Jump to content

Hans Zimmer's DUNKIRK


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This approach to wanting films to be almost ascetic in their storytelling, or that those kind of films are somehow "purer," is such horse crap to me.  These are tricks that storytellers have been usin

This thread  

He's a soft spoken half Brit who seems pretty uncomfortable in the spotlight or in interviews but he's obviously a guy who enjoys what he does and gets excited about his ideas.  I think it's actually endearing, this awkward mix.  It's refreshingly real to me, whereas so many other directors and filmmakers in general do, in fact, come across as pretentious, or at least rehearsed and disingenuous.  

 

Add to this his commitment to film and a respect for the medium, and his ability to put out movies that, regardless of how you do or don't enjoy them, are on some level consistently head and shoulders above almost anything else swimming around the mainstream cesspool, and that staunchly avoid the grating cliches of the moment while trying to give the audience a truly cinematic experience.  

 

I can't ever get my head around the vitriol for this guy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you say that Grey, because when I think of the usual players in the promo circuit, Nolan's and Zimmer's stories often come across as most "rehearsed", if you will. I'm glad that he likes to explore a lot of ideas in pre-production, but the ceaseless "boasting" and stories designed to easily feed the media does become insufferable and annoying to sit through for the 100 press interviews that follow each film release.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well like I've said before, that's just an inevitable part of the interview cycle.  But to me there's a difference between a person who comes across as pretentious and rehearsed in a single instance, and the familiarity of a production story after hearing it a ton of times.  Same as any of the old Williams chestnuts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with TGP (gasp!).  Those junket/press tour interviews aren't really meant for someone to just watch all of them like that.  They all cover the same ground mostly.  Just watch one interview with him about the film and you won't tire of the stories!

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

Well like I've said before, that's just an inevitable part of the interview cycle.  But to me there's a difference between a person who comes across as pretentious and rehearsed in a single instance, and the familiarity of a production story after hearing it a ton of times.  Same as any of the old Williams chestnuts. 

 

Williams has nuts on his chest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to a bit of the interview in the car on the way home. They played "Supermarine", I underestimated how irritating that ticking sound would be, especially through my speakers. It was like someone was constantly tapping my dashboard for 8 minutes. I am genuinely interested to hear what the rest of the score has to offer though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sally Spectra said:

You're not really meant to listen to film scores on their own without the film anyway.

 

This is an interesting subject to me, which I know I've harped on about before.  

 

An attempt at a short version - I agree with you as far as modern scoring practices are concerned, and I have no problem with this.  Film music, and film itself of course, are outgrowths of earlier dramatic forms like opera, ballet, stage drama, etc.  As time goes on, I think both are growing out of these origins more and more.  

 

Whereas, in the 80s, say, it was very fashionable - necessary, if you ask fans - to have a score which could stand entirely on its own, as was usually the case with opera and ballet (seriously, how many of you have seen the Rite as opposed to hearing it?), it now seems that directors and composers are more interested in exploring a more purely cinematic realm which eschews the influence of its origins in favor of what makes it unique.  The result is, often, a score that is quite dependent on its filmic context to function.  Again, I think this is fine, and I am glad about and excited by this shift in aesthetic.  It ultimately just appeals more to my sensibilities.  

 

Of course, many of the attempts made during this transitionary period are and will continue to be clumsy.  But there are already many real treasures that have come out of it.  The only issue, I think, is that some film score fans are just that: film score fans, not film fans, and so these particularities hold no interest for them if their ideal listening experience is compromised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sally Spectra said:

You're not really meant to listen to film scores on their own without the film anyway.

 

And you're not even meant to notice score at all while watching the film.  That's how you know the composer did their job correctly, when you don't even realize the music is there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

This is an interesting subject to me, which I know I've harped on about before.  

 

An attempt at a short version - I agree with you as far as modern scoring practices are concerned, and I have no problem with this.  Film music, and film itself of course, are outgrowths of earlier dramatic forms like opera, ballet, stage drama, etc.  As time goes on, I think both are growing out of these origins more and more.  

 

Whereas, in the 80s, say, it was very fashionable - necessary, if you ask fans - to have a score which could stand entirely on its own, as was usually the case with opera and ballet (seriously, how many of you have seen the Rite as opposed to hearing it?), it now seems that directors and composers are more interested in exploring a more purely cinematic realm which eschews the influence of its origins in favor of what makes it unique.  The result is, often, a score that is quite dependent on its filmic context to function.  Again, I think this is fine, and I am glad about and excited by this shift in aesthetic.  It ultimately just appeals more to my sensibilities.  

 

Of course, many of the attempts made during this transitionary period are and will continue to be clumsy.  But there are already many real treasures that have come out of it.  The only issue, I think, is that some film score fans are just that: film score fans, not film fans, and so these particularities hold no interest for them if their ideal listening experience is compromised.

I more or less agree, and your last point has always puzzled me a bit. Never understood the people that only listen to John Williams and no one else, or only care about the album and not the score proper. I got into film music because of film. Not sure how it happened for others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

I got into film music because of film. Not sure how it happened for others. 

 

I think for many it was the same, with the difference being their love for film music (or more usually the oeuvre of a particular composer) slowly eclipsed their love for film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Koray Savas said:

I suppose, and we all buy music for films that we've never seen.

 

Weird niche we got here. 

 

Very true.

 

But there are no soundtracks I truly love for films I haven't seen.  Even if don't like the film, just knowing the context the music was written is vital to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I said it's a stretch. Though hit songs used to get these things called music videos on a now obscure channel called MTV. 

 

The point is, we buy albums we've never heard the music from before, whether it's in the film, onstage, on the radio. We just make a bigger deal about having never seen the movie. 

Just now, Disco Stu said:

 

Very true.

 

But there are no soundtracks I truly love for films I haven't seen.  Even if don't like the film, just knowing the context the music was written is vital to me.

 

I truly loved Conan the Barbarian a decade before seeing the movie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MedigoScan said:

Well I can safely say Zimmer was one of the composers to make me care about listening to movie music outside of films..

(but the first would be Howard Shore)

 

That would probably be Williams and Elfman for me.  They were certainly the first two composers whose names I took note of as a child because I loved the music.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

This is an interesting subject to me, which I know I've harped on about before.  

 

An attempt at a short version - I agree with you as far as modern scoring practices are concerned, and I have no problem with this.  Film music, and film itself of course, are outgrowths of earlier dramatic forms like opera, ballet, stage drama, etc.  As time goes on, I think both are growing out of these origins more and more.  

 

Whereas, in the 80s, say, it was very fashionable - necessary, if you ask fans - to have a score which could stand entirely on its own, as was usually the case with opera and ballet (seriously, how many of you have seen the Rite as opposed to hearing it?), it now seems that directors and composers are more interested in exploring a more purely cinematic realm which eschews the influence of its origins in favor of what makes it unique.  The result is, often, a score that is quite dependent on its filmic context to function.  Again, I think this is fine, and I am glad about and excited by this shift in aesthetic.  It ultimately just appeals more to my sensibilities.  

 

Of course, many of the attempts made during this transitionary period are and will continue to be clumsy.  But there are already many real treasures that have come out of it.  The only issue, I think, is that some film score fans are just that: film score fans, not film fans, and so these particularities hold no interest for them if their ideal listening experience is compromised.

 

I worked for a publisher once who runs an Australian film industry B2B magazine. This bloke was a committed film fanatic, so I wanted to pick his brains about what he thought about film scores and whether he had any favourites. He asserted that scores aren't really meant to be heard on their own because it's only one part of the collaboration process that leads to the final product, ala the finished film. He seemed to sneer at me and became dismissive when it became clear to him that I was a film score fan and collector. Seemed like a bit of a snob.

 

17 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

 

And you're not even meant to notice score at all while watching the film.  That's how you know the composer did their job correctly, when you don't even realize the music is there.

 

Are message boards like this one proof that John Williams has failed in that regard?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, publicist said:

Less diplomatically phrased: lots of brains need a crutch.

 

I can't speak for others, but personally, I always let music speak for itself. I don't need to attend the ballet to get an emotional attachment to the music of Stravinsky. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Sally Spectra said:

 

Are message boards like this one proof that John Williams has failed in that regard?

 

Yes, he will ultimately be judged as a failed film composer.

 

42 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

I can't speak for others, but personally, I always let music speak for itself. I don't need to attend the ballet to get an emotional attachment to the music of Stravinsky. 

 

 

Ballets are pretty different from film.  For most ballets, the music is largely composed first with the original choreographer planning the dance based on the music, with a lot of feedback for changes to the music of course.

 

Film music is written to accompany to the millisecond existing images and dialogue that will never change, never be open to another director to reinterpret.  It's much more rigid and tied to its context than ballet.

 

But yeah of course I can form an emotional attachment to music on its own.  That's something all humans can do, not special.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Or because it's what the music was written for?  Also, do you have a system to re-direct your wet farts to inflate your fat head or does that happen naturally?

 

Spare us your humble peasant bullshit. Especially if it's leavened with such small-minded vitriol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, publicist said:

 

Spare us your humble peasant bullshit. Especially if it's leavened with such small-minded vitriol.

 

If not treating every person who doesn't think like me like an unworthy intellectual inferior is peasant bullshit then I'll own it.  You give off the appearance of a fundamental disregard for people you enter into conversation with and it is deeply unpleasant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Film music is specifically written to be a part of a larger whole, unlike most other types of music. It's just plain common sense that one would want to know the context for which that music is written (like listening to the album of a musical without having gone to see it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DominicCobb said:

Film music is specifically written to be a part of a larger whole, unlike most other types of music. It's just plain common sense that one would want to know the context for which that music is written (like listening to the album of a musical without having gone to see it).

 

I wouldn't say that's a good analogy. A musical, like the word indicates, is supposed to be about the music first and foremost. The story is told via the music, and the lyrics. You can listen to a musical and understand what the context is, what the story is about without having seen said musical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DominicCobb said:

Film music is specifically written to be a part of a larger whole, unlike most other types of music. It's just plain common sense that one would want to know the context for which that music is written (like listening to the album of a musical without having gone to see it).

 

Sure, one might want to know, but that it should be vital for one's enjoyment?! That I don't get. I mean, film music can't on its own? One must think of a specific movie and certain situations in that movie or film music can't be appreciated?  I certainly don't need that context, not with classical music, nor with film music. I find it the idea that you need to have seen the movie quite limiting. I love the music of Williams or Sakamoto because of who wrote it and not because it's a part of some movie. I can provide my own context. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

I wouldn't say that's a good analogy. A musical, like the word indicates, is supposed to be about the music first and foremost. The story is told via the music, and the lyrics. You can listen to a musical and understand what the context is, what the story is about without having seen said musical.

 

So if anything that means you have less context for the story with a film score soundtrack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.