You may have to come back later in the day or tomorrow for these, but
we also have information
on the new issue of Film Score Monthly (subscribers: it's coming your
way if you don't already have it; please wait a few more days before crying
"it's lost," and thanks for your patience), and a new trading
post area added to the message
board.
We're coming up on the second anniversary of the web site, which is
amazing to me. When we started, this was just a daily column and a handful
of links. Now we have LOTS of links, several hundred archived daily columns,
polls, a message board, secure-server order forms, CD and book listings
(with sound clips), Andy Dursin's aisle seat archive, and lots more. A
super special thanks to our webmaster Bill Smith who has engineered all
of it.
Please tell us what else you'd like to see here at www.filmscoremonthly.com,
and give us feedback on how well everything works.
All right, you knew it was coming for this one....
[NOTE: The following is an editorial, entirely the opinion of the
author. Some of it may be inferred, some facts may be incorrect, but it
is entirely opinion. -TK]
In response to Josh Gizelt's opinion:
"Spielberg is simply a trained seal"
Steven Spielberg is a great filmmaker. I would not necesarily rate
him as the best ever. Welles, Hitchcock, Scorcese, Altman, etc... There
are many great filmmakers out there. As to which one is the BEST is a matter
of personal choice. Each has a unique style that is not necessarily comparable
in many of the subtleties of the art of filmmaking. Compare Picasso to
Monet. They both put paint on canvas, but they both had their own way of
doing it. Both have techniques and subtleties that make their work unique
and interesting. Whether or not you prefer "Water Lilies" to
(insert Picasso work name here) is a matter of personal taste.
Film is not very different from most other art forms. The artist
(in this case, the director) has been given a set of tools with which to
work. Camera, lighting, actors, sets, script, film, music, and yes, special
effects. Hitchock used special effects. Do you think that was real blood
that came from Marion Crane's body? Think about how the camera was used
in Vertigo for a second. The difference between special effects in Hitchock's
day and Spielberg's era is twofold: the level of realism technology allowed
the director to represent, and the willingness of the audience to accept
abstract or especially gorey effects.
That being said, I don't think Hitch would have shot Psycho in black
and white if the audience in 1960 wouldn't have been offended by red blood.
I believe the effects in The Birds would have looked much more realistic
if he had access to today's CGI workstations and the effects they create.
Even Spielberg was limited by the technology available to him in his early
career. In Jaws, through the entire film, how much of the shark do we actually
see? Only a couple of minutes worth. Spielberg wanted to let the audience
see the shark more, but his mechanical shark did not work well, nor did
it look terribly realistic. Instead he used a technique employed at times
by Hitchcock, Welles, and other filmmakers: the threat of the terror (ie.
the shark) was not seen as much as it was anticipated by the audience.
In place of the shark, Spielberg used music, a brilliant score by John
Williams. That little dum-dum theme, associated with the shark, held more
association with being frightened than that mechanical shark ever did.
As the years have passed and technology has gotten better, Spielberg
has chosen to use advanced special effects to tell his story. Filmmakers
like Spielberg and George Lucas use the computer generated image to help
involve the audience. They are realists. They want to immerse the audience
in the worlds that they create. That is the benefit of using [good] special
effects. In both Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg used
the tools of the filmmaker, including special effects, to show his audience
the harsh brutalities suffered during the second world war. It was realism.
Not necessarily pretty, but well done.
Spielberg has the ability to produce a film that will relate to
his audience (middle class, movie going Americans mostly), in part through
realism, in part through storytelling, in part through special effects.
Think about Elliot in E.T. Did we not all sympathize with him? Did we not
feel his pain when E.T. died? In Close Encounters, we were told the story
from Roy Neary's point of view. It could have easily been told from the
POV of the scientists, but most of Spielberg's audience couldn't relate
to that. He knows the audience that watch his films can relate and sympathize
to characters of everyday, normal people. The impact that has on the audience
is far greater than any special effect he could conjure up, but special
effects help build the world in which his characters live. Would Roy Neary's
adventure have meant anything if he had never seen the spacecraft? How
would we relate to Elliot if we weren't allowed to see his companion?
Yes, Spielberg has strayed from that formula on occasion (Jurassic
Park & sequel, Indiana Jones, 1941), but those films are his fantastic
adventures. Here he applies his abilities to involve the audience to also
amaze the audience. Here the heroes and their tasks are well defined, no
sympathy is needed. In these films Spielberg simply asks the audience to
sit back, have fun, and enjoy the artistry of filmmaking without worrying
about deeply rooted emotions or social conflict. Monet's "Water Lilies"
is a beautiful painting, but how is one to interpret any emotion or conflict
from the scene? That painting is a testament to Monet's ability to lay
paint on canvas, and is for pure enjoyment.
Returning to Saving Private Ryan, the film is a cross between Spielberg's
two styles. Although Tom Hanks character is a soldier, a profession most
of the audience can not relate to, he is portrayed as an average American,
a teacher, pulled into the war. The story of the film is about relationships:
mother to son, duty to country. The adventure that Hanks' character embarks
on is rather fantastic, starting at Normandy, through the French countryside,
and ending in the villiage.
Spielberg uses all of the filmmaking tools available to him to make
the story as realistic and personal as possible. He uses special effects
broadly to depict the battle at Normandy. He uses lighting, cinematography,
and editing to achieve dramatic effects when he wants them, and softer
results when he feels they are needed. The story is revolves around one
man, and the mission he leads, giving the audience a central character
to relate to. He chose Hanks to play that character because he believed
Hanks' abilities as an actor would fit the role. Last, but not least, he
used music.
Whether or not the music was appropriate is as subjective as whether
or not the film as a whole was good. Spielberg and Williams have a strong
working relationship, which is why Williams' scores for Spielberg are among
the best ever written. Steven knows how he wants the music to play in the
film, and John knows how to interpret Steven's vision with his own music.
Who is to say that there was too much or too little music in Saving Private
Ryan? I am sure that Steven and John had many discussions over the music.
Did Steven feel that certain scenes played better with music and convinced
John to write it? Did John feel that Steven wanted music in places where
there shouldn't have been and talked him out of it? Those kind of decisions
should be, and are, left to the creators of the film. Whatever the outcome,
no matter how we feel about it, it is what the filmmakers felt was appropriate.
It is their creation, their work of art. We are left to appreciate it and
decide whether or not it fits our personal taste. Criticizing a film for
having inappropriate music is parallel to saying Monet's "Water Lilies"
has too many lilies. We can criticize all we want, but it is not going
to change what the artist has created.
There are exceptions to film music. Sometimes budget does not allow
composers to create the kind of score they would like to. They may be stuck
with synth instruments where they would like more orchestra. Sometimes
the director/filmmaker's vision conflicts with the opinions of the composer.
These circumstances can question whether or not the music is appropriate
for the film. However, in a case like Saving Private Ryan, where budget
was not an issue, and the composer and director have a good working relationship,
there is no reason that the music and the film as a whole are not perfect
in the eyes of the filmmakers. Whether or not it is perfect to us, the
audience, is our opinion.
I've said a lot. It is a lot to digest. This entire essay was fueled
by anger. Anger that someone could call Steven Spielberg a "trained
seal." I have no arguments with Josh Gizelt's opinion on Spielberg's
film or Williams' score. I have no problem that he has the opinion that
Spielberg is a circus animal, a pawn of Hollywood. However, I feel he is
wrong and that I should reply by stating my own opinion and defending it.
Spielberg is one of the most influential filmmakers ever in Hollywood.
In in a few short years, we will be seeing directors that cite Spielberg
as a major influence in their work. Spielberg has revoltionized the blockbuster
film (and made some good ones, too) and the importance and quality of special
effects in film. Some directors have tried to duplicate Speilberg's formula
and most have failed. This is a testament to Speilberg's creative power.
He is not a pawn or a trained seal in the Hollywood machine. He owns his
own production company and even part of a studio. He has all the money
and control he wants. No one tells him what to do. He does not sell out.
When you see a new Steven Spielberg film, it is a film that Steven
Spielberg wanted to make. It is his piece of art. Like it or not, like
him or not, it is what he has created. His films do make a lot of money
(a convenient side effect), but he does not make films solely because of
that reason. He makes films because he enjoys it. It may be a different
kind of film than what another filmmaker would make. If you want to see
a film that "plays it fast and loose like Altman," go see a Robert
Altman flick. If you want to see a film that "offers as biting sarcasm
and rule-breaking as Godard," go see a Jean-Luc Godard flick. If you
want to analyze a work by Monet, do not spend your time staring at a Picasso.
Every artist creates a unique work, whether their medium be movies
or music, words or wood; whether their style be parody or pathos, action
or anger. Many artists work with many mediums and many styles. Whether
or not we like what the artist creates is subjective to our own opinion.
Do not slander an artist because you do not like their creations or the
methods they use to create. State your opinions about the artist's work
and leave it at that.
I have stated my opinion. My conscience is now sated.
