|
Post by cflast on Jul 29, 2013 12:16:41 GMT -8
Honestly this isn't a thread meant for negativity, but I find it's an interesting topic that many film score fans don't seem to understand.
The example I'll use is the always-polarizing Mr. Zimmer. I happen to think he's an extremely gifted musician and good composer with a wonderful sense of drama and sound.
And yet he's the go-to villain for most film score fans, despite himself having produced multiple memorable, worthy works over the years (The Lion King, Crimson Tide, Prince of Egypt, The Thin Red Line, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates: At World's End just to name a few).
Now when it comes to chops for film composers, I often feel like if you can write one really good score, there's usually no reason you can't write two. One score, one symphony, anything like that, is usually (usually) enough to show you have chops. Based on the above, Hans most definitely has chops.
So how then to explain his "Wall of Sound" scores, which suffer from little to no melody and simplistic, keyboard-style orchestration? Easy. It's the director.
It's no accident that his least memorable "big" scores recently were for Christopher Nolan and Zach Snyder, two talented directors with, arguably, tin ears, who both seem to view melody or instrumental diversity or complexity as the enemy to their films. Could Hans have written a better theme for Superman than the "theme" he came up with (which, ironically, is harmonically incredibly similar to John Williams' own chord progressions, just far less interesting).
It's also no accident that, in the same summer no less, Zimmer's "Lone Ranger" is a far more interesting score, replete with melody and interesting instrumental choices, and that it was directed by Gore Verbinski, who seems to crave grandiose music for his grandiose visuals. Pirates 2 and 3, Rango, and Lone Ranger are all extremely interesting musically (Pirates 3 I think is among the best thematic work of Zimmer's career).
Now it's not always so clear-cut, but I hope people stop always lambasting composers when it's clearly directors/producers asking them to water down their work. Michael Giacchino has been accused of being unable to write a great theme despite the praise heaped on him, and yet he has no probably writing great ones for Brad Bird. He just seems to find it difficult in the confines of JJ Abrams. I don't necessarily blame JJ or Michael for that, but it's clear that their collaboration inspires different kinds of music from the composer than the collaboration between the same composer and Bird (this is easily evidenced in the incredible leap in quality between Giacchino's MI:3 score, directed by Abrams, and his MI: Ghost Protocol score, directed by Bird).
When one looks, it's not hard to see where it's the director's or producer's influence keeping a composer down, and not the composer's lack of ability.
What do you guys think are some recent (or more interestingly, some older) examples of this?
|
|
|
Post by fraley on Jul 30, 2013 9:51:03 GMT -8
I think that question is a wonderful discussion starter! Too often, I think, as score fans we want to believe that the composer has free reign and is solely responsible for the end product. However, we are not talking about stand-alone compositions, rather music written to accompany a film. That means in theory the music has to (a) work within the confines of what the film needs, and (b) conform to what the director and/or producers are asking for. To add to that, it's pretty common now for tentpole films to be over two hours in length, and contain a lot of music that has to be produced in a very short amount of time.
I'm also going to take this a step further and say I think a great many film score fans have a strongly biased perspective based on their own tastes in music which is often heavily influenced by what they heard when they were young. As an example, you mention Nolan and Snyder as having tin ears, which is a common complaint among score fans, however, I will disagree in regards to Nolan. In my opinion, and I think the box office results and public opinion concur, the scores for Nolan's films have worked really well in the film for which they were created. The Joker motif in The Dark Knight worked wonders in the film for making the audience uneasy. The fact that the niche market of score collectors didn't find it listenable on album, and wanted some grand orchestral melody, is frankly irrelevant. Grand themes and orchestral bombast is not what the director wanted.
Now all of that said, I agree it can be fun to discuss scores and what we did or did not like about them, and even speculate on why the score was the way it was. After all, that is why we are all here, right? Sharing our thoughts, critiques, and analysis with others who also share our passion and participating in spirited discussion is fun!
However, at least for me personally, I feel there is a line between critiquing a score and insulting the composer, and I try never to do the latter. Insulting the composer for delivering what was asked of him makes no sense. In regards to Zimmer specifically, the fact that so many of the directors that have worked with him keep going back to him, and the fact that he has reportedly never had a rejected score (although it is debatable if K2 qualifies) certainly seems to imply he is very good at delivering what the director or producers want. With that in mind, I think insulting him personally (as is in fact habit for many) is unwarranted, though of course anyone has the right to dislike the music itself and to say as much.
Edit: Time for me to add my thoughts on a few scores in question: I think Zimmer's scores for the Nolan Batman films worked perfectly in the films, and were indeed exactly what the films needed.
Regarding Snyder, however, I do feel that a more traditional orchestral score might have actually benefited The Watchmen, with its contrast of larger than life heroes existing in a dark and corrupt world. I feel the sound design score emotionally let down an otherwise very well made film.
|
|
|
Post by synchrotones on Jul 30, 2013 9:57:59 GMT -8
Who ever is in charge, is the short answer.
I've read a fair interviews with composers; and when asked for advise to young composers, they often say something like "be sure who the decision maker is." It's not always the director. As a composer, you got to be pleasing the right person. No point writing exactly what the director wants, when the producer calls the final shots.
The composer himself, unless incredibly lucky, is an "influencer" at best*. They can throw up some ideas, try and pursuade people of their musical ideas, but ultimately, you need to work out who's the daddy on the project and he (or she) makes the final decision - and thus is 'to blame'.
My two cents anyway.
*Edit-- that's not to say that sometimes I think composer's could've tried a little harder to influence their boss. And sometimes he probably could've done a better job, but didn't have the energy, the inspiration, whatever. My above two cents is an averaged/generalised statement.
|
|
|
Post by Pawel Stroinski on Jul 30, 2013 10:43:46 GMT -8
Well, my two cents are coming from experience with both talking to composers and working with one on two projects.
Many people argue that Nolan was a bad influence on Zimmer, who wasn't allowed to deliver what he wanted and the demand was for an ambient sound with ostinati. That's not true. I talked to him about Inception a few times and he told me that it was one of the most relatively stress-less projects he ever worked on, with him being allowed and even told to do his own stuff what he feels best for the movie. The famous 12 or whatever the final count was drumsets was just a matter of a simple conversation when Hans asked Snyder what he thinks of the idea and Snyder going "OK, sounds cool" without, seemingly, even *asking* about the narrative idea behind the sound idea.
On the other hand many times when he was asked for something more classically inclined, he mentioned that the process was awful and particularly stressful for him. He also, recently, makes sure that he's working directly with the director rather than have a "committee of producers" judging his work. When did it come about I don't know, but I know that the issue with Pirates of the Caribbean 4, as per many insider sources, including Hans (he now regards the score as an absolute low-point of his career), was that he and his people were demanded to slavishly adhere to the temp-track, even if there was no narrative reason whatsoever to include *that* particular theme from the series in that scene.
"Know your boss" is the general approach that a composer should take, very often the director in Hollywood (that being a producer system, not a DIRECTOR one, as in most of Europe at least) does NOT have the final say, unless he's a really powerful one (then again, the powerful ones join the producer ranks, see Ridley Scott).
The experience I had helping out on scores in regards of the conceptual framework (I never ghostwrote or something, it was always conceptual work) was an experience of the director not being able to be personally present during the compositional process, because of the remote character of the projects. I won't give any names, but I can say that one movie was a Qatari feature, the other one was a Welsh short. I was co-responsible for spotting and temping a project and knowing the general intellectual process behind structuring and creating a score (who needs themes? where should they appear? what am I really scoring? what's the subtext? how to make the scene comprehensible? - this one was a particular bitch on one of the projects), gave me huge respect for composers. The general thing though is that producers are clueless.
I'll digress a bit and take a look at one thing in particular. Look at the popularity of the Bourne-like ostinati in recent years. Now of course, the Bourne sound is some of the best and most relevant ideas for action scores in recent history, but that's because of their *respective contexts*. Whoever analyzed them to a bigger extent, these, especially Ultimatum, are hand-held scores. Written with the exact visual style in mind. Do producers understand that every soundscape is project-oriented? No, they don't. They think cash. Rarely narrative.
We have to realize a few things, one is on topic, one is off-topic, slightly. On topic - composers have very little to say, as Peter pointed out. If you are ordered to redo score "X", you have to do it if you want to stay on the project (a rejection is not a nice thing, as far as I understand). This is where a composer may fight for his stuff, but has to eventually cave in or else, at worst, he might not get a job in town anymore. That's the sad thing and this is what is the most painful thing at the moment.
The off-topic point is something related to what inspired this discussion, and that is Hans Zimmer. The ostinato-ridden style of recent is his choice and something he wants to explore at the moment. Is it good that it crops up in superhero movies, which most of people love so much? This is where, admittedly, it gets controversial, though I would say that with some scene-specific exceptions (aka the ending of The Dark Knight), that soundscape works perfect for Nolan's vision of the environment and the character. Superman... More than the scoring method used I am concerned with the fact that with exception of ONE action cue, most of the action music has no narrative drive whatsoever and rather than the more dramatic the louder approach, it's more the louder the sound effects, the louder the music one. That's where the score fails for me. But on a narrative level and on structural level, this is conceptually the best Zimmer score in years and the thematic distribution is impeccable. I, for one, loved how Kal-El's theme was used for the big flight soar. The mixing preference is another thing, but that's my opinion about the score itself. Will he keep long with the ostinato sytle? I'm afraid we're in for a few years with that and it can't be helped, knowing that the composer has stated that he reworks a pattern as long as he is bored with it and then reinvents. Did he try to reinvent in Man of Steel? Yes, he did. What everyone perceives as the synthesizers is really the steel guitar orchestra which he said was the best analog synth pad he has ever heard. He's constantly looking for expanding his scope, but does he do it right? We say he doesn't (though I often would disagree with that), the general public says he does.
And, I'm afraid, at the end of the day, this is the most important lesson. It's popular. That's what people want. He wants to explore the ostinati and develop that style for a while. I, for one, like the combination of ambient and minimalism and Inception has grown on me a whole damn lot. And the fact that some people (reviewers) don't like it, doesn't make it less valid, but I don't want to take a jab at some reviewers, by no means. I could stay off-topic a bit more, but I won't. And it's not the place to vent some of my frustration about the general film music fandom of these years.
|
|
|
Post by cflast on Jul 30, 2013 12:38:51 GMT -8
Actually I think that Zimmer doing what he wanted on the Nolan and Snyder pictures is basically what I'm talking about. The fact that those films were stress-free is not a good thing. Danny Elfman said the same thing about Oz: The Great and Powerful, which was one of his blandest scores in years (IMHO). I don't think Nolan or Snyder know enough about music to push the composer past a certain point, which is why I think they both hired Zimmer. He's a known commodity, and they know he can deliver what they want without much direction.
I also think the Batman scores functioned well, but I think most of that was from Zimmer being a really, really good composer. His joker music worked brilliantly, and I find it interesting too that the idea to have the boy singing the National Anthem in Dark Knight Rises was apparently Zimmer's idea (not Nolan's), as it was probably the best musical moment in any of the films. A tin ear is a strong phrase, I do think Nolan is a good dramatist and does know occasionally what he wants music-wise, but I don't think he knows enough that he can push a composer or form a symbiosis with a composer (like Spielberg-Williams or Burton-Elfman or even Verbinski-Zimmer).
|
|
Roman
Scoring Assistant
Quick tip: Never let a werewolf drive your car.
Posts: 114
|
Post by Roman on Jul 30, 2013 20:17:20 GMT -8
I think the industry is really falling into a producer controlled environment. It's all about the getting the most out of the investment, and the best way to maximize ticket sales. This means that the producers are watching all aspects of production very closely and that includes music. While the director is supposed to be the driving force behind the artistic aspects of the film, it seems like more and more a director will be "strongly advised" to accept producers input on a score. Or even worse deal with a committee of folks trying to weigh in what the best musical approach for specific scenes will be. This is bound to affect scores in a negative way, and while some composers may thrive in the environment, it sounds more and more like they are doing what they can to keep their job and make sure they get the next one. As others have said - know your boss.
But the move away from one artistic controller to a committee or someone who is only interested in maximizing profits concerns me. It sounds like in the end the directors just aren't being trusted as much as they used to be. No one wants to risk creating a stinker.
|
|
|
Post by Pawel Stroinski on Jul 31, 2013 2:21:19 GMT -8
I would rather it's not the system that changed, but the directors that changed. If you heard the story behind classics like Gone with the Wind (which went through 10 writers and 3 directors, one of which worked temporarily when the second one suffered from exhaustion) or, indeed, what has Robert Evans done with the scores in the 1970s (cutting Black Sunday, for example), you'd see that it's been this way for ages.
Of course, there is the danger that the artistic side will suffer in a producer-controlled system, but then again. We have a directorial system in Poland and Poland makes maybe 20-30 movies a year, out of which like half is television stuff and some doesn't even hit cinemas. How much movies are made by Hollywood?
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Jul 31, 2013 7:09:23 GMT -8
Management is always to blame. They make the decision of whom to hire, they issue the orders of what type of score they want, and the composer, as the hired help, provides. The production team critiques and issues rewrite orders. The damn digital editor keeps cutting or adding footage right up to a few weeks from the release date, which forces numerous maddening rewrites under time duress. (And we wonder why so many scores have become simplistic and ostinato based - they are easier to cut and reformat after an edit than long lined thematic passages!) For this reason I believe an unintended consequence of endless digital editing and rediting is the dumbing down of the film's score.
In summery, the decision to accept the score and release the film is the responsibility of the production team, as such they who have ultimate decision-making power, have ultimate responsibility.
I would counsel that we all should be mindful of this when a score is released. The composer as the hired help, is not in control of their destiny.
All the best.
|
|
Roman
Scoring Assistant
Quick tip: Never let a werewolf drive your car.
Posts: 114
|
Post by Roman on Jul 31, 2013 8:52:39 GMT -8
I would rather it's not the system that changed, but the directors that changed. If you heard the story behind classics like Gone with the Wind (which went through 10 writers and 3 directors, one of which worked temporarily when the second one suffered from exhaustion) or, indeed, what has Robert Evans done with the scores in the 1970s (cutting Black Sunday, for example), you'd see that it's been this way for ages. You make a good point Pawel. But I think this is a cyclical pattern. Currently we seem to be in a more producer focused environment where they end up with the final say over the directors. I think the 1990s were a much more friendly decade to the director. I also think that economic issues have forced the industry to make sure every big budget film is a total success. They can't afford failures and that is why all elements get such scrutiny. I think those concerns weren't as powerful in the 90s when the film industry was doing really well.
|
|
Roman
Scoring Assistant
Quick tip: Never let a werewolf drive your car.
Posts: 114
|
Post by Roman on Jul 31, 2013 8:57:05 GMT -8
The damn digital editor keeps cutting or adding footage right up to a few weeks from the release date, which forces numerous maddening rewrites under time duress. (And we wonder why so many scores have become simplistic and ostinato based - they are easier to cut and reformat after an edit than long lined thematic passages!) For this reason I believe an unintended consequence of endless digital editing and rediting is the dumbing down of the film's score. I think that is a very accurate observation Craig. I've felt this way for a long time. Digital editing is wonderful for directors and allows them to really shape and mold the film up to the last minute. But it has the opposite affect for the score. I think it has a direct affect on simplicity and cue size. I really noticed this when I watched how the music in "Attack of the Clones" was utilized and heard the stories of all the last minute editing affecting the score Williams created. I wonder if video games and animated film have this issue. In those cases the scenes are set up well in advance to ensure there is enough time to create the graphics/animation. This may be a reason why animated scores and video game scores are more appealing and feel like they are allowed to tell stories a bit clearer than modern film music. Hard to say really...
|
|
|
Post by Pawel Stroinski on Jul 31, 2013 9:23:30 GMT -8
I would rather it's not the system that changed, but the directors that changed. If you heard the story behind classics like Gone with the Wind (which went through 10 writers and 3 directors, one of which worked temporarily when the second one suffered from exhaustion) or, indeed, what has Robert Evans done with the scores in the 1970s (cutting Black Sunday, for example), you'd see that it's been this way for ages. You make a good point Pawel. But I think this is a cyclical pattern. Currently we seem to be in a more producer focused environment where they end up with the final say over the directors. I think the 1990s were a much more friendly decade to the director. I also think that economic issues have forced the industry to make sure every big budget film is a total success. They can't afford failures and that is why all elements get such scrutiny. I think those concerns weren't as powerful in the 90s when the film industry was doing really well. I would say that in these times the directors had more guts and/or personality. Now they just want to film stuff and that stuff'd better be successful. It's actually quite ironic that film music sounds the way it does in the times where many directors who are starting their careers and doing big movies are actually nothing else than film music nerds just like us. Of course, J. J. Abrams is so lucky that he can get what he want musically and precisely demans a more classical approach from Giacchino, but still. The truth is that more and more directors getting into the industry are pretty aware of the film score tradition.
|
|