally useless.

So it is very interesting, which films you can read in all our postings : Citizen Cane, North by Northwest,  Psycho, Clockwork Orange ....... and the list goes on.

Anything beyond the year 2000 ?

I really can´t remember the last film that offered a new flash impulse. Must be years ago.

Avatar ? Give me a break...

At least better than Titanic :)

Although James Cameron is really a miracle to me. Some directors make bad films, others make fantastic films. But a person who does Terminator, Alien II and Titanic at the same time ......

O.K., Steven Spielberg: Duell, Schindler´s Liste and Jurassic Park ...I also can´t understand that...

My first gues regarding new soundtracks would be the Solaris remake. I really love the "score". It seems to be the drummer´s work of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers I have heard, very surprising.

Also some famous scenes in Matrix with songs from Rage against the machine. Not a classical score, but nevertheless very good, supporting and well chosen.

But if that´s all we got - is this the world we created ?

 That is an interesting bit on the lens being NASA -  they never circulated that information at the time.   It was said to be an Angenieux  f0.7 as I remember.  Nowadays you can buy such a fast lens but it is still expensive.   

You are right about the zoom in/dolly out effect.  Hitchcock invented that for Vertigo.  He said that once he was at a party and got too drunk and saw everything simultaneously going away from him while staying in the same place.  So he wanted to create that effect for James Stewart's feeling when looking down from the heights of the window and tower.  So an expensive system was created to dolly in while using a zoom lens to go from telephoto to wide angle, matching the edges of the frame.  It creates essentially a changing of perspective from everything close together to everything far apart. 

It is instructive to look at the useage of this technique.  First, it was a specific invention by Hitchcock for his own film to create a visual analog of the psychological turmoil of his character. 

Second it was a mere "shock" effect imitated by Spielberg in Jaws.  It was not original of course, but at least Spielberg had a reason to use it.  Nowadays, it is utterly meaningless, and used as a slick trick of cynical cinematographers who are bored.   These same cinematographers are responsible for the destruction of film grammar and cinematic meaning in their constant changing of focal lenghts FOR NO REASON (remember that Robert Bresson shot entire films with one 50 mm lens)  and useage of camera movement FOR NO REASON (thereby nullifying the meaning of cameera movement). 

One odd thing I noticed and wondered about in going to an ANCIENT classic film, like for example, Dracula from the 30s with Lugosi, was that a slow-moving, slightly stilted motion picture from that time seemed more 3-dimensional and "real" than the latest films I had seen in the theater with all their use of every trick in the cinematography book learned in almost a century since.   How could this be?

I realized it was because the old style films used a strict demarcation of a limited number of focal lengths for the lenses, not to mention a methodical approach to "covering" a scene based upon something which very closely resembles the way the human brain takes in a real scene.  You are first aware of the overall place in which you are situated: the wide angle lens (35mm) and Establishing Shot.  Next you are focusing upon the most generally significant events  which tend to be an interaction between several people: the Normal Focus lens (50mm) which corresponds closely to the human eye's perspective.  And finally, when something very special occupies your attention, your brain creates a Closeup (ca 100mm) which THROWS OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE SCENE OUT OF FOCUS and acts as "Big Brass" as I remember Hitchcock put it once.   

The point of all this is there was a psychological point for each of the standard useages and conventions in cinematic treatment of a scene back in those days.

TODAY THERE IS NOTHING!  There is no standard, no convention, no meaning except what is supplied by the individual.  And woe to those who depend upon all the individuals now making films.    And what is worse, film schools are churning out goofball directors whose sole purpose in existence is to prove how HOT they are by using 1) Maximum number of cuts in smallest possible amount of time and 2) Maximum number of cinematic techniques in the equivalent space.  They have been instructed by their professors to watch every great film, and they are now determined to put every great film into each second of their own films.

It is a ludicrous and  sorry spectacle of utter meaninglessness.  AND THESE ARE THE ONES WITH AN EDUCATION!!!

@Juda said:

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.

That's fascinating, but I didn't understand a single word.

Following scene is from an georgian film (the country, not the state):

hero looks in his coffe cup, camera shows him with his cup cup andhis spoon spoon 2 min. cut)

New screen in perspective of the hero:

coffe cup (the camera shows the cup from above, spoon is turning the coffe and the black coffee turns around, 2 min. cut)

New screen:

hero, still with his coffe looks in his coffe ( 2 min. cut)

This was a film where I remember this sceen and lots others, but not the title.By the way it was fom the 90th, no music, hero didn't talk or think anything, he had only a sad boring life - no reason before or after.Maybe it makes sense in a kind of a common dilemma. However, the camera was not great.

I red the comment about the powel core.I have to admit that I like his colors.Even in contemporary music we try to compllicate a structure, that color and linear structure become one.Why not (in a more easy way) in the film?

In the end the film is served by music, thats why even programming for music, that stays by itself is much more complicated, it has no visual support and must talk by itself.

Filmmusic must simply work with the film.And bad character - bad character music.Why not ?The question is, how ( some bubblesonds in deep brass or 15 cotrabassons is a little too easy, except you want to do 30 min per day.But therefore buy symphobia and glue the mini compositions together.

Cluster is not cluster.E.g. the microlinear structure in Athmosphere of Ligeti (the famous 2000 orchestra piece) mixes the three worlds, linear and harmonic and orchestration, so virtuos together, that the impression is undivideable.Linear music becomes Orchestration.Orchestration becomes harmonic.And full 12 to 24 harmonic only like a layer, so far the harmonic, that resulted from vertical structureforms Instruments. Phantastic !!

Or the score of magnolia.No cuts in the music but still a kind of synchron.The "dull" ostinato becomes an impression instead of a pattern.No specials for e.g. the histeric scream scene in the pharmcie, and I really didn't get at the start that the talkmaster show in the TV ( I mean that quizz) uses exactly the material that tortures you the whole film, and well chosen, I became more open to the story, because the cuts are easier to follow by the comon music, that only goes its own way.

Total other extrem is starwars with the Leitmotiv for evryone.Also great! 

It's like Max Bruch.Who cares the d minor concerto for violin is boring if there is the g minor ?

@Another User said:

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.    

One of the things I find great about Barry Lyndon is the pace of the film. Possibly the slowest paced film that's great ever made. Pace is hugely important in film because you are dealing with ridiculous timing events that are completely divorced from real life. Therefore if you are making a film that is going to be action packed and for the first 30 minutes of a 2 hour film, the director gets it wrong, then you're in trouble because you lost the audience. You can keep the audience interested through devices other than editing, such as storyline, scripting and photography - and maybe even the music score: But that won't save a film in the long run if the pace is too fast or too slow. Very difficult to make a good film I would imagine.

Orson Welles was as brilliant and original a director as Hitchcock, but far less disciplined and not at all commercial-minded, and so his films were a disaster financially whereas Hitchcock was hugely successful.   If Hitchcock ever had a money problem on one film, he would immediately make another more surefire bet and recover. Like right after Vertigo made no money, he made North by Northwest.   Also, he would never make a film like The Trial which is a masterpiece by Welles but everyone hated it. 

@William said:

And what is worse, film schools are churning out goofball directors whose sole purpose in existence is to prove how HOT they are by using 1) Maximum number of cuts in smallest possible amount of time and 2) Maximum number of cinematic techniques in the equivalent space. 

As a film student at Florida State University, nearly 15  years ago, the emphasis then was on writing and story manipulation.  Only the technical geeks were concerned with developing the newest and coolest camera techniques and they had a hard time with writing anyway.  The younger professors worshipped Quinten Tarantino.  Actually, worshipped is an understatement, these professors would pay a lot of money to just watch Quinten sip tea if they could.  The older professors acknowledged Quinten's contributions to the art but pretty much regarded him as a flash in the pan.  They emphasized the more established directors like Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Scorsese.  It was generally believed at the time that the quickest way to the Director's chair was through writing.  I guess in the end, however, the geeks won out and writing has taken a backseat to camera pizzazz.  Speaking of education, I wonder if any of those young professors back then knew that Tarantino was a high school drop out.  Not that there's anything wrong with that I'm just saying...

Classes in CGI were also encouraged.  At first I was reluctant but I'm actually glad I took those classes because I probably wouldn't be as computer savvy as I am today if I hadn't.  

Writing used to be the hardest part of making a movie.  For instance, writing Apocalypse Now, along with making the film, nearly drove Coppola to the funny farm.  A famous French director, it may have even been Truffaut, said "it takes two years to write a movie, two months to film a movie, two weeks to edit a movie, two days to re-shoot re-edit and touch up a movie, two hours to watch the movie and just two minutes for the audience to forget it."    

 Well, that was Truffaut in a rather negative mood.  His films, such as Jules and Jim, are certainly remembered longer than that!

The one other thing on this original topic I had was in Mysterious Island, Herrmann's extremely  sizeable score for that film.  Someone stated that if Debussy was the composer of nature in a beautiful state, Herrrmann was the composer of nature in a terrifying state.  This score is definitely that mood,  and another example of how the music is far better than the film (like in the Brian de Palma potboiler "Obession" - a lame film but one of the greatest film scores ever written).  In this score he had a huge brass and wind section, 8 horns, four tubas, massive woodwind ensemble, etc.  But the most interesting section is a bizarre piece he did for the Giant Bird sequence, in which a ridiculous-looking prehistoric bird menaces people.  In this scene he actually orchestrated an organ fugue by a baroque composer, J.L. Krebs (whose name meant "crab" which also is another giant beast seen in the film) but he did it with a wild combo of brass/winds and percussion that never existed in Krebs time. Another example of the pure, unadulaterated experimentation that Herrmann was always doing in the oddest places.

The Trial is a very interesting film and Anthony Perkins was perfectly cast as he was in Psycho. And also in a western as a nervy sheriff that I forget the name of. Very edgy actor. Yes - I put that giant bird scene up a while ago on a fucking asshole website I forget the name of and no one understood what was going on at all.

Some of the music Herrmann wrote just for throwaway scenes are ridiculous in their complexity but more importantly their effect. When you watch a concert performance of a Herrmann score, it's just as impressive if not more so.

That performance of the Death Hunt cue from On Dangerous Ground is certainly a spectacular showpiece, using the the triplet horn figures as a macabre reference to hunting.  Similar to North by Northwest's spectacular main title.  

Quite difficult horn parts to play I would imagine. I see in the good old USA at the Golden Bollocks Awards - they gave the award for scoring to the film about facebook. Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa............