Uni

I've been away for a few days, and almost missed seeing this post entirely.... I cringe at the thought of disapponting you, but I'm not from Wyoming. The line "somewhere between Metropolis, northeast Wyoming, and a galaxy far, far away" was in reference to my three early JW influences--Superman, Close Encounters, and Star Wars. Devil's Tower is in NE WY, north of Moorcroft and Gillette. I've been there, though, and I've actually climbed that same bouldered slope (I got all the way up to where I was looking straight up the mountainside standing sheer and vertical above me). Wyoming was once my dad's territory, and I went with him on a lot of business trips. But I've never lived there. My home--natively and currently--is Denver, Colorado. So I suppose we're not that far apart....but not all that close, either. Sorry. :cry: - Uni

I think your choice of words in the question makes this a little different than the similar posts that have gone before, Roald. Usually it's a simple "how did you get started?" You raised the stakes a bit, looking for the point when being a simple fan was morphed by four letters and a conscious commitment to ply into this man's music on a much deeper level. So, to approach it with that in mind....for me it was a gradual process, I think, but it can be narrowed down to three scores for certain. I grew up with Zubin Mehta conducting Star Wars for me and my brother while we roller skated in our basement. We needed music, we had the album, it just seemed like a good arrangement at the time. So, while I would hardly have called myself a "fanatic" in those days, I still had managed to memorize several important passages from Williams's most influential score by the time I was ten years old. The next LP to pop up in our family collection was Close Encounters. I paid it no attention for years (I had never really given the Mehta track, included with SW, much thought either), until I happened across a creative visualization project in school. I tried it out for myself with CE3K--like an idiot, in the basement with the lights out. It took me several times to endure past Barry's abduction, but once I surmounted that terrifying obstacle, I had an experience like nothing I'd known before. I told a friend about it soon after, and he supplied me with copies of Superman and the three "complete" (as they were at the time) Star Wars scores. Somewhere between northeastern Wyoming, Metropolis, and a galaxy far, far away I knew I was hooked for good, and I've never looked back. - Uni

It's not often enough I get a chance to voice agreement with Joe, so I'd better strike.... We were in the midst of doing a stage version of A Christmas Carol when Scrooged came out. Maybe we benefitted from having the original work fresh in our minds, or perhaps we just had the right sort of twisted sense of humor, but the cast and crew (including myself) thought it was a scream. I still do, but that could be a stolidly preconceived bias talking. Still, even apart from that one, Donner's done some great stuff--although he has had his fair share of stinkers, too. (The worst? Radio Flyers, culminating with one of the most unforgivable plot devices in film history.) I've always respected him, though, and I'm looking forward to Timeline. Superman is certainly one of the reasons Donner won my favor to begin with. That the movie happened to made during a period whose fashions and altruisms haven't aged particularly well shouldn't be held against it. It's still just about the best transition from comix and T.V. to the big screen any superhero's ever made, with it's character-driven story, great visual effects (for the day), and stylish, wink-and-a-nudge sense of humor. As for John's score....well, I'll get to that soon enough. - Uni

A bit, perhaps....he said it "would certainly sell to every member" of our auspicious board. So he was off by two, maybe three. On the other hand, I don't think it a stretch to say he's got a finger to the pulse here. A new Hook release would be the hottest topic around here since Padmidala jumped out of lip gravy early....and it would be the most welcome new release imaginable. Hook stands as one of the very best of Williams's scores, certainly his most variegated palette of themes, and one of the paramount examples of how a filmography can lift a mediocre movie out of its own mire. I haven't been able to snatch up one of the boots yet (I'm still not sure I'd be okay with that anyway), and I'd be the first in line for another Matessino masterpiece. And now my mind is made up....after Superman is finished, Hook will be my next topic of review--especially after seeing such an exultant uprising in its defense. - Uni....who strongly suspects that even the critics of the score would clandestinely get their hands on a copy, should the wishes of the majority come true....

Another coincidence....I decided to dust off a few reviews and score analyses I've never gotten around to finishing. The first one I'm knuckling down on? Why, Superman, of course. My personal favorite, and without question one of his all-time best. SupII was all right (the elevator ride into space is one of those brief vignettes that's always popping into my mind), but so much of it was based on reorchestrations of the first score, and so much of it sounds like it was performed by a high school marching band, that I could never take it all that seriously. - Uni

You see a lot, Melange. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don't you look at yourself and write down what you see? Maybe you're afraid to.... I'm only asking you to listen to me, Melange.....either you will or you won't. - Uni....whose attempt is but a pale shadow, but fun nonetheless....

Melange does enjoy his petty torments.... The original Batman movie is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I laughed from beginning to end. It's ridiculous, lame, asinine in its seriousness....and pure joy to watch.LOL BATMAN (reading one of the Riddler's chestnuts): What weighs four ounces, and is dangerous? ROBIN (slapping fist in hand, in total earnest): A sparrow with a machine gun! - Uni....who might just have to dig out the tape and watch it again....

The one and only. For the curious. I'm the first one listed: www.classicalrecordings.com/johnwilliams/reviews.htm#contributors Isn't that something? As far as I can tell, you join a distinguished few on this board, the others being Scott Fields, Markus Hable, and Jeffrey Wheeler. By the way, I was a fan of your reviews. You're kidding me. I had no idea that was you, Jeff. It's nice to see a fellow refugee from the Unofficial site hanging around here. (As you said, for the curious--since I evaded direct reference in another thread--I'm the third one listed.) Alan's right; you showed some good stuff over there. Neither can I....and it's also nice to find another CE3K enthusiast among the few around here. You're exactly right about that particular moment, too. To me, that's the precise beginning of the film's third and last act--and the music is such that it actually hearkens to mind the accoutrements of a stage production. Neary's risk, calculated by faith, in the helicopter; the first few frenetically-stringed seconds of the chase; and Lacombe's expression through the window are all an immediate prelude to the transition. Then, like a curtain rising behind an already-grand setpiece to reveal the setting for the final climax and resolution, the music swells to greet a wide shot of the fugitives' goal--Devil's Tower, rising into the dusk (the exact moment the "curtain" rises begins at 1:49). As you said....superb. However....with the arguable exception of a couple in this list (none that I'll name specifically), I think each and every moment cited so far has been a special one in the Williams canon--and reviewing them like this, pulling them out of their respective scores and lining them up side-by-side, is one of the best ways to appreciate them all. Great topic...! - Uni

You two aren't the only ones. The concert version of "Cadillac of the Skies" is one of Williams's chief achievements, and the segment of "Cadillac" actually in the film (during the air strike) could easily contend for a place on this Best Moments list. - Uni

Heh....you're right. We're straying dangerously near forbidden territory here....but I can't resist toeing the line once more before dropping it. You're touching on some intruiging stuff here, but your first step requires another: How do the people in the society know that something is "bad"? You "just don't do it," as you say, but why? What tells you it's wrong? You've been conditioned, naturally, taught by parents or school or whatever....but what told them that such behavior was immoral? In the end, there has to be a source, some inherent understanding of right and wrong, assumed by all who consider themselves moral citizens. To make any statement concerning that source would be to cross the line in the sand where this board is concerned, so I'll leave that up to you; except to say that this is the initial step on a road that has always fascinated me. You're right, of course. The same thing seemed to happen when JW fans spoke up over at the Hornershrine, too (I haven't been there in forever....is that place still around?). And I agree with most of what you said, too. I'd probably have to recharacterize the FSM interaction as less personal attack and more just wide-open, brawling debate. Less class, I think, but if you can hold your own and not take things too personally, then it's all right. It is interesting that in a place like this--more of a community environment--the ill-considered sludge that sometimes rises to the surface often does strike a little more personally. I wonder if this is something akin to sibling rivalry, where in being "closer" with one another, we often risk cutting more deeply than we intend to. If so, it would be indicative of both the very postive (friendlier relationships) and the sometimes negative (vulnerable feelings) aspects that can arise by taking things a step further than the average chat group. Interesing that you should mention this....I'm reading Heinlein's Starship Troopers for the first time right now (on the recommendation of a friend). There's a chapter in it where the teacher of History and Moral Philosophy discusses the downfall of the North American Alliance at the end of the twentieth century, primarily due to the breakdown in what you call "constriction". Heinlein wrote it in 1959, but it's amazing how close his prediction is to the truth of our age. We find ourselves drained of more and more personal freedoms simply because we want to allow everyone too much freedom. So we refuse to spank our children, we slap delinquents on the wrist and let them free to do more violence, we tie the hands of schools and parents, telling them that to "constrict" is to deny a child their rights--when in truth, too much freedom is like giving a child too much candy. It does them no good in the long run. Pop psychology's gonna be the end of us all. As a result of it, we can no longer walk in our parks after dark; we live in a latchkey society, forced to protect everything we own; and we can't let our kids out of our sight for an instant. It's astonishing how much freedom, much of it already lost, that we take for granted. If, on the other hand, we define boundaries for ourselves and teach them to our children, we ensure the continuation of freedom for everyone. It's basically the same thing you said in your (excellent) bit on political correctness, the willing brother to pop psychology. Tact is supplemental, the process of fine-tuning freedom. It isn't required for freedom to exist, but it sure is an improvement. And thanks....I've always wanted to make an appearance in someone's book. :) - Uni

Hmm....faintly reminiscent of a similar post from days long past.... And doggone it, even with only a handful of posts, I knew mine would be taken right away. No matter how hard I consider it, I can't come up with a better one than E.T.'s departure. There is a magic in that moment that is more than just visuals and instrumentation. Wow. If I had to come up with one of my own....I'd probably go with (off the cuff) another departure scene: Roy Neary, just before he climbs up the shimmering ramp into the spaceship, looking back at Lacombe and Gillian. Beautiful stuff, that. - Uni

True. Those who can't stand those sites would disagree with you, I think. That sort of anarchy makes them very unappealing. It's easier than you think, though it does require the consent of the person offended. They can choose to not take it quite so personally. But a big part of the "freedom" we're talking about here flourishes best when a person feels like they're part of the group, a contributor to the community, and supported (even in disagreement) by the other constituents. In those circumstances, they're much more likely to speak their mind, relatively assured they'll be understood and appreciated. On the other hand, when said user takes the brunt of a direct personal attack in specific response to their stated opinion (or even fact), it can easily have the effect of making them more self-conscious, and often even less willing to be as open, honest, and involved as they might otherwise have been. That sort of wing-clipping is a curtailing of the kind of freedom we're referring to here....and the fact that this board represents (for the most part) the former example is just the sort of "unique wierdness" that makes it so great. Those other boards call for a more competitive, centralist approach to discussing a common interest like this (and is this a subject that really calls for that sort of discord...?). Too often you have to dig in against the "opposition," hoping that at least a few others might join you in the foxhole to last out the firefights that spring up all too easily. Granted, though, there are surely people out there who thrive in that sort of environment....and unless I'm much mistaken, I think you're just that sort of person, Morn. That's not a slam, just an observation. My earliest memory of you on this board has you proclaiming Empire Strikes Back as Williams's greatest feat, and you would brook no disagreement on the matter. Since that time, I don't think I'm the only one who believes that sometimes you throw down the glove just to be the only one who does it. However, you very rarely stray into outright offense, so it's tolerable. Sometimes we could wish you'd jump into a discussion with a little less ardor and cynisism, but hey--that would be denying you your freedom, right? - Uni

That's what I thought you meant....just wanted to be sure. As it should be. Some people confuse real freedom with absolute freedom, which is in fact anarchy--which in turn is an antithesis to freedom, since it denies the very personal rights that make freedom such a wonderful thing. In short, taking too much liberty with your freedom (now there's an interesting construct....) usually means robbing someone else of theirs, and like you said, that's an abuse. In this context, all that translates to mean that everyone should respect the opinions of others, even in disagreement. (Isn't that the best arena for intelligent discussion anyway?) I dunno....I've gotten in trouble once or twice, and sometimes I wonder just how much I contribute (especially given my sporadic appearances, as Stefan loves to point out....). Hey! Of course I remember you. I've thought more than once that there are some board veterans (or at least older posters) who're lurking around here under different names than the ones I remember. Nice to know you're still around.... And in turn, your use of the word "cleverly" has just taken a new meaning, akin to "accidental"....:roll: So what you're saying, then, is that this new title of mine means "Leader of our descent"...? LOL All kidding aside, thank you for this. I'm an amateur philologist myself, and I do love seeing phrases cut up like that (for us, parsing is a sport). All the better knowing it's a brand-new form I created myself.... - Uni....who's having more fun with this thread than he ever expected to....:wiggle: yipee

I'd love to see it happen. I'm curious....what's your definition of "weird" (in this context)? Unique, I agree, but we may be thinking along two different lines here.... Yeah, the B&B crowd has thankfully remained in the minority up until now. I used to post at the FSM board (and yes, I even checked out Filmtracks for a while), but after FSM's prolonged down time, it returned as a mutated, evil version of its former self, and I couldn't stomach it any more. I don't know anything about this %&*@#%!%* unicorn (hope I got his name right....). Sounds interesting....but mine is a nickname I had in high school, short for "Universal Studios". Film buff, director hopeful....you get the idea. Turning the question back on you....just who is The Prick, who's the DD, and which one are we rooting for? - Uni

For once, Morn (take a picture, someone!), I have to side with you. Apart from Hector's exclamatory remark--which I considered as innocent as all the others, personally--I fail to see any sign of this "homophobic" streak Kevin's denouncing. Even ocelot got in on the fun, fercryinoutloud. Someone put a funny picture up. We're having fun with the funny picture. Freestyle captioning. Improv comedy. Sorta Kids in the Hall in text. (Those guys are hilarious, by the way....as are those other classic crossdressers of the Monty Python clan.) I don't for an instant believe that anyone presumes this to be some sign of an impending change in Daniel Radcliffe's life (although....wouldn't that make the future Potter films interesting...? ). Now....what we do know from previous experience is that if this had been a picture of Radcliffe with his shirt off, then there would have been an uproar. - Uni

Among other things....:roll: Except for the fact that this plague of misinterpretation seems to happen so rarely around here. Oh, we've had a few corkers to be sure, but they're usually pretty easy to smooth out. And maybe it's just me, but....it does seem like the biggest snowballs tend to congregate in your general vicinity. (A big part of this, I think, lies in how different your definition of "something small" is compared to most other folks around here.) How little he learns.... - Uni....who finds it striking, the difference in reaction between this thread and Ricard's original....

S'allright, Morn....it took me a minute to catch onto yours, too. No hints, though. Sorry. - Uni

Even lovelier to have started a thread (regardless how minor the subject) where we get some friendly commiseration for a change! Don't ask me....it just popped into my head. Sounded cool, and it has the added bonus of granting me the title "Duke of Avatar"--though where I presume to come by such nobility is anyone's guess. :roll: He was all right, but I always liked Snoopy the best. - Uni

M'kay. See ya. - Uni

Daniel Radcliffe as Laura Ingles Wilder in the Special Edition of Moulin Rouge.... - Uni

At long, long, long last, I'm finally graced with an avatar (the one I used to post by on the old board). I'd like to express my deepest thanks to my long-time JWFan companion Stefan for making this possible. Da man? Yoda's got nuthin' on you, my friend. - Uni....perched up there at his desk, preparing notes for another post.... :roll:

*Footage from the original shooting of the Dueling Club scene, later cut from the film. (Or is it possible that Radcliffe originally auditioned for the part of Hermione...?) - Uni

Which reminds me of my favorite line in the article: "Many of these points should be obvious to even casual viewers." Whatever, dude. No "casual viewer" would put quite so much effort into drawing nonsense from nonsense. - Uni

In deference to this conversation, I'm not saying that Lucas failed in his vision, only that his vision was not as broad and deep as this guy suggests it was. Beowulf's original question (way back at the beginning of this thread) challenged us to draw from this article whether we thought Lucas to be a closet genius or a guy who got lucky with the spinning Symbol Wheel. If anything, I'd opt for the latter. I did mention one example (and certainly not the only one I believe exists) of a symbol I thought was both intended and very effective. I don't doubt there are probably symbols in this series that even the article missed pointing out. That's not the point. I'm one (and I definitely do not believe this is the only valid point of view) that doesn't put much stock in the finding of symbols not intended by the author, for several reasons. First, I believe that an author creates a story to communicate something to his audience; when the audience begins drawing their own conclusions, it becomes very easy to alter the message--even missing the intended moral of the story altogether--and that can be tantamount to putting words in the author's mouth. There have been numerous times when authors have denounced the meanings some of their critics or readers have attempted to credit to their works (one such example is Tolkien, who couldn't stand it when people called his Rings trilogy an outright allegory, a form of literature he despised). Also, I think the practice can rapidly degenerate into self-indulgence, as the audience begins sticking their own thumbs into the pie, pulling out fanciful plums and congratulating themselves on what good boys they are. Too often these prognosticators are simply trying to make themselves sound intelligent by finding some Grail of interpretive meaning that no one else had the wherewithal to discover for themselves. Finally, and ultimately, it's a practice that's just too easy to take overly seriously. I mean, anyone can find some supposedly hidden symbolism if they look hard enough--and if you accept one such argument, don't you have to take them all? By those rights, my Belching Beast symbol is as valid as any suggested in that article. It's too easy for the whole thing to sink into pure silliness. Now, don't get me wrong. I do appreciate the value of symbolism, and I will reluctantly agree that subconscious bits of significance can wander into a work without the deliberate intent of the author. (One interesting example: During a session of the Actor's Studio show, where students in a film study program are given the opportunity to visit with their favorite actors and filmmakers, the host pointed out to Steven Spielberg that near the end of Close Encounters, when the computer takes over the keyboard in the communication sequence, there was a subtle reference to Spielberg's parents. As the host put it: "Your mother was a piano teacher; your father was a computer technician." Steven reacted with surprise, and the audience laughed as he admitted he had no idea he had done such a thing. But he did turn to the host and say, "Thank you for that.") I don't have a problem seeing things like that once in a while. But to go overboard to that extent, painting a symbolic landscape so painstakingly detailed in scope, is to give too much credit where it isn't deserved--and even to assign significance to things that don't have the inherent strength to hold it up (i.e., the entirely comical--though not consistently funny--Threepio/battle droid sequence). And examing a film like AOTC so microscopically is bound to expose as many of its weaknesses as its strengths (of which it does boast several!). Again, I'm not biting. I've read the early drafts of Star Wars, and I've seen other examples of Lucas's writing. If you expect me to invest higher repute in writing that poor by suggesting it's a deliberate attempt to reach people on a "subliminal plane"....oh, please. That's an insult to both the audience and the subliminal plane itself, a very respectable vehicle for communicating literative truth. I'd submit that's just as demeaning to his audience. I think they deserve a little more credit than that. But Scorsese isn't necessary; a dash of remedial dialogue would sew up some of the biggest holes--and then Star Wars could indeed go a lot farther, at least with those of us who were hoping for better. None of this is meant to undermine your respect for the films, A.I. If you're finding some of that symbolism in there, and it's deepening the experience for you, that's great. Just don't expect everyone to jump into the same rocking boat. - Uni

And now, for the rest of you.... I beg your pardon, Herr Luke? Are you saying that those of us who didn't give the prequels a shining review are incapable of appreciating--or even thinking of--the art of expanding and advancing an existing universe or concept? On the contrary, my friend; I love expansion. It's part of my own job. I just wish Lucas had done some with the first two chapters of his story.... Beautifully said, Ray. You just summed up the real frustration those of us who had a problem with the prequels feel about them. I'm tired of this "Four Stars Or None" notion. To point out inconsistencies and flaws isn't to say that we hate these films. Just the opposite, in fact (at least in my case; Ricard seems to be pretty adamant about his position). We're frustrated because we did like them--or wanted to, at least, but couldn't enjoy them as much as we might have if they had been better made. It's the wealth of lost potential that gets under our skin. But don't you see? That's exactly what defines his ability as a director. When the creative visionary behind the camera actually wants his actors to sound stilted, to look like highspeaking buffoons, then I definitely think his technique deserves to be called into question. And while we're on the subject of directorial choices....thank you, charlesk. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I've thought for a while about maybe posting a thread in which we talk about what we would have done with the problem scenes in these two films. Too often, in discussing other subjects, we've heard the argument, "As if you could do better." In this case, yeah, I think a lot of us could have done better, and it's only appropriate that we back that up with how we would have improved upon it. You're right about the Shmi scene, too. That he would show up, of all times, just scant minutes before she bites the dust (sand?), and that her capture and death should be so arbitrary, instead of a part of the natural flow of the story, is an almost unforgivable plot device. I liked your idea better. More dramatic, certainly. (I wonder....knowing all the flak we'll get for it, does this idea deserve its own thread?) Son of a bitch....stole my line. - Uni