Call Intrada and ask Doug Fake...he produced it so he should know why there was a limit to the amount of music on the disc and if there are any bootlegs out...have not heard of any myself...but that means nothing...

I agree that Goldsmith the album producer is often WAY too tough on Goldsmith the composer -- the CD is, after all, precisely the same music in precisely the same order (as I recall -- I don't have the CD, but I've looked at the label) -- as the original ABC Records LP. Naturally Goldsmith couldn't have put TOO much on an LP.

My best guess would be that the tapes Goldsmith used to make the LP were still around, and the rest of the music is in stasis someplace. The whole thing was, as I recall, recorded in London, so theoretically it shouldn't be TOO expensive to expand QB VII; and why Fake wouldn't want to, I can't imagine.

(1.) The CD (and Original LP release) are RE-RECORDINGS, they are not the film soundtrack. I'm told the score was re-recorded in Rome in order to avoid paying new usage payments.

(2.) I don't think the masters to the OST still exist in the SONY vaults at last report.

(3.) If they don't the only person who MIGHT have them would be GOLDSMITH and I don't think he's going to give them up to anyone at this time (least of all FSM).

(4.) if you go watch the mini-series, Jerry did a great job picking the best cues, IMHO of course and we all know his feelings about expanded CD releases.

I must be an idiot cause I don't, what are his feelings on expanded releases?

Goldsmith hates expanded scores. He doesn't believe everything should be on a cd, only the musical interesting cues that the composer chooses. Don't even get him started with bootlegs and he will have you for lunch.

By the way, he thinks those who buy every record of a composer are not very respectful because they are collecting the scores like bottlecaps. I of course would disagree, but who am I.

As far as you being an idiot, that's your call...

Scott

thanks for the info though.

I really wish that more of the "Cady theme"(?) (as heard in the "Main Title") was included on this disc, since It is my favorite theme (assuming of course that more exists, as I've never seen the movie).

The cue "A Kaddish for the Six Million" is an impressive end to the album... The chorus really belts out the music as I've never heard before. Listen to a bad-sounding real audio cl of the cue (that in my opinion doesn't do it much justice at all!).

It's unfortunate to see Mr. Thaxton report that the masters to the OST are missing -- I would have loved to have seen (or heard, I guess) more of this music released.

I am thankful, though, for the 35 minutes that Intrada released.

It's not like they broadcast those old TV mini-series. I'm just a young'un and haven't seen it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by logied:
I believe Mr Goldsmiths attitude is one like a great hitter in baseball, why would fans be interested in (in his opinion) his ground balls and strike outs. He wants us to hear his home runs and he wants to conduct those movies we payed to see not the ones we didn,t pay to see. Wonder if HE collects anything or is a FAN of something or someone.

---

I remember reading an interview with Goldsmith and he wished that he could go back and remove 15 minutes from the Russia House album since it was "too repetitive," or something like that.

I'd just assume hear everything he has to offer. I think most people would agree that Goldsmith is not always the best producer of his own music... (Sorry, Jerry )

NP: King Solomon's Mines (With the strangest sound 'quality' I've heard. I guess part of the problem is that the Hungarians are playing student trumpets. [Well, atleast that is what it sounds like.])

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott:
Don't even get him started with bootlegs and he will have you for lunch.

---

That would only be fair considering our thoughts on how to best roast his son...

Goldsmith's also copped to liking RAP ...

NP: THE MUMMY (Snoop Doggy Dogg)

For anyone who has seen R W Reid’s documentary reconstruction of the same case, ACCORDING TO THE RULES (1972), QBVII is a travesty of the truth, with the Uris-hero given a glamorous RAF-pilot past and his adversary equipped with a son who would add to his humiliation by publicly denouncing him.

Speaking of travesties…..how about U-571.

I haven’t seen the film yet….a film that by all accounts is well made and engrossing. However, I am well aware of the controversy surrounding the story.

Considering that America’s involvement in WWII was instrumental in the liberation of Europe, I can’t understand why Hollywood should feel the need to ‘INVENT’ tales of American endeavour.

Yes, the Americans DID recover an Enigma device, but it was the British who discovered and cracked the first Enigma code, followed by several others, before the Americans had even entered the war….from what I have heard, this is not made clear until the end of the movie, when a statement is made by the filmmakers pertaining to the facts.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Hollywood making entertaining movies such as U-571, and after all, America and Britain were allies during WWII, and though America did take a little persuading to join the conflict, US/UK relations in 2000 are at their best since the 13 British American colonies split from the mother country in 1776.

However, it appears to me that political correctness is now further establishing itself at the cinema. As I have said before, I’m all for political correctness, but I have to register my belief that PC at the cinema is often at the expense of historical fact….and certainly the British, especially the English, are taking a few knocks from Hollywood these days, especially in historical productions. However, that’s understandable….political correctness DICTATES that all sections of society are not only NOT excluded (or portrayed as being somehow ‘inferior’ or subservient to another social group), but are also SEEN to be included, or even given disproportionately important ‘status’. The whole idea of a British Empire that included one third of the globe, and the British people who ran it….runs against everything political correctness stands for. Since England was at the heart of Empire, these days it is the English people especially who are being portrayed in a less favourable light…mainly in historical productions. The net result of this is the ‘playing down’ of historical British achievements, or indeed the open distortion of history for the sake of political correctness…..BRAVEHEART for instance. In fact, here we had Hollywood making a film about English tyranny against the Scottish people (in other words, American cinema setting British against British)….the ultimate in PC, a ‘foreign’ movie that actually undermines the Union of British nations itself. I’m not saying that the English DIDN’T oppress the Scots over the course of many centuries by one means or another, but BRAVEHEART tilted everything against the English…..very good film though.

Usually, the average American in contemporary Hollywood movies is portrayed as ‘okay’ in the eyes of political correctness, whereas the average Briton, particularly the Englishman, is portrayed as the antithesis of all that is PC. A lot of people cite the fact that it SEEMS that most Hollywood villains are played by Brits, even if the British actor is portraying a character of another nationality, such as Patrick Malahide’s American in THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT (movie **** score ***1/2). Though this observation may seem like a cliché, it DOES get to the roots of political correctness in cinema. The American represents the even-tempered, ‘live and let live’, easy-going, good humoured, free-spirited and understanding side of humanity, born out of the British American colonists’ rebellion against British tyranny in 1776. Likewise, the Englishman represents the autocratic, interfering, humourless, pompous and judgmental side of humanity, born out of the perceived oppression of the original 13 British American colonies by the English crown.

Though the above is a rather over-simplified view of history (it was never as clear-cut as that), it is the basic understanding world society, led by the Americans, has of that pivotal moment in history….that being 1776. And, just in case anyone may think of me as being anti-American…..nothing could be further from the truth. America has every right to be EXTREMELY proud of what its people have achieved….America probably wouldn’t have become the greatest nation in the history of the world if it had remained within the British Empire. And, for the sake of world harmony and the longevity of political correctness, I would rather cinema did pursue its present PC course that includes historical innacuracies, than perpetuate the prejudices and hate that our enlightened and sophisticated society is striving to eradicate. It just so happens that at the cinema these days PC means that the Americans usually come out winners, and the British come out losers……so be it.

The thing is, whether it is America, Britain, France, Germany or anywhere…..each nation has its good people and its bad, its strong and its weak….too often the British are portrayed in cinema as what amounts to a caricature. Insensitive, plummy voiced, narrow-minded, supercilious, sometimes effete or genteel. You take a Scotsman, a Yorkshireman, a Welshman, an Irishman, a Mancunian, a cockney, a West countryman, a Midlander, the Bristolian, the Geordie or a Liverpudlian and each bears little relation to the other, let alone the cliched Britisher as portrayed in so many Hollywood movies……such is the enormous diversity of peoples living in the UK….not to mention the huge number of British people who originated overseas but have made Britain their home. The ‘stay at home’ or ‘genteel’ or ‘unromantic’ Englishman is a myth nurtured by the envy of other nations. The British, indeed the English, have proved themselves to be one of the most courageous, passionate, adventurous, romantic, constructive and innovative of peoples throughout history. I guess other nations, especially the French, had to ‘invent’ SOME British weaknesses. And, let us not forget, the strength of the British Empire was derived, not from England alone, but from the union of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. More and more people living throughout Britain today, such as myself, have some Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English in them, and a rapidly growing number of Briton’s include other nationalities in their makeup too…AND, many PROUD Britons today don’t have a drop of English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish blood in ‘em…..that’s Britain today, a cross-section of all humanity, and a ‘smaller’ model of America’s pioneering of ‘world culture.

The thing is, you cannot ACCURATELY describe a Briton in one word, any more than you can an American or a Frenchman. In fact, the differences between an average American and an average Briton are extremely slight, and growing slighter by the day. Any differences that do exist tend to be blown out of all proportion or are born out of prejudice and close-mindedness. The increasing ease of travel, the rapidly growing sophistication of communications (such as the internet), and in time cinema itself, will reverse the misconceptions that Americans and Britons have about each other.

Interestingly, similar controversy to that surrounding U-571 abounded over the 1945 Hollywood movie OBJECTIVE BURMA (movie ****1/2 score ****), in which Hollywood depicted the Burmese campaign as being fought almost solely by the Americans. In actual fact the campaign in Burma, now Myanmar, was overwhelmingly fought by the British, and Hollywood’s ‘narrow’ treatment of the conflict, in this one instance, caused distress amongst many British veterans, and the families of those who had lost their lives. Indeed, release of the movie in Britain was delayed until 1952, and with the addition of an apologetic prologue.

The thing is, on top of all the war movies made so far, there must be a million ‘real’ stories of American heroism during WWII alone. Indeed, apart from the occasional movie, such as OBJECTIVE BURMA and E-571, Hollywood has usually portrayed British, and indeed French, Dutch, Belgian, Scandinavian etc wartime resistance with proper balance and respect.

I don’t blame Hollywood for making a submarine movie set on an AMERICAN submarine….after all, a year 2000 movie peopled by stiff-upper-lip Brits is perhaps far less likely to have mass appeal than a movie peopled by Americans….including Harvey Keitel….although, to me, this actor’s career success has been about as likely as snow in Bermuda.

Anyway……U-571…it’s ONLY a movie.

“In case you're wondering, the German sub on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is U-505, and it was boarded and captured not by submariners, but by sailors from the USS Pillsbury, part of the escort group of the carrier USS Guadalcanal. No Enigma machine was involved. That was in 1944. An Enigma machine was obtained on May 9, 1941, when HMS Bulldog captured U-110. On Aug. 23, 1941, U-570 was captured by British planes and ships, without Enigma. This fictional movie about a fictional U.S. submarine mission is followed by a mention in the end credits of those actual British missions. Oh, the British deciphered the Enigma code, too. Come to think of it, they pretty much did everything in real life that the Americans do in this movie.”

Ebert didn’t think much of the movie anyway. Indeed, the rest of the review comprises a rigorous dissection of the movies’ many faults, banalities and absurdities. I love the bit about the officer and the ordinary seaman hurling contradictory orders at the gunner….from what Ebert was saying, all that was missing from U-571 was Basehart, Hedison, Kowalski et al, being flung from side to side.

There was an excellent 1995 television production BREAKING THE CODE, which tells the story of Alan Turing, the English mathematician who broke the Enigma code. Turing's homosexuality is also a vital and complicating element to the story.

I should point out that BREAKING THE CODE has a well-cast and excellent Derek Jacobi playing Turing, backed up by an able supporting cast.

I take on board your thumbs up for U-571. And yes….I shouldn’t write-off the movie without having seen it for myself. I will watch it when it turns up on television….and will try to keep an open mind. After all, OBJECTIVE BURMA was arguably even more ‘insulting’ to the British who fought in that arena….yet I have to admit, I thought the film was superbly made in virtually every department.

Now, I’ve heard rumours that a new version of the Colditz story is in the pipeline, and controversy already surrounds this Hollywood production because the story involves AMERICAN escapees …..led by Tom Cruise, I believe. Let me point out now, before the film is released….only 19 men escaped from Colditz, 11 of them were British, and none of them were American. Please don’t think that I’m trying to say that the British were more courageous and resourceful than the Americans …..the simple fact of the matter is, there were only seven Americans held at Colditz.

It will be interesting to see what historical BRITISH triumph will next be the subject of Hollywood REINTERPRETATION.

You see…..I’m all for the current Americanization of the GLOBE….but the Americanization of HISTORY….that’s quite another matter.