 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2007 - 7:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jon A. Bell
(Member)
|
As for Robo II, it's one of the most needlessly sadistic and unpleasant films I've ever seen.
-- Jon
Try watching Hostel then - it's much much worse.
I've seen Hostel, which is definitely sadistic... but then again, it's striving to be a genuine horror film.
But Robo II's entire tone is so ugly and sadistic, without a hint of the satire of the first film to leaven it, that it really makes me question just what the hell the filmmakers were thinking. (Although the Murphy's death sequence in the first film is so horrific that I have a tough time watching it even today.)
I don't mind violence or gore in films, as long as there's some semblance of a point to it. (One of my favorite films is Dawn of the Dead, which I'll champion to anyone.) But Robocop II, in particular, wasn't just violent, but needlessly sadistic -- as if the filmmakers were simply trying to out-do the most violent parts of the first film. They missed the point, IMO.
-- Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
]
I've seen Hostel, which is definitely sadistic... but then again, it's striving to be a genuine horror film.
But Robo II's entire tone is so ugly and sadistic, without a hint of the satire of the first film to leaven it, that it really makes me question just what the hell the filmmakers were thinking.
I don't mind violence or gore in films, as long as there's some semblance of a point to it. But Robocop II, in particular, wasn't just violent, but needlessly sadistic -- as if the filmmakers were simply trying to out-do the most violent parts of the first film. They missed the point, IMO.
-- Jon
IMO Kershner absolutely hit the point.
Like I pointed out earlier :
"Kershner`s ROBOCOP 2 portrays the whole OCP corporation as corrupt, criminal and fascist and thus shows the dangerous side of that kind of private security corporation.
In R2 OCP is criminal and dangerous in general while in R1 it only had some wrong employees who simply hat to be fired.
Kershner quite drastically showed what might happen to society when police and security has been sold to private commercial interests."
And that makes ROBOCOP 2 better than ROBOCOP 1.
IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2007 - 8:13 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
But Robo II's entire tone is so ugly and sadistic, without a hint of the satire of the first film to leaven it
Harlan Ellison Meets The Guys Who Wrote Robocop "Harlan Ellison's Watching" column, Magazine of F/SF, Oct '90
"So there I am at this elegant party that Stan Lee of Marvel Productions threw, back in December of 1987, and his and Joan's home up in the Hollywood Hills was jammed to the walls with the hoi and the polloi, and at one point I'm introduced to these two young guys named Ed Neumeier and Michael Miner, and Stan or somebody says, "These are the guys who wrote Robocop. Didn't you just write a piece on Robocop?"
Well, they knew damned well I'd just written a review of Robocop, and I'd worked it over like a slab of beef jerky, because forty-something minutes into the damned flick, I'd had it up to here with the idiot violence and the low animal steam heat of the audience and the after-the-fact addition of "socially relevant satire" and I'd said, in effect, this is mean widdle kids pulling the wings off butterflies and setting fire to pussycats and nailing spaniels to ironing boards, and frankly Scarlett, this is like a pavane for perverts...so lemme outta here!
And well, hell, you know me: the kind of pain in the ass who, when he's asked by guests at a party what did you think of our incredibly successful, extremely popular, critically drooled-over movie that has made us two smartasses real hot tickets in this town, answers as charmingly as a cactus spine in your tongue "I think they ought to nuke you two until you glow".
Well, not exactly. I didn't exactly say that. But Stan and Joan haven't attended a dinner invitation since 1987, so I am driven, lashed if you will, toward the conclusion that I acted in a somewhat less than glit-edged fashion."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually am a fan of Rosenman's work for "RoboCop 2." I must also point out that I adore Poledouris' scores for 1 and 3, as well. But to compare them all (just like comparing the movies) would be akin to comparing apples to trucks.
With Rosenman, we get a far more human take on the score, the synthesizers are toned down, reflecting Kershner's opinion that he wanted to move the RoboCop character one year forward, becoming more used to his condition, accepting what little humanity he has left. This is really marvelously reflected in the "Happier Days" and "Robo Memories" cues. The marvelous shifting layers of woodwinds help create mental evocations of ideas and concepts, rather than simply mickey mousing the events on screen. It's interesting to note that the synthesizers and electric instruments appear primarily when dealing with Cain (the electric guitar as RoboCop walks through Cain's lair, and synthesizers when Cain becomes RoboCop 2). It's a great musical reading of the filmic idea, that the villain is quite inhuman.
An example of a sort of Mickey Mousing in the score that does actually work is the "Rebel"-esque jazz break early on in the "City Mayhem" cue. Especially how the jazz break leads into a low string run climaxing in a frantic full orchestra call in the "RoboCop" ostinato.
As for the four sopranos singing "RoboCop," if memory serves, this was an idea from Irvin Kershner, which Rosenman adapted into the score. The Overture itself is actually a piece of marvelous construction, as all of the parts, whether taken together or separately are used to depict and describe the character. The held voice tones in the middle section, which intentionally mimic a woodwind texture also bring a 'humanising' idea to the score - as the woodwind textures soon become joined with legitimate human voices.
On one final note, Rosenman used his score to "RoboCop 2" as a sort of laboratory for his Second Violin Concerto. In this piece, he also used four female vocalists seated with the woodwinds, singing on "Ah"s, creating a marvelous effect against the violin solos. Also, the five bar scherzo section that leads from the bridge of the overture into a restatement of the ostinato (and back into the main theme) appears in the third movement of the piece, albeit reorchestrated quite a bit.
I'm a huge Rosenman fan, so I am most likely biased, but "RoboCop 2," though the movie lacks much of the soul that makes Verhoeven's original hold up so well (part of this can probably be attributed to the scheduling and release date boondoggle), has a marvelous score that might seem offputting at first, but rewards a lot upon repeat listenings. It is no "East of Eden," "Lord of the Rings," "Rebel Without a Cause," or "Star Trek IV," but "RoboCop 2" stands as a fascinating example of what Rosenman could bring to the table with a modern action movie. His score helps move the movie along, and has a lot of marvelous ideas and writing. Also, I think the core melodic idea throughout most of the score is so marvelously propulsive and exciting, that I find it terribly easy to get swept up in.
Just my thoughts on the matter though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2007 - 8:37 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jon A. Bell
(Member)
|
But Robo II's entire tone is so ugly and sadistic, without a hint of the satire of the first film to leaven it
Harlan Ellison Meets The Guys Who Wrote Robocop "Harlan Ellison's Watching" column, Magazine of F/SF, Oct '90
I like much of Ellison's work, and I remember reading this column. I respectfully disagree with him on this one, but I completely understand his viewpoint. (Then again, some reviewers walked out of "Dawn of the Dead" as nauseatingly violent, while others called it "a savage satire of American consumerism." But on the third hand -- and arguing against my own point a bit -- I do think people can try to camouflage all sorts of genuinely crappy art by saying "it was supposed to be satirical!")
Regardless, I *do* think there was a point to most of the violence in Robocop (although it's tough to escape the feeling that, at his core, Paul Verhouven is kind of a sick mofo), but Robo II was just garbage, IMO, and I'm not changing my opinion of that.
As for the score, the women singing "Robo-COP!" is just laughable... but I actually like quite a bit of the rest of the music, and as I recall, there's a ton of cool cues that weren't on the 30-minute Varese CD. (And for the record: I like a lot of Rosenman's music, and his score to "Fantastic Voyage" was what got me interested in film music.)
-- Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My main question, I guess, is why such an older generation composer would put his name to a film linked with so much gratutitous sadism?
My take on this: Rosenman did PROPHECY and THE CAR earlier in his career. Both are, in some ways, similarly gratuitous (arguable, yes), so it is not unprecendented.
Why he did it/them? Some combination of the following? --
The connection with someone on the film (someone mentioned Kershner), the chance to experiment for concert works (mentioned above, and he did much the same for SYBIL), and the money. His attitude toward this stuff was that "film music is not REAL music" (from a lecture he did at USC) and film work appears to pay a HUGE amount of money for not a terribly long commitment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
probably because he thinks a great deal of himself and decided that this movie wasnt good enough for his supposed "incredible talent".
Your rather mean supposition is based on...?
I can corroborate a smidgen of this by quoting David Raksin after one of Rosenman's lectures in a class: "He [referring to LR] really wants people to think he's hip."
So to get back to Ahem's original question of why he would do this: ROBOCOP was also a high-profile name, like STAR TREK, so it could advance his "hipness profile," if you want to extemporize along these lines.
But I can't emphasize the money enough. David Rose once replied to a student who asked why he worked in TV even though it was so very stressful by saying, "Because it's INCREDIBLY remunerative."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent musical analysis -- and I'm curious: where did you hear Rosenman's Second Violin Concerto? I'd be interested in a recording of that!
-- Jon
I agree.
And I too would enjoy hearing Rosenman's concert work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was refreshingly disturbing. So often we have to assume villians do unspeakable things. I think it was ballsy and honest of Kersh to have such a grim scene. I want my villians to procure fear and revulsion in me. Ultimately I don't like this movie a quarter as much as part one, but it's not because it's too cruel. I just now bought the score... I guess I've heard so much smacktalk on it that I never bothered. I saw the film for the 1st time (since I was 12) a couple of months ago...music was pretty good. I agree the End Title choir is too silly to enjoy.
NP: Backdraft (Zimmer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone else REALLY shocked by the Duffy gutting sequence??:
Actually, I was always disappointed with it. I mean, if a surgeon is going to cut open a guy, he's not going to go through cloth to do it. Maybe they didn't wanna push it with cutting a false stomach or something, but to me it looked like someone cutting into a bloodbag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's more approriate for that kind of film (which is also a piece of shit BTW)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
