Showing posts with label Avatar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avatar. Show all posts

Friday, February 19, 2010

Soundtracks Matter: Time to Settle the Score


By John Mallory

As it gets closer to Oscar night, movie fans and film critics will continue to discuss who will be rewarded or disappointed by this year's Academy Awards. People naturally focus on what they consider to be the "major" awards. (Best Director, Best Picture, Best Leading Actress, etc) But I want to focus on the real magic of the movies... the music. It's true that directors went to film school and actors occasionally have some type of "craft" that is usually wasted on cell phone commercials, but the beautiful, uplifting, sad, frightening, and euphoric musical themes not only compliment what we're watching, but also shape and control our entire theatrical experience. A poorly scored movie is a waste of time. A film who's music encapsulates the raw and sometimes inexpressible emotions of both the characters and audience is nothing short of magic.

This year's Oscar nominations for Best Original Score provide an interesting sample of some of the best movie music of 2009. First let's look at James Horner's nomination for "Avatar". Horner is a powerful composer who is increasing his stronghold on Hollywood's music having already composed for such films as "Legends of the Fall", "Braveheart", "Apollo 13", "Titanic", and "A Beautiful Mind". His approach to "Avatar" was slightly different from the style we've come to expect, but still keeping to his orchestral basics and adding a little more of everything. This is an epic movie for which he provided a score of epic proportions and epic orchestration. Given the films focus on fictional indigenous tribes, he employed a large array of global vocals which blend almost perfectly with culture of the Navi. Looking at his entire body of work, the music to Avatar sounds most similar to Titanic which won his only two Oscars in 1998. (Best Original Score and Best Original Song) It'll be interesting to see if returning to that style earns him the award again.

Looking next at Alexandre Desplat's music for "Fantastic Mr. Fox" we encounter a lesser known composer. Although he's composed for a few well known films and even 2 previous Oscar nominations ("Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "The Queen"), most of his film music career has focused on French films. In this puppet and claymation movie, Desplat takes a more whimsical focus that matches the film's personality and approach. Although he does an impressive job of providing the type of musical that almost perfectly compliments the film, it's difficult to walk away with an Oscar when your orchestration focuses on Banjos and whistling.

The music for "The Hurt Locker" was a surprising nomination for best Original Score. The soundtrack has allot of originality, but very little score. This was a joint composition by Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders who have collaborated on other films such as "I Robot", "Blade", and "Scream". Beltrami received the nomination once before for his work on "3:10 to Yuma", but I think he'll once again go home empty handed. This is an extremely complex psychological film and the music intended to match it's dark internal exploration. What sounds like an attempt to juxtaposition the frustrating anger of war surrounded by Arabic culture ends up sounding like nothing more than a Mosque competing with a Matallica concert. The nomination could've been for Sound Effects.

Hans Zimmer's music for "Sherlock Holmes" also took a very original approach, but presented a fascinating work that was surprisingly fun. Zimmer is a tremendously talented composer ("Crimson Tide", "The Lion King", "Gladiator") who has been nominated 7 previous times and never won the Oscar. The music for "Sherlock Holmes" is disjunct and abrasive yet somehow coherent and organized much like the lead character. His focus on harpsichord gives the entire soundtrack a Victorian feel, but with modern flavor. Also, his frenetic orchestration compliments the entire films urgency as Holmes and Watson frantically search for answers. Zimmer brilliantly combines his musical talent with films personality to create a score that just might win his first Oscar.

Lastly there's Michael Giacchino's second Oscar nomination. (The first was for his work on "Ratatouille") Very seldom have I been so strongly moved by a soundtrack and within the first few minutes of the film, I fell in love. This previously little known composer crafted beautiful sweeping themes that literally saturate the audience with a moving emotional experience. The quieter moments are appropriately intimate and personal, while the larger moments push everyone to the edge of their seats. During the entire film I was mesmerized by the music's beauty and seamless necessity. I'm of course talking about his work on "Star Trek". Why he was instead nominated for "Up", I'm not very sure. Yes, he does an impressive job of employing some beautiful themes with an older style that seems to fit the main character's reminiscence for days gone by. However, it does little else. Giacchino is a talented composer, and I'm glad he was recognized even for the wrong film.

That's my assessment of this year's nominations for Best Original Score. I think this might be the year that Zimmer finally receives what he deserves, but Oscar night is always full of surprises.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Movie Matters: 2010 Oscars: And the Nominees are Leaving Something to be Desired

Watch live streaming video from academyawards at livestream.com


As a loyal EM reader you know that this blog has a general respect for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science. Their annual awards, commonly known as the Oscars, give the movies the requisite heft to be considered high art. But the announcement of the 2010 nominees irritated me.


First problem, ten best picture nominees. Of course this is not a new phenomenon, but its desperate. Back in the 30's nominating this many films was standard, but back then the Oscars where a more blatant attempt to sell movie tickets. As the awards evolved over the decades it appeared that they were more concerned with honoring a worthy few and were content to let extremely talented artists languish Oscar-free for an entire career (See, Peter O'Toole). They didn't seem to care if they honored movies that no one saw or will ever see (The English Patient). Raising the number of best picture nominees is a shameless attempt to raise Oscar night ratings at the expense of diminishing the prestige of the award. Also, with such a large field the picture that wins theoretically only needs 11% of the vote. Should a picture with that little support be etched in the pages of history forever?

Second problem, Avatar. With nine nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director, the Academy is making a bold statement that 2009 was the year of Avatar. I concede that the film grossed over $2 billion, which is good for the industry, and the visual effects rose to level of OMG, but those facts don't make up for the stale plot and stilted dialog. The beauty of film is that it's a collaborative art form but the draw back of that is if there is one weak link the entire production suffers. A best picture nominee should shine from every aspect of the movie making process and Avatar falls short in too many places. Just because people went to see the movie, doesn't mean it's great (See, Spider-Man 3).


Third problem, Star Trek. Science fiction is usually woefully snubbed at the Oscars, but this year the Academy had two science fiction blockbusters that it could honor, and as the knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade said they, "choose poorly." Save for visual affects (and that's debatable) Star Trek outshines Avatar in every metric. The story is more compelling, the characters are more fully developed, the stakes of the story are much higher and the movie is just plain fun. If the Academy insists on nominating ten pictures they can't miss the one movie that brought nerds and jocks together in 2009.


Final problem, repeat nominees. I get it. Meryl Streep is the greatest ever and the Coen Brothers are clever. But do we need to be reminded of these facts every year? I look to the Oscar nominations as a chance to see what great performances I might have missed over the last year because there were too many ads for Night at the Museum 2. Of course I'm going to go see Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, and George Clooney. Academy, please, tell me something I don't know.


This is the first of many posts about the 2010 Oscars. Stay tuned. And don't forget to follow @EnterMatter on Twitter for the latest updates.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Guest Post: Avatar Review



Avatar is supposed to be one of the greatest movies of our time. Billed as the most expensive movie ever made at $300 million I can see what they used the money for. The most amazing special effects. Ever. Well...that and ripping off Fern Gully's storyline. Seriously. Think Fern Gully, add in some CGI and 3D and a little difficulty deciphering between what's real and what's not and you have yourself the whole premise of Avatar. When I read that it took James Cameron 15 years to film the movie I thought I was going to see a cleverly written story put to life through graphics like I had never seen. Instead I realized that it took Cameron 15 years to build the technology to film a ripped off storyline.





The character development was enough to make you feel attached to the main characters, but the crappy writing was enough to make me turn to my neighbor and comment on the cheese factor. Also notable is the less than subtle push that humans ruin the Earth and we must take advantage of what we have. While at times hollow and and overblown, the movie keeps its audience captivated and involved with its grandeur. The Na’vi are the most intriguing cinematographic creations to date, with a mix of human features and then features of Cameron's imagination.


My recommendation? See Fern Gully 3, oops I mean Avatar, in the theater. It's worth spending the money to see the special effects because they're amazing and I don't think they'll translate the same way on your tv screen the way they do on the big screen. Is this Cameron's next Best Picture Oscar winner? I highly doubt it. I give the movie a B+.


--Caroline McLean