 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be unwise of him to score it. If even a fraction of what Horner said about Malick is true (I believe it's all true), Morricone would be in film Hell and ultiamtely quit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, even if only a fraction.
So, let's take a part of said fraction where Malick's film didn't make any sense and where scene A should lead into scene B, had scene A leading into scene P. Nonsensical combos will be hard to track music to.
Especially if we take another fraction -- Malick kept editing scenes around, constantly just trying random combos to the point where nothing was locked and Horner couldn't score it (ultimately having to get his own people to put scenes together and then score). Imagine the difficultly of tracking existing music to ever changing combos. And this is all assuming he's not going to do any original scoring.
He'd have better luck scoring a Mann film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 26, 2015 - 10:33 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Again, even if only a fraction.
So, let's take a part of said fraction where Malick's film didn't make any sense and where scene A should lead into scene B, had scene A leading into scene P. Nonsensical combos will be hard to track music to.
Especially if we take another fraction -- Malick kept editing scenes around, constantly just trying random combos to the point where nothing was locked and Horner couldn't score it (ultimately having to get his own people to put scenes together and then score). Imagine the difficultly of tracking existing music to ever changing combos. And this is all assuming he's not going to do any original scoring.
He'd have better luck scoring a Mann film.
You just confirmed what I said earlier, really -- Malick is known to work 'alternatively', meaning that he likes to edit clips and juxtapose elements in various ways, often with symbolism more important than classical storytelling. Horner, meanwhile, was more of the traditional Hollywood school and was not able to grasp this basic fact -- perhaps most evident in the Schweiger interview when he said that THE NEW WORLD "could have been one of the great love stories, like TITANIC" or something to that effect. Malick never intended to make such a film.
Thus, two film workers with vastly different ideologies and backgrounds met and failed to hit it off. Malick came out on top, because he's the director, while Horner felt slighted because his music was moved around.
Morricone, however (or some of the other composers Malick has worked with, most recently Hanan Townshend) is more open to alternative ways of filmmaking. Thus, less likelihood of communication problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brief interview with Morricone........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nrZgn-w5po
I remember seeing a photo of Ennio playing chess with Malick or was that Stanley Kubrick ?
Not too sure now ?
The photo of him and Malick can be found in the large format book MORRICONE: FILM MUSIC AND BEYOND
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There aren't many photos of Terrence Malick he seems a very "reclusive" character ?
To put it mildly.  He vanished from filmmaking for twenty years (1978-1998). He never does interviews, or audio commentaries. He won't allow his image to be used in association with the promotion of his films. He isn't ever even present in any way in behind the scenes footage, meaning that the documentaries on the video releases of his films invariably feature onset footage of and lengthy interviews with producers, DPs, production designers, etc.
It's his choice and his right, and he's a genius, so I don't question it, but it's definitely unusual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised he wants to work with him again (I had forgotten about DoH).
Malick didn't know what he was doing then either, apparently. Richard Gere has stated a year later he came back and they essentially re-filmed most (if not all, depending on how you read some of his statements) the movie. Morricone was gone and Malick called music editor Dan Carlin in. He didn't even know what to do with the music (reflecting what Horner said about Malick).
And don't anybody hand me a preference on his part of symbolism. If that were the casze, he'd know what he was doing and not continuously shuffling scenes around trying to fit it in unintelligable puzzle only to wind back at the basic arrangement he had before only time and lots of money down the drain. He's already gone threw six composers -- I;m surprised two of them have come back. What's miracle from these repeated stories of how he works, is that despite how his movies look, people still give him money and allow him to waste their time.
And those are my thought. I was going to lead thought A into though P, but I thought good sense should dictate the content instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 26, 2015 - 11:13 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Morricone
(Member)
|
I'm surprised he wants to work with him again (I had forgotten about DoH).
Malick didn't know what he was doing then either, apparently. Richard Gere has stated a year later he came back and they essentially re-filmed most (if not all, depending on how you read some of his statements) the movie. Morricone was gone and Malick called music editor Dan Carlin in. He didn't even know what to do with the music (reflecting what Horner said about Malick).
And don't anybody hand me a preference on his part of symbolism. If that were the casze, he'd know what he was doing and not continuously shuffling scenes around trying to fit it in unintelligable puzzle only to wind back at the basic arrangement he had before only time and lots of money down the drain. He's already gone threw six composers -- I;m surprised two of them have come back. What's miracle from these repeated stories of how he works, is that despite how his movies look, people still give him money and allow him to waste their time.
And those are my thought. I was going to lead thought A into though P, but I thought good sense should dictate the content instead.
I concur with this notion. Mallick's BAD LANDS was terrific but I've yet to connect with anything else he's made. His films are laden with indecision and it comes through in the end product in a palpable way. Critics and pretentious film students will, of course, always proclaim him a genius for working "alternatively" and not delivering films that fit within conventions. Whether or not these films will TRULY stand the test of time remains to be seen.
I actually concur with your overall assessment but disagree in that I would include DAYS OF HEAVEN with BADLANDS as strong opening films. I also give TREE OF LIFE brownie points as coming the closest to having a strong spine to hang his visual doodling on. But as to Mr. Boggan's take on Malick's work methods, well, Woody Allen must be a joke to him since he allocates one third of his budget for pick-ups and reshoots. And, of course, Kubrick went way beyond that. May I add Haskell Wexler says the reshoots on DAYS OF HEAVEN mostly involved establishing shots in the factory, etc. and not "practically the whole movie" as Gere supposedly said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 26, 2015 - 11:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ray Worley
(Member)
|
There's been a lot of bad-mouthing of Malick here and the opinion he is a terrible film maker who has no idea what he is doing. Well, that's an opinion, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about Morricone working well with him or not.
It's been established they worked well before and produced both an acclaimed film and score in DAYS OF HEAVEN. One's opinion of Malick's films doesn't change that.
As has been pointed out , but some folks seem to be ignoring, Horner and Morricone have VERY different ways of working. Morricone comes from the tradition of Italian film scoring which, perhaps in the past more than now, was much more like Malick's way of working than Hollywood's. Many composers, Morricone included, often just wrote a collection of pieces, turned them over to the director and music editor, and then let them edit the music into the film anyway they pleased. Sometimes this produces horrible results...many Italian films have jarring and inappropriate musical edits. But other films produced like this are masterpieces...and not just Leone's films.
But good or bad, Morricone is very comfortable with this way of working...so it seems like he and Malick are perfect together.
As for the films, I have mixed opinions on Malick. I consider THE NEW WORLD a masterpiece and one of my top 10 favorite films. DAYS OF HEAVEN is a fine film as is THE THIN RED LINE. The music worked well in them all. BADLANDS left me cold and I thought TREE OF LIFE was a pretentious piece of shit (except for the creation scene which was cool and scored beautifully with the Preisner music). So I'm no Malick apologist, but I will always give him a chance. (Haven't seen his two most recent), but will). And while I generally prefer original scores, he does seem to be able to use existing music well. Contrary to poplular opinion, I loved the music in NEW WORLD and thought the use of Wagner and Mozart and others worked much better in the film than what Horner did (from what I could piece together).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 27, 2015 - 1:37 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
And don't anybody hand me a preference on his part of symbolism. If that were the casze, he'd know what he was doing and not continuously shuffling scenes around trying to fit it in unintelligable puzzle only to wind back at the basic arrangement he had before only time and lots of money down the drain.
Don't diss Malick because you're unable to get his style.
One wonders what you would think of directors such as Antonioni, Godard, Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Fassbinder etc. My guess is you haven't explored them -- or alternative cinema -- much to begin with, and so you're judging Malick based on the norms of classical Hollywood storytelling. Much like James Horner did, in fact.
(for the record, I don't like everything Malick has done -- I didn't much care for TO THE WONDER, for example).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
