I believe the truth is that CMS is nothing more than "parity" -- that level of aridity in which every struggling composer chooses a standard bearer to emulate -- when Zimmer and Horner bear the standards of these younger or lesser heard talents, the result is parity -- everyone emulating everyone else resulting in a stagnation of such overwhelming magnitude that music (or Daniel2's CMS) begins devolving into fragments representing the lowest common denominator of creativity.

Anyone with a synth can create "weird, savage" sounds. They don't belong on every soundtrack, though. What is truth is that composers today need more education than ever before.

Daniel2 also says:

<<To me, Zimmer, and indeed Horner, epitomise much of what is great about modern cinema. These two composers are the pioneers of modern film scoring, and not far behind them are dozens of accomplished and talented composers eager to tread virgin musical territory.>>

This is hysterical nonsense. It's also typical of what's gone wrong in the dumbing down of America, in general. It's why the U.S. is behind some developing countries in basic test scores.

<<It is my belief that during the 90’s, filmmakers, and indeed cinema-goers, have become increasingly sophisticated, intelligent, mature, and most importantly, BROADMINDED.>>

Really? How in heck did you ever form this belief? There is nothing sophisticated about filmmaking these days....oh, sure, there are isolated films that can be called sophisticated, but they're not the norm. "Intelligence" is not even in the ballpark when it comes to movies today. Maturity??? Does that go along with how many times a character can say f***k in one sentence? Or how many nude shots there are? Or....???What??

Maturity in film denotes a viewpoint based on personal experience...something severely lacking in the lives of most film moguls, writers and directors. I won't even start on film music fans..

<<The result of this has been a stream of great films, recapturing the spirit of the 30’s and 40’s>>

???LIKE WHAT???? Holy moly! What a sack of horse pucky you're trying to sell!

<< and a cinema-going public that has fully appreciated what Hollywood has been producing…..record box office returns has been Hollywood’s reward. >>

At $11 a ticket? Yeah! That sure means movies are better than ever.

<<All of this has happened DESPITE the tidal wave of political correctness that has swept through western culture in recent years.>>

PC aside -- and that's another load of horse pucky, to be sure -- movies are worse than ever....enormous sums of money poured into pointless, soulless, inhuman blobs of techno-wizardry and driven solely by geeks with testosterone overload.

I say we've gotten to the point where everyone, including Daniel2, is satisfied with devolution. That way, ANYone can be a player! Yay! We can ALL compose terrible film music, not just Zimmer (who truly aspires to nothing less than King of Mediocrity) or Horner (who got way less interesting when he stopped copying Goldsmith).

$11 is insane.

I mean... have you guys checked his "profile"?
He clains to be 68 years old, live in some cottage in the midle of England and a big fan of Mahler and Beethoven.
Can you believe such a person would apreciate Hans Zimmer (above all!) who is nothing else than a keyboard arranger who co-writes pre-fabricated synthetic noise???

Make a test: try to put some of his scores for your 70 years old grandpa to listen... I'm sure he will throw his cane right on your head. This if he not die of hart attack while all that incredible noise rolls on your stereo! Unfortunately mine is gone already... Otherwise I would envite him to listen to it, just to check.

I'm not making fun of old people.
In fact, it's just the oposite.
I find it hard to convince even my father (who is 50 and grew up listening to Sinatra, Beatles, Benett, Jobim and seing movies like Ben-Hur, Planet of the Apes, Citizen Kane, Vertigo) that some movies/music I like these days are at least berable... And I'm talking about the good ones...

And to Andre, no, I have never taken Daniel2 seriously. How can anyone take seriously the perpetrator of so much verbal diarrhea?

But I find his thought processes interesting and he often "almost" makes a good point before drifting off into the ether by overstating his case.

He tries too hard for me to take him THAT seriously.

Ron

[This message has been edited by Ron Pulliam (edited 05 May 2000).]

And my father (who is nearly the same age as yours and grew up with the same stuff), loves the movies/scores of todays. He really likes THE PEACEMAKER (film AND score), and he was excited when I told him Zimmer would be scoring PEARL HARBOR (he's a huge WWII afficianado) and GLADIATOR.

So there may be SOME older people out there who don't like the scores of today, but don't think that every single person is one of them.

Err...ummm...well, it started out that way. Unfortunately, we've discovered there is NO PARITY in ticket prices across the United States, and that seems to have captured everyone's interest.

But in general, Daniel2, I respectfully disagree with virtually all you espoused. I'm not sure when you believe the modern film composing movement began, but if there ever was such a point (and I'm guessing it was trulyat the advent of talkies) I have to tell you I can get no feeling whatsoever that Zimmer or Horner led the way in any respect. Especially Horner who emulates his betters wonderfully, but still has had nothing original to say in years. Zimmer is what he is. Like him or hate him. There seems to be little in between. Personally, I find his composer-by-committee style the most revolting element in the devolution of film music....EVER.

But it's just MY opinion.

My opinion on "CMS" is, I believe, well-known.
"Continual Mud Slinging".

I suppose we could start including our names at the end of our posts, so you can tell who is responding to what.

Chase

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify a point that has been bugging me ever since I posted my ‘ZIMMER – Master of CMS’ thread. I started by saying I believe Zimmer and Horner to be the pioneers of modern film scoring……I didn’t put that across very well. What I meant to say was that I believe Zimmer and Horner to be the current pioneers of film scoring…..it is Zimmer and Horner who are currently guiding and leading the further sophistication and development of film scoring. Of course I agree, the modern film score was pioneered seventy years ago, most notably by Max Steiner, who also happens to be my favourite film composer.

That’s the ‘technical’ differences explained….let me expand a little on my general opinion of the state of cinema and film music.

I grew up in the 30’s…I was born in the Somerset town of Weston-super-Mare in 1932. A lot has happened throughout the world since then. When I was a nipper, the British Empire was still basically intact, though South Africa had split and gone down its sorry path to apartheid, Southern Ireland had achieved independence after 800 years of English rule (often harsh), and Australia, New Zealand and Canada had achieved dominion status. The bankrupting WWII, America’s continued meteoric rise and a general change in ‘world attitude’ would gradually see the British Empire eroded during the course of my lifetime to its current diminished circumstance….only a little more than a dozen small and scattered dependencies remain, such as St Helena, Bermuda and Gibraltar.

I mention the British Empire here, because its dissolution, spread over the course of many decades, has served as a mirror of changing world attitude, and as a barometer of global ‘politcal-correctness’. We all poke fun at PC issues, but though there are some absurdities, 99% of what PC is all about….is GOOD and constructive. During the course of my lifetime, the idea of empire has evolved from a great and patriotic thing, to what borders on the anathematised. The whole idea of empire flies in the face of political-correctness….and that’s fine. I happen to believe that overall, the world needed a ‘British Empire’ during the three hundred years from the early 1600’s….I believe that as fervently as I believe the world DOESN’T need a ‘British Empire’ now. Things have changed….education, technology, knowledge, communications etc, have made the globe a ‘small’ place, and American neocolonialism, or its economic and cultural invasion of all nations, is just as effective as any invading British colonists of the pioneering days of the global expansion of the Anglo-Saxon world.

Basically Ron, I believe the world to be a far far better place today than it has EVER been….at least in the English-speaking countries and most of Europe. The problems being encountered elsewhere in the world, are being tackled by the western countries…everything that the developed world has discovered and built, is now being shared with the developing world….it is just the pace at which change and construction is attempted that must be carefully controlled. A hundred years ago it was Britain who dominated the world economically and militarily, today it is the USA…..in another hundred years, who knows, it could be China. The inhabitants of China are some of the most determined, hard working and constructive of people on the planet, and it has only been past British imperial pressure that has stifled their progress. In today’s co-operative global climate, China will be allowed to master her own destiny….the current frictions and ‘communist’ regime will, I believe gradually dissolve. Two hundred years ago the Chinese economy rivalled Britain’s, and by the 1820’s the British recognized that the focus of world commerce and affluence was in danger of switching to China itself. The British resolved to a) protect their own imperial possessions in Asia b) protect their own trading organisations in China itself c) prevent the rapidly developing China, and its ‘alien’ culture, from establishing itself as a world force. The result of this was the Opium Wars.

At the beginning of the 19th century British traders began illegally importing opium into China, with the British government’s tacit approval. This not only increased British economic power in Asia, it also resulted in the social and economic disruption of China itself, whilst nearby British India flourished. In 1839 the Chinese government confiscated all opium warehoused at Canton by British merchants. The antagonism between the two sides increased a few days later when some drunken British sailors killed a Chinese villager. The British government, which did not trust the Chinese legal system, refused to turn the accused men over to the Chinese courts. Hostilities broke out, and the small British forces were quickly victorious. The British treaty of the Bogue (1843), saw the complete capitulation of China under the considerable weight of British economic, political and military power, and the treaty saw China submit to the payment of a large indemnity, cession of five ports for British trade and residence, and the right of British citizens to be tried by British courts.

It was at this point that Chinese development was ‘snuffed out’….who knows what the world of today would look like if the British hadn’t taken such draconian, and ghastly, steps to stifle China’s enterprise.

But the story doesn’t end there. In 1856 the British, seeking to extend their trading rights in China, found an excuse to renew hostilities when some Chinese officials boarded the ship Arrow and lowered the Union Jack. The French joined the British in this war, using as their excuse the murder of a French missionary in the interior of China. The allies began military operations in late 1857 and quickly forced the Chinese to sign the treaties of Tientsin (1858), which provided residence in Peking for foreign envoys, the opening of several new ports to Western trade and residence, the right of foreign travel in the interior of China, and freedom of movement for Christian missionaries. In further negotiations in Shanghai later in the year, the importation of opium was legalized. The Chinese, however, refused to ratify the treaties, and the allies resumed hostilities, captured Peking, and burned the emperor's summer palace. However, in 1860 the Chinese signed the Peking Convention, in which they agreed to observe the treaties of Tientsin.

The Opium Wars were instrumental in protecting and allowing the global domination of the Anglo-Saxon world, and safeguarded the rights of an Englishman enjoyed throughout the English-speaking world, from America to Australia. English culture, and now its descendant, American culture, continues to ‘invade’ China, thus preparing and equipping China to become a major player on the world stage. The China of two hundred years ago really wasn’t culturally prepared to play a major part in world affairs….in one hundred years time, it could be leading the world.

English culture, or what is now know as Western Culture, was thus preserved, and during the 20th Century has not only developed and spread throughout the globe, but has also itself, embraced many other cultures. The beauty of western culture is it allows the freedom to choose, and also continues to embrace many other apparently alien cultures….that is the flexibility of western culture.

Western culture will one day be ‘world’ culture. From its beginnings as English culture to its incorporation of other cultures, ‘world culture’ will unite all nations…..and at its heart will always remain the basic principles of the ‘rights of an Englishman’, born out of the Magna Carta in 1215AD.

So, by the 1930’s, when I was growing up, the free world was fixed upon its course…..but still things were hard, even in ‘mother’ England. Growing up in a working-class community in England was no holiday, even by the 1930’s. I won’t go into detail about why life was hard, I’ll just give one example. The days of my youth were also known as the ‘scrag-end’ days. Today, at least in the western world, all we have to do is pop down to the local butcher and buy a succulent beef-steak, or a leg of lamb, or a whole chicken. Back in 30’s Weston-super-Mare, in the country whose empire dominated the world, the working-class inhabitants (that comprised 90% of the population) couldn’t afford joints of meat. All my family could afford were the scrag-ends that the butcher would have left at the end of the day. It was during this time that much of my family emigrated to America, Canada and New Zealand….but wherever you went in the English-speaking world, life was tough.

And then WWII, the war to end all wars….it certainly ruined Britain in every way, and killed the cream of England’s manhood (those who had remained after WWI). I can still hear the dreaded doodle-bugs now over war-torn London. I lived in London with an Aunt for a time, most kids had been evacuated to rural districts in England or to America (one of those kids was Elizabeth Taylor), but I stayed in London for some reason. It was scary, listening to the doodle-bug approach, sounding for all the world like a motorbike, and then all of a sudden, the engine would stop….and that’s when the fear would strike. Where would it hit? The cruel reality was, even as a kid I realized this, if the bomb didn’t hit you, it was quite likely to kill or maim someone else you knew….would it be Mrs Jones, Mrs Edwards, Mr Foley or Mr Patel?

And after WWII? The initial euphoria at the end of the war quickly evaporated as the wartime austerity measures were continued into the 50’s. Going to bed still hungry night after night is something that I wouldn’t recommend. The winter of 47’ will always stick with me. During the war it was the bombs and bullets that killed the young, now it was the bitter cold that took many of the old people. Weeks of snowfall, piled to the rooftops, and a bitter windchill claimed many lives…..hardly anyone could afford to heat their homes properly….it was dreadful.

Into the 50’s and conscription remained. A life in the armed forces wasn’t to everyone’s taste….but you still did it. And then everything changed. Life became easier during the 60’s, and by the mid-70’s most people in the developed world were leading safe and comfortable lives. It was during this period that political-correctness was born, though it didn’t flourish until the late-80’s. The new prosperity and safe war-free environment of the 60’s spawned the idle ‘rebel’. Ever since the 60’s, there have been people protesting about the evils of western culture and capitalism…..people who haven’t necessarily experienced the hardships of the past. From their cosy living-rooms they can protest about all that is wrong with society…..seemingly forgetting that it is the freedom that western culture promotes that ALLOWS them to protest. The recent anti-capitalist and anti-IMF demonstrations are the current manifestation of these ‘soft-rebels’. If these people had ever gone to bed hungry, or heard the approach of a doodle-bug or been conscripted, perhaps they would realize just how misguided they are in their protests. However, what I do welcome, is their RIGHT to protest…..just so long as I have the RIGHT to say how misguided they are.

The film industry, or essentially Hollywood, has mirrored much of the changing world since the 1930’s. The movies of any ere tend to reflect the political temperature and society’s attitude of the day. The electric effervescence of the 30’s is captured in innumerable sharp and energetic movies of that time. The contrasts of prohibition, impending world war, gangsterism, and rapid technological advances offered tremendous material for the bright and young talking pictures.

The 40’s saw a maturing cinema. Many successful wartime propaganda movies also doubled as great cinema, and much of the youthful energy of the 30’s was carried over. The 40’s, especially post-war, saw the further development of cinema, and a new cynical, and yet magical quality enhanced Hollywood’s general output.

The 50’s, despite some great films, saw a general decline, a stagnation, a lack of sparkle, innovation and vim….the virtual death of the musical was one of this decade’s saddest moments.

The 60’s saw the relentless stagnation of the movies. The energy of the 30’s had now been replaced by a lumbering lethargy and ponderousness….still plenty of fine films though. However, in Britain in particular, the age of the ‘left-wing’ anti-establishment movie was upon us….these movies have dated badly, more so than many 30’s films, and now serve only as an embarrassing reminder of a period of unenlightenment. Such ineffectual offerings as IF… and the later hilarious A CLOCKWORK ORANGE provide the people of the year 2000 with an amusing insight into the unintelligent and immature state of society just 30 years ago.

The 70’s overall had a limp, lame, drowsy and dull feel, though the end of the decade saw some sparks of life returning to the cinema.

The 80’s basically amounted to a celluloid trashcan, but it is here that the current bold, enlightened, intelligent, broadminded, unrestricted and exciting cinema was kick-started. Movies such as DIE HARD, THE FLY and ROBOCOP expertly recaptured the spirit of 30’s movie-making, and yet also incorporated modern sensibilities….including political correctness. As I have said before, I’m all for political correctness, which is basically a vehicle that allows people to live as they choose without interference….but its effect on cinema I believe to be negative, overall. The 90’s arrived like the first breeze of Autumn after a long, hot and stagnant summer. Cinema woke up, filmmakers woke up, and cinema-going audiences woke up.
The 90’s have recaptured the spirit and freshness of the 30’s and 40’s cinema. Once again the movies ENTERTAIN, without trying to pummel the audience with ‘messages’ and faddish symbolism.

The cinema of the 90’s is ‘open’, it’s sophisticated, it’s intelligent, unrestricted, mature and exciting….mirroring society in general. Movie genre boundaries have been sent crashing, public and filmmaker prejudices have been snuffed out, and filmmakers and audiences alike have opened up their minds….now anything goes, and it’s great. The last bastions of uninventive, conservative, and lame filmmaking, namely Kubrick and Stone, have survived into the 90’s. The recently deceased Kubrick I tend to see as a small talent handicapped by his myopic world-view. He and Stone virtually invented political-correctness at the cinema…..I suppose someone had to.

The year 2000 and beyond promises a rich bounty at the cinema for the movie-lover. Away from cinema, though there is still much to be done to improve the lot of mankind, things are better than ever, and the rate of improvement is increasing. This atmosphere of optimism that pervades the developed world and is overflowing into the developing world is what is firing Hollywood at the moment, and will continue to for the foreseeable future.

And film music has kept pace with the supreme and broadening accomplishments of our enlightened modern cinema….the Zimmer School, Horner, and Elfman are the torchbearers, and Williams is the steadying force, he is the man guiding the ship….his firm grip is on the rudder. Away from the cinema, music in general has seen an explosion of inventiveness and creativity over the past decade. The absorbing of other cultures into western culture, with western culture itself evolving and improving, has been mirrored in the world of music, especially pop music. Latin and Celtic styles are now firmly entrenched as popular styles, and all manner of other cultural richness is being added to the mix.

And the music we hear today’s collection of excellent film composers blessing their movies with, reflects the depth, sophistication and sheer entertainment value of the world of music in general.

The old prejudices, restrictions and conservatism have almost gone, and in their place is a cinema that continues to celebrate the development, growth and success of mankind throughout the world.

--"But I haven't said anything!"

You're thinking out loud.

I’d now like to discuss some of the specific points you raise.

I can well appreciate your view, that CMS amounts to a LOWERING of the general standard of music that is composed for film. I respect that point of view, and in many am sympathetic. However, film music, in my opinion, is not about the album, or how well the music works away from the movie, or how meaningful the music is as a separate MUSICAL entity. To me, film music is about augmenting the essence and images of the MOVIE….how the composer goes about this, whether he composes original music or plunders the vast amount of existing musical material matters little to me….just so long as the music works for the movie. Horner and Zimmer are masters of CMS, and they are expert at applying the RIGHT existing music to their movies. Much has been said about Zimmer’s forthcoming possible involvement with HANNIBAL. Zimmer’s detractors have cited his style as a reason for him not suiting the project. I disagree, Zimmer, like Horner, is the epitome of film composing versatility. People too frequently point to THE PEACEMAKER, or suchlike, as ‘Zimmer’s sound’….but there is so much more to this composer….take a listen to AS GOOD AS IT GETS….a sublime classically orientated score, a million miles away from BROKEN ARROW, and yet just as good an example of CMS scoring.

One of those loveably old-fashioned movies of the 90’s, GOODFELLAS, didn’t have an ORIGINAL dramatic score, as such. It had a collection of songs relevant to time and place. GOODFELLAS was a typically small and likeable movie from the old pro Scorsese. Surefooted, with a good-ish cast, some comic violence, and a small dose of smart dialogue, this movie captured the essence of Brooklyn and the mob scene with a high degree of solidity….but a not a little wooden-ness. Once again, the fabric of the English-speaking world was beautifully celebrated. The latter development of one small but vibrant area of New York society was encapsulated in a movie that spanned a few years. GOTTI had similar success, and also benefited from the involvement of real professionals like Marc Lawrence and Anthony Quinn. The interaction of Italian immigrants within the English-speaking world will always provide rich movie-fodder. Someone like Zimmer could have been involved with GOODFELLAS, such is his CMS ability. For all of its colour and timeliness, GOODFELLAS suffered from the effects of political correctness, even in 1990. There were immense possibilities with GOODFELLAS, but they were mainly strangled by the nullifying, blandifying and diluting effect of political-correctness….a great shame.

Anyway Ron, needless to say, I see CMS differently to you. I see CMS as the vehicle by which the modern film composer can raise the standard of his work. By concentrating on the needs of the movie, rather than any notion of stand-alone musical effectiveness, the composer serves cinema to a far higher degree of success. With cinema continuing to expand in its freedoms, sophistication, intelligence, maturity and broadmindedness, the film composer, by applying CMS, can only win…..and likewise, the movies themselves, and the cinema-going public will also win.

As cinema grows, so does the opportunities offered the film composer. Today’s film composer should possess three main attributes.

1) A knowledge of all music, past and present.
2) An ability to compose, a knowledge of musical form.
3) The ability to understand and musically interpret the essence of his movie.

Film composing at its best is more about recycling familiar musical ideas than composing original material….in my opinion.

Now, you say America has suffered a ‘dumbing down’, and that ‘test results in America are behind developing countries’. I understand what you are saying, but I believe you are interpreting the facts wrongly. The developing world is just that…developing. In such places as China, Brazil, and India, the determination of its people to succeed is greater than that of the people of the developed world, who are comforted and shielded by the welfare state, technology and the general sophistication of Western civilization. The developing world is eager to ‘catch up’, and its people are naturally more intent on gaining academic qualification. The fact is that western civilization is SO technically advanced, that not EVERYONE needs to be well versed in basic arithmetic or physics.

As far as my comment about 90’s cinema being unprecedentedly broadminded and sophisticated are concerned….well, I believe my previous comments at this thread explain why I believe that to be the case. Today, cinema has a diversity and breadth of unprecedented scope. Often it is the case that a single 90’s movie has more innovation and sophistication than one hundred movies from the 70’s.

One of the unfortunate aspects of 90’s cinema has been its tameness. You seem to be saying Ron, there is too much ‘bad’ language and nudity in today’s movies…..well, I find your remarks extraordinary. The movies of the 90’s are amazingly tame when it comes to ‘bad’ language and nudity. Some filmmakers have fallen into the trap of THINKING they might just be ‘shocking the nation’….the recent risible HOLY SMOKE for example. How wrong they are. Political correctness and an ‘all-powerful’ censor, will not allow REAL-LIFE to be exposed at the cinema.

Ron, you seem to regard the F-word as some kind of unusual utterance that is the preserve of ‘daring’ filmmakers. Well, I’ve worked as a dustman in Grimsby and Bristol most of my life, and I can tell you, from the moment I wake, roughly 5am, to the moment my head hits the pillow, roughly 1am, not five minutes passes without hearing the F-word…..at work, at home, or at the pub. Cinema is like a weak and castrated version of REAL LIFE. The ponderous, Munchkin-land and lame movies of Oliver Stone are a million miles away from the harsh reality of life. And as for nudity…..oooohhhh!!!! My God! Nudity is a part of everyday life. The coy images that movies like SHOWGIRLS and BOOGIE NIGHTS display, are about as erotic as sucking on a Murray Mint. No, real life on the streets and in the pubs of Bristol is nothing like the politically correct and tame ideas seen in movies like GOODFELLAS.

Ron, you also say, ‘Maturity in film denotes a viewpoint based on personal experience’….well, that’s the problem. Many of the privileged filmmakers of today aren’t aware of the harsh realities of real life, especially of the past hardships of the 30’s and 40’s….and this lack of experience is clear to see in their movies. Nevertheless, many filmmakers, like Stone and Scorsese, do produce entertaining movies these days, despite living life in a cocoon of privilege and security.

You also ask WHAT 90’s films are so wonderful and great, in MY (Daniel’s) opinion. Well, the truth is, I don’t know where to start, there are SO many. The general standard of 90’s cinema is greater than the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s combined.

Box office returns ARE at record levels. Going to the multiplex these days is about more than just seeing a movie…it’s a meal, ten-pin bowling….and a great movie…usually.

I can't stop laughing!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Howard L:
Andre, DON'T.

--"But I haven't said anything!"

You're thinking out loud.

---

You are soooo right, Howard old pal!!!

LOL!!!

I’m glad you’ve mentioned Stone. I always think of Stone and Kubrick together in my mind’s eye, below I explain why. Please note, the following is just my personal opinion….it is not my intention to offend any fans of Kubrick and Stone. One could easily argue that my indifference to Stone and Kubrick’s work merely exposes my own poor cinematic judgement.

It’s good to see a more realistic criticism of Kubrick’s work becoming apparent these days. Nothing has dated more than Kubrick’s approach to making movies…..witness the hopelessly outmoded, boring and lame EYES WIDE SHUT. The re-release of that old chestnut A CLOCKWORK ORANGE has ignited a wave of ridicule here in Britain. One critic had this to say……”Because of its unavailability for so long, a lot of people will be curious to see the film, but its view of the future now looks comically dated. Kubrick allows his actors to indulge in melodramatic mugging and cartoonish caricature. In fact, most of it is poorly acted, and Kubrick’s exploitation of Burgess’s material is juvenile and voyeuristic. On seeing this movie thirty years on, it is amusing to ponder the conceit of Kubrick, who is alleged to have withheld release of this film in Britain for fear of inciting copy-cat violence…..ha ha ha”….. that’s one of the more favourable reviews.

The same critic had this to say about the tiresome CIDER HOUSE RULES…..”Its nomination for Best Picture shows that the Academy still loves a liberal homily, even if its yawn-inducingly dull”.

As with Stone’s giggle-inducing and lamentable NATURAL BORN KILLERS…..today’s cinema audiences know when film makers are making an effort to manipulate them. NATURAL BORN KILLERS apparent notoriety was born out of media-hype…..the movie itself is inoffensive and far LESS violent than many other often superior 90’s movies that have received far less attention. As far as the so-called ‘copy-cat’ killings that this movie allegedly ‘inspired’…..well, if that is the case, it only goes to show just how much this movie failed in its satirical aims. For all of its farcical attempts to shock….surely the point of the movie was to comment on the perceived cynical nature of today’s society…..in this it failed miserably…..not least because such a view of society is fundamentally flawed to start with. Fortunately, this sort of preachy, politically correct and obvious ‘message’ movie is gradually dying a death…..film-makers are beginning to realize that all they are doing is making MOVIES……how can ANYONE take a MOVIE seriously? Especially if that movie, be it A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or NATURAL BORN KILLERS, is so laughable…..and completely divorced from reality anyway.

You see, NATURAL BORN KILLERS can’t have it both ways. It is a supposed, and woefully unsuccessful, satire of today’s society….and attempts to poke fun at the voyeuristic panderings of the media….the purveyors of sleaze…..a fair observation in itself. However…..at the end of the day…..that’s all NATURAL BORN KILLERS itself is doing…..trying to shock and titillate the audience…..because it isn’t clever enough as satire…..thus, the movie shoots itself in the foot.

Movies like NATURAL BORN KILLERS merely highlights just how out of touch the media, and some film-makers, are with society’s maturing sensibilities.

What can one say about Oliver Stone? Well, I can best indicate my appreciation of this misguided big-head’s work, by registering 1981’s THE HAND, as my favourite Stone movie to date.

Certainly, NATURAL BORN KILLERS is second only to LAST OF THE MOHICANS as an effective cinematic soporific……and, of ALL of the other films I have ever watched, only MARS ATTACKS! and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN have failed so pitifully in their APPARENT intentions. MARS ATTACKS! failed completely in its attempts to spoof the sci-fi movies of the 50’s….it was stunningly inept, as was YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN’s abysmally clumsy attempts to parody 1939’s classic SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (a semi-spoof in itself). To the same absurdly exaggerated degree NATURAL BORN KILLERS failed in its witless attempts to satirise the media and society…..it was hilariously contrived, politically-correct, and now serves as the benchmark of contemporary conformity.

It would be easy to dismiss film-makers such as Oliver Stone as poor craftsmen….but patently they are not. Film-makers like Stone and Kubrick….obviously endowed with at least a modicum of talent……..when producing such movies as NATURAL BORN KILLERS or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE…..are merely taking advantage of the tolerant and comfortable society that THEY live in and that ‘The West’ now enjoys. All this ‘rebellious’ mumbo-jumbo, this anti-establishment bent, this attempt at ‘coolness’, this “satire” on current society is CHEAP point-scoring…..it’s easy to shock (some people)…..but to make a movie that actually POSITIVELY uplifts is the more difficult task (like AS GOOD AS IT GETS)…..I’d love to see the likes of Stone or Kubrick try. What do these film makers want? Are they hankering after some kind of communist regime, complete anarchy, or a fascist state? No…of course they’re not…..under such circumstances they wouldn’t be ALLOWED or able to make their precious little films…..the sort of movies that often appeal to all of those hairy pseudo-intellectuals and fashionable “rebels”…..you know, the sort of people who don’t know the meaning of the word hunger, hardship, and state oppression. Film makers like Stone and Kubrick have got their ‘fame’ the EASY way…..let’s see them attempt to make a film that BENEFITS society (if such a film is possible), rather than attempting (unsuccessfully) to ‘pull it to bits’.

This is the paradox……society is SO comfortable these days, relatively speaking……that people like Oliver Stone have time to ‘contemplate their navel’, to analyse the hypocritical nature of human nature. In my youth….we didn’t have time for such things…..we just got on with life…..we were more worried about getting food on the table and coal in the hearth…..and you know what, we appreciated the little things in life a lot more. The post-war austerity measures, that lasted well into the 1950’s here in Britain, meant we often slept with empty stomachs. Don’t get me wrong…..I am very pleased that society has progressed as it has done to this day…especially having endured the hardships of the mid-twentieth century myself….that’s why I see movies like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and NATURAL BORN KILLERS for what they are……shallow attempts at audience manipulation. The sad fact is, these movies have succeeded in their UNSPOKEN aims (audience manipulation)……at least in the eras in which they were released. 1994 was only six years ago…..but fortunately society HAS matured in leaps and bounds since then, and many people TODAY view such movies as NATURAL BORN KILLERS with a wry smile….and an attitude of…..‘Mr Stone and Mr Kubrick……you can’t fool me.’

If they were GOOD films I wouldn’t have any complaints about them. But any success these movies have enjoyed has been based primarily on their notoriety…..not their dismal attempts at satire and social comment. You know how some like to brag…..’I’ve seen NATURAL BORN KILLERS…..cool movie!’…..well, these people strike me as being lemmings. But, on the other hand, an awful lot of intelligent people (far more intelligent than me) liked NATURAL BORN KILLERS.

At least Kubrick’s repertoire DOES contain a small number of examples of fine movie-making….and most of his projects have some element of interest, albeit slight…..but on the whole this man’s contribution to cinema has been resoundingly dull. That’s Kubrick for you……a reasonably skilled craftsman handicapped by his myopic world-view.

The only Kubrick movie that is a true overall cinematic success (in other words a plain good film), in my opinion, is PATHS OF GLORY….a magnificent all-round cinematic experience. SPARTACUS was okay….but any one of fifty average directors could have accomplished this. LOLITA….was a waste of time….pointless and style-less. DR STRANGELOVE was tedious and boring. 2001 merely provided an empty canvas onto which egg-headed visionaries could dribble their own meaningless gibberish. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a weak embarrassment, with about as much subtlety, intelligence and flare as a rabid, consumptive, flatulent, and blindfolded hippopotamus with toothache, gallstones, peptic ulcers and an ingrowing toenail staggering through a performance of King Lear. BARRY LYNDON had about as much emotion and spontaneity as a fossilized tree stump. THE SHINING was another complete waste of time…..the movie seemed to go on for days….nice atmosphere, shame about the plot, performances, script, Scatman Crothers and everything else though. FULL METAL JACKET was a textbook piece of Kubrick hollowness. This movie had many of the same qualities as a mirage, except FULL METAL JACKET was less substantial….this was one mirage that everyone was glad to see vanish at the end of two hours. And EYES WIDE SHUT, the pinnacle of crass filmmaking…..a movie as painfully boring as placing your hand in a weak vat of acid and watching your flesh gradually dissolve.

Kubrick’s career has seen a promising beginning followed by a gradual diminution, well more like a plummet, of ability and judgement……of Wellesian proportions.

It seems to me, film-makers like Stone and Kubrick may once have appealed to the ‘herd’….but as I have said, today’s society appears to have outgrown such risible attempts at manipulation.

Anyway, that’s just my PERSONAL opinion….I realize that Stone and Kubrick are considered important filmmakers by many, and that their movies are popular with a substantial proportion of the cinema-going public.

Hey…just seen the fight….Glen Catley of BRISTOL (England) is light-heavyweight champion of the world…..great fight, stopped in the final round.

Wait....what's that I hear drifting across the fogbound Somerset countryside, it's singing, it sounds like...my anthem....

Some talk of Alexander,
And some of Hercules
Of Hector and Lysander,
And such great names as these.
But of all the world's great heroes,
There's none that can compare
With a tow, row, row, row, row, row,
To the British Grenadier.

I was a teenager in 1968 when I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time. My girlfried du jour was away for the weekend, so I asked my mother to join me. We were both awestruck with the film. I suppose by now I've seen it dozens of times. Last month I watched it again on Turner Classic Movies, and it still dazzles me. It is a brilliant piece of work that was ahead of its time, and still holds up magnificently.
("2001 merely provided an empty canvas onto which egg-headed visionaries could dribble their own meaningless gibberish.")
My wife & I saw Young Frankenstein in a full house, and the laughter rocked the theatre from beginning to end. We returned the following week for a repeat performance with the very same result. It remains one of my very favorite film parodies, and being a huge fan of those wonderful Universal horror films, I believe it may be the finest satire of its kind.
("it was stunningly inept, as was YOUNG
FRANKENSTEIN’s abysmally clumsy attempts to parody 1939’s classic SON OF FRANKENSTEIN")

Agreed. And satire sans wit & irony is nothing but bad moviemaking often glorified with pseudo-intellectual pretension. Which is why I do not agree with your Young Frankenstein, Mars Attacks! and Strangelove examples but might agree with the rest cited and raise you a Prizzi's Honor. What an overhyped bore.

"The post-war austerity measures, that lasted well into the 1950’s here in Britain, meant we often slept with empty stomachs."

You have me thinking of The Long Day Closes, a work often dubbed the 'British Cinema Paradiso'. Stunning piece of film-with-music at the conclusion with an equally stunning lead-in.

HOW did I miss THAT one?

In another thread, the idea was submitted that anyone who did not like The Phantom Menace simply did not understand it.
As opposed to that idea as I am, I don't know how to deal with Daniel2's comment about Dr. Strangelove, a black comedy which I regard as a cinema masterpiece.
Not to like it is one thing.
But calling it "tedious and boring" is another. It is neither of the above.

I detested THE SHINING, partly because the novel is harrowing and brilliant, but I did admire FULL METAL JACKET. Haven't caught up to EYES WIDE SHUT. I'm hesitant to call Kubrick self-indulgent, although he was that, because the time he took was obviously simply an extension of his own personal process. I can't mock Kubrick as self-indulgent unless I acknowledge that a real favorite of mine, Kurosawa, was just as much so (RED BEARD took nearly two years to finish! They actually turned the standing set into a tourist attraction just to justify the money it was costing! But the picture is a masterpiece, although you have to be very patient with it in the first half, it seems like it's not going to go anywhere, and then BOOM! it does. I was nearly asleep after the first half, and then once it kicked in, I had to go back and watch the whole thing over just to see what he'd done.)

What the thing is, I simply feel closed out by Kubrick's movies -- I know I'm not in on his own particular joke, and I tend to feel put off as a consequence. The opaquity of most of his movies that I've seen is obviously deliberate, and I admire the dedication it must have taken to make such specific, hermetic pictures. There's manifestly nothing he didn't know about his craft, and that's always interesting to watch, at least for me.

Cult director John Waters once observed, "I love directors who take me into their world, even if I hate their world." That, perhaps, is my fundamental quarrel with Kubrick: I never feel included in his world, his movies are all about how unknowable he really must have been, except to his few intimates. I'm not suggesting he was a bad guy, there's no evidence of that, but that he was so wound up in his own eccentricities that he had little else to show us, after a while. (Especially in later life, however, he was often accused of not having a sense of humor -- THAT, I don't agree with. The best parts of THE SHINING are the funny ones, even though they don't jibe with what the movie should have been. I remember him giving a rare interview in the early eighties, and the reporter discovering that Kubrick drove a bright red Porsche 928. "Wouldn't Pauline Kael be surprised to hear THAT," Kubrick chortled.)

One thing, Daniel -- LOLITA, "styleless"? Good God! We'll have to agree to disagree on that one ...

NP: PRELUDE TO A KISS (splendid music by Howard Shore, some excellent songs)

P.S. I forgot to mention before, Daniel: GOODFELLAS takes place mostly in Queens, not Brooklyn. Although we're all on the same chunk of the tip of Long Island.

't seems to me, film-makers like Stone and Kubrick may once have appealed to the ‘herd’….but as I have said,
today’s society appears to have outgrown such risible attempts at manipulation. '

Today's "society" (today's targeted demographic maybe) has outgrown the need to do anything but consume the puf daddy pap fed to them. The herd has lumbered over to a bigger trough.

Who really cares about the stereotypes recycled through the press about anyone? Kubrick is typed as cold and manipulative yet I don't really see all that anymore. Barry Lyndon is so charged with feeling it's painful to deal with-- Redmond Barry acts out the baka (dumbass) traits everyone hopes not to have but probably does, and check that debilitating scene with Lady Lyndon's breakdown. The Shining-- that's pretty tight when you can be driven to identify with the outlook of each character, especially Jack's.

[This message has been edited by mlw (edited 08 May 2000).]

"I'm not suggesting he was a bad guy, there's no evidence of that..."

Oh, oh, OH YES there IS!

There is a great deal of evidence of Kubrick's outright THEFT...Kirk Douglas has had a lot to say about Spartacus.
He produced the film, and was responsible for hiring Kubrick.
However, Douglas maintains that Kubrick hogged the credit for that movie's great success, using it as a stepping stone...

Douglas Trumbull was responsible for the success of 2001: A Space Odyssey, due to his unparalleled genius in the area of visual effects. The Oscar that Trumbull should have won still sits on Stanley's mantle, because Stanley hogged the credit for the effects.

Alex North wept when he realized that Kubrick had USED him...North scored 2001, believing all along that his "friend" Stanley actually wanted to use his music!

We all know how that one ended...

I will not argue about Kubrick's achievements as an artist.
He was a great artist.
But he was also a thief and guilty of usery.

There are many who will argue that the end justifies the means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Kinsinger:
Alex North wept when he realized that Kubrick had USED him...North scored 2001, believing all along that his "friend" Stanley actually wanted to use his music! [/B]

---

Did North get paid for doing the unused score for "2001"?

As usual, you back up your opinions with far more substantive ‘evidence’ than my own vague generalisations.

However, as regards the setting of GOODFELLAS, here is what Scorsese had to say.

“The 'GoodFellas' story is one particular place in Brooklyn with a small group of people”

Source - http://www.sfgate.com/ea/thomson/1119.html

But then again, you do live there, so we’ll assume Scorsese got it wrong.

Howard L.

I agree, THE LONG DAY CLOSES was a lovely film….it captured the positive aspects of post-war working class Britain beautifully. On the other hand, Davies’ earlier DISTANT VOICES, STILL LIVES was a fine illustration of the depression also endured. Either way, both movies successfully captured the genuine mood of the time and place….in my opinion.

E Frampton

May I draw your attention to the thread ‘The Captive Audience’.

The scene towards the end in which Lorraine Bracco is sure Robert De Niro means to kill her -- that WAS shot in Brooklyn, right under the Smith-9th railroad bridge.

NP: THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (Alfred Newman, library copy, Marco Polo version)

Scorsese merely misspoke. He thinks fast and talks even faster, so "Brooklyn" is what he said. Between Brooklyn and Queens, the former is surely the more marketable borough. Nobody really cares about Queens. Of our Big Five, only Staten Island is more obscure in the city's history. Actually, I've always wanted to spend more time on Staten Island, it's fascinatingly rural. One of my best friends in high school had a house there, and it really was like visiting another planet. There's an excellent crime novel, "The Judas Voice," that points this up. I'd actually love to have a place there myself, it seems nice and quiet.

It's so cute how you put 'evidence' in quotation marks, Daniel. Single quotes no less, unlike the "double" quotes we prefer Stateside. I should point out to you that evidence is always evidence, and therefore cannot be referred to as 'evidence.'