 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The movie as a memory in so much in my past- I'll grant it's dated.
But so much of the LeGrand score works for me as an Indy listen. I do like it. I'm not even an LeGrand enthusiast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 14, 2007 - 11:50 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Morlock1
(Member)
|
That's you're rebuttal? Taking a 100% cynical
post and responding to it seriously?
I love 'old' scores (if it's good, it often transcends the time-tag. As was said earlier, so many of those great 60's and 70's score sound remarkably fresh and current today). And I still believe that there are some that are all melodrama, no drama, grossly overscoring certain passages. That is mostly the system and director, obviously. But still, the score for that film does not help it, aside from reminding us that this is an old movie made in ridicules system, when otherwise, it is a terrific yarn as well as a fascinating and timeless character study. Just like there are terrible 80's synth scores that constantly detract from the films by reminding us of the pop culture of the time, instead of the timelessness of good story-telling.
I think that deifying Golden age scores as a rule is just as stupid as demonizing current scores as a rule.
Morlock- who, for the record, has not heard Steiner's score separated from the film, and believes that most important thing for a score to do is -as silly as it may seem- support the film it was written for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2007 - 8:52 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
I love 'old' scores (if it's good, it often transcends the time-tag. As was said earlier, so many of those great 60's and 70's score sound remarkably fresh and current today). And I still believe that there are some that are all melodrama, no drama, grossly overscoring certain passages.
Just like there are terrible 80's synth scores that constantly detract from the films by reminding us of the pop culture of the time, instead of the timelessness of good story-telling.
I think that deifying Golden age scores as a rule is just as stupid as demonizing current scores as a rule.
Obviously it makes not much sense to divide into "older scores" and "new scores" then. Besides, until now nobody dared to explain to me PRECISELY what makes today´s scores so much different from older ones. It is much better to distingiush between "good scores" and "bad scores".
There is only one slight problem now: who shall determine which is a "good score" and which one a "bad score". So we finally end up speaking about personal taste again...
I find many of today´s scores "bad ones" because they are basically NOT really much different from older (symphonic) scores but lack inventiveness, colours and melody - a "touch of genius" so to say many scores of the great older composers showed. Where´s a melody like "WINDMILLS OF YOUR MIND" in today´s scores?
As for feeling the film itself may have "aged": well, I found methods like the split screen boring when I first saw the film. I don´t know if this has anything to do with the age of the film (I guess there may well be films produced today that still use such things)- I just NEVER liked this particular effect. I always have thought that "Ocean's Twelve" (2004!) was a VERY BORING film concerning it´s story, style and music...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
