# Kubrick vs Spielberg...and the Schindler's List



## Niah (Dec 26, 2011)

_In a TCM interview, the legendary film director Terry Gilliam reveals his opinion on Schindler's List and Spielberg and mainstream Hollywood in general, saying things that most filmmakers, critics and viewers are too scared to express.

He also mentions Stanley Kubrick, compares Kubrick and Spielberg and praises the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey for its thought-provoking ambiguity._

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKS3rdYTpI


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 26, 2011)

First of all except perhaps to rabid Monty Python fans, Gilliam, while a good director, is NOT a "legendary" director. There is probably not even one of his films that would make an AFI top 100 list.

Secondly, IMHO this is what happens when an artist values his aesthetic concept more than he values the work it produces. There is nothing wrong with a director and a writer taking us on a designed journey, using their craft to help us feel what they want us to feel, and giving us an emotionally satisfying ending, whether happy or sad. Audiences have always loved it and they always will and films are made for audiences.


----------



## Niah (Dec 26, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Dec 26 said:


> First of all except perhaps to rabid Monty Python fans, Gilliam, while a good director, is NOT a "legendary" director. There is probably not even one of his films that would make an AFI top 100 list.
> 
> Secondly, IMHO this is what happens when an artist values his aesthetic concept more than he values the work it produces. There is nothing wrong with a director and a writer taking us on a designed journey, using their craft to help us feel what they want us to feel, and giving us an emotionally satisfying ending, whether happy or sad. Audiences have always loved it and they always will and films are made for audiences.



I would agree that the term "legendary" seems kind of pompous, particulary to describe Terry but that's probably TCM that is at fault here. Anyway what does qualify one has being legendary anyway? I would say that time is possibly the ultimate decider. Personally I would describe him as a cult director, I certainly see films like 12 monkeys, Brazil and fear and loathing in las vegas falling in to that category...that of cult movies. In regards to making into the AFI 100 list...hmm...I don't think Terry makes movies with that in mind or work to be embraced by such institutions or organizations.

I do find The Schindler's List to be a good piece of film and in spielberg's defense he does not present Schindler is a good light at least at the begining, he is not particulary shy about showing Schindler as a womanizer or his initial intentions of taking advantage of the war to make a profit. But Terry through his use of a Kubrick's quote gives a new interesting and provocative perspective that I have never thought of. In regards to 2001 I'm completely on Terry's side and he does raise a good point with all this "hollywood" ending type of thing. There is nothing wrong with that you are right but it isn't always necessary to resort to that mechanism and in some cases and it can turn a good movie into a cheap one. Audiences do like that and always will and movies are made for audiences...right again...however I'll add to that that there are many different types of audiences, there are audiences that want be shocked, provoked, challenged, to see something that they have never seen and to walk away from a film with more questions than answers. I believe that there is more than enough room and space for both styles of filmmaking.


----------



## Udo (Dec 26, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Dec 27 said:


> First of all except perhaps to rabid Monty Python fans, Gilliam, while a good director, is NOT a "legendary" director. There is probably not even one of his films that would make an AFI top 100 list.


That doesn't imply his observation or opinion on the subject is invalid. 

Those types of irrelevancies often seem creep into your arguments, Jay!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 26, 2011)

Udo @ Mon Dec 26 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Dec 27 said:
> 
> 
> > First of all except perhaps to rabid Monty Python fans, Gilliam, while a good director, is NOT a "legendary" director. There is probably not even one of his films that would make an AFI top 100 list.
> ...



It is not irrelevant, it goes to the heart of his credibility to make that kind of assessment. I know that here the prevailing belief is that the person's resume bears no relationship to how much respect his opinion should be given but i simply do not accept that premise. If Scorsese makes these kind of comments it is one thing, Gilliam quite another.

In the end, a persons opinion is only worth his credibility. So when the introduction stacks the deck by assigning the term "legendary" to one who is clearly not, it frames the discussion dishonestly.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 26, 2011)

Niah @ Mon Dec 26 said:


> .



however I'll add to that that there are many different types of audiences, there are audiences that want be shocked, provoked, challenged, to see something that they have never seen and to walk away from a film with more questions than answers. I believe that there is more than enough room and space for both styles of filmmaking.[/quote]

True and a filmmaker has to know who he is making his movies for. Spielberg does and you don't see him criticizing Gilliam for not making that kind of movie.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 26, 2011)

Gilliam doesn't know what the ending of 2001 means but I sure do: it's visual Ambien meant to put you to sleep. If you don't pass out after half an hour of watching people in cheap monkey suits scream at each other then that half hour of flying through technicolor crap near the end will surely get you.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 26, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Mon Dec 26 said:


> Gilliam doesn't know what the ending of 2001 means but I sure do: it's visual Ambien meant to put you to sleep. If you don't pass out after half an hour of watching people in cheap monkey suits scream at each other then that half hour of flying through technicolor crap near the end will surely get you.



youve obviously never taken any drugs.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 27, 2011)

George Caplan @ Mon Dec 26 said:


> choc0thrax @ Mon Dec 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Gilliam doesn't know what the ending of 2001 means but I sure do: it's visual Ambien meant to put you to sleep. If you don't pass out after half an hour of watching people in cheap monkey suits scream at each other then that half hour of flying through technicolor crap near the end will surely get you.
> ...



Sorry but hooking up HD cables and operating my Blu-ray machine while under the influence of various substances never turns out well for me. I'm usually busy practicing Karate anyways.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 27, 2011)

I don't begrudge Gilliams' take on this or that film maker - he's entitled as we are all. The main distinction he makes he supports with Kubrick's words (Kubrick easily one of the best directors ever and certainly widely copied.) Kubrick and Speilberg were very good friends so it's not likely Speilberg didn't know Kubrick's thinking on film better than most. I couldn't do without either of those guys films. Speilberg _is_ an idealist but he has also done brutally honest and even brutal film making. He makes a lot of popcorn movies and some of the best ever. Kubrick is a genius of another sort and is his own category in film history. Gilliam has made some good and bad films but that neither qualifies nor disqualifies his opinion.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 27, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Tue Dec 27 said:


> Gilliam has made some good and bad films but that neither qualifies nor disqualifies his opinion.



There we differ Dave. If you are going to diss a legend IMHO, you better bring some serious game to the court. Gilliam is simply not in that league.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 28, 2011)

And only one was a member of the incredible Monthy Python. 'Nuff said.


----------



## midphase (Dec 28, 2011)

"Gilliam is simply not in that league."

Hate to rain on your parade, but then neither is Spielberg.

It's a bit like comparing Herrmann to Williams...not even close.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 28, 2011)

Never having made a film myself, I doubt that my opinion counts for anything at all in the eyes of people who believe resumé’s are relevant, but anyway: in my list of all time favourite films, ‘Brazil’ sits very near the top, together with ‘The Godfather’. Spielberg doesn’t even figure in my top 10, even though I recognize and admire him as an amazing, brilliant and influential filmmaker. 
I’m also of the opinion (but again, this is probably completely worthless, being unable to boast about any significant comedy achievement whatsoever) that Gilliam’s contributions to Monty Python stand the rigorous Test Of Time much better than a lot of Python’s comedy. I often find myself fast-forwarding from one Gilliam animation to the next when watching Python shows.

_


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 28, 2011)

terry gilliam hasnt made that many movies. most of his movies are uncomfortable and not easy to watch for anyone who has grown up on a diet of spielberg. gilliam doesnt get anywhere near the type of funding for a movie that someone like spielberg gets and you could argue well why is that then? the answer is simple. because more people prefer to be comfortable when they watch a movie and will show up to the theater in larger numbers. its purely commercial. thats one of the main reasons kubrick spent most of his time over in the uk making films. lack of funding but also lack of hollywood control. its all about audience comfort zone which translates into tickets at the theater and dvd sales.

spielberg is like a modern day disney from 60 years ago although several movies stand out. theres no way gilliam or kubrick could make the type of movie spielberg makes and visaversa. thats just my take on seeing these movies over time in the theater or on tv.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> "Gilliam is simply not in that league."
> 
> Hate to rain on your parade, but then neither is Spielberg.
> 
> It's a bit like comparing Herrmann to Williams...not even close.



Really? Spielberg won the Academy Award for Best Director for Schindler's List (1993) and Saving Private Ryan (1998). Three of Spielberg's films—Jaws (1975), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), and Jurassic Park (1993)—achieved box office records, each becoming the highest-grossing film made at the time., but in YOUR view he is not among the top directors? 

Unbelievable.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 28, 2011)

are you talking about box office being the criteria for great movies of the past here? jurassic park and et are basically disney films brought into the 80s and 90s. disney films were the best grossing movies at their time in history also. tommy newman has never won an academy award. does this make him a nothing composer?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

George Caplan @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> are you talking about box office being the criteria for great movies of the past here? jurassic park and et are basically disney films brought into the 80s and 90s. disney films were the best grossing movies at their time in history also. tommy newman has never won an academy award. does this make him a nothing composer?



it is certainly one measurement. Another is how much people of all generations still love them. Ask yourself this: If you quiz 1000 people and say "one movie will sadly be lost for eternity, E.T. or the Gilliam film of your choice, which do you choose to lose?" Is there even the tiniest doubt of the outcome?

And IMHO, "Jurassic Park" is a really well done popcorn film, far better than most of the super-hero stuff of recent years. And a lot of Disney films were successful because they were well done. Would anyone argue that i.e. "The Lion King" was not?But history will again make its judgement.

Thomas Newman may not have won but he has been nominated many times and it is only a matter of time until he does. he also enjoys huge respect among his peers, which is another measurement. He also works like crazy, which is another measurement.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 28, 2011)

Jurassic Park is one of the best executed popcorn summer flicks ever.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> Jurassic Park is one of the best executed popcorn summer flicks ever.



Dear Lord, the laws of the universe as we know them have been suspended, Choco and I agree on something! :D


----------



## midphase (Dec 28, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> Really? Spielberg won the Academy Award for Best Director for Schindler's List (1993) and Saving Private Ryan (1998). Three of Spielberg's films—Jaws (1975), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), and Jurassic Park (1993)—achieved box office records, each becoming the highest-grossing film made at the time., but in YOUR view he is not among the top directors?
> 
> Unbelievable.



I never said he wasn't among the top directors, but he's simply not in the same league as Kubrick.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Spielberg won the Academy Award for Best Director for Schindler's List (1993) and Saving Private Ryan (1998). Three of Spielberg's films—Jaws (1975), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), and Jurassic Park (1993)—achieved box office records, each becoming the highest-grossing film made at the time., but in YOUR view he is not among the top directors?
> ...



I don't think you will find much support for that view among film historians, but thanks for clarifying it.


----------



## midphase (Dec 28, 2011)

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm ok with that if you are.

I think Spielberg makes entertaining films which are well structured and constructed. He is the consummate audience pleaser, utilizing any and all tools at his disposal to manipulate the emotions of 200 or so people at a time. He's a master at that, and he's surrounded himself with people who are masters at helping him achieve that (namely Williams and Kaminski).

However, IMHO what he excels in at storytelling, he lacks in vision. He is the Bill Gates to Steve Jobs, wildly successful yet ultimately safe and predictable. 

Don't get me wrong, I love Spielberg as much as I love Williams, they are the reason why I do what I do. But ultimately I don't aspire to be either (although I did see Williams driving his Lambo down the Strip last night, and he had some smokin' hottie sitting next to him!).

Once again, IMHO, Kubrick, Von Trier, Lynch, Gilliam, Malick, Coppola, those are the innovators, the visionaries that ultimately push the art forward. They are the Stravisnky, Bach, Debussy, Bartok, Cage of the film world.

Of course ultimately it comes down to personal taste, but as much as I loved E.T. or Close Encounters...the films that ultimately left a profound impression on me were 2001, Apocalypse Now, Mulholland Drive, 12 Monkeys, Antichrist, etc.

Also, there is a lot to be said about the above referenced directors being heavily involved with the script. Even The Shining was so deeply changed by Kubrick that King to this day distanced himself from ownership of that version of his story.


PS.

What I am rather getting bugged by lately is this "Spielberg-lite" movement from the likes of Abrahams. I found Super 8 to be such a poor facsimile of a true Spielberg film that I truly hope he learned his lesson and decided to stick with what he does best.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> Of course ultimately it comes down to personal taste, but as much as I loved E.T. or Close Encounters...the films that ultimately left a profound impression on me were 2001, Apocalypse Now, Mulholland Drive, 12 Monkeys, Antichrist, etc.



Man, Apocalypse Now is another snoozefest. Mulholland Drive on the other hand is awesome.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> midphase @ Wed Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course ultimately it comes down to personal taste, but as much as I loved E.T. or Close Encounters...the films that ultimately left a profound impression on me were 2001, Apocalypse Now, Mulholland Drive, 12 Monkeys, Antichrist, etc.
> ...



Oh, no, we agree again! >8o


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 28, 2011)

Weird. Sign of the end times for sure.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Dec 28, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> Thomas Newman may not have won but he has been nominated many times and it is only a matter of time until he does. he also enjoys huge respect among his peers, which is another measurement. He also works like crazy, which is another measurement.


Of course Gilliam is not respected by his peers and is lazy. :? 

I think Gilliam, as a director of films (some of which are great, some of which are fairly average and confused), has every right to criticise Spielberg. As has anybody. 

He enjoys ambiguity in films, thought-provoking ideas. Much as I enjoy a number of Spielberg's films, I can't remember ever having felt surprised or challenged by one. And, like any director, he is capable of making absolute turkeys, like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... which is an awful film. I can watch a number of Spielberg's movies time and time again (especially Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark), but doubt I would put him in my top ten favourite directors. He's certainly not untouchable or uncriticiseable - if that is even a word.

I'll listen to anybody's argument if it's well made, coherent and understandable. I enjoy hearing a good argument that is the opposite of what I think. Certainly, experience can provide one with a greater insight on a subject. But it is not exclusively the case. If someone who has never written a note of music says something intelligent about the art of music, I will always give it more credence than a badly formed argument by someone with a hundred film scores under their belt.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

TheUnfinished @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas Newman may not have won but he has been nominated many times and it is only a matter of time until he does. he also enjoys huge respect among his peers, which is another measurement. He also works like crazy, which is another measurement.
> ...



Once again, it is not about whether he has the right. He DOES. Everybody DOES.

The issue (for me at least) is if it reflects well on the person doing so. In my view, no.

You will be hard pressed to find "a badly formed argument by someone with a hundred film scores under their belt". You may disagree with their conclusions but if you find it "badly formed" when they have done a hundred films it probably says more about your level of understanding of what film scoring is about than their argument. You simply don't do 100 films and not learn an awful lot.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 28, 2011)

spielberg does what he does really really well. but what he does a lot of the time is really well made movies that are pulp/ not all but a lot. that said schindlers list is really great. spielberg would be the first to tell you his idols like any film maker. i suspect one of them would be frank capra. now that guy really knew how to appeal to audiences with or without popcorn. the lesson for anyone wanting to make movies is to make them look as good as they can. thats where spielberg really scores. the last movie i saw of his was the last raiders one and it was a disastrous waste of time i wanted to get back but sadly couldnt. it was abysmal but it looked good.


----------



## midphase (Dec 28, 2011)

In all fairness, much of the blame for Indy 4 sucking should go towards Lucas.


----------



## midphase (Dec 28, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> You will be hard pressed to find "a badly formed argument by someone with a hundred film scores under their belt". You may disagree with their conclusions but if you find it "badly formed" when they have done a hundred films it probably says more about your level of understanding of what film scoring is about than their argument. You simply don't do 100 films and not learn an awful lot.



I really disagree with your view of equating resume, awards and visibility with being good at what one does or even having a solid grasp on the art. There are plenty of examples on either side to prove that in many cases, the people at the top really are lucky morons, and the people at the bottom are the true visionaries.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > You will be hard pressed to find "a badly formed argument by someone with a hundred film scores under their belt". You may disagree with their conclusions but if you find it "badly formed" when they have done a hundred films it probably says more about your level of understanding of what film scoring is about than their argument. You simply don't do 100 films and not learn an awful lot.
> ...



Funny coincidence perhaps but the only people I ever see maintain that are not at the top :lol:


----------



## Ed (Dec 28, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> Funny coincidence perhaps but the only people I ever see maintain that are not at the top :lol:



Are you honestly making argument from popularity, that if something is popular its good by default? :|

Hey you know hip hop is more popular than classical music right now, guess that means hip hop is better music right?


----------



## Udo (Dec 28, 2011)

Ed @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny coincidence perhaps but the only people I ever see maintain that are not at the top :lol:
> ...


As I pointed out early in this thread, when he made a similar statement, that type of warped logic often seems to creep into Jay's arguments.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

Ed @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny coincidence perhaps but the only people I ever see maintain that are not at the top :lol:
> ...



No I am making the argument that most things that are well regarded by knowledgeable people over the course of many years are good. And you can't do this in different genres. Within Hip-Hop history has already decided that Dr. Dre is better than Mims. Within Rock, history has already decided that the Beatles are better than Herman's Hermits; within Jazz history has already decided that Coltrane is better than Kenny G; and nobody knowledgeable would argue any of that I submit because it is obvious

But anyway film composers in general are not well known to the general public so when film composers have become successful it is generally because they do good job scoring many films that become successful. For instance among the top composers working a lot today: John Powell, Howard Shore, James Newton Howard, George Clinton, Thomas Newman, Jeff Beal, Carter Burwell, Mike Giacchino, and so on. Does anybody here _really_ believe that any of them fit Kay's description of "lucky morons" and _really_ belive that there are all these "people at the bottom who are the true visionaries."

If so, I think your perception is colored by what you want to believe, not what really is. 

Sadly, I see a real danger that this is going away in favor of producers and directors hiring people to score top films because they DO have wide public recognition because they have been pop or rock stars or low budget films because they have mastered the electronics enough to turn out decent sounding product cheaply and if it doesn't work well with the picture, oh well, the film editor will simply move stuff around so that it sort of works.


----------



## midphase (Dec 28, 2011)

You have a way of totally distorting what I say and completely missing my meaning.

Why do you do that?


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 28, 2011)

Speaking of the latest Indy movie and whose fault it was I think it's worth taking a peek at Mr. Plinkett's latest vids on the subject:


http://redlettermedia.com/


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Dec 28 said:


> You have a way of totally distorting what I say and completely missing my meaning.
> 
> Why do you do that?



It's a gift


----------



## jleckie (Dec 28, 2011)

lol. good one.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 29, 2011)

OK, now that I had my little joke,... I consider Kays a friend and I respect him. 

Kays, I am not trying to distort or miss your meaning so perhaps you need to write precisely what you mean.

Or since you want to be a filmmaker, you can take the Gilliam approach and leave it vague and let the audience read into it whatever we like :twisted:


----------



## midphase (Dec 29, 2011)

Well, the problem Jay is that you take an idea that I'm presenting (that there are plenty of people at the top who are there simply because they got lucky), and extrapolate that what I said must apply to specific individuals, which is absolutely not true.

I know that you're as much of an insider about this stuff as I am, and I can only assume that you need to protect your clientele by presenting a public persona which is neutral or in many cases praising of the very people whom you work for. But deep down you know as well as I that there are plenty of dirty little secrets in this industry about who is actually doing the work that so many of the top names get full credit for.

'nuff said!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> Well, the problem Jay is that you take an idea that I'm presenting (that there are plenty of people at the top who are there simply because they got lucky), and extrapolate that what I said must apply to specific individuals, which is absolutely not true.
> 
> I know that you're as much of an insider about this stuff as I am, and I can only assume that you need to protect your clientele by presenting a public persona which is neutral or in many cases praising of the very people whom you work for. But deep down you know as well as I that there are plenty of dirty little secrets in this industry about who is actually doing the work that so many of the top names get full credit for.
> 
> 'nuff said!



No, not 'nuff said. I personally don't know any working composers who have stayed on or near the top for any length of time that are there "simply because they got lucky" in my estimation. They are there because they have a decent amount of talent, work hard, AND got lucky. The ones that were only "lucky" had a brief run and then faded way. I will not name them here but you and I can bounce that around privately.


----------



## midphase (Dec 29, 2011)

Note that my original statement wasn't referring specifically to composers...as a matter of fact I agree with you that many top composers are the ones who do their homework. But it is a factual statement that a good number shows that you see on television today and which are credited to big name composers are indeed scored almost exclusively by ghosts. Same is true on a number of films, and some of those top composers aren't even particularly concerned about denying it.


----------



## midphase (Dec 29, 2011)

P.S.

It might also be that you're easily impressed. I have heard far more interesting and well constructed music by relative unknowns than most of the big names in many years.

T.J. is probably a great example of one of those individuals.


----------



## midphase (Dec 29, 2011)

P.P.S.

BTW, another industry where the brilliant minds are not inhabiting the high places is the tech industry. Some of the most incredible innovations are coming from the small guys who work out of bedrooms an not out of big corporate high-rises.

My main gripe with your philosophy is that for you resume = knowledge and right to express opinion.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> P.P.S.
> 
> 
> My main gripe with your philosophy is that for you resume = knowledge and right to express opinion.



Yep, I think for someone with no resume and little demonstrated knowledge to PUBLICLY criticize a successful knowledgeable person reflects poorly on them. 

My main gripe with your philosophy is that you do not.


----------



## midphase (Dec 29, 2011)

Then we're at an impasse. It was fun, thanks for playing!


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 29, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> midphase @ Thu Dec 29 said:
> 
> 
> > P.P.S.
> ...



Resume counts for very little. It's the artist's skill that matters. There are plenty of lousy composers with a decent resume and then there's people like T.J. who don't have much of one. Take a guess which kind of composer's opinion I value and which one's I wouldn't think twice to pull down my pants and evacuate my bowels on.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 29, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Dec 29 said:
> 
> 
> > midphase @ Thu Dec 29 said:
> ...



Once again, mostly when someone writes this usually he is someone without a resume. There are exceptions who I respect, like Dave O'Connor, but most pros respect achievement.

T.J is a terrific composer but he is not primarily a film composer. I believe he says it is because he doesn't want to be. But he most certainly has an impressive resume as a composer and orchestrator of achievement and as a developer.

That said, my guess is that when and if he ever disagrees with james Newton Howard on a film score, I am probably more often than not going to be more persuaded by James' argument.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> Then we're at an impasse. It was fun, thanks for playing!



I guess this means you won't be hiring me to score your film?


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 29, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 29 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Thu Dec 29 said:
> ...



Same here about JNH. But it's because of JNH's skill. 8)


----------



## Udo (Dec 29, 2011)

It appears that Jay is suffering from, what could be called, the "holly cow" syndrome. :wink:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 29, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> Same here about JNH. But it's because of JNH's skill. 8)



Which is how he has his resume 

OK, I'm done. It's been fun.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 29, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Same here about JNH. But it's because of JNH's skill. 8)
> ...



Yes. We agree! What we may disagree on is that there are people who exist who have a resume but not the skill to match.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 29, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> OK, I'm done. It's been fun.



Which roughly translates to: "See you soon! Let's make a megathread!"


----------



## midphase (Dec 29, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> What we may disagree on is that there are people who exist who have a resume but not the skill to match.




Which is exactly the point that I was trying to make to begin with.

Also...



EastWest Lurker @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> Once again, mostly when someone writes this usually he is someone without a resume.



I find this to be such a faulty logic. Why would someone at the top of the industry say that he's there because of luck and not because of talent? Have you ever heard a wealthy person say that they absolutely don't deserve to be rich?

Further, Terry Gilliam does have a resume, and he did criticize the likes of John Williams and Spielberg...yet apparently his resume doesn't bode high enough for you to take his opinion seriously? 

It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone who is constantly shifting the goal posts around to fit their position.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 29 said:
> 
> 
> > What we may disagree on is that there are people who exist who have a resume but not the skill to match.
> ...



Boy, you guys just don't want me outta this thread, do you? 

@ Choco: I don't disagree, but not many.

@ Kays: Yes, with Gilliam he DOES have a resume (although compared to the likes of Spielberg not comparable) so I am dealing with a different issue in his case.

When I read that interview, I come away with the feeling, perhaps unfairly, that he is a somewhat bitter and jealous director who is bewildered why people love another director's work so much more than they love his when he thinks his is better. The fact is IMHO, 50 years from now people will still be watching and loving many of Spielberg's film while Gilliam may have 1 or 2, and it galls him to know that.

Anyway, it reflects poorly on anyone to do this publicly IMHO and if Spielberg did it to Gilliam I would say it reflected poorly on him as well, even though he has the credentials. It always comes across as jealous and petty when you do so. Joni Mitchell did the same thing to Alanis Morisette and once again it lowered my opinion of Joni as a person, if not as an artist. It is so unnecessary.

Denigrating your peers publicly is just poor form. I mean I think Kays sucks but I would never write that :twisted: 

Can I please move on now, pretty please?


----------



## midphase (Dec 29, 2011)

I would guess you don't spend much time on TMZ.com huh?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Dec 29 said:


> I would guess you don't spend much time on TMZ.com huh?



I didn't even know what that was until I just googled it now. Oy veh:roll:


----------



## Niah (Aug 24, 2012)

Found it recently for those interested: http://youtu.be/oO674Gc543M?t=8m20s


----------



## Justus (Aug 24, 2012)

Slightly OT but very good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS5W4RxGv4s


----------



## dpasdernick (Aug 24, 2012)

Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are the two Speilberg films that I think are brilliant. (especially Schindler's List) 

The rest, jurrasic park, ET etc are really good films and have made a ton of cash but they're not real gems IMHO.

Kubricks's work is great. I think 2001 is brilliant. Don't forget it's hard to compare the way a movie was made in the 60's versus today. The audience was way less sophisticated so 1/2 an hour of spinning space ships held their attention.

If you want to see an amazing film these days watch Melancholia by Lars Von Triers... If I had to take one film to a desert island (besides a stash of porn) it would (currently) be this film for me.


----------



## midphase (Aug 24, 2012)

Ugh....I liked Melancholia, but if you were on a desert island, wouldn't you want to watch something fun rather than a movie that's going to make you want to kill yourself immediately afterwards?


----------



## dpasdernick (Aug 24, 2012)

midphase @ Fri Aug 24 said:


> Ugh....I liked Melancholia, but if you were on a desert island, wouldn't you want to watch something fun rather than a movie that's going to make you want to kill yourself immediately afterwards?



Well it was a toss up between Melancholia and Spaceballs but Kirsten in the buff will always superceed John Candy in a dog costume... (your mileage may very)


----------



## Niah (Aug 25, 2012)

@Justus: Seen it before but thanks for posting...love it !

@midphase: I would say that at first I was surprised with depasdernick's choice but I saw this recently which I thought it was an interesting take about melancholia which some many view as a desperate depressing film. For Zizek though Melancholia is an optimistic film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUIjoYDKETM


----------



## dpasdernick (Aug 25, 2012)

Niah @ Sat Aug 25 said:


> @Justus: Seen it before but thanks for posting...love it !
> 
> @midphase: I would say that at first I was surprised with depasdernick's choice but I saw this recently which I thought it was an interesting take about melancholia which some many view as a desperate depressing film. For Zizek though Melancholia is an optimistic film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUIjoYDKETM



That's an interesting take on Melancholia. I just love films that make you reflect and think. The thing about Melacholia was the fact that "we" were ending but it wasn't because of "us". (nuclear bombs, desease, etc) I wonder how we would all react knowing we were soon to be screwed? Riots? Calm acceptance? It's also interesting that the main characters were very wealthy and couldn't buy their way out...

I loved it. The story of it, the art of it. It's pure genius.

Darren


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 27, 2012)

dpasdernick @ Sat Aug 25 said:


> Niah @ Sat Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > @Justus: Seen it before but thanks for posting...love it !
> ...



As I watched Melancholia, I reflected and thought to myself "when will this be over? When can I go home?? My popcorn is gone, the planet is screwed, yet these people simply won't die any faster."

I was done with it by the middle of the prequel.

Similarly, I disliked "Another Earth" and "Tree of Life", so I'm obviously a Neanderthal. My only saving grace is that I was charmed by "Moonrise Kingdom". Oh, and I'm desperate to see "Beasts of the Southern Wild".


----------

