John Williams: Unpopular Opinions

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Braveheart is, like The Awakening, proof of the fact that a powerful and emotional movie is not necessarily a goog movie.

 

One thing that especially bothers me about Mel Gibson is that his film are always over the top violent and everyone says: "Oh, look. That's so mercilessly realistic. The director must be very courageous showing that. What a controversial masterpiece"

 

Same thing with Law Abiding Citizen.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

17 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Braveheart is, like The Awakening, proof of the fact that a powerful and emotional movie is not necessarily a goog movie

 

What?

[Chen G. 3,943]

29 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

One thing that especially bothers me about Mel Gibson is that his film are always over the top violent and everyone says: "Oh, look. That's so mercilessly realistic. The director must be very courageous showing that."

 

I'm trying to keep this degression under control but to address this particular issue: "Passion of the Christ" might be the closest that Gibson came to gratuitous violence. Otherwise, it's always used insomuch as it aids realism.

 

Part of what's so ingenious about Bravheart is that Mel knew when to restrain his unique voice: withholding gore from the deaths of Murron, Campbell and William, allows us to hang unto them emotionally rather than flinching at the violence.

 

Its so good in fact, that over time people's memories tend to fill-in added details. My family (and myself) remembered William's death as the most graphic part of the movie!

[Thor 7,465]

As with UNFORGIVEN, Gibson's movies are very much about anti-violence (by overdoing it, he comments on it). Criticizing the "over-top-violence" in his movies feels, to me, like criticizing STAR WARS for having too many aliens in it.

[Corellian2019 383]

7 minutes ago, Thor said:

As with UNFORGIVEN, Gibson's movies are very much about anti-violence

 

Clint Eastwood directed Unforgiven

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I'm sure he knows that and was just making a thematic comparison.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

Depends. I'd rather watch Gladiator again than Braveheart. Both are entertaining fictions, though.

Braveheart gets a stronger emotionally reaction from me but Gladiator is much easier to rewatch, far less ponderous and without Gibson's creepy ego (his insistence on casting himself as the ultra likable brilliant minded lady's man Christ figure))

[Chen G. 3,943]

It wasn't Gibson's intent to be the lead actor of the film. Anyhow, I'm not complaining because he sales the physicality of Wallace and he has GREAT conviction in the role. 

 

To me, Bravheart is by far the better of the two because of that stronger emotional reaction (although it's true that it's a hard watch) and just to think that it was Gibsons second directorial work and he had less money that Ridley Scott.

 

Its the best [quasi]historical war epic!

[Thor 7,465]

39 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I'm sure he knows that and was just making a thematic comparison.

 

Yes, that. Another example would be BONNIE & CLYDE.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

 

Yes, that. Another example would be BONNIE & CLYDE.

Well, but Mel Gibson does not comment on it. What absurd theory is that? It's not intellectual, it's hypocritical what he does. Michael Bay comments on explosions?

 

2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

 

What?

Gladiator and The Patriot might be less emotional, but they're at least credible and not full of clichés and steteotypes. Braveheart is among the top overrated movies. Technically it is perfect. It's also dramatic and powerful. But that does not compensate how stupid it is.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Okay, now we're really going off course. Oh well, I'll bite anyhow:

 

How is it cliche? If anything, the movie does so much to play with the conventions. Think about Murron, tied to the pole and looking up at the hills. Everyone who sees this movie for the first time sees those shots and thinks "Well, here come William to the rescue" and suddenly her neck is slit.

 

Same with a lot of the romantic dialogue: "how did you recognise me after so long?״ ״I didn't, I just saw you staring at me." or the proposal. It's great!

 

I don't think Braveheart provides much of an anti violence commentary. It's just using violence to immerse you. The themes that it deals with are those of conviction and sacrifice.

 

Is it perfect? No. but it's WAY better than a lot of films that are, because the emotion of it absolutely skyrockets.

[Thor 7,465]

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

Well, but Mel Gibson does not comment on it. What absurd theory is that? It's not intellectual, it's hypocritical what he does. Michael Bay comments on explosions?

 

Taking the violence at face value in Gibson's film is GROSSLY misunderstanding what his project is. He's very much commenting on the absurdity of violence by highlighting it. This is a fairly wellknown technique. He's using the visceral nature of it to get us involved and comment on it.

 

You also mention Michael Bay. He, too, is very much about 'meta perspectives', especially in overt satirical films like PAIN & GAIN where he plays with his own conventions. He saturates every movie with music video aesthetics that become a sort of commentary in and of itself.

 

Again, these are not some brand new, revolutionary observations. It's fairly common knowledge.

 

(yes, I'm aware we're far from "John Williams: Unpopular Opinions" at this point).

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

The best thing that Michael Bay ever did was "Can we take the brewskis?"

[Brundlefly 2,385]

4 hours ago, Thor said:

 

Taking the violence at face value in Gibson's film is GROSSLY misunderstanding what his project is. He's very much commenting on the absurdity of violence by highlighting it. This is a fairly wellknown technique. He's using the visceral nature of it to get us involved and comment on it.

 

You also mention Michael Bay. He, too, is very much about 'meta perspectives', especially in overt satirical films like PAIN & GAIN where he plays with his own conventions. He saturates every movie with music video aesthetics that become a sort of commentary in and of itself.

 

Again, these are not some brand new, revolutionary observations. It's fairly common knowledge.

 

(yes, I'm aware we're far from "John Williams: Unpopular Opinions" at this point).

Sorry, but in the case of Michael Bay and Mel Gibson, this is not the hidden truth but just bad excuses.

[Thor 7,465]

2 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Sorry, but in the case of Michael Bay and Mel Gibson, this is not the hidden truth but just bad excuses.

 

No, it isn't. It's very much out in the open. Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but you're arguing from the vantage point of someone who hasn't really been paying attention to what has been written about these guys over the years; or who just evaluates them on face value.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Just now, Thor said:

 

No, it isn't. It's very much out in the open.

Well, then it is as true as the claim that Tom Hanks' best performance was Forrest Gump.

[Thor 7,465]

6 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Well, then it is as true as the claim that Tom Hanks' best performance was Forrest Gump.

 

That's subjective. So is liking or disliking the work of Gibson or Bay. But to not recognize what it is they're actually doing with their work, is just a misunderstanding. So claiming that the violence in Gibson's movies is just inserted for speculative value, is downright factually wrong.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

16 hours ago, Thor said:

Taking the violence at face value in Gibson's film is GROSSLY misunderstanding what his project is. He's very much commenting on the absurdity of violence by highlighting it. This is a fairly wellknown technique. He's using the visceral nature of it to get us involved and comment on it.

 

Verhoeven also does this in his films. Highlighting the horrible and transgressive nature of violence by playing it up.

[Thor 7,465]

8 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

Verhoeven also does this in his films. Highlighting the horrible and transgressive nature of violence by playing it up.

 

Good example! But I have met those who don't see the satire in STARSHIP TROOPERS, for example, and just write it off as a stupid, violent sci fi movie. Even those who think it's a propaganda film for fascism!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Silly people.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

16 hours ago, Thor said:

So claiming that the violence in Gibson's movies is just inserted for speculative value, is downright factually wrong.

It's factually right. You cannot call every violent movie a piece of art, just because the director has maybe once excused for the violence by claiming it was intended to comment on this or that.

[Thor 7,465]

48 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

It's factually right. You cannot call every violent movie a piece of art, just because the director has maybe once excused for the violence by claiming it was intended to comment on this or that.

 

Brundlefly, we could make this a 'link game' where I post links to Gibson quotes on this issue, or articles talking about his approach to violence in his movies, but that's a rather silly game. I suggest you google around a bit on your own time. Again, I maintain that -- like the Verhoeven example above -- dismissing Gibson's movies on a 'superficial' approach to violence, is simply missing the point completely.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

5 hours ago, Thor said:

 

Good example! But I have met those who don't see the satire in STARSHIP TROOPERS, for example, and just write it off as a stupid, violent sci fi movie. Even those who think it's a propaganda film for fascism!

 

And then there are those of us who realize that Starship Troopers is satire, but enjoy it for its stupid violent sci-fi aspects rather than its commentary.

[Thor 7,465]

4 minutes ago, Evil-Lyn said:

 

And then there are those of us who realize that Starship Troopers is satire, but enjoy it for its stupid violent sci-fi aspects rather than its commentary.

 

Oh, definitely. The great thing about these movies (and really Verhoeven in general) is the ability to toggle between those two forms of enjoyment. But to deny that one of them exists, displays a rather limited understanding of subtext, IMO.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

7 hours ago, Thor said:

 

Brundlefly, we could make this a 'link game' where I post links to Gibson quotes on this issue, or articles talking about his approach to violence in his movies, but that's a rather silly game. I suggest you google around a bit on your own time. Again, I maintain that -- like the Verhoeven example above -- dismissing Gibson's movies on a 'superficial' approach to violence, is simply missing the point completely.

I know his "Marvel films are more violent than my films"-talk and I agree with him on that issue. But back then, at the time of Beaveheart he was not aware if these films and even if he tried to comment on violence, right from the beginning, it did not work out. Intention and result are not necessarily connected to each other. Neither are passion and ability. So his claim that he wanted to do something high-brow (I am only refering to the violence matter) does not make it a fact that his film are intelligently dealing with the topic exploitation in media. If he tried it, he failed. At least in Braveheart and Passion of Christ. I consider Apocalypto as quite naturalistic and haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge.

7 hours ago, Thor said:

 

Oh, definitely. The great thing about these movies (and really Verhoeven in general) is the ability to toggle between those two forms of enjoyment. But to deny that one of them exists, displays a rather limited understanding of subtext, IMO.

I agree.

[King Mark 3,625]

I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread  so I stopped on page 2.   people bashing his absolute classic Superman Returns better than the original Superman...wow. E.T. sucks, the main theme of Jurassic Park is bad, the action music in PoA is bad, Return of the Jedi has only 25 minutes of good music .Guardians of the Galaxy is better than Star Wars

[Ollie 1,059]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Close Encounters is bland.  

[Ollie 1,059]

The Lost World is a much better score than Jurassic Park.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

34 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

Close Encounters is bland.  

 

I can maybe understand that for most of it, but you still feel that way by the end?

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

21 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

I can maybe understand that for most of it, but you still feel that way by the end?

I do like the last cue (especially with the Disney song) but everything else.. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

 

(For Track 1):

 

 

 

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

On 9/23/2017 at 11:20 PM, king mark said:

I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread  so I stopped on page 2.   people bashing his absolute classic Superman Returns better than the original Superman...wow. E.T. sucks, the main theme of Jurassic Park is bad, the action music in PoA is bad, Return of the Jedi has only 25 minutes of good music .Guardians of the Galaxy is better than Star Wars

 

I don't believe what I'm hearing...

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Does anybody ever actually listen to Schindler's List?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Probably a couple times a year yeah.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

2 hours ago, Baby Jane Hudson said:

Does anybody ever actually listen to Schindler's List?

Ehhh... yes? I never listen to Midway.

 

6 hours ago, El Jefe said:

The Lost World is a much better score than Jurassic Park.

The only unpopular thing is "much".

 

On 23.9.2017 at 11:20 PM, king mark said:

I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread  so I stopped on page 2.   people bashing his absolute classic Superman Returns better than the original Superman...wow. E.T. sucks, the main theme of Jurassic Park is bad, the action music in PoA is bad, Return of the Jedi has only 25 minutes of good music .Guardians of the Galaxy is better than Star Wars

Luckily, these are UNpopular opinions!

[crumbs 14,301]

I can't listen to Schindler's List much. It's obviously a masterpiece but, like A.I., it's a score I reserve for occasions when I need some self-rumination on things rather than for casual listening (like Star Wars, JP/TLW or Indiana Jones).

 

The best part about JW's filmography is that he's written music for almost any occasion.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Me neither, and here it is a film that comes up in every Holocaust Memorial Day.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

On 9/22/2017 at 3:46 PM, Brundlefly said:

Braveheart is, like The Awakening, proof of the fact that a powerful and emotional movie is not necessarily a goog movie.

 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Braveheart's alright.  I don't ever want to watch it for goodness' sake.  But it's alright.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why not?

[Quintus 5,399]

Because it's just alright. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Its superb actually! 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I've never thought Mel Gibson was all that great.  And yes, I thought that before all the controversies.  He was always just fine.  Except Hacksaw Ridge which was atrocious.

[Bilbo 3,709]

4 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I've never thought Mel Gibson was all that great.  And yes, I thought that before all the controversies.  He was always just fine.  Except Hacksaw Ridge which was atrocious.

 

Saw you were posting in here and feared the worst .

 

 

I’m happy for your sake.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

8 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

 

 

Oh I mean "good". Now it should work.

 

7 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I've never thought Mel Gibson was all that great.  And yes, I thought that before all the controversies.  He was always just fine.  Except Hacksaw Ridge which was atrocious.

He knows how to create suspense and how to entertain, at least.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

12 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

Braveheart's alright.  I don't ever want to watch it for goodness' sake.  But it's alright.

 

Yeah I'm about the same on this flick.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

"The Reunion" from A.I is too long

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I've listened to both incessantly this year, and I think The Spielberg/Williams Collaboration Part III is a far superior album/listening experience to Lights, Camera, Music!

 

I'm not saying the latter shouldn't exist, I'm really grateful that these lesser known pieces were recorded and released ("Stargazers" being the highlight for me).  But I think the compositions and performances on S/W 3 are superior.  "Escapades" in particular is probably my favorite Williams concert piece of this century and the performance here is just fantastic (vibraphone included!).

 

Judging from posts I've read this year, this seems to be an unpopular opinion.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I enjoy both about equal.