Since the dawn of civilization, music has played a vital part in mankind’s development and sophistication. As soon as man developed the intelligence to become aware of his own existence, he was set on his irresistible course to conquer the globe, and one day, to master the secrets of immortality…..mankind’s ultimate goal.

Communication has been man’s greatest weapon against the forces of nature. The power of speech and the written word has accelerated mankind’s sophistication and progress to the nth degree. The building blocks of civilization have been moulded by nature, but it is man who has arranged these building blocks to his own advantage…..that is MAN’S genius…..though many refer to the powers of speech, of reason and of construction as gifts of nature….in truth, it is man himself who has ‘harnessed nature’ and has conquered the astronomical forces opposed to his development.

There is still much to be done…nature still assails mankind’s humble existence with disease, flood and famine…and mankind itself has developed the means to terminate its own existence. And yet paradoxically, since the development of the atom bomb, the course of world history has been fixed on a highway built on sure foundations, with hope and achievement mankind’s ultimate destiny.

And, throughout the ages, music has provided a civilizing bond to many tribes and nations. Its power to voice, evoke and communicate the emotions of the human being, and its facility to illustrate each of the disparate cultures of the world, has been instrumental in binding once isolated communities. Mankind’s ability to manipulate music to reflect and commentate, is just as potent as music’s ability to stir, provoke and to ‘call to arms’.

Music speaks of everything that is human….it is the language of love, and the anthem of war.

The movies have been depicting human nature and mankind’s accelerating development for one hundred years now, from cinema’s humble beginnings, through the development of talkies, to cinema’s current enlightened and ultra-sophisticated state. Throughout those one hundred years, the importance of music in film has steadily increased. Currently, film music has reached unprecedented heights of accomplishment and sophistication, and this most heartening trend looks set to continue for the foreseeable future. The demands on today’s film composer are massive…but the great exponents of CMS, led by Zimmer and Horner, are equal to the task.

During the 20th century, mankind has added another civilizing ‘string’ to its bow……contemporary musical sensibilities (CMS).

But CMS has always existed in a less intensely successful state. Earlier in man’s history, people existed in isolated pockets thinly scattered across the globe. Each pocket of early humanity developed its own culture….and its own music. The music of these disparate cultures reflected the habits, surroundings, customs, traditions and attitude of its people….as did the communities’ buildings, temples, clothing and decoration. The originators of this very distinct ‘ethnic’ music were the early exponents of CMS…..their music necessarily had to reflect the essence of their people.

And now, in the 21st century, owing to the development of sophisticated communications and the ease of travel, the distinctions between cultures are rapidly diminishing. Western Culture is ‘invading’ all corners of the globe, but in the process it is evolving itself, learning from the other world cultures in Africa, Asia and the Middle East etc…..Western Culture’s great strength is its flexibility…..its capability to absorb apparently ‘alien’ cultural ideas, thus improving itself.

Correspondingly, music itself is evolving along with the gradual unification of world culture. Popular music now embraces many disparate cultural musical styles….from Latin to South African to Celtic…..but the basis of all popular ‘world’ music maintains the fundamental ideas championed by the classical composers such as Mozart and Beethoven and music’s further development in the early 20th century with the incorporation of jazz and swing styles originating in West Africa, but fully developed in America’s south.

So, music has evolved along much the same lines as world culture itself. The fundamentals of ‘world’ music and culture are based on the ideas espoused by Western Civilization….but the further development of culture and music must necessarily absorb elements of all other cultures.

Popular music of today reflects ‘world’ culture with increasing success and sophistication. Likewise, movies, and naturally movie music, is doing the same. The movies of today reflect world cultural sensibilities with more success than ever before….thanks in no small measure to the great achievements of the modern film composer, most notably Zimmer and Horner. The job of the modern film composer is not an easy one. The evolution and sophistication of world culture is rapidly accelerating, and the film composer must keep pace. The movies of our successful contemporary cinema more than ever espouse the values of contemporary society……these being broadmindedness, tolerance, political-correctness, and excellence.

And all of our great leaders are playing their part in the advancement of civilization, Clinton, Blair, Yeltzin (up until recently), and others…..and these noble statesmen are aided in their task of nurturing global unity, by the likes of Zimmer and Horner.

This is why I believe the film composer is in a privileged position. His music, combined with image, reaches out to billions of people all over the globe. Not only should the film composers’ music involve Western audiences, it must also reach out to other cultures. By communicating the sensibilities of Western culture to the entire world, the task of incorporating the remaining distinct cultures into ‘world’ culture is made that much easier. The benefits work for the film composer too. Horner’s magnificent CMS score to TITANIC not only worked brilliantly for the movie, but also allowed the composer to write a ‘hit’ song based on ideas heard in the dramatic score. The world-wide success of this wonderful song, MY HEART WILL GO ON, was as much thanks to Horner’s CMS genius, as it was to the success of the movie itself. Horner’s TITANIC music triumphed, as dramatic score, as a hit song, as a hit album and as a glowing tribute to all that is CMS in modern film scoring. By cleverly incorporating the very much in vogue Celtic styles, just as he did in BRAVEHEART, Horner reached out to world audiences. Once audiences had attached themselves to Horner’s Celtic ‘hook’, they were then able to appreciate the further numerous layers of subtlety and the diverse musical styles that comprised the rest of the score to TITANIC….the most successful score of the 90’s in my opinion..

Indeed, the film composer is in a most enviable position in our enlightened times. By scoring today’s unprecedentedly successful cinema, the composer has the opportunity to promote his own music, he is able to compose music that covers all areas of style and composition, and also can further the cause of global development and harmonization…..as championed by Bill Clinton.

The horrendous situation in Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone is part of the sometimes painful evolution of world culture. These two African nations, amongst many others, were once controlled by the British Empire…the British, to a great extent, forced Western Culture on an ill-prepared people. Though the British were as fair as any imperial occupying force could be, the growing climate of political-correctness during the late 20th century forced the British to withdraw from their vast African territories. Despite the withdrawal of British Imperial forces and the severance of direct control from London, many thousands of British colonists remain in Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone, and many are now the victims of brutal crimes perpetrated by the indigenous peoples. This is a classic example of how the imposition of Western Culture on an ‘alien’ culture is doomed to failure…..and many argue, with some justification, that the British shouldn’t have been in Africa in the first place, though if that were the case, Australia, America and a large part of the world would never have been developed…..but the gradual importation of Western ideas, its culture, technologies and know-how, will one day lead to Africa embracing world culture. From these apparently dark days in the history of Britian, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone, will emerge a new hope. Co-operation, tolerance and mediation, those things championed by the United Nations, will ensure Africa follows a course toward enlightenment and creativity within the global community. In the meantime, my heart goes out to the British colonists in Zimbabwe, some of whom are from my own family, who are currently the victims of state-sanctioned violence….the sad fact is that many of the indigenous peoples of Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are also being maimed, raped and murdered by their fellow countrymen. The current situation in some of Britain’s former African territories chillingly recalls the excellent 1957 movie SOMETHING OF VALUE (movie **** score *** (Rozsa). This movie was set in British East Africa, specifically Kenya, and depicted the difficulties arising between British colonist Rock Hudson and his childhood friend Sidney Poitier. The absurdities, evils and also the positive aspects of British Imperial rule in Africa have rarely been depicted better, though the brilliant 1951 movie, also with Poitier, CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY, set in South Africa, comes close.

The world, including the British, has learnt more about fairness, tolerance and goodwill in the past fifty years than in all its previous history. To think, one hundred years ago a Roman Catholic could not become a member of the British Parliament, and just thirty years ago it was still illegal to be a practising homosexual. Not only was that law archaic and completely unfair, it also provided the opportunity for blackmail….the law against practising homosexuals was described, quite accurately, as “The Blackmailers’ Charter”. This whole area is brilliantly covered in the 1961 Dirk Bogarde movie VICTIM (movie **** score ****). VICTIM was set in a particularly vividly captured London and was further enhanced by a great score from Philip Green.

In just a short space of time since those unenlightened years, the developed nations of the world have embraced fair play and tolerance. Likewise, by applying CMS to their scores, the current film composer, especially Zimmer and Horner, is playing a very important part in the further development of civilization itself. Zimmer and Horner’s gift for communicating the essence of their disparate movies to the majority of cinema audiences, provides a rich musical fabric that not only strengthens and binds cinema, but also promotes and fertilizes the continued sophistication of modern man through the ongoing merging of all the worlds’ cultures that will one day lead to a united planet.

Zimmer (and Horner too) is more than just a film composer……he is a cultural ambassador, a pioneer of musical development, a leader of film composers, an expert exponent of CMS..…and a profound influence on the continued development and sophistication of civilization itself.

Clinton is on the wrong side of nearly every issue (starting with the Elian Gonzales issue and going back),

Hans Zimmer and James Horner are not the film composers we want to be championing,

musical sensibilities are no substitute for sensible music,

and

as much as I am hopeful about the future, man's progress is God's grace and if we ignore God, our future is doomed.

I agree that music and man's development are linked--and in fact was noting recently--the similarities between the tone of Goldsmith's music over his career and the sentiments of society at the time.

His sixties music was orchestral counter-culture of the Golden Age of the 1930s.

His seventies scores were alternately hopeful, cynical, and horrific (these are generalizations) to fit the mood of the turbulent seventies.

His eighties scores translated into music the boldness and optimism of the Reagan eighties.

The overall tone of this decade's music will better be seen as we move away from it. I'm sure that it will speak to the information age somehow.

At the very most, Mr. Goldsmith was making culture commentary.

At the least, and more reasonably perhaps, he was reflecting the mood of the movies.

Regardless, art and life are interrelated. That's it in a nut shell.

But my conclusions are different.

I'm in the boat that's of the belief that things are better now than they were long ago ...but at the same time not nearly as good as they once were just a seemingly short time ago.

This pertains to film music as well. Although I think that the last year's wealth of film music displayed a ray of light for the future.

We'll see.

Using film music as a metaphor for everything else, progress is good...provided that we don't abandon the lessons learned in the past. Attn: Hans Zimmer, James Horner, others.

P.S. James Horner actually is a great dramatist and knows scientifically how to score a film (for the most part), but his music is usually lacking the intellectualism, etc. of John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith.

I wish that James Horner, who I feel is a great *film* craftsman but poor composer, could be combined with Williams, in my mind a great composer but not a film composer.

These guys should write more in the style of their scores like THE MASK OF ZORRO and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

I think the folks that show the progress the best are Thomas and David Newman, and the ubiquitous James Newton Howard. He's good, real good.

It may be true that the film composer of today has the potential to "reach" billions of people. It may be true that a small fraction of those billions (leaving alone the example of TITANIC, because without the song the score would have been just another journeyman effort in the world's eyes) notices that they are being "reached." But there is nothing about the film composer's role or product that makes him any more essential to the "reach" of a movie than, say, the cinematographer, or the screenwriter. After all, visual images and writing have been as important to human "development" as music has been. Nobody, however, would claim that the cinematographers of the world will build our bridge to the twenty-first century.

Further, it is only Hollywood-produced movies that have anything resembling a global "reach." It's fitting that you cite only two composers as your CMS standard-bearers, because, frankly, there are very few film composers out there who can command (and only by riding the coattails of a famous director or franchise) a multinational audience, and be recognized as such.

In the end, though, you posit nothing more than the mere fact of a movie's global box receipts as evidence that cinema and (by extension) film composers are "reaching" people. You suggest that simply because there are maybe two or three movies a year that we watch in common, we are becoming one through movies (and more particularly, through movie music). I think it's very unrealistic to claim that Hollywood has anything to do with world unification. Certainly, in order to argue otherwise, you'd have to point to more movies than just TITANIC.

I said I'd ignore the merits of your humanistic argument, and I suppose I should stick to that. But I agree with Bulldog, that the thought of a movement toward "one nation," led by the "sophisticated" (?????) Hollywood gurus and mavens and their composers as aides-de-camp, and joined by all right-minded leftists (presumably only leftists, or perhaps New Labour, would join), is as loathsome as it is preposterous. You said, Daniel, that you deplore neocolonialism now more than ever. That opinion seems inapposite in light of what you hypothesize.

Chase, I don't know about you, but I'm counting the hours until Inauguration Day, 2001, when the Clintons will finally be history!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Kinsinger:
Chase, I don't know about you, but I'm counting the hours until Inauguration Day, 2001, when the Clintons will finally be history!

---

I'll be swinging from the chandelier with a bottle of champagne in one hand and noise-maker horn in the other. (And I hate champagne).

Unfortunately, though, after they leave, we may still be stuck with the Tin Man, if you know who I mean and I think you do.

At this point, the only person I would vote for to be President is myself.

Chase

Of course, I'd vote for a freakin' monkey as long as he could run the country right and get this place back to what it used to be.

I genuinely believe that the world is progressing steadily in the right direction, though naturally with SOME setbacks. I tend to find that the bad things that happen in the world today often accelerate the pace of positive change.

Without stable, affluent and tolerant government in the West, especially the USA, global progression would most likely be halted. We might poke fun at political-correctness and the ascendance of slightly left of centre politics as we enter the 21st century, but it is within this climate of broadmindedness and tolerance that global unity can be pursued. Love him or loathe him, Bill Clinton is merely the temporary front man for an American government that is staunchly promoting the strength and wellbeing of its own people, and sharing its wealth, knowledge and technology with the rest of the world.

Just a decade ago, the staunch rightwing politics of Thatcher and Reagan were vital in the termination of the Soviet Empire. The West, by displaying its strength and playing on its distinctive cultural elements, such as free enterprise and meritocracy, did as much to FORCE change as Gorbachev himself.

Since that time, the necessity for CONSTANT right-wing Western sabre-rattling and displays of machismo has diminished. With Russia now a fully-fledged member of the global community, only China remains as an ‘opposing’ force to be wary of. However, in time things will change there too. It already is….a market economy and the importation of Western culture is ensuring that.

On the issue of colonialism. As I have said before, much as I believe the world NEEDED a British Empire in the past, the world doesn’t need a British Empire today. Much as we all regret the violation and destruction of the aborigine cultures throughout the world by the European colonists, most notably by the British of course….it happened, we must come to terms with it, and the world must move on. Anyhow, I believe the benefits of past European colonialism far outweigh the admittedly important and disturbing negatives. Without the British Empire, the English-speaking world as we know it today would not exist. The USA, Canada, Australia and so on would either remain as distant and hostile wildernesses, or in the hands of the less tolerant French, Spanish, German or Dutch imperial powers that may have engendered a more corrupt, iniquitous and antagonistic global climate. Even so, the British American colonists STILL rebelled against British rule, and not without justification. British autocracy, its intransigence, and its TOLERANCE toward the recently conquered French colonies in Quebec, were just a few of the British blunders that led to war with its own colonies. The British Empire learnt an important, and painful lesson through the embarrassing loss of its 13 American colonies. Today however, in our tolerant and sophisticated society, imperialism is anathema, and rightly so. The world doesn’t NEED empires anymore, because the diverse cultures and peoples of the world are rapidly converging….due in no small measure to American neocolonialism.

Neocolonialism is something quite distinct from the British colonisation or ‘conquest’ of one third of the globe. The British Empire, as far as empires go, was as tolerant, fair and constructive as any empire could be. Even so, the invading colonists did displace, suppress or overwhelm the indigenous peoples of many nations. The development of native American, African and Asian cultures has either been seriously curtailed, or simply extinguished.

Yes, neocolonialism is something quite different to that. The British colonized North America, but now it is America that is ‘colonising’ Britain and the rest of the world, through neocolonialism, or in other words, the importation of American culture through America’s irresistibly powerful economy, its political evenhandedness and the sheer strength of the American ideal. The AMERICANS are not invading the rest of the world, but their culture is…..the world, including Britain, is simply becoming Americanized. Not everyone welcomes this, but I do, especially considering that America is based on English language and common law, and on British institutions, custom and tradition. Britain started America, the Americans saved Britain from German invasion fifty years ago, and now Britain is itself embracing American culture and welcomes the rapid advance of American neocolonialism.

I am reminded of the words of the great Thomas Paine “My country is the world; to do good is my religion”.

Thomas Paine was born in Norfolk, England, and on meeting Benjamin Franklin in London, England, was persuaded to go to the British American colonies. He arrived in 1774, and the rest is history.

I remember an excellent 1955 Hollywood movie called THE SCARLET COAT (movie ***1/2 score ***1/2), in which Michael Wilding, playing a British officer during the American Revolution, quoted Paine’s fine words.

Those words speak for thousands of European colonists who once braved the perils of nature in an effort to find true freedom and to pioneer new lands.

THE SCARLET COAT is one of the comparatively few movies that have dealt with the American Revolution. It is a subject that may have been largely overlooked due to the necessity to promote Anglo-American relations, especially during wartime. However, Anglo-American relations are now stronger than ever, and look set to continue to strengthen, and political-correctness now ‘allows’ popular movies such as BRAVEHEART, and the potentially popular THE PATRIOT to be made, in which the English or British are portrayed in a less than favourable light. Based on pre-release publicity, THE PATRIOT appears to portray a vaguely distorted view of history that nevertheless is likely to entertain, just as BRAVEHEART (movie *** score *****) did, despite, or maybe because of, its political correctness. For instance, a recent article in the British press had Jason Isaacs, playing a particularly nasty British officer in THE PATRIOT, saying that though the British are portrayed as ‘evil’ in the movie, it is not as bad as the British were in REAL LIFE!!! Perhaps I should wait until I’ve seen the movie, but based on what I have read so far, the THE PATRIOT filmmakers have made every effort to portray the British in a bad light. If that is the case, Isaacs comments are nonsense. The trouble is, how many people will walk away from the cinema having seen THE PATRIOT believing such anti-British sentiment, much like the otherwise entertaining DEVIL’S OWN (movie **1/2 score ****1/2) portrayed the IRA terrorist Brad Pitt as a romantic hero and the British SAS man Simon Jones as a supercilious monster.

Like I said before though, all that REALLY matters is that THE PATRIOT is an entertaining movie…..but the fact that the American War of Independence basically amounted to British versus British, looks likely to be ‘played down’ by the filmmakers. That’s the penalty paid for political correctness….but when push comes to shove, I far prefer the laudable fundamentals of political correctness….even if it is at the expense of historical accuracy.

THE SCARLET COAT was a fine film in my opinion. Conrad Salinger’s score benefited the movie no end, despite a few moments of overdone orchestral bombast. The makers of THE SCARLET COAT made every effort to ensure historical accuracy, thus the movie gave a very evenhanded account of one of the saddest and most unfortunate, not to say bizarre, conflicts of the second millennia. The conflicts within Salinger’s orchestra musically reflected the turmoil in the hearts of the rebelling British American colonists and the red-coated British army.

The story revolved around the traitor Benedict Arnold, here played with customary dominance by the incisive British character actor Robert Douglas, and British American colonial militia intelligence man Cornel Wilde’s attempts to unmask him. Wilde’s efforts involve him masquerading as a traitor behind British lines where he tangles with a confused Anne Francis and the legendarily great British officer Major John Andre, played with great charm and dignity by Michael Wilding.

Events take place in 1780 when the British were on the verge of victory over the rebelling colonists, before the French joined the forces opposed to British control of its American colonies. Most of the action took place behind British lines, mainly in New York. George Sanders turns in an excellent performance as a British intelligence man who constantly questions Wilde’s loyalty to the king of England.

What this movie beautifully captured was the reluctance of the British American colonists to rebel, and the fairness and good nature of MOST of the British officers. No-one but Michael Wilding could have played Major Andre with such success. His bewilderment and regret at the conflict, that was basically fought between the British from the mother country and the British who had colonized North America, was regularly illustrated throughout the movie. And it is when Cornel Wilde tries to demonstrate why the British American colonists had chosen to rebel, that Wilding utters the immortal words of Thomas Paine. At one point Wilding says, ‘..the only thing that separates the people of England and the people of North America is the Atlantic Ocean…we are the same people’.

However, it was America’s separation from the British Empire that fuelled its progress toward its current global dominance….the United States of America is the greatest nation the world had ever known, and is a model for developing world harmony. The beauty of the post-British USA, was its welcoming of all the peoples and cultures of Europe, and many from other continents. The American ideals of tolerance and goodwill are now sweeping the globe….the USA provides the blueprint for global harmonization. The British may have started America, but it is the people of the rest of the world that has made the USA the greatest of all nations. Indeed, today Spanish/Latin American culture and language is sweeping through the United States with great rapidity.

Anyway, (warning…...SCARLET COAT spoiler), the movie ends with the British American colonists reluctantly hanging Wilding for conspiring with Benedict Arnold. The dignity and grace with which Wilding accepted his punishment was a fabulous tribute to what is great about the British.

The final moments of the movie, following Wilding’s execution, show Westminster Abbey in London, England, complete with Union Jack, where to this day Major John Andre is remembered as a hero of the British attempts to maintain their control of its 13 American colonies. The British may not have many positive things to remember about that conflict, but the actions of Major John Andre provides consolation for the British and earns respect from the Americans. I doubt very strongly that Captain Andre, or anyone like him, will figure in THE PATRIOT.

During the past fifty years, mankind’s progress has been surefooted. The demise of the Soviet Empire and South Africa’s apartheid, are major positive elements in man’s progress. Without a strong and liberal United States, mankind’s lot would not be a happy one. Many point to the current drugs epidemic and youth violence as reasons to despair for the future. The current ‘evils’ within Western society are the penalties we pay for our freedoms. The only effective way to ‘eradicate’ drugs from society, would be to impose martial law. Western culture is all about compromise, and the balancing of civil liberties with state control. A free society learns as much from its mistakes as from its discoveries. The ‘glamour’ surrounding the drugs scene is what sucks people in. People are learning about the futility of drug addiction all the time….for some it will be too late….but for others, those who have witnessed their family, friends and community descend into drugs-hell, the lesson will be learnt. Drugs and youth violence are a fad. The important thing is that the state is opposed to drug use and violence, and continues to fight it with all the means at its disposal, without restricting civil liberties to an unacceptable level. As I said earlier, it was just thirty years ago that the STATE here in Britain prohibited homosexual activity.

While our governments continue to serve the people, and preserve the rights of an Englishman, the progression and development of civilization is assured.

America’s neocolonialism is unifying the globe…..once distinct and isolated cultures are now merging, thus all of the world’s nations can co-operate more fully and pool their resources for the benefit of ALL mankind.

The Whig interpretation of history, which I too find very attractive, seems to have taken a beating lately, and even its adherents aren't too fond of America's continued predominance on the world stage. Many, I suppose, would think that World War II, the "last good war," marked the last time when American muscularity did the world any good. Presumably "Old" Labour would concur. I don't agree with them, any more than you would.

But the movie music, well, that's an entirely different affair. Even if I can agree in a broad way with your historical analysis, Daniel2, I still have to disagree with your qualitative assessment of the product that Hollywood exports. I don't particularly see sophistication as a mark of today's Hollywood, and what sophistication there is seems not to be of the liberating, world-unifying sort; rather, it's a sophistication of cynicism.

And about CMS in particular: I know you have numbered such giants as John Williams under the CMS umbrella, and indeed, you now talk of "upwards of fifty" such composers. At the same time you tend speak of CMS as if it were a distinguishing principle, one which separates the film music sheep from the goats, as it were. How can that be true, if practically all the major film composers belong in the CMS category? And if they do all belong together, I certainly disagree with you that Horner and Zimmer are the leading lights. Perhaps I'm missing the CMS point altogether.

Anyway, this is good dialogue, it seems. I've not seen SCARLET COAT, but know enough about the ironies and pities of the Arnold/Andre sage to appreciate your assessment of it.

Thank you for your POSITIVE response…..you have put your opinion across with moderation and tact.

And, you make a very sound observation when you talk of how we each interpret history differently. I tend to kid myself sometimes that I have a dispassionate, and therefore unbiased view of history…..but clearly that is not the case…..my perception of history is most definitely from one side of the fence…..that fence comprising both the Atlantic Ocean and the Canadian border.

Your attitude toward cinema is probably closer to reality than my rather naïve postulations.

However, I think it is just a matter of personal perspective. You see, I don’t regard cynicism as a NECESSARILY bad thing. I tend to see cynicism more as a realistic attitude to the world around us, and as such, cynicism is a useful means by which society can be tested….be it the political establishment or the police force, or whatever…..cynicism provokes society to question the motives of its leaders, and through a free press such doubts can be fully expressed, thus the chances of establishment corruption is diminished…..due to the establishments’ fear of being ‘found out’. For all my optimism about the future of mankind…..human nature will always be part of man’s makeup. Man has only recently learnt how to tame his animal instincts or human nature…..that’s what makes us civilized. The individual left to his own devices, I believe, would quickly revert to a base animal existence…..but within society, it is the civilized framework we live in that INSPIRES us to suppress human nature.

In our primitive past, human nature has ensured mans’ survival against the forces of nature and against his enemies. Human nature, in its raw state, exposes man’s true identity…..it is what makes man, as a species, competitive, aggressive, envious….and those barbaric traits ensured mankind’s early ascendance.

Today however, human nature works against the pursuit of global harmony…..it claws at the foundations of civilization. Man is winning the war against the forces of nature……his toughest task will be to tame his own instincts. Relatively speaking, the struggle has only just begun…..and in the process of mastering one’s instincts, mankind must not completely jettison its human nature. Human nature may represent all that is nasty, violent, petty and ‘evil’ about the human race, but it is also what DRIVES us. Without human nature, man would surely perish, as surely as a new born babe in the stomach of a serpent. I reiterate….man must TAME his human nature, not ERADICATE it. And that’s what civilization is all about….people being ALLOWED to thrive in a relatively safe, affluent and fair society. The USA promotes these values like no other country….in America man is truly in command of his own destiny…..the rest of the world will follow, with guidance from the West.

The beauty of Western Culture is that it allows man to ‘vent’ his ‘human nature’ SAFELY. In the unenlightened and uncivilized past, man murdered his brother to advance himself…..in today’s meritocracy, man can satisfy his lust for advancement within the framework of society, be it in politics, the workplace or in competitive sport….life now is like a game…in it virtually everyone wins…rather than having winners and losers, it is the degree of SUCCESS that makes the difference. In Western Civilization, even the losers are cared for by the rest of the society. It wasn’t so long ago that the losers in society would starve, or be victimized, or be oppressed, or be tortured, or be murdered. And today, no-one is above the law, and if someone engages in anti-social behaviour he is punished…..but punished with fairness and compassion.

In our current democratic, capitalist and sophisticated society, hard work and endeavour is usually rewarded with financial and social advancement, and therefore a better standard of living. The opportunity to better oneself is open to virtually everyone. And people have the choice. They can work hard and better themselves, or if they choose to live within themselves, or are unable to work through disability or illness, our just society protects them. The most humble of citizens can become a president or a prime minister. Take Bill Clinton, a man with rare drive and ambition…..he is a BORN leader of men. Such a man must VENT his surplus energies…..and Clinton’s womanizing is one of the means by which he achieves this. Any great man, be he Clinton or Gladstone….is just a man, and is burdened by human nature and weakness just like the rest of us. Today’s sophisticated society is beginning to recognize this, hence a large proportion of the general public accepting the recent revelations about Clinton’s private life. Many people were reassured to see he is only human, though they may have found it harder to forgive his lying in the first place.

That’s the ongoing ‘conflict’ between civilized society and human nature. We are all hypocritical….we believe ourselves to be good and just, yet the “evils” of human nature are within us all, bubbling away under the surface. As society continues to develop and mature, the majority of people are becoming more aware of the hypocrisies of modern society….and therefore are becoming more willing to tolerate other people and less inclined to judge other peoples’ behaviour, or judge a person by his appearance.

This is why I disagree with those people who say society was BETTER, say, fifty years ago. The people of fifty years ago were more hypocritical, and less willing to accept their human nature. Today however, people confront their basic instincts with less FEAR, and are therefore more tolerant of others.

However, the free press, much as I applaud its existence, seems slow to realize this. The British newspapers, for example, continue to print sensationalist headlines in the hope of capturing the attention of the voyeur in us. Only a few weeks ago, one of the British tabloids had a story about the latest child-abuse revelations to emerge from a British children’s home. During the past few years a stream of disturbing stories has emerged of ‘institutional’ child abuse throughout Britain’s children’s homes, spread over the course of many years. The newspaper declared this as an example of the sorry state of society in the year 2000, and how it indicated the decline of standards and all the rest of it. Such an attitude is pure nonsense. Child abuse has always existed, it’s always been a sad part of human life. It is in today’s enlightened society however, that most are willing to recognize the existence of child abuse. Just twenty years ago much of society was unwilling to accept such things, and would ‘brush it under the rug’. Because of this ‘head in the sand’ attitude, child abuse was able to continue with little attention being drawn to it….it being a taboo subject. Today however, the evils of child abuse are being exposed BECAUSE society is fully recognizing its existence….therefore society is in a better position to tackle it.

That’s why it SEEMS as though child abuse is increasing and that society has worsened over the past few decades. The newspapers seem to fail to realize that child abuse has always existed…..and that it is the maturity and enlightenment of modern society that now allows us to confront such taboos. And remember, just one hundred years ago, here in ‘Victorian’ England, young children were working down coal mines and involved in prostitution on the streets of London……and with the tacit blessing of the state.

Today though, one of the biggest challenges to world harmony is ‘fear of the other’, fine words that Clinton himself has often quoted. Prejudice has perpetuated mankind’s warlike instincts throughout its existence. Man is tackling this most vile of evils through the implementation of political correctness, amongst other things. ‘Fear of the other’…..remains one of the biggest obstacles to human progression…..but I believe it WILL be overcome.

And as far as CMS goes, well, H Rocco has said on a few occasions that my interpretation of CMS really only amounts to “….because I say so…..”….a fair observation.

CMS is just a personal way I have of describing what makes today’s film scores successful. CMS is subjective and it is difficult to ‘pin down’, for it is constantly evolving. Broadly speaking, the successful exponent of CMS applies music to his movie that appropriately reflects the nature of the project, and also communicates the essence of the movie to the widest possible contemporary audience through the use of recognizable musical styles and devices.

The fact that I regard upwards of fifty current film composers as successful exponents of CMS, merely reflects my high regard for current cinema as a whole. With very few exceptions, I believe today’s film composers, led by Zimmer and Horner, have raised the benchmark of film scoring standards to keep pace with the increasing quality and sophistication of movies in general, and have done this by fully embracing what I understand to be CMS.

The state of Texas, under the leadership of Governor George W. Bush, is ranked:

50th in spending for teachers' salaries
49th in spending on the environment
48th in per-capita funding for public health
47th in delivery of social services
42nd in child-support collections
41st in per-capita spending on public education

and ...

5th in percentage of population living in poverty
1st in air and water pollution
1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance
1st in percentage of children without health insurance
1st in executions (avg. 1 every 2 weeks for Bush's 5 years)

Just think of what he could do for (to) the country if he were president.

Don't let this "it's in the bag" spin fool any of you for a second. With Bush, it's downhill all the way.

"President Gore"

Parenthetically, after a close reading of Mr. 2's latest contributions as seen here, I find them roughly as interesting as the last one which I characterized as "the most insightful so far," or whatever my precise wording was. I don't necessarily agree -- I understand his reading of Clinton, for example, but Mr. 2 is more compassionate than I have the patience to be, though not, I'd emphasize, wrong -- and indeed, haven't gotten my mind around some aspects of what Daniel's trying to get at, but it's food for thought, and it's nice and chewy as well!

As far as CMS, Daniel is gracious enough to quote my own characterization of what I think he means by it, but here's a thought (which might help us get back on-topic, not that that's always such an important thing -- I think most of us enjoy these weird digressions -- Christopher, where's your Creatonist sermon?) --

John Williams, it seems to me, is one of the most "retro" composers working today -- indeed, that's part of his appeal. Indeed again, his channeling of big, bold, old-fashioned film scoring is a big part of WHY so many hit movies bear his music -- as I wrote elsewhere, I really DON'T think HOME ALONE would have been as big as it was without the Williams sound. The closest thing to a thesis I have here is this: Williams is able to tap into a kind of score-writing that speaks to a kind of Zeitgeist, a kind of understanding that lies within the subconscious of even the most casual of film fans. We may not listen to classical music, but we inevitably hear it. Same with any kind of popular music. From Beethoven's Ninth to the Beatles, some things are virtually engraved in our bones. Williams is able to channel these sounds, and somehow has made a massive (and well-deserved) career out of it.

Horner, on the other hand, has deteriorated into a mere pasticheur. Yet he's doing much what Williams does: reaching back to the sounds of the past, ones he knows (and he is a master dramatist, no question) that the audience will respond to.

Zimmer's up to something else altogether. I'll give Zimmer the credit of having created a kind of film music that was never heard before, even though I scowl at how promiscuously it's now applied.

Hmm, maybe I didn't have a real point to make here after all. More food for thought -- I'm sure I'll soon hear if what I've prepared is nice and tasty, or merely soft and mushy. (needs more salt?)

NP: THE BODYGUARD (Masaru Sato) (talk about CMS!)

I should not send this, but I will -- responses to it might help me sharpen the basic thoughts.

Watch your step, Mr. H, or you're liable to hear it!

I believe the breadth of the CMS umbrella is large enough to cover virtually all musical styles…..a GOOD film composer should be able to adapt his preferred approach to composing (and scoring pictures) to the movie in hand…..something Williams has done with great success, in my opinion. That’s what CMS is all about…. the movie should be allowed to inspire the composer rather than the composer imposing his own sensibilities on the movie. The film composer must be skilled in the art of composing music AND have the ability to comprehend the agenda of the movie AND be a good judge of contemporary musical sensibilities….that’s it. However, this SHOULD not mean that the film composer is railroaded into applying CERTAIN musical properties to the movie, more that the film composer allows himself to be GUIDED by the agenda and essence of the movie (and the director of course), thus the movie is well, AND willingly served by the film composer.

Broadly speaking, the values of CMS reflect the broadening scope of society and the continued growth, enhancement, and sophistication of Western culture. It’s very interesting reading people’s opinions about Clinton, and the men vying to succeed him as the most powerful man in the world.

Obviously personalities play an important part in politics, but to me, it is the underlying movement of political progress or change, rather than the figure-head politicians, that concerns me most. It seems to me that the political situation in America and Britain is more stable than at any other time. Here in Britain for instance, the political parties of the left and right have done, and continue to converge. Slightly left of centre seems to be the happy political medium these days, and slightly left of centre politics is where I believe politics (and therefore Government) is at its most tolerant and constructive (considering the current state of Western society), and therefore beneficial to the wellbeing of the people and the pursuit of global harmony. Some say that more distinct, or even extreme, political contrasts, fuel change and progression by maintaining a volatile political situation…and also help reduce voter apathy. I don’t see it like that. A stable political framework, without violent swings of the political pendulum every four years, I believe promotes development, growth and harmony. It allows society to plan for the future with more certainty. The moderate slightly left of centre politics we now enjoy, I see as a further sophistication of society, and as a measure of growing world harmony, and as the culmination of centuries of effort from many visionaries to fashion a less volatile and damaging political seesaw. Another benefit of this new found political moderation is the increased importance of government as a collective body……the emphasis appears to be less on the individual leader and his personality, and more on the collective character of government. This, I believe, engenders a climate of smooth political progression, and also REDUCES the possibility of, and the importance of, corruption.

One of the main reasons for my optimism about future global development is America’s continued dominance on the world stage, and everything that entails…..its neocolonialism, it providing the bedrock of the United Nations, its third world development aid, etc etc etc. Not only that, living here in the UK, witnessing the growing bond between America and Britain provides further reason for optimism.

The special relationship between the USA and UK has experienced a number of difficulties, even during the 50 years since WWII. However, ever since the Reagan/Thatcher bonding during the 80’s, Britain and America have become closer than at any time since the 13 British American colonies parted company with the mother country.

In fact, it was during the 1955 movie THE SCARLET COAT, that Michael Wilding, playing British officer Major John Andre, said to Cornel Wilde’s rebellious colonist…….”…..one day our two peoples will RE-unite…..”. That was another stirring moment during a movie that provided a very evenhanded telling of the War of Independence. Of course, America has changed greatly since 1783, and so has Britain. But one thing is certain, Britain and America are united in their pursuit of global harmony, and the safeguarding of the rights of an Englishman, born out of the Magna Carta in 1215AD.

It’s funny, I’ve often blustered about Britain’s one hundred year dominance of the world’s oceans following the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Indeed, by 1900, one half of all of the worlds ocean-going vessels….merchant, passenger, and military, flew British colours……or were in the service of a member nation of the British Empire. However, it was AMERICA that interrupted Britain’s global naval dominance, albeit briefly, during the War of 1812. The War of 1812 was a brief conflict between Britain and America that arose not because of any territorial designs on the part of America or Britain, but because Britain insisted on blockading all French ports during the Napoleonic Wars, hence interrupting American trade. Once the conflict between Britain and America began, Britain did make skirmishes into the Northern USA from Canada, and it did occupy and burn Washington DC (an act that so enraged the American people, it actually CONFIRMED its capital status) before suffering a substantial defeat at New Orleans, and it did blockade American ports. Overall though, neither Britain or America made any significant gains over the other, and hostilities soon ceased. And, it was only three years later that Napolean was finally defeated by Britain and its allies at Waterloo, after which Napolean spent his last years a prisoner of the British on the British island territory of St Helena, guarded by a garrison of British soldiers and a significant Royal Navy presence. One of my fellow dustmen is a St Helenian….his mother is a native of the island (Portuguese/African) and his father is Irish, and can trace his ancestry back to the days of Napolean’s incarceration. St Helena, situated off the west coast of Africa, was originally discovered by the Portuguese but, as was often the case, the British then claimed it. St Helena remains a British dependency to this day and fellow dustman Jon Bagley has told me many a fascinating story about his native land.

Anyway, it was during the War of 1812 that Britain’s global naval domination was briefly interrupted. The Americans resolve to repulse the British fleet that was laying siege to American trade roots on both its Atlantic and Pacific seaboards, led to the construction of the USS Constitution, the largest and most powerful warship ever constructed by 1812, and it promptly sank three of the Royal Navy’s best warships…..outrunning and outgunning the startled British. The Times of London called for Britain to reverse the embarrassment, but thank heavens, the conflict soon ended before Britain had the chance to respond in like…..and Britain was able to turn all of its resources to the defeat of the French.

Since that time, America and Britain have gradually grown closer…..indeed, Britain now is serving as a focal point and conduit for America’s further neocolonialism of Europe, and Britain is also a valued, if mainly symbolic, ally of America on virtually all global and domestic issues. Cinema has played an important part in its commentary on changing times on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and is now part of the rich brew of cultural vehicles by which Western culture is infiltrating all corners of the globe.

Cinema is only able to reinforce the global spread of Western culture if it appeals to the broadest range of humanity. Likewise, the film composer must further interpret the essence of the movie for the widest possible audience, by applying CMS….the film composer must apply music that is accessible to the broadest range of humanity. This does not necessarily mean the music is SIMPLER than it otherwise might be…the reverse is often the case…..the music may have to work on many different levels, and the task of the composer is made that much more difficult because of the necessity to appeal to many sections of society. Indeed, many have argued that pop music is SIMPLER because it appeals to the broad base of society…..I disagree….to appeal to the majority, the music must be especially sophisticated….without necessarily seeming so.

I believe John Williams has embraced CMS with almost as much success as Horner, Zimmer and Elfman. However, whilst Zimmer pioneered the continuing development of film scoring, Williams has mainly just kept pace. But kept pace he has. To me, Williams has continued to grow as film composer during the 90’s AND has further broadened his repertoire. Considering Williams extraordinary gift for musical composition and his amazing reputation…..one of the highlights of 90’s cinema to me has been Williams WILLINGNESS to promote the values of CMS, especially considering Williams roots are in the traditional approach to scoring.

But Williams has proved himself to be a particularly versatile composer, arranger and director of music throughout his career. During the 60’s Williams work was often overtly pop and jazz orientated…..for instance, the wonderful A GUIDE FOR THE MARRIED MAN (1967 movie ***1/2 score ****). Then came Williams golden period from the mid-70’s to the mid-80’s, an unbelievably magnificent collection of movies and scores. And yet, Williams has continued to impress with his humility and determination to try out new things……and, most importantly, Williams has continued to serve his movies first, rather than attempting to force his own musical ideas onto his movies. The thing about Williams is…if any film composer is in a position to dictate the musical character of a movies’ dramatic score, it is Williams, considering he is the most sought after of film composers….and yet, the overriding impression I get of a 90’s Williams score, is that the music works FOR the picture and reaches out to the majority of the cinema-going public….in my opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spender:
Clinton beat Bob Dole.

---

Only because there were (sadly) enough boneheads in America to fall for him.

quote:

---

Clinton beat impeachment rap.

---

Actually, he was impeached, just never removed from office. Only because he thinks he's above the law, and everybody was afraid to remove him from the White House. I mean, would you force the most dangerous man in American out of his own home?

quote:

---

Clinton has the highest approval ratings at this point in his term of any president in the 20th century . . .

---

Perhaps right now, this very moment, but this has come and gone on occasion.

Also, did you guys know that they entire White House staff once failed a drug test?

August

I keep my eyes & ears open, and that's honestly what I see & hear.

PS to Spender: I'll grant you Gingrigh & Livingston are indeed hypocrites. It's true. But they are hypocrites who had the common decency to resign their offices for the good of their party, and the nation. Our President knows no such decency.

[This message has been edited by Chris Kinsinger (edited 12 May 2000).]

Of course, I am among those who want another Ronald Reagan.

Is George Bush the Great Communicator and (while we're on the subject of CMS and globalization)the true champion of Commercialist/capitalist triumph?

No, he isn't.

BUT, Bush is the best among the major candidates for the job.

He does have charisma and charm, good values, and political vision.

Let's be honest here; the real decisions get made by Alan Greenspan, etc. I just want a good conservative who is going to elect competent administrators, court judges and justices. In our time, the president is more of a figurehead who does have the final word on the big decisions that need to be made.

He is being advised, and should, to put it simply, have goals and a personal, developed political theory that guides his decision making.

Personally, if I was king and could make the decision of President on my own, my choice would be...

Alan Keyes, just as it would have been in 1996. His major weakness is that he has never served as an executive, but then neither has Vice President Gore or Senator McCain. But he is very well-spoken and wise, having fundamental political opinions that would shape his decision making.

His 30% (if I'm right) sales tax idea is glorious I think. It is a great blend of liberal and conservative politics. The rich, who buy more, would obviously pay much more taxes.

On the conservative side, the flat rate ensures everyone is treated equally from the government. There's no "penalty" for success.

And the best part of all is that April 15th is just another day in Spring.

It's a novel idea that would need fine-tuning, but nevertheless it demonstrates Keyes' VISION.

That's what matters to me, again:

Charisma or eloquence (the "everything's going to be okay" part of the job) and vision

Keyes would make us all proud to be Americans; of that I am sure.

Al Gore: Thinking that Dan Quayle makes Vice President Gore look smart shows the media's general liberal bias. This is the same fella that walks into Monticello, takes a look in one of the primary rooms at the busts of GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, etc., and asks "Who are all these people?"

The camera even caught the First Lady and the Commander-in-Heat lowering their heads in embarrassment as the tour guide had to tell Mr. Gore that "Those are the Presidents of the United States, sir."

And, again, we're not talking about Chester Arthur here or something, we're talking about WASHINGTON and JEFFERSON--Mount Rushmore Presidents!

Vice President Gore, I agree with Chris, is NOT the man I want representing our country in the Oval Office.

John McCain: When he first appeared on the candidates' scene, I was excited because I thought, "I know he's honest, I know I can trust him."

Then I hear him ATTACKING his fellow Republicans...AND THE VERY PARTY ITSELF.

This is not the candidate for me; Good Republicans do not attack fellow Republicans--Reagan's 11th commandment.

His primary goal was campaign finance reform; yet his success in the primaries, against the entire party and the money Governor Bush had in his corner, demonstrates quite sincerely that the reform needed can only be but so much.

Not to mention...because the media certainly DID NOT, that, Senator McCain is one of the Keating Five.

That's bad politics, and the media was just waiting to bring it up, with the Gore campaign, after (crossing their fingers, one-and-all) McCain wins the Republican Nomination.

He was the weaker candidate and a perfect example of the flaws of open primaries.

"W." is the candidate. He will lead well; he has the characteristics demanded by the modern, "soundbyte" presidential era.

Category A-48th of 50
B-49th of 50
C-48th of 50
D-47th of 50

So he and Bush are similar there.

PS: Hardly anyone ever reported that Senator Dan Quayle was the prime mover in the Congress to develop & manufacture the Patriot Missle, which was (years later) so vital in winning us a quick and decisive victory in the Gulf War.
Nobody in the media ever wanted people to know that...

NP: Air Force One I couldn't resist.

I just mentioned that BECAUSE Dan Quayle always caught flack for saying "stupid" stuff...but he never said something like THAT.

What hits my buttons is like what you said--the media's bias.

If Dan Quayle had ever said such a thing, my goodness....

This is something in addition to all of the other things you mentioned...and the fact that I don't share the Gore vision (the most important part).

I know you're not mad at me, Mr. K!

How interesting to read!

Because I live in the USA, I must comment on what I have read (above) about the American political scene.

I am an Assistant Federal Press Secretary.
I work in Washington, D.C., and deal regularly (daily) with the newspaper, television and radio media in the Congress, and at the White House. My 12 years of experience in this venue have been filled with shocking facts and frightening details. If I had just ONE thing to say to all of the U.S. Citizens at this website, it would be:

Love your Country.
Fear your Government.
DO NOT TRUST your national media.