 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Spartacus" is a true masterpiece(the music), "Cleopatra" is second rate North.
Sad that you can't enjoy both scores. I'm fortunate that I can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just have to listen to both, "Spartacus" is an inspired masterwork, "Cleo" just is not North at his best, which is almost better than any other composers best work.
No analysis in that.
It could be proven the other way. You have to set criteria for these comparisons. Cleo grows themes organically and hides variation in 100 subtle ways. It evokes too. It's not creating the same world that Spartacus is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 28, 2010 - 11:58 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ed Nassour
(Member)
|
"Spartacus" is a true masterpiece(the music), "Cleopatra" is second rate North.
Sad that you can't enjoy both scores. I'm fortunate that I can.
So can I. Just not to the same degree.
The really sad thing here is that neither film received an Oscar for music, which is particularly odd in the case of Spartacus. Not only was it a huge success and the film to see at the time, but the music is impossible to ignore (apparently to Peter Ustinov's chagrin--one of the few times I totally disagreed with that worthy gentleman). The Main Title alone should have battered Academy members into submission.
"Exodus" won in a year where "The Magnificent Seven," "The Alamo," Elmer Gantry" and "Spartacus" were all nominated. The least deserved score won that year which was and still is the usual case when it comes to music and the Academy.
To have the "least deserved" score win out of those incredible 5 just shows how poor the quality of scoring is these days....and the lack of invention and originality....or am I just being an "old fart" again?
I doubt that many (any) of the current generation could (or would be allowed to?) write a score as memorable or as well-crafted as EXODUS.
Some might argue that LAWRENCE was also the least deserving of its year? But both LARRY and EXODUS have stood the test of time.
You're not an old fart any more than I'm an old fart, and I believe I might have a couple of years on you.
1960 was a fabulous year for film scores. That was the year Bernard Herrmann scored "Psycho" which deserved a nomination, quite possibly the damned Oscar since his was the most effective, the most imitated and quite frankly, the most original of anything composed that year. But members of the Academy looked down on horror films and their scores plus Herrmann irascible behavior made it impossible for his score to make it to the top five.
1960 also gave us Waxman's "Cimarron" as well as "The Story of Ruth," neither scores nominated.
Just like 1939 turned out to have more great films produced in a single year compared to any other year in the history of the cinema, 1960 gave us a plethora of superb film scores.
And yes, Ernest Gold's score for "Exodus" is far superior to anything composed these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More to the point, Rozsa's ]KING OF KINGS easily better than three of the five nominees for 1960, wasn't even nominated,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 29, 2010 - 3:21 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
More to the point, Rozsa's ]KING OF KINGS easily better than three of the five nominees for 1960, wasn't even nominated,
But as we know sometimes it can be fabulous music but if the movie is not so good.....
the winner, more often than not, is a combination of acclaimed film with good music. I doubt anyone could say KING OF KINGS was an acclaimed film? (or can they.....?)
Hardly acclaimed, but nowhere near as bad as it served some critics to make out at the time. (I even seem to recall it making a Worst Films of all Time list, which is ridiculous). It's since undergone something of a critical revision and become a family Easter favourite, and it certainly has some fine things in it for all the faults. Interestingly, it was a box office success even at the time, for all the critics' carping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
More to the point, Rozsa's ]KING OF KINGS easily better than three of the five nominees for 1960, wasn't even nominated,
That's because Rozsa composed KING OF KINGS in 1961.
All five of the nominees in 1960 deserved to win. Fifty years later, how often do five scores of their kind of quality get nominated within the same year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
More to the point, Rozsa's ]KING OF KINGS easily better than three of the five nominees for 1960, wasn't even nominated,
That's because Rozsa composed KING OF KINGS in 1961.
All five of the nominees in 1960 deserved to win. Fifty years later, how often do five scores of their kind of quality get nominated within the same year?
I don't know, how often did it happen before 1960? If it has only happened once or twice, then trying to dismiss today's film scores with your question doesn't really work, does it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
