Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!cca!ima!ISM780!geoff
From: geoff@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: best film score Oscars
Message-ID: <167@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 01:10:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780.167
Posted: Sat Mar 16 01:10:41 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 02:39:04 EST
Lines: 57
Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-145300:ISM780:31600006:000:3070
Nf-From: ISM780!geoff    Mar 15 11:25:00 1985

> In most movies, the film score is pretty well totally unnoticeable.
> It really does nothing to actively increase the effectiveness of a scene,
> it kind of just sits there and provides a background. ...

Well, I don't know about MOST movies.  The point of a film score, like the
point of film lighting, and continuity editing etc, is NOT to be noticed.
If you notice the music in film, it's WRONG (unless, of course, the movie
is "The Sound of Music" or something like that).  None of the elements
of a film should stand out above the film itself, to do so is to distract
the viewer from what the director is trying to say.  (Unfortunately, many
director's don't HAVE anything to say, so any distraction is welcome 8^). )

> ....   I find it difficult to understand why Mike Oldfield's
> score to "The Killing Fields" was not one of the many Academy
> Award nominations that that film got.  His score was certainly noticeable

It may be great music (I haven't seen the movie), but if you NOTICED it,
something's wrong. Now, I love Oldfield's music, and I often like to listen
to it all by itself, but that doesn't make it perfect for a particular film.
This is a general statement, responding to a general comment.  In this
particular case you may be right, perhaps the score to _The Killing Fields_
DOES deserve an award, but NOT because it's great music, or because
it's particularly noticeable.  A score deserves an award IFF it enhances the
film without distracting the audience.

> were two John Williams scores nominated, and in the Williams-scored movies
> I have seen, the music was only slightly noticeable, and was certainly
> nowhere near as interesting and innovative as even the worst piece of music
> that Mike Oldfield has ever done.

I wouldn't listen to a record of Williams' music on a bet, but it is often
very "right" for the film.  Drivel it may be, but it's only supposed to set
the mood, not steal the show.

> I can think of only two possible
> explanations for this omission:  either my opinion of what makes a great
> film score is not shared by most other people, or the academy is too...

I don't know about MOST people, but I know MANY people believe as I do:  To
hear great music, go to a concert or buy a record.  When one goes to
a movie, expect to not notice ANYTHING which is not directly relevent to
the plot (or message). (but don't be too disappointed if you do notice
something, remember, 90% of everthing is S**T!)

>...closed-minded to appreciate a truly brilliant composer who does something
> interesting instead of the usual drivel.  Does anybody know what the academy
> actually does look for when picking the best film score?

Well, what the Academy looks for is another subject entirely (8^)).  No, I
certainly don't. (But I sometimes suspect it has a lot more to do with
commercial interests than with art.)

	  Geoffrey Kimbrough -- Director of Dangerous Activities --
	  INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Santa Monica California.
		     ihnp4!allegra!ima!ism780!geoff

		Nothing works, and nobody cares -- Woody Allen