Definitely the film I'm eagerly waiting for out of this year's arthouse/Oscar hopefuls. I'm sure the FSM messageboard's Ayn Rand fan club has already condemned the film for crimes against the individual, but for me the subject is ripe for something in between Citizen Kane, F Scott Fitzgerald and Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven.

Anyway, looks like Jon Brion will not be doing the score, which is a surprise, since he has done the music for so many of Paul Thomas Anderson's other films. (ie. the last two.) The early reviews are all crediting Radiohead guitarist (and classically-trained musician) Johnny Greenwood for the score. The reviews mention a mixture of guitar and strings... Greenwood also wrote the theremin-based score for BODYSONG a while back. I'm curious about this work - hopefully it will be a step up from the sort of score we've been getting from that 'other guitarist' who recently won two Oscars.

(Interesting that a few major releases have gone to popular artists lately - Johnny Greenwood on this, and Nick Cave / Warren Ellis on ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES.)

A later poster added this quote from Variety's review, which I'd seen before making the post:

Here's a quote from a review on Variety's site:

quote:

---

"Essential to the success of the movie is the original score by Jonny Greenwood, the Radiohead guitarist and BBC composer in residence. In addition to some uniquely haunting orchestral arrangements, there's this insistent string motif that sounds like the buzzing of an insect inside one's head, a sound that grows louder and more unavoidably distressing whenever soulless events are about to occur. Greenwood's astonishing score is sure to be one of the most remarked-on aspects of the movie."

---

I just had to clear that up and be an booger-head.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Oh, Jon Brion has scored three of PTA's films: Sydney(AKA Hard Eight), Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love. PDL is undoubtedly his best work and quite a crowning one at that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
Nuts score, contact FSM. There is an e mail address and tell Lukas the problem. You'll get in with help. It just may be your server.

---

quote:

---

Probably the most controversial and conversed about score of the entire week was Jonny Greenwood’s audacious music for Paul Thomas Anderson’s THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) starring the 2007 Academy Award winner for Best Actor, Daniel Day Lewis. For me this was a mixed bag. There were moments of brilliance interwoven amongst cardinal sins. It was almost so venturesome that it became cool but ultimately its functional failures are far too discernable to elevate it to such status.

The first third of the film highlights the majority of what is successful about this score. It’s composed primarily of a small chamber string orchestra accentuated periodically with subtle piano. This is a sound that I adore in film music and for the most part it works exquisitely with the picture giving the images and the unfolding story multiple dimensions from which to absorb the narrative. It’s these smaller, less austere moments that I think really show some classy scoring.

From there the music begins to unravel for me. The square-peg-in-a-round-hole dimension the music reflected in the first act progressively becomes a liability as it struggles to develop and sustain the narrative through the course of the picture. It evolves into an obstacle with which the audience is expected to hurdle. For some it is easy. For others its nearly impossible.

This is one of the worst sins film music can commit. The inherent nature of film makes it difficult for any director to command the audiences’ attention for the time in which it takes to completely tell the story they are trying artistically to tell. One of the more important roles of music in film is to smooth over any potential obstacles in achieving that goal. The worst thing it can do is turn into an obstacle itself.

I’m down on my share of new film music but the score for THERE WILL BE BLOOD won’t be one of them. There are still some very cool moments showcasing a musical daredevil in the early stages of his film scoring career. I hope that if Greenwood chooses to score more films he will approach it with the same sense of adventure as he did this film. It sounds like there could be something remarkable awaiting us in the near future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scorekeeper:
One of the more important roles of music in film is to smooth over any potential obstacles in achieving that goal.

---

Anyway, I remember Anderson early on in the film's production talking about how inspired he was by Penderecki's music in writing this film. Based on the "buzzing" comments in the Variety review and Scorekeeper labeling the music an "obstacle", it sounds likely that Greenwood has incorporated some of that style into his score.

quote:

---

On top of these elements is the sweeping, surging, constantly surprising score by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, which could be described as avant-garde symphonic. It develops over long, sustained periods, not always in precise emotional alignment with what's taking place onscreen, but generally deepening and making more mysterious the film's moods and meanings. It's a daring, adventurous, exploratory piece of work, one that on its own signals the picture's seriousness.

---

The review as a whole is one of the most interesting I've ever read in Variety. I'm more intrigued than ever.

I attended a screening of Wes Anderson's The Darjeeling Limited last week with Jason Schwartzman in attendance for a Q & A. Being an Anderson fan since Bottle Rocket, of course I was expecting the film; but my expectations were somewhat lower than they had been before for his films. Reasons being the fact that Schwartzman had a hand in writing (I don't care for much as an actor, so I was a bit worried about writing) and the simple fact that Mark Mothersbaugh wasn't composing. Instead, Anderson used Indian film music (fitting, considering the film takes place largely in India) as well as some comtemporary rock n' roll (The Kinks, Rolling Stones, etc.) and some classical source music. First, I'll address the fact that the music selection was amazing, and I didn't mind not hearing Motherbaugh (but he better be on for Fantastic Mr. Fox!); the cue that opens the film is very fitting and the scene is a brilliant opener using Bill Murray's deft comedic facial expressions and Adrian Brody's scarecrow-esque body. And secondly, I'll say that as I left the theater, I suddenly realized that Darjeeling was my absolute favorite Anderson film. All three actors (Schwartzman, Brody, and Owen Wilson) performed at the top of their game, and each brought a very necessary charm to Anderson's stylized world (though Wilson and Schwartzman have already worked with the director). Also, Anderson's films have a diorama-appeal; meaning that the world that his characters inhabit is a very stylized world that many casual viewers might not appreciate. The characters are all very vain narcissists (but it's a fitting social satire of America's upper class). But with Darjeeling, we're finally getting characters that could both exist in our own universe and also work beyond their own self-absorbed vanity for one of the most heart-breaking third acts of recent film history. There's an extended sequence that ends the second act that's without English dialogue (though it contains untranslated Indian dialogue) that's absolutely necessary to every character in the film and stands as the best thing Anderson has done. The film also benefits from having Roman Coppola, son of Francis, as it's third writer. Knowing Roman's past involving his own brother, I felt that he brought a very intense kinetic feel for brotherly affection and dialogue. His debut film, CQ, made in 2002, is also worth a viewing in short because he seems to be the only talented Coppola kid (and he gets the least recognition). But, if you're a fan of The Royal Tenenbaums or The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou than I certainly think you'll find the appeal of The Darjeeling Limited.

Other than that, I've seen 30 Days of Night which was so dreadful I don't even feel like speaking on it's behalf.

As for my cinematic adventures of late...

DEATH AT A FUNERAL did not need to be seen at a cinema, but it certainly has a few good laughs in there. Ok.

MICHAEL CLAYTON is good, but quite frustrating. It's one of those films which ends when it feels like a small issue was resolved... The chronological structure seems to be unnecessary as well. Good dialogue thoughout the film.

A MIGHTY HEART - very strong piece. Another mark of the board. He can adapt Tristram Shandy, make a pseudo-documentary like Road to Guantanamo, and now save the Daniel Pearl story from TV-movie of the week style treatment. Good acting and good storytelling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:

A MIGHTY HEART - very strong piece. Another mark of the board. He can adapt Tristram Shandy, make a pseudo-documentary like Road to Guantanamo, and now save the Daniel Pearl story from TV-movie of the week style treatment. Good acting and good storytelling.

---

Indeed, Michael Winterbottom (whom you forgot to name) is certainly the most underappreciated director working today. I had forgotten about our identical feelings for A Cock and Bull Story and have subsequently added A Mighty Heart to my NetFlix queue.

As for Universe, Taymor almost had me until I realized that Bono would be singing "I Am the Walrus"; which, in my perfect world, is a crime. I also sampled the rest of the soundtrack at Barnes and Noble and almost vomitted my lunch. I'll wait for the DVD, but I was already sold on the visuals. Taymor is some kind of female mad genius, for sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Nice, angular music in that trailer. That music was not designed to live in the background.

---

The cue that concludes the trailer is utterly superb and foreboding. I think I'm gonna pull an Eric Cartman on South Park and put myself into stasis until this film is in cinemas.

quote:

---

No one in the world will argue that the musical score by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood isn't a major mind-bender. It's boldly intrusive, brassy and manic, pushy, crazy-man symphonic. It expresses Plainview's psychological state, of course, but it's also a character unto itself. It keeps saying "listen to me...no, no, listen to me!" And you do, and you can't help but think and think about it afterward. It's a guaranteed Oscar nominee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
I should have mentioned about ACROSS THE UNIVERSE that I thought some of it was unintentionally funny!
Re: that film, the visual sensibility is great, the story is average (or worse)... still, it's interesting.

---

I would love to try and keep this review from streaming into vitriol and fire and brimstone; but I don't know if I'll be able to.

I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate Julie Taymor's Across the Universe. There won't be blood on your part, Michael; no, instead it stains Taymor's and writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais. Who could have possibly thought this was a good script? Every character is named after an individual in a Beatles' song? Lame and lazy. A bogus and heavy-handed stringing together of the single worst plot using some of the Beatles' greatest music? Even lazier. Did you catch that the character of Prudence was a lesbian? I certainly did, they only reminded me EVERY DAMN TIME SHE WAS ON SCREEN OR SINGING A SONG! The plot of Across the Universe is so dull and derivative that if it was a film without its music selection I would guarantee it would be considered the worst of the year. Certainly this project was ambitious, but that's what Taymor does. She excels at tackling challenges. Hell, she single-handedly took the worst of Shakespeare's plays and made a very, verg good movie out of it; as well as putting an original spin on the biopic of Frida Khalo. Make no mistake, Julie Taymor is the most visually talented female working in film today. Unfortunately, that Taymor took a break during this film; and only reared her inspired head in to make sure that "Come Together" at least got a good cover by Joe Cocker and was a very visually appealing musical number that actually told the story of one of its characters. The same with the double bill of "I Want You" and "She's So Heavy"; both included in a great sequence of military superiority. All three were wasted in one of the worst film of the year. Joe Sturgess and Jim Anderson certainly do what they can and deliver decent covers, but Evan Rachel Wood and Dana Fuchs might as well be scratching their nails against a black board; Fuchs is that bad. Even on "Helter Skelter", a song that requires rather harsh vocals, was butchered under her screech. Do you want to see Bono channeling Jack Nicholson and Robin Williams while performing "I Am the Walrus" (I know, what's not to like )? While I certainly didn't want to see that, that might be someone's lifelong dream. How about Eddie Izzard butchering "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite"? That sounds like a good time; and it's visually underwhelming, just like most of the picture.

Did I mention the plot sucks?! Why do these two main characters (Jude and Lucy, ho ho) fall in love? What reasons do they have? They aren't even a good match (aside from memorizing Beatles songs in a Beatles-less world). Why does Prudence need to "climb through the bathroom window" (lazy) to become prominent in the plot? Why do people think Saide is the best singer since whoever was the last best singer in that specific stylized universe (which seemed strikingly similar to our own)? How did our band of heroes make it back to NYC from Dr. Robert's psychedelic bus journey? Why does Jude's jealous streak end on "Strawberry Fields"? So we can tack strawberries to a cnavas? Why is Daniel, Lucy's revoultion-leading confidante such a terrible, terrible character?

The better question is this: was this Joe Roth's editing fubar? Or are Taymor and the writers to blame?

I do think the film is a riot though. From the moment American football players starting pirouetting around Prudence in 'Slow Motion', I was giggling almost constantly. It's whacky as anything out there, and the imagery goes so far over the indulgent line it becomes the show in itself. (And it did leave me with more pictures in my head than just about any other film this year...)

It would be interesting to compare this film to irredeemable SPIDERMAN 3. Right in the middle of that film, the whole thing becomes a nightclub dance-musical number that just doesn't feel consistent with everything else. ACROSS THE UNIVERSE is like a whole movie made up of scenes like that. None of them really feel out of place... Sadly it will remove Taymor from the list of credible drama directors for a while, and make her the most in-demand music video helmer for the next few years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
[B] Who could have possibly thought this was a good script?

---

Is it really that much worse than an Andrew Lloyd Webber rock-opera? And MOULIN ROUGE had a bit more emotional conviction to it, but it felt pretty strung together plotwise as well... this never seems like a strength in musicals for me, so I didn't mind that much that it was a weakness for this film.

quote:

---

Did you catch that the character of Prudence was a lesbian? I certainly did, they only reminded me EVERY DAMN TIME SHE WAS ON SCREEN OR SINGING A SONG!

---

I was a bit confused by what to make of the 'Hey Prudence' sequence. That seemed to be the moment when the makers decided to sign off on her character and consign her to the purgatory of pining.

quote:

---

Make no mistake, Julie Taymor is the most visually talented female working in film today. Unfortunately, that Taymor took a break during this film; and only reared her inspired head in to make sure that "Come Together" at least got a good cover by Joe Cocker and was a very visually appealing musical number that actually told the story of one of its characters.

---

I can't agree about the visual talent taking a break. I'm sorry, but that is the one thing this film really has going for it.

quote:

---

... Evan Rachel Wood and Dana Fuchs might as well be scratching their nails against a black board; Fuchs is that bad. Even on "Helter Skelter", a song that requires rather harsh vocals, was butchered under her screech.

---

Agreed about both, though more for the song where Fuchs and her guitarist break up (what was that about anyway?) than 'Helter Skelter'. I thought 'Helter Skelter' was ok. (And well filmed - though it tried to make the arrest of Lucy and her boyfriend look like a epic protest gathering as opposed to one that involved... 20 people.)

quote:

---

Do you want to see Bono channeling Jack Nicholson and Robin Williams while performing "I Am the Walrus" (I know, what's not to like )? While I certainly didn't want to see that, that might be someone's lifelong dream. How about Eddie Izzard butchering "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite"? That sounds like a good time; and it's visually underwhelming, just like most of the picture.

---

Jack Nicholson? I see it! It felt just like Jack accepting an award at the Golden Globes...
Didn't mind Eddie Izzard's number, though I must admit was in stitches for most of that section of the film.
I don't understand the visually underwhelming remark. Wasn't the Mr Kite sequence the most unhinged, visually overwhelming part of the film?

quote:

---

Why do these two main characters (Jude and Lucy, ho ho) fall in love? What reasons do they have? They aren't even a good match (aside from memorizing Beatles songs in a Beatles-less world).

---

Agreed. He has charm... hers is strangely bereft.

quote:

---

Why do people think Saide is the best singer since whoever was the last best singer in that specific stylized universe (which seemed strikingly similar to our own)?

---

Agreed. I wish her 'beatnik mum' character wasn't there. It doesn't do much for the film.

quote:

---

How did our band of heroes make it back to NYC from Dr. Robert's psychedelic bus journey?

---

Does it matter? I was a bit more thrown by their sudden appearance in NY in the first place!

quote:

---

Why does Jude's jealous streak end on "Strawberry Fields"? So we can tack strawberries to a cnavas?

---

Because he has discovered post-modern art, and now believes there is no point to jealousy. That sequence had my favourite images of strawberry hand grenades, so I cannot hate it.

quote:

---

The better question is this: was this Joe Roth's editing fubar? Or are Taymor and the writers to blame?

---

Concept of the project is to blame. Apparently we are seeing the edit that Taymor fought for... I imagine the Roth edit cut a couple of numbers (I can think of 4-5 I wouldn't have minded going), and was more story-focused. Since the story was not a strong point, I can't imagine the Roth edit would have been that much better.

Anyway, somehow you got the impression I think it's a really good film. The film humoured me. It was a good film to see in company. We could guess when characters were about to break out in song, and which one it could be - which lead to much chuckling. In any case, I am glad I saw it in a cinema, because I think it looks fantastic.

(In a strange way, and this will really offend Andrew, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE reminded me a little of watching THE FOUNTAIN. Slender script, strong directorial eye, hallucinogens were consumed in post-production, and the wisdom of many interesting sources distilled into something less than the sum of its parts... it all looks good, and I wish I could go with it. But when a man bursts out in flowers - and I actually saw it coming - it's hard to suppress a guffaw. Now that's a film I feel bad for not liking as much as everyone else!)

The Fountain's script was slender?! Hardly. For a film that Aronofsky has been trying to make for nearly a decade, the script did go through some changes; especially after Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett left and New Regency wasn't going to fund him as much as he intended. But the script is hardly slender. The story is complex, and alas is told in a complex way. Everyone can walk away from The Fountain with a different theory; which is a good thing. Here's the theory I had for Across the Universe: unnecessary, and I was ready and willing to love that film on principle of the music of the Beatles and Julie Taymor. As evident, I didn't.

Aronofsky's script encompasses not only Mayan mysticism but also touches on Jewish philosophy and the apparent theme of the afterlife. It presents a marriage that has been interrupted and won't be allowed to continue. It deals with a husbands grief and rememberance. It deals with. It includes the process of writing and presents a parallel universes (to some). We also have strong meatphysics in the film. And you have a problem with the primary character becoming the Earth?

Clement's and La Frenais' script encompasses only one thing: a very safe and stereotypical look at the 1960s. Why did the film need a PG-13 rating? I don't know many teenagers, bu I doubt many are Beatles fans. And the only musical they are looking forward to is undoubtedly Repo!: The Genetic Opera. The cast doesn't have any big names. Julie Taymor is a theatre and art-house director. Joe Roth of Revolution Studios is a dumbass; which is evident in my interview with him on the thread regarding Brian's score for Christmas with the Kranks 2. This film could've been inproved by catering to the adults who might care for this film; a film doesn't need to be safe. Hell, many Disney movies aren't that safe.

Think about what's missing in each part of the THE FOUNTAIN: (i) in the plot where a scientist looks for the scientific breakthrough that will cure his wife, we do not get much of a sense of the scientific process in any convincing way, of the debilitation of her body, of the history of their relationship. For me, it's hard not to look at either SOLARIS as a more interesting meditation on how to hold onto a life that has slipped/ is slipping away; (ii) in the Conquistador plot, we rarely get 'scenes'... we get dropped into the impressions of scenes that are almost comic-book like in their expository directness (the audience with the queen, unecessarily reprised three times; the mutiny; we don't get any sense of the journey); (iii) I don't have any problems with the third plot. That one probably didn't need any more... in fact, it's possible they could have had less of it for the first half of the film, then suddenly drop us into this universe where our main character is now bald and communing with a tree.

There's a lot of shorthand reasoning for character action in FOUNTAIN that unfortunately makes it a bit of a small film about things that are all too understandable. Aronofsky should have had more detail, or taken another route and risked the haunting mystery of Kubrick, Tarkovsky or Antonioni (at his best, naturally).

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
And you have a problem with the primary character becoming the Earth?

---

Anywho, check out the graphic novel that Aronofsky and artist Kent Williams did that is adapted from one of Aronofsky's earlier drafts. It fleshes out the story much more, perhaps to the level that you're looking for. It might be the reason I have no problems with the things you mentioned. They certainly are in the film, but they don't bother me (as they do in Across the Universe).

Have you seen No Country for Old Men yet? It's coming to Atlanta on the 16th and I'll be there, first in line!

Have you seen ASSASSINATION OF THE GUY BY THE OTHER GUY?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
[B]Michael, I was doing my best zimmerito impersonation for you--of course, I was not serious about Across The Universe, a film I will never watch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
You need to work on the English a bit... make it worse! And change your mind in mid-sentence.

---

HAHA! You're right, actually, it's been a long time since I've read any of his posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
I AM looking forward to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. It has a great title, and a great tag line.

Have you seen ASSASSINATION OF THE GUY BY THE OTHER GUY?

I also have not seen GOLDEN AGE, FORBIDDEN LIES, ONCE, EASTERN PROMISES, ANGEL and RESCUE DAWN, all of which have either opened recently, or are soon to do so.

---

I haven't seen Andrew Dominik's Assassination yet; but plan on it later this week, hopefully. Haven't seen Golden Age, but The Golden Door with Charlotte Gainsbourg; which was a great little film. Eastern Promises sits, for me, as the best film of the year along with Rescue Dawn and Zodiac. Angel-A (the Luc Besson flick is what you're referring to, right?) was not that good; watchable, but he's done better. I'm also not interested in Once. I listened to the music and absolutely hated it. It was dreadfully boring.