mrbellamy

I find it difficult to separate film technique and emotional storytelling, considering one is - or should be, when done well - always informing the other. Certainly I admire the technical finesse of the zooms when Barry first sees the Lyndon family in Barry Lyndon, along with the inspired musical choice of Schubert's "Piano Trio in E-Flat" and Kubrick's refusal to cut away in the editing, but it's not that alone that always gives me that jolt of excitement whenever I watch it. It's the context, the strange feeling of foreboding that these elements create that is absolutely essential to the storytelling and the introduction of those characters. Likewise, when George McFly kisses Lorraine Baines for the first time, of course I'm tearing up because of the significance of the moment, by what's happening to Marty, by what it means for George. But it's also the echo-ing out of all background noise in the sound design, the mixing of the score and diegetic music, as Alan Silvestri's variation on his main theme backs off so Marvin Berry can close out the bridge and punch into that glorious final chorus of "Earth Angel". Michael J. Fox's reaction is great, of course, but it's also supported by one of the most perfectly-timed jump match cuts I've ever seen, as we move out from a close-up and into a wide-shot, so we can see him pop up with his guitar. That's craft.

Actually, its the realism of illusion. http://inception.davepedu.com/

Yep, this one, particularly at 3:23. I also like Rain Man and True Romance a lot.

About you wishing Del Toro had stayed: what the fuck, man? For all we know, the "bunnies pulling the sled" was his idea! I was about to post the same thing. Don't forget that he worked on the movie for the better part of two years. He still has screenplay credit, and the reason they were still able to get the movie off the ground extremely quickly after he left is because a huge amount had already been prepared. So I would guess that the finished product will have a lot of his ideas, although there's no knowing if bunny sleds and starfish hairdos were among them.

LMAO at Elfman!

Yep. And actually, while I prefer Raiders as a movie, I think TOD far surpasses any of the others in terms of capturing the spirit of its influences. And I love everything about the spike room scene. John's "countdown motif" always makes me laugh when it comes in, it's so over-the-top and yet incredibly suspenseful at the same time. Perfect.

I love movies, and I do try and watch as many as I can, from as many different years and countries as possible. I make an effort to see the popular blockbusters and the critically-acclaimed so that I can still keep up with my generation, but lately the bulk of my viewing has been films produced before 1970. Going into college a few years ago, I suddenly came to that horrifying, humbling realization that I think everyone comes to, sooner or later, that there's a big wide world out there, it's existed long before I was born, and it doesn't revolve around me! Coming from someone who always considered himself a film buff and has always had an ambition to work in the movies, that also - if not especially - made me realize I had been pretty ignorant of international cinema and films, in general, before 1970 (with exceptions). So I've been gobbling up what I can, while I've still got the extra time to loaf around And really, it is all pretty fascinating. Movies are THE big cultural phenomenon of the 20th century, and it's great to be able to watch new films with a sense of historical context, and notice the many similarities to older films, along with the differences. Even for non-cinephiles, it's an important part of our culture, and everyone should at least see a sampling of the great classics of time past. But I think it's also unfair to say that old movies are better, because we don't exactly have all the crap from the 1930s floating around now. That's all been filtered out, and what remains has had decades to stew in the public consciousness. Plus, especially with the world as it is today, there's so much mass marketing flying at us from all directions, it's become harder than ever before to decipher what is quality and what isn't. Besides that, even the canonized classics have their detractors, which means the newest films are going to have an even harder time surviving in the public sector. In 80 years, though, I have faith that people will have found and agreed upon the truly great films of 2012, and they'll receive the same reverence.

Lovely interview. Always refreshing to hear JW's thoughts on his other passions. He's just as articulate about baseball as he is about music!

Rachel Portman Willem Dafoe

This one's actually one of the better ones I've seen, though...

What makes it worse, too, is that it came so close. They're such beautifully designed movies, with an army of great technical professionals and featuring roughly half of the best character actors working in the UK. Everytime I see a trailer or a wordless clip show set to JW's music, I'm reminded of how good it could have been. Yet the storytelling always manages to drag everything down, which is so disheartening given the source material. With different writers and directors, it could have been a truly special movie series, as opposed to the somewhat functional and more or less entertaining one we ended up with.

For films, it's LOTR by miles. I like the others, and unmentioned series such as The Thin Man and Toy Story, but I have yet to see a more cohesive film franchise. Much credit goes to Tolkien, of course, but the keen sense of unity in those films goes beyond the source material, and I really think it's the best use of the "franchise form" so far. Just hoping The Hobbit films don't screw things up. Scores are more of a toss-up. I picked Star Wars because I love JW and I think it's a great symphonic work, but LOTR isn't far behind. I've probably watched/listened most to Harry Potter, but I think that's mostly because it was pretty much non-stop for 10 years. It's part of my adolescence, so I'll always appreciate it - especially the books - but I've noticed my interest in the films/scores has rapidly faded since the final movie. I used to pop in the movies and listen to the scores all the time, but I'm Pottered out, and now that I can look at it with some objective distance, it really is all over the place. Some good stuff came out of those films: Johnny's music, Stuart Craig's sets, the adult character turns, Alfonso Cuaron's and some of David Yates's directorial work, the very unique claim of showing a young cast grow into maturity. But there were a lot of missed opportunities.

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20606&st=0&p=745905entry745905

Hmmm, the link doesn't seem to be working. Edited

I've noticed just about every time Michael Giacchino or Alexandre Desplat open their mouths, they'll find a way to work their love for Williams somewhere in the interview. I liked what Desplat said in this one: http://collider.com/...terview/136355/ Also, I don't remember if anyone ever posted this at the time, but Jamie Bell gave a small shout-out to the Maestro after showing a Tintin clip on the Graham Norton Show (go to 7:15): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQySjz7odcQ

Angela, Oscar, and Phyllis have all had relationship story lines outside of Dunder Mifflin. I agree, though, that while the series has been finding an okay rhythm sans Michael, it's still clearly seen better days. I say next season will be the last. And I REALLY can't stand the new characters, Robert California and whoever the hell that British lady is. They're thoroughly unamusing.

The beginning of the motorcycle chase has a number of cuts, but once they get back into the city, it's definitely one single take, all the way through the infamous Tintin zipline moment.

Yes, I don't think there was any ill will toward Williams on Yates's part. It's important to remember that up until getting offered HP, Yates had a very modest background in film/TV, and he was hired seemingly on a whim by David Heyman. It was an absurdly lucky break, and I think Yates recognized this, and felt that his regular collaborators were no less deserving to work on it than he was. Maybe if John Williams had scored GOF then Yates would not have felt within his rights to replace him, and would have kept him on as he did with other HP regulars like Stuart Craig. But as it was, there was a vacancy in the composer slot to fill, and Yates already had a regular composer who he had a great relationship with and who had scored everything he had ever done, apparently even going back to film school. If Spielberg had been offered a Star Trek sequel, would he have gone out of his way to bring back Jerry Goldsmith? I believe the problem was that JW would have had to work to a very early rough cut of the film, which would have resulted in a lot of issues and complications due to ongoing changes in the edit, and it didn't seem like they would have been able to have a whole lot of communication during the process, due to his schedule. And yes, I think he did also mention that it would have been a bit embarrassing to show a very early cut of a movie to someone like John Williams.

Explain! Why not? I think it fits the character perfectly... especially the first part, the theme as played by an English horn. So subservient and spineless... I agree with you. I think the theme, and the arrangement as a whole, fits the various aspects of Dobby's personality perfectly. It's at once pathetic, sad, irritating, funny, and heroic. Which is very much Dobby's character throughout the books, but has a special resonance after Deathly Hallows. I always thought a very mournful rendition would have worked well for his death. Actually, come to think of it, what Alexandre Desplat ended up using to underscore Dobby's final words doesn't sound that far off from the third phrase of Williams's theme. Or at least, the rhythm is the exact same: two quarter notes, two eighth notes, four quarter notes.

That's probably reason enough not to revisit his old scores. I'm sure if he never hears Star Wars, Superman, ET, Indiana Jones, or Harry Potter again, it will be too soon.

This 2/4 star review from Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips mentioned Giacchino's score as a plus: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/sc-mov-0307-john-carter-review-20120308,0,5338206.column

Ah that's great! So they actually made the effort to show us the real thing, as opposed to just anything with musical notes on it! Also, what is this then? At 0:37? (I do read music, but I can't place it...) The fourth line looks like the violin solo from "Remembrances".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw24rEYRg7g