Jump to content

Arthur C. Clarke on the Score to Raiders


Lurker
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've just read a quick little book called, "The Odyssey File". It's a book of the actual correspondences between Arthur C. Clarke and Peter Hyams. You see, back in 1983/1984 Hyams was making the movie 2010 based off of Clarke's book, and Clarke was in Sri Lanka while Hyams was in Los Angeles. Using the awesome power of computers, they were able to use "electronic mail" to communicate with each over "modems". It's all very high tech and I'm probably way over your heads already anyway, but this book re-prints many of these conversations.

Here is an excerpt from one of Clarke's messages to Hyams:

"At least I had an evening off--took everyone to 'Lost Ark.' Just as enjoyable as first time round; the music brought back memories of writing "2010"--I played it all the time..."

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Always nice to hear JW praise from the unlikliest of sources.

Morlock- who vaguely heard something about Clarke mentioning JW in the book, but never gave it much thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of Clarke's books, maybe 2010?? I forget which...there's a thankyou note from Mr Clarke to a few people, one of people he thanks is John Williams.

OOps Miguel already said that.. I should read threads before replying :micro:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the afterword in 2010 he thanks Williams as well... and then also thanks Vangelis and Jean Michel Jarre ;)

Why does that surprise you, Miguel?

I know you love Vangelis music, but I hardly find him to be in the same level as John Williams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should get Johnny to re-score 2001: A Space Odyssey.  That way, I might not fall asleep.

Despite the interesting unused score by Alex North, the use of music in 2001 is nothing less than a masterpiece in film scoring.

And I can't imagine how someone can fall a sleep while watching one of the finest films ever made!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to disagree with you Miguel but I find Kubrick's use of classical music in 2001 slows down the pace of an already slow and dull film. Visually the film is fantastic but I would have enjoyed watching it if North's score had remained because I personally think he understood what the film needed musically and delivered a fine score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that movie (2001) might have been a good one back 30-40 years ago, but because of it´s style, speed and editing, it has aged quite a lot, a lot more that "Star Wars" did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten Clarke mentioned Raiders in the book 2010. I was thrilled when he credited Jean Michel Jarre though. Jarre's music between 1976 and 1984 was really very good. I think that even people who dislike electronic music should listen to Oxygene, Magnetic Fields, and ZooLook. As I recall Clarke said that Oxygene was exactly the kind of music that he imagined when writing 2001. A man with taste! Of course, his comments about Raiders clearly show a man with an artistic bent. (An artistic bent what?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, and while we're stating where we stand on Kubrik's movie 2001, I belong to the camp that thinks of it as one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time. I think the pacing is perfect. If you start to watch the film expecting a rip-roaring adventure filled with action then you are lost from the start. I like to think of it as a creepy tale told with slowly unfolding images of incredible beauty. The cinematography and special effects are breathtaking, even today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2001 is a remarkable film. It's not for everyone, but it's never dull or boring. It's pacing is very deliberate, but perfect. The visuals are stunning as is the sound design.

I suspect that those who dislike it would have a totally different experience seeing a beautiful 70mm print on a huge screen with the volume cranked up. This is one of those films that can't really be viewed on television.

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that those who dislike it would have a totally different experience seeing a beautiful 70mm print on a huge screen with the volume cranked up.  This is one of those films that can't really be viewed on television.

Neil

:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the roll eyes? I've seen this film many times on video (I have several LDs of it and the DVD) but really, the best is in the theater, where it was meant to be seen.

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those films that can't really be viewed on television.

Apparently not. I thought the movie was so slooooow. And I couldn't watch the stunning visuals to keep myself occupied, since it was a raped pan & scam version. Die, foolscreen, die!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the roll eyes?  I've seen this film many times on video (I have several LDs of it and the DVD) but really, the best is in the theater, where it was meant to be seen.

Neil

Not all of us are forunate enough to work in a cinema Neil.

TV is all we got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the roll eyes?  I've seen this film many times on video (I have several LDs of it and the DVD) but really, the best is in the theater, where it was meant to be seen.

Neil

Not all of us are forunate enough to work in a cinema Neil.

TV is all we got.

I drove 2 1/2 hours (one way) to see this one time in 70mm.

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the roll eyes?  I've seen this film many times on video (I have several LDs of it and the DVD) but really, the best is in the theater, where it was meant to be seen.

Neil

I agree, this is one of the films that should be seen in a large theatre. I've seen it that way onyl once, but it made all the diference. Still is a unforgettable experience even on DVD -- whcih I watch every now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2001 is a remarkable film.  It's not for everyone, but it's never dull or boring.  It's pacing is very deliberate, but perfect.  The visuals are stunning as is the sound design.

I suspect that those who dislike it would have a totally different experience seeing a beautiful 70mm print on a huge screen with the volume cranked up.  This is one of those films that can't really be viewed on television.

Neil

You said it, man. Four years ago, I had the fortune to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in a beautiful 70mm print on a huge screen, with six-track magnetic sound... Really, it absorbed and mesmerized me in a way I really couldn't imagine. At that point, I had already saw the film many times, always on TV or on VHS (and I always loved it). But to see it on a GIANT screen, in 70mm, well... it's really a TOTALLY different and unique experience.

And the use of music is just perfect, as ALWAYS in Kubrick's films. The only problem nowadays is that we've seen so many (too many) movies which spoofed, imitated or tried to equal that beautiful alchemy between picture and sound that to a lot of young and contemporary eyes it could seem almost trite or banal.

Link to comment
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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.