And Kubrick always had a reasoning for the tracking shots. The tracking shot following Danny on the trike is showing us the geography of the hotel's hallway system. The geography of the setting was always very important to Kubrick, as it was to Altman and it is to PTA. Kubrick also did other sly camera movements like not allowing the audience to enter a closed door before the character would; hence why many scenes of his follow a character walking into a room in one unbroken shot, whereas other directors would place the camera inside the room just as the character walks in. It works to its fullest effect in - again - The Shining but also plays up the more mysterioso elements of Eyes Wide Shut.

In ATONEMENT, the function was to show what? The characters are seeking water but the camera is following them all of the place. It wasn't as though we saw great horror on the beaches. We saw regiments of troops regrouping/fooling around on a beach that was once an amusement venue. To me, there was no purpose for it except to say that "Hey, we need a cool, long, impressive tracking shot and this beach will give us a lot of room to pull it off in." On the other hand, in CHILDREN OF MEN, its impressive tracking shot was to make the audience experience the horror of retreating in a small car while being run down by a molotov cocktail wielding mob. It was pretty frightening in its execution.

And I will defend JUNO in saying that the reason this film works for me, is that it doesn't try to be anything it isn't. It establishes from the very beginning, as movies like NAPOLEON DYNAMITE and Judd Apatow flicks do, what it is. JUNO, for me, was not only a fun watch, but evaded the conventions of the typical "teen pregnancy" genre film. Yes, the dialogue may try to be too clever, as initiated by Mr. Tarantino's influence on American film, but I do know people who speak this way. Hell, I went to high school with people like this. People who believe that if they speak in an intelligent cool way, that automatically, they should be taken seriously and as the coolest people in the room. Yet, at the same time, they have no sense of responsibility whatsoever. I fell into this trap from time to time when I was that age. It's an extension of "The Comic Book Guy" on THE SIMPSONS or the characters in Kevin Smith films (which are really just a reflection of himself), the intelligent know-it-all who has the book smarts, but not the street smarts. So this is why the movie worked for me. Juno and Jason Batemen's character are really just as vulnerable and failing as everyone else, including the "parental units" of authority represented by Jennifer Garner and Allison Janney.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
And that shot you mention in DePalma's The Black Dahlia is pure indulgence; but it fits within the over-the-top presentation of the film.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tristan:

And I will defend JUNO in saying that the reason this film works for me, is that it doesn't try to be anything it isn't.

---

The rest can wait, but this is worth asking: who was attacking JUNO?

One last for the weekend...

SUNSHINE - Given the talent assembled for this, I'm very confused why they took such an interesting concept and departed from the true path. Perhaps it's ironic that the crew depart from their mission to intercept the older ship, because that's what the makers did in trying to remake the last third of EVENT HORIZON!

John Murphy's score brings the film to life in two sequences - the repairs / death of the captain scene; and the scene where Cillian Murphy jumps onto the bomb headed for the sun. (Worth noting though that these cues are barely different to some themes he wrote for MIAMI VICE.) The rest is pretty ordinary sound design / ambient style music. (I thought Clint Mansell's score for THE FOUNTAIN would have actually suited this film much than Aronofsky's.)

On that scene where Murphy jumps onto the ship headed for the sun... why does the magic of the moment have to be dispelled by having the 'monster man' on board the bomb ship all of a sudden? And how did Rose Byrne and the monster man escape depressurisation along with everything else? And why is there oxygen and a gravitational centre inside a bomb now detached from its ship and any need to sustain life support functions?

Some beautiful visual effects and imagery, and great symbolic portent. But what a shame that the plot they pursued was so... small and insignificant and poorly-executed. If this is the second-best science fiction next to BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, then at least I know when I watch that series that I'll find something better than this film.

Now I'm curious - what myths about WWII were dispelled for you about the opening act of BLACK BOOK? That some Jews were sheltered by families that decided to show a bit of self-righteous Christian "kindness"? That Jews tried to escape despite being warned not to trust anyone by their suspicious doctors? That Nazis looted the luggage of the dead? That resistance movements around the world tried using 'honeypots' to get Nazi officials? It's all pretty much on-the-record as far as I know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
The final act, to an extent, takes a stretch beyond the rest of the film and yet is forgivable when the incredible calibre of the rest of the film is taken into account.

---

If I can't forgive Spielberg the way he chose to wrap up WAR OF THE WORLDS, then Danny Boyle has an uphill battle getting past his descent into madness.

quote:

---

(The Colonel Kurtz aspect of it is understandable with Danny Boyle's directorial history in mind, as are the Alien aesthetics, his favourite film.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
The rest can wait, but this is worth asking: who was attacking JUNO?
[/B]

---

Didn't you read nuts_score's response to my original post?
His following paragraph was what I was responding to:

quote:

---

Posted by franz_conrad:
I'm glad we can agree on that! It's symptomatic of the problem of the whole film: that the Dahlia isn't really what the story is about.

---

Assuming that you haven't read the book, it should be known that the actual murder was never what the story was about. James Ellroy just needed a historical background for his historical fiction novel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tristan:

Didn't you read nuts_score's response to my original post?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
In my personal taste, a tracking shot works best when trying to establish some kind of geography to a set or a location (and the one in The Age of Innocence does just this, and, to some extent, so does Goodfellas).

---

Well certainly that explains RUSSIAN ARK!
I think it's worth goes beyond geographical though. I find one-take sequences can make a scene feel very surreal at times. It contains some reality (however unreal) into an uncut, unblinking movement. (Like the childbirth sequence in CHILDREN OF MEN, a Theo Angelopoulos film, RUSSIAN ARK's historical tableau, or indeed, this controversial Dunkirk scene.) Strangely enough, I feel it doesn't work at its best in literal realist scenarios, which is when it should in theory. (To me that final 15 minute set-up in CHILDREN needed a couple of cuts more than it didn't need them. Not many - but more than none.)

quote:

---

Posted by franz_conrad:
[b]Assuming that you haven't read the book, it should be known that the actual murder was never what the story was about. James Ellroy just needed a historical background for his historical fiction novel.

---

Yeah I know, but surely the book has a bit more police work for its policemen to do? Actually, it was the choice of director that limited the potential of this one more than anything else, I think. Most bad decisions seem to follow on from there.

Instead I saw 3:10 TO YUMA, which wasn't bad. James Mangold could do with a lesson in what a scene made up of standard mids- and close-ups looks like on the big screen (boxed in! small! confined!), but the actors were good, and it's good to see an on-average satisfying western again. There's been so many arty westerns, it's been perhaps easy to forget that the genre's heyday was filled with solid B-grade entertainment.

Marco Beltrami's score is generally very good. 'Bible Study' really brings the film to life in a moment where it really needed such a strong thematic statement. It nicely builds on Beltrami's work on THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA.

Word, however: The best cue on the album - 'Ben Takes the Stage' - is NOT IN THE DAMN FILM! And that early setpiece needed it. Crowe's presence in that fight is undercut severely by not having the music carefully build with his strategy. This made me angry, and I don't like James Mangold when I'm angry.

Me? I adore this film. The only other films I've reacted to with such admiration after just one viewing were Zodiac and There Will Be Blood. This is a film that is better than both Zodiac and award-darling No Country For Old Men (though I can't say I think it's as strong a film as PTA's). This is a film that deserves more. I wish I had the oppurtunity to see it in the cinema, projected larger than life, the sound mix in both years. Unfortunately, I waited patiently for the DVD and had to watch on a 32" HD television with only a limited stereo set-up. But it certainly didn't diminish the quality of the film, one iota.

As is well-known, Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck play the titular characters, respectively Jesse James and Bob Ford. But more needs to be said of the supporting players. Sam Shepard, the great American actor and playwright/author, portrays Jesse's brother, Frank. His screen time is limited to the opening of the film, but he presents aa older brother's resentment for the carelessness of Jesse. In the opening bank robbery (some of the most mesmerizing and iconic shots I've ever seen committed to celluloid) we witness the violent nature of James, as he is confronted with the news that the money that they sought was not on the train at all. Most of Pitt's face is covered by a handerkerchief mask, save for his cold blue eyes. In those eyes, we see a mad killer, but they often suggest more. In fact, James is a loving family man (aren't they all?). The opening also introduces the rest of the main players. Jeremy Renner is suitable in his small role as Wood Hite, James' reckless young cousin. I've never been a dan of Renner, but I tolerated him here. In the role of Dick Liddil, we find underused Paul Schneider, who captured my attention after his role in David Gordon Green's George Washington and All the Real Girls. Thankfully, Schneider has found himself in some smaller roles recently, and his work in AoJJbtCRF could lead to more, if directors use him right. Schneider lends a good bit of chauvinism, and his character is used very well. Also at use it the genius himself, Sam Rockwell, an actor I'm so fond of, I'll watch him in damn-near anything. He plays Charlie Ford, Robert's older, wiser brother. I'm thankful for him in this role, because as the film enters its third act, his earlier pathos becomes very evident and soul-crushing. While Pitt's name may be first billed, this film belongs to Casy Affleck, whose performance bests the creepy Javier Bardem in No Country. Bob Ford is a cold, calculating, sniveling little bastard; and Affleck's tiny ticks and mannerisms are that of an accomplished actor. Whereas Bardem simply portrayed the human equivalent of the Boogeyman (or Death), Affleck embodies a real person; one who garners either sympathy or antipathy (I'm for both, he's just that damn interesting). Of course, Bardem will take home the awards (and become iconic), Affleck will become more endearing as time goes. Later in his life, this will be a film that he can talk about to no ends.

Dominik's direction is stylish, gritty, dirty, and beautiful. He trancends any impression and simply allows the film to tell itself as a mythic documentary. Hugh Ross' univolved and distant narration reminds me of the best part of Todd Field's Little Children. The narration, while not delivered by any character in the film exists as a fifth wall, and perhaps achieves what reading a novel might. An omnipresent force which guides us along on smooth rails and fillin the gaps that time may have forgotten. It's a necessary component of the film, and I think anyone who says otherwise might be confused by its inclusion. Other than the opening train robbery, Dominik presents many other haunting images (James with the intwined snakes is my personal favorite) and by the film's third act, has created something beyond simple biopic fodder. Before the actual assassination happens (don't worry, no spoilers there), I was presented with an amazing feeling of dread, an almost apocalyptic animosity towards what's about to occur. The images are strong, bold, and transcendental. And without the masterful eye of DP Roger Deakins they might have just stayed a fantasy of Dominik's imagination. Deakins' emotive lighting gives the film even more character than any audience even asks for. It goes above and beyond storytelling and becomes art. And I'll say it again: opening train robbery, atmospheric as anything I've seen. The soft cinematography in some scenes accomplishes what Seamus McGarvey and Joe Wright coudn't with thier Vasoline-covered lens: the true feeling of dream-like hallucinations.

I'm a big fan of Nick Cave's music; whether with the Bad Seeds, Grinderman, or his solo efforts. The man knows poetry. He and violinist Warren Ellis' efforts on John Hillcoat's pseudo-Western The Proposition is some of my favorite film music from the last few years. Thier music here serves the film well, but the constant re-use of some cues leaves me a little disappointed (but this seems like a studio decision). Thier music here isn't as powerful as it was in The Proposition, nor is it as fierce; but it lends considerable atmosphere when called for. I'll definitely be seeking it out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:

This is a film that is better than both Zodiac and award-darling No Country For Old Men (though I can't say I think it's as strong a film as PTA's).

---

I think it's unnecessary to slag off on NO COUNTRY just because JESSE JAMES is a great film. I enjoyed the focus and discipline of the Coens in their adaptation a little bit more. In a year when film-makers gave themselves a lot of time to explore their subjects (Fincher, Dominik, Lee), the Coens kept it pretty snappy without the sense of spaciousness or gradual progression being lost. And the humour too... NO COUNTRY's humour is funny, but despairing, a very pungent brew.

I should be seeing THERE WILL BE BLOOD in two days. Just got a cinema release in Australia. My hopes are high. Will I agree with Sean, or Bruce Kimmell? There's the devil's choice all right...

quote:

---

But more needs to be said of the supporting players.

---

I thought Sam Rockwell gave one of his finest performances too (I note you don't mention him), and I thought would have a been a better choice for a BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Oscar.

One character that is a bit diminished in the film, who would have benefitted from a little exploration, is the character of Jesse's wife. The chapters of her character in the book are very interesting, and trading off a little of each of the other subplots might have given the death of Jesse a bit more weight from a perspective of someone other than Robert Ford.

I also think, of course, that the narrator is worthy of mention. A fine vocal performance, as you mention below.

quote:

---

While Pitt's name may be first billed, this film belongs to Casy Affleck, whose performance bests the creepy Javier Bardem in No Country. Bob Ford is a cold, calculating, sniveling little bastard; and Affleck's tiny ticks and mannerisms are that of an accomplished actor. Whereas Bardem simply portrayed the human equivalent of the Boogeyman (or Death), Affleck embodies a real person; one who garners either sympathy or antipathy (I'm for both, he's just that damn interesting). Of course, Bardem will take home the awards (and become iconic), Affleck will become more endearing as time goes. Later in his life, this will be a film that he can talk about to no ends.

---

I always find actor comparisons a bit fruitless. JESSE JAMES is more of a film about real people, whereas NO COUNTRY requires Bardem's character to carry the shift from a literal reading to an allegorical reading. It's easier to imagine other actors playing Chigurh perhaps, because the role of Death doesn't call for as specific a physical type and age compared to Robert Ford. But there's a lot more to Bardem than creepy looks, as I'm sure you're aware, and he's just as worthy of an award. His ambiguous intonation is a particularly commendable victory for an actor for whom English is not a first language.

In any case, since Casey Affleck really is the lead of this film, he's a more appropriate match for Daniel Day Lewis in the LEAD ACTOR category. Affleck's is not a supporting performance, and to grant him credit over Bardem because of this bit of category fumbling seems a bit unfair.

quote:

---

Hugh Ross' univolved and distant narration reminds me of the best part of Todd Field's Little Children. The narration, while not delivered by any character in the film exists as a fifth wall, and perhaps achieves what reading a novel might.

---

Indeed. He's reading out edited passages from Ron Hansen's novel. Which is good. There's a lot of talk going round about cinema being some strange entirely visual phenomenon. Ah, but what about the power of language in film? The narrator of Jesse James, even when he speaks redundancies, bathes the film in gorgeous language, a quality it does share with NO COUNTRY. (Though that film sticks to dialogue for the most part.)

quote:

---

Thier music here serves the film well, but the constant re-use of some cues leaves me a little disappointed (but this seems like a studio decision). Thier music here isn't as powerful as it was in The Proposition, nor is it as fierce; but it lends considerable atmosphere when called for.

---

I wouldn't be too quick to pin the overuse of 'A Rather Lovely Thing' throughout the film on the studio. Arthouse directors can have a pretty tin ear when it comes to the structure of an underscore, reusing the same piece a few too many times in a film. I think studio-directed score would have followed the action more frequently, rather than hovering around the narration-led montages. I like the idea of where the music plays, but a bit more variety wouldn't have hurt the piece. Perhaps it's a limitation of Cave's musical training - being more used to the contained 'song' form.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Are you sure I don't mention Sam Rockwell? Look again, sir.

---

Apologies. I started phasing out somewhere in the middle of your ode to the Mr Schneider! Admit it - your praise for him was of the blink-and-miss variety in between Schneider and Affleck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
Just curious, but why is There Will Be Blood the most IMPORTANT American film in recent memory? I haven't see it (it doesn't really interest me), but what about it makes it so important?

---

Good question, and I'm surprised no one has brought me to terms with this. Of course, this is all in my honest opinion.

That repeat screening of THERE WILL BE BLOOD still hasn't happened, and sadly it may not. I go through phases of going to the cinema, and it's a rare film that gets a second cinema viewing out of me. (As demonstration: one of my favourite films ever, THE NEW WORLD, only got one viewing from me, as life was busy. Admittedly it only played for 2 weeks, but I still feel bad about this.)

I've also not been to see LUST, CAUTION in the cinema, which is also a shame, and proof to me that if I see a film on DVD, no matter how much I like it, I will not go and see it in the cinema. The last time this happened was Wong Kar Wai's superlative 2046, a film that demanded a cinema viewing, but which I'd already seen 4 times on DVD by the time it came out in Sydney. So it was for LUST, CAUTION, which was available on DVD in Sydney's Chinatown once the film had its Taiwanese release.

I hope to see DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, and friends tell me good things about JUNO... but who knows.

DVD is where it's all happening for me at the moment.

SOLARIS (Tarkovsky) - a re-viewing. The first time I saw this, I was bored, and thought the Soderbergh version a brisker tour through essentially the same material. I think this was just a bad reaction to Tarkovsky's very deliberate style, because once I knew what I was in for, this film became the most rivetting thing I'd seen this year. The ending sequence is a great end for a film. I think the emotional material this one traverses makes it the film that many think THE FOUNTAIN to be. But the music is more abrasive and dissonant, the whole construction stylised, but more austere. It feels perfect, and I can't believe I didn't react so positively to my first viewing.

For this reason, I don't feel too bad that I fell asleep in LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD more than once. Clearly the abrasive wit of PROVIDENCE is not what this Alan Renais film is about, but the film is about something. I will save a second viewing for a time when I haven't had a couple of glasses of white wine. Extraordinary style drives this film, and it's in everything. Much like Wong Kar Wai's ASHES OF TIME, I don't really know what it's about, but it seems to be about 'eternal return', a subject Wong approached hauntingly in IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE.

Tarkovsky was up to bat again with THE MIRROR. This is a much shorter film than SOLARIS. I can't say I 'got' it the first time, but I was getting an idea when it ended. There's some starting sequences in this, and clearly it all means something. As with SOLARIS and IVAN's CHILDHOOD, I suspect a second viewing will illuminate much.

Orson Welles' THE TRIAL so perfectly captures Kafka in its use of locations for sets that it's easy to forgive the way the film wanders from the story of Kafka's devastating book. Welles made his own take on Kafka here, and the long flirtation scenes of Anthony Perkins (good casting!) with the various 'sirens' (Romy Schneider, Elsa Marinelli and Jeanne Moreau) are worth having, even if they distract from the arcane workings of the Kafka's absurd court. The award for most 'doorways' in a film goes to this one. For anyone who has seen Peter Weir's deadly-serious GALLIPOLI, the use of Albinoni's 'Adagio' is mordently funny.

Truffaut's FAHRENHEIT 451 is not a successful film, but its moving final scene does some serious work at recovering ground. Clearly a great many things were intended with this film, but the cracks show, and only Herrmann and Christie come out untainted by association. A serious piece of science fiction is being taken very seriously here, and it clearly deserves it landmark sci-fi film label, but like some others on that list, this one doesn't really dramatically work. Embarrassing confession: I didn't realise Julie Christie played the wife as well as the neighbour until listening to her commentary.

I've always wanted to tackle The Secret Agent as a post-WWII espionage thriller, in the vein of Hitchcock. His own adaptationSabotage, left me less than impressed (though I did love little moments) and I'm aiming more towards Vertigo/NBNW Hitch. Also, the Christopher Hampton (screenwriter of Atonement) adaptation is fairly decent, but lacks. Philip Glass' score is mesmerizing, however. How does Michael Caine (in his Harry Palmer/The Ipcress File black-framed spectacles) and Helen Mirren sound as Mr. and Mrs. Verloc?

I also think that Nostromo is another one that screams out for a Herzog-ian touch.

Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote a piece on it for FILM COMMENT in 1972 after interviewing Welles, and this article (which includes sections from the Welles' treatment/screenplay) can be found in Rosenbaum's recent collection of Welles essays. The introduction of the script, which establishes the 'perspective' idea for the audience, is a classic bit of Welles showmanship.

Other internet pieces on this unmade film:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1429851,00.html

The following can only be viewed on the first page without subscription: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-7101(199421)33%3A3%3C16%3AIAOWA%22%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
I've always wanted to tackle The Secret Agent as a post-WWII espionage thriller, in the vein of Hitchcock. His own adaptationSabotage, left me less than impressed (though I did love little moments) and I'm aiming more towards Vertigo/NBNW Hitch. Also, the Christopher Hampton (screenwriter of Atonement) adaptation is fairly decent, but lacks. Philip Glass' score is mesmerizing, however. How does Michael Caine (in his Harry Palmer/The Ipcress File black-framed spectacles) and Helen Mirren sound as Mr. and Mrs. Verloc?

---

I'd buy a ticket.

quote:

---

I also think that Nostromo is another one that screams out for a Herzog-ian touch.

---

Well, one of my favourite soundtracks of all time IS from an adaptation of NOSTROMO that the BBC did back in 1996/1997. As BBC adaptations go, I found this one pretty good. They left most of the story intact, and while the acting has a bit of that stiff upper British lip touch, I'm glad the story made it out whole rather than in the condensed form Hampton and Bolt wrote for David Lean.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
I don't know if I would be tough enough to ever take on a film of that scale, but NOSTROMO is definitely in my heart. It would be hard to do it without Morricone's incredible music though.[/B]

---

That's why it would be a Herzog-ian feat.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/features/eric-rohmer--father-of-the-new-wave-798616.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
By the way, it is my hope that this thread will exceed those LOTR threads in number of posts. It has of course already surpassed them in meaningful content.

---

PFFFT-HARUMPH-HAHAHAHAHA!

Mind you if there's too many more posts like yours, the ratio of meaningful content to message board garbage will probably suffer.

DAYBREAKERS session report (music by Christopher Gordon)

To my knowledge the music won't even be mixed until next week, and the film isn't looking at a release until October or so. Thanks to the gracious Christopher Gordon I was able to attend three of the DAYBREAKERS sessions over the Easter weekend, sitting both in the control booth and in with the orchestra. Quite the experience!

My notes on the sessions I went to from over at the maintitles.net message board:

quote:

---

I was at one of the orchestra sessions for DAYBREAKERS last night. Sounds very good - the choir and percussion were to be recorded separately, but seeing 6-7 key cues put together was very interesting. Strong use of French horn throughout the cues I saw tonight, and some interesting cues for two harps (later to feature marimba). They'll keep recording over the weekend, so I might slip in again for the session described as 'string orchestra' only, which I think will bring in violins. (The session last night was all violas, celli and basses.) Two highlights: (i) a cue whose title I didn't catch in the 4th reel that runs for close to four minutes (let's call it 'The Healing'); (ii) a fifth reel emotional showstopper called 'The Execution'. The latter was missing choir and percussion layers, which will be added in later sessions. (There are also electronic beds for quite a few of the cues, particularly in the early reels.)

---

Other commitments kept me from the 3 orchestral sessions on Good Friday. From the all-strings session on Easter Saturday:

quote:

---

This morning's session featured strings only, and was the first time violins have joined the ensemble. The film's plot lends itself to an interesting musical analogue, and Gordon's score is written so that the ensemble is dominated by darker celli, basses and violas for most of the film, the violins only beginning to enter as the characters work their way into the light. (I imagine this is partly a budgetary issue as well - arranging instrumentation throughout the score to ensure the fewest redundant players at any one session.)

Most of the morning session was devoted to a rewrite of the short finale cue and the lengthy end credits cue. The end credits, if they remain intact in this form, will undoubtedly be one of the highlight cues of the year. An elated passage for violins leads into the first of three soli - first for harp against gentle violins, then for sombre cello against the darker-hued strings, then we hear a viola-centred reworking of 'The Execution' theme over an interesting backing where each of the celli were playing a different line, written, not improvised. (The full sound produced by the celli doing this was like the sound wave of a vibraphone but with a slightly more 'cutting' edge to it.) The full string ensemble returns in a reprise of the music from the fourth reel sequence I saw the other day, now orchestrated totally for strings.

I didn't hang around for the afternoon, which was percussion overdubs, but I hope to be back for Monday evening's sessions with the Cantillation choral group.

---

Indeed the Monday sessions were quite involved. Gordon's writing for choir is generally a cut above most film composers, probably because his initial musical experiences were as part of a choir. Cantillation performed the choral parts on Gordon's SALEM'S LOT and MUCH ADO ABOUT SOMETHING. They have a strong role in this score too. Perhaps on a superficial glance, one might expect the score to sound like SALEM'S LOT - since both involve vampires, and both augment an orchestra with choir. The use of choir is quite different in this score - less a section of the orchestra than multiple distinct sections of the orchestra. (And the score itself is quite different - I lack the musical language to draw the fine distinction, but it did seem to be less focused on the blocks of triads so central to the music of SALEM'S LOT.)

Among the pieces that made the strongest impression on me: (i) the opening title features an eerie, near microtonal part for the women against a cold electronic textures, and this extends past the credits and into the first reel quite some way (this cue was 88 bars long - pretty much the longest next to the end credits); (ii) the various choral layers that accompany a riot scene at a coffee shop had to be recorded in two pieces, and I can imagine the cumulative effect will be quite terrifying; (iii) hearing the choral layer from 'Execution' enriched that intense piece even further.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Hope's got nothing to do with it, smart alec. We're living the dream here!

Mind you if there's too many more posts like yours, the ratio of meaningful content to message board garbage will probably suffer.

[Message edited by franz_conrad on 03-26-2008]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoVoyager:

Ah, but I merely decry the assumption that this thread has birthed even one more iota of wisdom than that colossal and colossally enlightening thread which rises from the ashes time and again... ready to impart yet more knowledge on its so fortunate readers!

---