 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 1, 2008 - 12:38 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
cirtap
(Member)
|
I saw There Will be Blood the other nite, and yes it is a very good film, with a loud and strange score by Jonny Greenwood. First off it will be nominated and will win,(cuz the Academy has no, on the whole, no sense of music).
I even have the 31 minute score, GLAD i didn't pay 20.00 for 31 minutes. WOW. No wonder CD's R in trouble. But anyway, The score by Greenwood, is good with the film, but take it away and it is a mish-mash affair. While i will give Paul Thomas Anderson kudos for giving his film the NON-Triditional John Williams, John Barry wide open scenes with wide open french horns a blowing. BUT without the movie and the vision, it is a almost ATONAL AFFAIR.
It is very hard for me to place this score. I have heard it several times standing alone, and I come up with the same conclusions as before, it truly needs the film. And while i wanted a score like Williams, or a Barry or hell i would of loved a harmonica from time to time, but I will give a "A" for Greenwoods effort, but i am also saying, it had to be Anderson who came up with the style and temps for Greenwood.
At times the score is just one constant note, the Academy will love it, it will not challenge their heads to hard. What are you all thoughts on this score. Am i missing the boat here? Did i hear the score right? Or am i just have to accept the fact since Paul Thomas Anderson is off a bit, so will be his scores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought this was one of the ten worst scores ever written, maybe the worst. I hated every note of it, not all of which, apparently, is Mr. Greenwood, since Mr. Arvo Part is named in the end credits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael, I do believe that Greenwood's score has little-to-no synth work in it. There is no programming credit in the liner (but, then again, no orchestration credit either). And why would that diminish it's purpose or value?
This thread jumped up right before I finally got my FSM account to work. And, since the beginning, I've thought this thread was very dumb and filled with people with misguided attempts at opinions. I agree with you, whole-heartedly. I wouldn't take anyone's opinions on this score to heart unless they let me know what they think of 20th Century classical music.
Or they can continue listening to any one of the 1400 scores that JNH and Mark Isham did this year.
http://www.moviemusic.com/comments.asp?mm=therewillbeblood&author=3138 - My review of Jonny Greenwood's THERE WILL BE BLOOD on MovieMusic.com
Oh, so if we don't like this score we are uneducated rubes who only like James Newton Howard and Mark Isham? You are a rude peckerwood, sonny. 20th Century classical music takes in a lot of music, sonny, people like Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copland and Howard Hanson and David Diamond, to name some folks I like. If you're being specific to more modern 20th Century classical music then say so. I like Corigliano occasionally, I've enjoyed some but not all Arvo Part, John Adams and Phillip Glass are okay if one's in the mood. Penderecki has his moments. If you want to name specific composers, please feel free, but don't patronize people.
Jonny Greenwood is hardly in the company of any of the gentlemen named above. And for the record, I don't like JNH or Mr. Isham's scores - they interest me not one or even two whits. I think There Will Be Blood is basically a sham with some very good performances - the type of film that has critics and auterists salivating all over themselves, each one proclaiming it's better than Citizen Kane - the reality is in ten years' time they will look at this film and scratch their heads and wonder what film they were writing about. In my 20th Century classical opinion, of course.
Additional note: Oh, I see - I get it now - you're TWENTY. Nothing like a condescending twenty-year-old "reviewer."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wrath of Bruce Kimmel is a righteous and beautiful thing... woe to the receiver...
... even though I do like this music, and it sounds like my sort of film to boot. (I often find myself looking back on my favourite films 10 years later wondering what on earth I liked about them.)
Edit - oh, and thanks for the link Ruby. Interesting to learn that Greenwood was signed to EMI before Radiohead took off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 5, 2008 - 10:57 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Here's the thing about the score for "There Will Be Blood": it's distinctive, it's personal, it's bold, it's unique. All those are good things. I just didn't like it very much. I appreciate its prominence in the film's mix -- the film score fan in me has to respect that. But I also found the music obvious and a bit klutzy. It wasn't my cup of tea.
I disliked the film, too. Again, it's a personal work, the work of a man with a vision that he manages to keep from getting homogenized by the studios. Gotta respect that. I just wish I liked it. Though the film starts out very well indeed, it becomes more and more pointless and formless as it goes on. The directing, design, and performances are all meticulous, but to what end? Anderson's take on all this only gets him so far, and so he goes to a place that's incredibly predictable in its alleged "darkness." The lack of convention is not an end unto itself.
Defenders of the film (and if you loved it, great) will surely now tell me that I should go see "The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything: A Veggie Tales Movie" instead. Well, I saw that one too, and I didn't like it either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wrath of Bruce Kimmel is a righteous and beautiful thing... woe to the receiver...
... even though I do like this music, and it sounds like my sort of film to boot. (I often find myself looking back on my favourite films 10 years later wondering what on earth I liked about them.)
Edit - oh, and thanks for the link Ruby. Interesting to learn that Greenwood was signed to EMI before Radiohead took off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 5, 2008 - 11:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
"Peckerwood" and "pretentious" from the same poster. Methinks that haineshisway complains too much. That said, I enjoyed your comments. You seemed to actually think about what you were saying rather than saying it outright (the constant stream of fanboyism on this forum often makes my head spin out of control).
For the record, I think that "pretentious" is the most overrated word on the internet. It seems to have spread like a viral infection from the IMDb message boards where it takes up a lot of webspace. For the likes of me, I don't understand how a piece of art - represented in the film medium - that has a lot of hard work, dedication, blood and sweat poured into every inch of it, that tells an honest and epic story, I don't understand how that's brought to be "pretentious". Certainly, Anderson's film is ostentatious; it is meant to attract the attention of the viewer and allow them incite into the world of a very complex man. If you're not interested in the film because it may not appeal to you, that's certainly okay. But to judge an objective piece of art and simply dismiss it as pretentious is offensive to those who take solace in the fine craftsmanship that went into the film. As an American, I look forward to films that are made about a forgotten time in our history, made by American artisans, and made with relevancy. Not too often, are we able to give the world our art and receieve appreciation; prescisely because many of the things we create are often kitsch and/or banal. I think that THERE WILL BE BLOOD transcends that. And, trust me (I'll dig this thread up in some years), TWBB will be remembered for the film that it always has been. It's no CITIZEN KANE, because only one man could've made CITIZEN KANE. Allow P.T. Anderson his own accolades.
And how does my being 20 make me any less of a person? Why does my age need to limit my opinion and viewpoint?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Peckerwood" and "pretentious" from the same poster. Methinks that haineshisway complains too much. That said, I enjoyed your comments. You seemed to actually think about what you were saying rather than saying it outright (the constant stream of fanboyism on this forum often makes my head spin out of control).
For the record, I think that "pretentious" is the most overrated word on the internet. It seems to have spread like a viral infection from the IMDb message boards where it takes up a lot of webspace. For the likes of me, I don't understand how a piece of art - represented in the film medium - that has a lot of hard work, dedication, blood and sweat poured into every inch of it, that tells an honest and epic story, I don't understand how that's brought to be "pretentious". Certainly, Anderson's film is ostentatious; it is meant to attract the attention of the viewer and allow them incite into the world of a very complex man. If you're not interested in the film because it may not appeal to you, that's certainly okay. But to judge an objective piece of art and simply dismiss it as pretentious is offensive to those who take solace in the fine craftsmanship that went into the film. As an American, I look forward to films that are made about a forgotten time in our history, made by American artisans, and made with relevancy. Not too often, are we able to give the world our art and receieve appreciation; prescisely because many of the things we create are often kitsch and/or banal. I think that THERE WILL BE BLOOD transcends that. And, trust me (I'll dig this thread up in some years), TWBB will be remembered for the film that it always has been. It's no CITIZEN KANE, because only one man could've made CITIZEN KANE. Allow P.T. Anderson his own accolades.
And how does my being 20 make me any less of a person? Why does my age need to limit my opinion and viewpoint?
It doesn't make you "less" of a person, it makes you a twenty-year-old. I was twenty once, and also filled with opinions, but thankfully there was no Internet for me to spout them on
I understand that pretentious is an overused word, but hardly in a class with many other abused and overused words. I'm only offering my opinion, and in my opinion, Mr. Paul Thomas Anderson made a pretentious film and apparently he got what he wanted from Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Part and Brahms. It did not appeal to me in any way, shape, or form, save for the excellent performances of the entire cast of players.
The Citizen Kane reference was not mine, but virtually almost every critic the world over has used the title in their reviews.
As a point of reference, I didn't like Hard Eight, liked the first half of Boogie Nights until it all went to hell (and it seemed to me that Mr. Anderson was a fan of a little film I had something to do with, since there were several identical shots (bad FSM people get your minds out of the gutter), I liked parts of Magnolia, I thought Punch Drunk Love was horrid, and while I really wanted to like There Will Be Blood, I just didn't - I thought that in the end it was empty and not about much. And the score drove me up the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, yes, yes. But WHY was it pretentious.?
I've read and heard many reviews that include CITIZEN KANE in their review (and they include many other important AMERICAN films, like TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE and NIGHT OF THE HUNTER); but I've read none that state that it's better than KANE. Even I would have a hard time saying TWBB is better than KANE, because it needs time to breath before anyone can make such a claim.
It seems that you simply don't like Anderson; which should've cued in to the fact that you may have not even liked TWBB from the get-go. Also, I'm interested in what film exactly you were involved with; it seems like it may have been MANY films. Anderson isn't afraid to reveal his influences, and he wears them proudly on his sleeves, like any good filmmaker should. The entire artform has been made on imitation for the past 100 years!
Yes, time is the great leveler, and I don't think it will be kind to There Will Be Blood. I made a film in the 70s which sent up the porno industry. There are shots in Boogie Nights that are exactly the same, so I'd like to think that like the South Park boys, they saw and were influenced by our little film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen the film, so I don't know how well the music works in it.
However, I do like the clips that I've heard (I'm a big fan of sometimes "difficult" modern classical music, and especially film scores that reflect this.) I also tend to like string quartet writing.
Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes and A Life in Suitcases -- all of which are complex and occasionally "difficult listens" -- are among my favorite scores of the last few years. Your mileage may vary, of course.
-- Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
