O Brother Where Art Thou?
JJ Hinrichs
13 minutes of music on it.
not real obvious within the film, but you do hear it during the KKK
rally/ lynching (do those guys always march like a band?), and also when
the guys meet Babyface.
still not sure what to make of the movie, but it was nice to look at,
with great use of the "roots music" songs.
just an odd film.
JJ
Andrew Shepherd
It seems like many are not quite sure what to make of the film, but
T-Bone Burnett's soundtrack CD is doing quite well. Upon reading some
months ago that T-Bone would be supervising the music for the Coen Bros.
latest film, I lamented the fact for Carter Burwell, as it seemed that
the longest running (?) composer/director collaboration had finally been
disrupted, reminding me somewhat of the situation surrounding "The Color
Purple," Steven Spielberg, Quincy Jones, & John Williams. But upon
seeing Burwell's additional music credit during the end credits roll of
"O Brother, Where Art Thou?," it appears that Carter wasn't quite cut
out of the loop after all. However, I'd be interested to hear his
comments on the situation, if he wasn't hurt by the lack of opportunity
to score & supervise the music for the film, as he had done for every
other Coen Bros. film preceding. In the end, maybe the Coens all along
planned to have Burwell compose some incidental score for certain
scenes. But I do have to wonder if hiring a non-film musician to fully
score a film did not once again prove, to say the least, slightly
problematic?
On a related note, maybe this is a ripe opportunity to discuss
long-running composer/director collaborations. From an unbroken
perspective, the immediate dynamic duo that comes to mind is Alan
Silvestri & Robert Zemeckis. But it seems that nearly every other
lengthy composer/director match has developed a
discontinuity...Williams/Spielberg, Elfman/Burton, Nyman/Greenaway,
though I suppose I stand corrected, as Howard Shore & David Cronenberg
just popped into my head.
Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cin...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
cin...@sprintpcs.com
Dean Eaton
late Franklin Schaffner, Joe Dante and now Paul Verhoeven. And James Horner
appears to be Ron Howard's current favorite composer as well;
dean
"Andrew Shepherd" <cin...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:3A839D96...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu...
JJ Hinrichs
on that film, T-Bone Burnett was listed 2nd to Burwell, as the "Musical Archivist."
I doubt that the Coens and Burwell will cease to be a team.
there's too much history, and it seems like the Coens write so Burwell
can compose a great score.
I believe there is interview online where Burwell discusses his work
on O Brother Where Art Thou?
I will have to search for it. It's been quite a long while since
I read it.
another composer/ director collaboration coming together quite nicely is that of Michael Nyman and Michael Winterbottom. Nyman's best 2 scores were composed for Wonderland and The Claim.both are great CDs with his most emotional music.
JJ
Richard Street
Andrew Shepherd <cin...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:3A839D96...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu...
>
> long-running composer/director collaborations. From an unbroken
> perspective, the immediate dynamic duo that comes to mind is Alan
> Silvestri & Robert Zemeckis. But it seems that nearly every other
> lengthy composer/director match has developed a
> discontinuity...Williams/Spielberg, Elfman/Burton, Nyman/Greenaway,
> though I suppose I stand corrected, as Howard Shore & David Cronenberg
> just popped into my head.
On a diametrically opposite note, I'm wondering why Richard Donner never
uses the same composer twice (except for Michael Kamen and friends on the
Lethal Weapon series).
--
Richard Street - stre...@btinternet.com
keenan0927
> lengthy composer/director match has developed a
> discontinuity...Williams/Spielberg, Elfman/Burton, Nyman/Greenaway,
> though I suppose I stand corrected, as Howard Shore & David Cronenberg
> just popped into my head.
Shore didn't score "The Dead Zone". That was Michael Kamen
Kevin and Faith
DingoSpit
all of you!
Also shaping up nicely are James Newton Howard's collaborations with M. Night
Shyamalan, Scott Hicks, Andrew Davis, and the Disney animation department.
Also worth watching out of the corner of our eye are Darren Aranowsky (sp?) and
Clint Mansell.
-James
Dean Eaton
great effect. Cide House Rules was one of my favorite scores from 1999.
But I think that true collaborations are probably few and far between. The
Williams/Spielberg connection is unique because Williams always seems to
save his best stuff for him.
"DingoSpit" <ding...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010210042458...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
JFMullin
Hans Zimmer develops strong working relationships with directors who are really
in need of a better composer. I'd love to see guys like James L. Brooks and
Ridley Scott just stop working with him. I never really cared much for John
Woo, but I think he can do a lot better as well.
Andrew Shepherd
All true. However, I was primarily thinking of current
composer/director collaborations stretching over five films or more, if
all consecutive even better. That should narrow it down to a rather
exclusive group.
TomCruiseStuntDouble
I would like to see you compose something better than him. Zimmer is a great
composer in my opinion. At least he is original. He always fits the mood of
the film right with his music. You just dont like him. But awards are proof
of his talent. James Brooks, Ridley and Tony Scott use him cause he has
talent and they like his sound.
TomCruiseStuntDouble
Morgands1
>of his talent.
I won't comment on Zimmer or anyone else re: this topic, but this statement is
pretty ludicrous. Awards can be as much proof about popularity as about talent,
but, sadly, talent is not a requirement.
If you are suggesting that Oscars or Golden Globes or any other film award only
go to the most talented, you are naive.
Broaden your thinking. Your arguments will work better -- if they don't change.
David
ClckwrkO
Some other impressive collaborations would be:
Mychael Danna / Atom Egoyan and
Angelo Badalamenti / David Lynch
ClckwrkO
Jaquandor
>>of his talent.
>
>I won't comment on Zimmer or anyone else re: this topic, but this statement
>is
>pretty ludicrous. Awards can be as much proof about popularity as about
>talent,
>but, sadly, talent is not a requirement.
>
>If you are suggesting that Oscars or Golden Globes or any other film award
>only
>go to the most talented, you are naive.
I think that awards can be indicative of talent; while I almost never think
that the award for Best Picture, for example, actually goes to the best
picture, I can't recall ever thinking that the award went to a bad film. So if
one sees that a composer has a boatload of awards, one might conclude that this
guy has some talent and skill without concluding that he's a towering genius or
something similar.
--
-Jaquandor
"My generation had a chance to change the world, and we opted
for the Home Shopping Network instead." -Stephen King
Nicolai P. Zwar
> I think that awards can be indicative of talent; while I almost never think
> that the award for Best Picture, for example, actually goes to the best
> picture, I can't recall ever thinking that the award went to a bad film. So if
> one sees that a composer has a boatload of awards, one might conclude that this
> guy has some talent and skill without concluding that he's a towering genius or
> something similar.
A boatload of awards is definitively indicative of an exceptional talent
to sway juries.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
"My goodness! For a minute I thought I was Tom Selleck and couldn't
figure out how I suddenly got so darned ugly! What an infinitely
depressing incident."
(Opus)
Jaquandor
>
>> I think that awards can be indicative of talent; while I almost never think
>> that the award for Best Picture, for example, actually goes to the best
>> picture, I can't recall ever thinking that the award went to a bad film. So
>if
>> one sees that a composer has a boatload of awards, one might conclude that
>this
>> guy has some talent and skill without concluding that he's a towering
>genius or
>> something similar.
>
>A boatload of awards is definitively indicative of an exceptional talent
>to sway juries.
Well, yes, as we saw a couple of years ago when "Shakespeare In Love" upended
"Saving Private Ryan", when the spotlight was on Miramax's big-time
arm-twisting for its film, instead of the fact that "Shakespeare In Love" is
just plain a better film than SPR.
Jostein Hakestad
"Jaquandor" <jaqu...@aol.comphneh> skrev i melding
news:20010212232226...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
>
> Well, yes, as we saw a couple of years ago when "Shakespeare In Love"
upended
> "Saving Private Ryan", when the spotlight was on Miramax's big-time
> arm-twisting for its film, instead of the fact that "Shakespeare In Love"
is
> just plain a better film than SPR.
>
In YOUR opinion.
I've never seen Shakespeare in Love, but I doubt I would like it more than
Saving Private Ryan.
--
Jostein H
Nicolai P. Zwar
> In YOUR opinion.
>
> I've never seen Shakespeare in Love, but I doubt I would like it more than
> Saving Private Ryan.
I actually like both movies, but "Shakespeare in Love" bears repeated
watchings far more than SPR. Great movie.
Jostein Hakestad
"Nicolai P. Zwar" <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> skrev i melding
news:3A8923A3...@bigfoot.com...
>
> I actually like both movies, but "Shakespeare in Love" bears repeated
> watchings far more than SPR. Great movie.
>
I shall have to see it, then.
--
Jostein H
Dave T
news:20010212232226...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
>
> Well, yes, as we saw a couple of years ago when "Shakespeare In Love"
upended
> "Saving Private Ryan", when the spotlight was on Miramax's big-time
> arm-twisting for its film, instead of the fact that "Shakespeare In Love"
is
> just plain a better film than SPR.
I obviously didn't 'get' Shakespeare In Love, as I thought it was extremely
poor. The acting was of the overly laboured 'Awards-show-clip' variety (LOOK
AT ME!!! I'M ACTING!!!! ACTING OVER HERE!!! No subtlety whatsoever). The
direction was lifeless, the score irritating, the supposedly 'witty' script
banal and as for the horrifically melodramatic ending, "she will be my
heroine for all time..." Ugh! Plus virtually every scene featured Joseph
'Why aren't I as famous as my more talented and less pretentious brother'
Fiennes and the Hideous Mutant Longnecked Paltrow Monster. SPR is a superior
movie in every way, plot notwithstanding.
I would have loved to have been Spielberg presenting the Oscar to Mendes
last year when American Beauty cleaned up, not-so-secretly thinking "Eat it,
Harvey!"
My fave part of Awards season is those great 'For Your Consideration' ads in
Entertainment Weekly and Hollywood Reporter. Did anyone notice if there was
a Battlefield Earth one?
--
Dave
"The whole idea of sexy Chinese girls wearing tight superhero type costumes,
fighting and then having sex, is possibly the finest development in the
hundred years of cinema history a man could possibly hope for" - Jonathan
Ross
Jaquandor
>news:20010212232226...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
>>
>> Well, yes, as we saw a couple of years ago when "Shakespeare In Love"
>upended
>> "Saving Private Ryan", when the spotlight was on Miramax's big-time
>> arm-twisting for its film, instead of the fact that "Shakespeare In Love"
>is
>> just plain a better film than SPR.
>>
>
>In YOUR opinion.
Well, I've never claimed to speak for anyone else.
>I've never seen Shakespeare in Love, but I doubt I would like it more than
>Saving Private Ryan.
SPR's first half-hour was brilliant. Everything that came after was dull, and
the mawkish "Tell me I lived a good life" ending was just horrid.
Jaquandor
>poor.
You wretched soul. I should like to kill you in the morning.
> The acting was of the overly laboured 'Awards-show-clip' variety (LOOK
>AT ME!!! I'M ACTING!!!! ACTING OVER HERE!!! No subtlety whatsoever). The
>direction was lifeless, the score irritating, the supposedly 'witty' script
>banal
You didn't get the jokes, did you?
> and as for the horrifically melodramatic ending, "she will be my
>heroine for all time..." Ugh! Plus virtually every scene featured Joseph
>'Why aren't I as famous as my more talented and less pretentious brother'
>Fiennes and the Hideous Mutant Longnecked Paltrow Monster.
My God....
> SPR is a superior
>movie in every way, plot notwithstanding.
Foolish, foolish youth....(no, I have no idea how old you are, but still....)
Dave T
> >I obviously didn't 'get' Shakespeare In Love, as I thought it was
extremely
> >poor.
>
> You wretched soul. I should like to kill you in the morning.
Bring it on, Baby...
> > The acting was of the overly laboured 'Awards-show-clip' variety (LOOK
> >AT ME!!! I'M ACTING!!!! ACTING OVER HERE!!! No subtlety whatsoever). The
> >direction was lifeless, the score irritating, the supposedly 'witty'
script
> >banal
>
> You didn't get the jokes, did you?
Yes, I did. Didn't think they were funny, though (with the exception of the
Fast Show cast as boatmen-cum-London cab drivers).
> > and as for the horrifically melodramatic ending, "she will be my
> >heroine for all time..." Ugh! Plus virtually every scene featured Joseph
> >'Why aren't I as famous as my more talented and less pretentious brother'
> >Fiennes and the Hideous Mutant Longnecked Paltrow Monster.
>
> My God....
>
> > SPR is a superior
> >movie in every way, plot notwithstanding.
>
> Foolish, foolish youth....(no, I have no idea how old you are, but
still....)
Old enough to steal your rocker off the porch, Grandpa.
I would just say that I was really, really looking forward to SIL. I didn't
see how it could fail. The reviews were glowing, the subject matter
fascinating, Tom Stoppard script, the cast list seemed strong. What a
disappointment.
Oliver J. Hanau
>>> Well, yes, as we saw a couple of years ago when "Shakespeare In Love"
>>> upended "Saving Private Ryan", when the spotlight was on Miramax's
>>> big-time arm-twisting for its film, instead of the fact that
>> "Shakespeare In Love" is just plain a better film than SPR.
>> In YOUR opinion.
> Well, I've never claimed to speak for anyone else.
"The fact that S.i.L. is just plain a better film than SPR" is not a
statement of opinion, but a statement of fact (says right there, too) and
thus you WERE speaking for someone else, everyone else, that is. I hate it
when people don't make the distinction.
You happen to be right as far as SPR is concerned, though.
Oliver.
Andrew Shepherd
> Well, yes, as we saw a couple of years ago when "Shakespeare In Love"
> upended
> "Saving Private Ryan", when the spotlight was on Miramax's big-time
> arm-twisting for its film, instead of the fact that "Shakespeare In
> Love" is
> just plain a better film than SPR.
In the end, "Shakespeare in Love" or "Saving Private Ryan"...doesn't
really matter all that much, as the slick throwback "Out of Sight" was
the better film than either. Yep, not only did Steven Soderbergh direct
the best film of 2000 ("Traffic"), he also directed the best film of
1998 ("Out of Sight"). It's a shame that Universal handled distribution
& promotion so poorly, swapping the June/November release dates w/ the
tardy "Meet Joe Black," thereby feeding "Out of Sight" to the hounds of
summer, as otherwise Soderbergh might have gotten his due recognition
two years earlier.
Andrew Shepherd
> Well, yes, as we saw a couple of years ago when "Shakespeare In Love"
> upended
> "Saving Private Ryan", when the spotlight was on Miramax's big-time
> arm-twisting for its film, instead of the fact that "Shakespeare In
> Love" is
> just plain a better film than SPR.
In the end, "Shakespeare in Love" or "Saving Private Ryan"...doesn't