Clint Eastwood on composing, film music

[Hlao-roo 388]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/fest...d-composer.html

“Mystic River” was a difficult one, because I couldn’t find a theme to that, so I finally looked at—I started thinking about the three main actors—the three boys, played by Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, and Kevin Bacon. They all formed this triangle, so I started writing a triad, playing with that on a piano. And all of a sudden I developed this theme based on this triad, which is nothing terribly complicated, but to me—

in a movie, the music shouldn’t be terribly complicated. It should be supporting, not overriding.

[emphasis added]

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I respect Herr Eastwood very much as an actor, a little as a filmmaker, and none at all as a composer.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

You know, there are different philosophies as to how to make movies. They need not all be alike.

Eastwood's scores (and other peoples' scores for his movies) have never been music I'd want to listen to much on its own, but the films have felt like they needed "better" scores, as I'm sure some folks would put it.

Not every movie ought to have Williams-style scores. Thank Christ they don't; I don't want to want to buy every soundtrack in existence...

Also, to be fair, Eastwood makes it quite clear that he is only talking about his own personal approach to filmmaking; it's not like he's saying all movies should be simplistically scored.

[Hlao-roo 388]

Also, to be fair, Eastwood makes it quite clear that he is only talking about his own personal approach to filmmaking; it's not like he's saying all movies should be simplistically scored.

It depends on your interpretation of "to me." If "to me" means in my experience, then he may be referring merely to his own frame of reference as a filmmaker. On the other hand, if "to me" means in my opinion, then he may be espousing a philosophy of film scoring that he feels should hold more or less universally.

[Docteur Qui 1,248]

I agree with him.

[indy4 152]

Eastwood, Alan, or Bryant?

[Hlao-roo 388]

Eastwood, Alan, or Bryant?

Previn.

[Docteur Qui 1,248]

Eastwood. He's right - a movie score should be supporting.

"But what about Williams scores!" I heard you cry. Well, notice how most of them ARE supportive - it so happens that a lot of the films he has written for are as outstanding as the music he writes.

The ones that clearly outshadow the film they're wirtten for int erms of complexity and quality are not supportive. That doesn't make them bad scores, it makes the movies they were written for even worse.

[AC1 3,565]

Eastwood, Alan, or Bryant?

Previn.

[publicist 4,484]

Eastwood should've taken advantage of Ennio Morricone. 'Unforgiven' would've gotten a great Morricone score, so would several others. These thin musical concoctions of Clint himself remain the weak points of his movies. A Jerry Fielding ersatz, he ain't.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Eastwood should've taken advantage of Ennio Morricone. 'Unforgiven' would've gotten a great Morricone score, so would several others. These thin musical concoctions of Clint himself remain the weak points of his movies. A Jerry Fielding ersatz, he ain't.

In no way would Unforgiven have been a stronger movie with a "great Morricone score," or any other great score.

A score can be extremely irrelevant to a movie's success or failure. If the story, acting, cinematography, editing, costumes, etc. are good enough, I don't give a crap about the score. The only times I care about music in a movie are when it's either good enough that I want to own the soundtrack, or when it's bad enough that it distracts me from the movie. Neither of those things happens very often, at least not in comparison to the number of movies I see.

Therefore, I am 100% on Eastwood's side in this matter.

[Neimoidian 13]

Eastwood. He's right - a movie score should be supporting.

"But what about Williams scores!" I heard you cry. Well, notice how most of them ARE supportive - it so happens that a lot of the films he has written for are as outstanding as the music he writes.

The ones that clearly outshadow the film they're wirtten for int erms of complexity and quality are not supportive. That doesn't make them bad scores, it makes the movies they were written for even worse.

Exactly. Fortunately, supporting music doesn't have to be bland like most of Eastwood's...

[AC1 3,565]

If the story, acting, cinematography, editing, costumes, etc. are good enough, I don't give a crap about the score.

Baffling! If we accept this line of thinking, then John Williams' efforts on Star Wars were futile. According to you, a score can't elevate a movie to a higher level. Star Wars could've been scored by Clint Eastwood and still be as good. I'm perplexed.

Alex

[publicist 4,484]

In no way would Unforgiven have been a stronger movie with a "great Morricone score," or any other great score.

Of course it would.

The saccharine guitar theme, which is repeated ad infinitum, is just a weak core idea for such a bleak film. If you can get past that because you like the costumes, perhaps you should register at rec.arts.movies.costumedesign.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

If the story, acting, cinematography, editing, costumes, etc. are good enough, I don't give a crap about the score.

Baffling! If we accept this line of thinking, then John Williams' efforts on Star Wars were futile. According to you, a score can't elevate a movie to a higher level. Star Wars could've been scored by Clint Eastwood and still be as good. I'm perplexed.

Alex

You're perplexed, and you're also an astonishingly poor reader for someone who puts on such an intellectual air. Like so many people on this board, you see and hear only what you want to.

Here's what I actually said, verbatim:

"A score can be extremely irrelevant to a movie's success or failure. If the story, acting, cinematography, editing, costumes, etc. are good enough, I don't give a crap about the score. The only times I care about music in a movie are when it's either good enough that I want to own the soundtrack, or when it's bad enough that it distracts me from the movie. Neither of those things happens very often, at least not in comparison to the number of movies I see."

Now, pray tell, where in any of that do you see me claiming that a score CANNOT elevate a movie to a higher level?

In the case of Star Wars, I think we can probably agree that the movie is fundamentally strong in many of the areas I mentioned earlier, but deficient in a few, such as (some of the) acting, and also in the dialogue, which is merely adequate. Obviously, Williams' score makes up for some of those deficiencies. But the same is true of the special effects; the same is true of Harrison Ford's break-out performance; the same is true of the production design, and of the sound effects, and of the editing, and of the costumes. Williams' score is merely a component of the whole. A thrilling and incredibly vital component, but a compenent nonetheless.

In no way would Unforgiven have been a stronger movie with a "great Morricone score," or any other great score.

Of course it would.

The saccharine guitar theme, which is repeated ad infinitum, is just a weak core idea for such a bleak film. If you can get past that because you like the costumes, perhaps you should register at rec.arts.movies.costumedesign.

Sure will. Perhaps you should register at rec.arts.peoplewhoseopinionsihavenointerestin.

[Quintus 5,391]

Clint Eastwood knows what he is talking about. He is 100% right.

[Richard Penna 2,083]

Yeap. Definitely.

We sometimes criticise a score for being uninspired, themeless etc, but sometimes a movie doesn't need anything more than that. My brother frequently points this out whenever I complain about Santaolalla.

Newman's Erin Brockovich for example is one of the most minimalist scores I've ever heard (the isolated score on the DVD is baffling), and Clemmenson from Filmtracks absolutely blasts it, but a more traditional score would just have been wrong. Certainly a Williams one would've been inappropriate.

[Neimoidian 13]

Yeap. Definitely.

We sometimes criticise a score for being uninspired, themeless etc, but sometimes a movie doesn't need anything more than that. My brother frequently points this out whenever I complain about Santaolalla.

There is nothing wrong with that kind of underscore except giving it the most important (business-wise) award in the Best Music of the Year category... twice in a row.

Newman's Erin Brockovich for example is one of the most minimalist scores I've ever heard (the isolated score on the DVD is baffling), and Clemmenson from Filmtracks absolutely blasts it, but a more traditional score would just have been wrong. Certainly a Williams one would've been inappropriate.

However, no type of movie is an excuse for writing bland music... In Munich for example the music is used scarcely, and for the most of its running time it doesn't sound like it's over the top for that kind of movie, but unlike many other scores for that sort of movie, it's still complex and interesting.

[Richard Penna 2,083]

Brockovich isn't bland, it's just minimalist. Big difference. Besides, think about what Bryant said above. If a movie is 100% character oriented, it could have little/no music at all for my money (No Country for Old Men for example) if the movie still works.

And my Santaolalla complaint is directly related to the oscars yes. If he hadn't been considered for nomination, I think the blood pressure of most on this board would be considerably lower.

[Neimoidian 13]

Brockovich isn't bland, it's just minimalist. Big difference. Besides, think about what Bryant said above. If a movie is 100% character oriented, it could have little/no music at all for my money (No Country for Old Men for example) if the movie still works.

And my Santaolalla complaint is directly related to the oscars yes. If he hadn't been considered for nomination, I think the blood pressure of most on this board would be considerably lower.

I wasn't refering directly to Newman's work, because I don't know it (or don't remember it, to be precise, because I have watched the movie some years ago), but rather to that Williams' music would not be appropriate statement. But overall I agree with you that there are movies that don't need too much music, nor too lush...

[Vaderbait1 1]

Brockovich isn't bland, it's just minimalist. Big difference. Besides, think about what Bryant said above. If a movie is 100% character oriented, it could have little/no music at all for my money (No Country for Old Men for example) if the movie still works.

And my Santaolalla complaint is directly related to the oscars yes. If he hadn't been considered for nomination, I think the blood pressure of most on this board would be considerably lower.

THere's not so much a difference in the minds of many. Minimalist doesn't HAVE to be bland, but the reality is, it most usually is (in my opinion). Sometimes subtle underscore works, creating a "mood" for a movie, but more often than not it's simply used as an excuse not to hire someone with talent.