Hi all,
the father of Jean Michel Jarre, also a famous composer, has died.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7971223.stm

;JOOP!

De mortuis nihil nisis bonum, but I think we’re missing a definitive qualification here: Mr. Jarre was, en fait, a film composer.

I find this ingratiating remark of Mr. Sarkozy superfluous: “By working with some of the greatest filmmakers in the world, he showed that music can be just as important as pictures to make a beautiful and successful film.”

Of course music (when used--it doesn’t necessarily need to be used at all, depending on the film) is vital. On the other hand, music is too often asked to glue together holes in the script--the “love” scene in the second Spiderman (forced to watch this at a relative’s house) is a particularly pathetic example--and too often trite, and in general there is just too much of it. Hollywood directors typically finish films before they even ask film composers to begin and force to film composers to work within cramped schedules. Ideally, a film should be a collaboration between the director and the film composer, and the two should work together from the start.

Caché, with Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil (not exactly a limiting description, I know, since these two are in so many French movies nowadays) from around 2005 if I remember right, works perfectly well without a note of music, not even source music (a radio, a phonograph, etc.). 2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, is an example of a film that depends utterly on music, and also an example of a film for which the director fell in love with his temp music. An entire thirty minutes was written by György Ligeti and used illegally.

Jarre senior’s work has formed a backdrop for many of us 40 somethings who watched many of the films he scored for when they were out the first time around. Lawrence of Arabia and Dr Zhivago really do stand out - the epic scenery being matched by music which haunted its way into your consciousness. It is surprising to note some of the other films he wrote scores for such as Ghost and Witness.

His music lives on.

Cheers

I have to admit I’ve seen neither Lawrence of Arabia nor Dr. Zhivago. I keep trying to remember to see Lawrence, but then I think I should read Seven Pillars of Wisdom instead, and I don’t do this either. I have little interest in Zhivago as a film or, for that matter, as a novel, although I suppose both are “classic” in some sense or other. I have heard “Lara’s Theme”, but out of cinematic context, and it probably isn’t fair to judge it that way.

scotch, I would encourage you to see Lawrence of Arabia.  Apart from being an excellent film - great direction from David Lean, and superb acting from O’Toole - Jarre’s score is one of the few examples that I can note that really does work superbly with, and genuinely compliment, the film.  By the way, I have to say that Lawrence’s “Seven Pillars” is on my must read list, he certainly was an amazing individual.

IMHO, Maurice Jarre was a genius. It seemed he could be assigned any type of movie and write for it, no matter what it was about. You may laugh, but my favourite soundtrack of his is the one for Shogun. I was studying Japanese at the time and travelling to Japan as well, and I felt he really captured the mood of the story as well as blending instruments from two different cultures incredibly well. I do realize that in most people’s eyes, many of his other compositions would be considered superior, but Shogun is still the one I like best. And how about the music from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? Now there was a challenge for him :) ..............frank

[Peter] I would encourage you to see Lawrence of Arabia....I have to say that Lawrence’s “Seven Pillars” is on my must read list…

So you’re not in a position to say which should go first either? Oh, fine. I’ll cease dithering and look for the movie next Monday, and then we’ll be even (unless you get around to the book in the mean time).

For reasons various, I always prefer to see a film before I read a book of the same.

Peter

You’ll have noticed that neither of the films I referenced above (first reply) is based on a book. (Arthur C. Clarke, who collaborated on the screenplay of 2001: A Space Odyssey, did eventually publish a book based on this material, but not before the film was already in production.) I could have cited them as examples of truly cinematic films. It’s difficult to take seriously as an art form a medium that so often and so routinely adapts material from other media.

I finally got round to Lawrence of Arabia this past week, a great movie in the sense that watching it eats up a great deal of time. Mr. Jarre seems to get a lot of mileage (and I don’t mean this figuratively) out of a simple descending perfect fourth and Phrygian cadence. Well, if the movie had cannibalized Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade, say, instead it would have been no less authentic.

I googled a bit:

It seems Jon Stewart hosting the Academy Awards claimed simultaneously to be watching Lawrence on his cellphone. “It really needs the wide screen,” he said, turning his cellphone on its side. I suppose it really needs the wide screen in the same way that so many old westerns might. It does seem to have its share of cowboys and whooping Indians. 

Noel Coward remarked that “If Peter O’Toole [had been] any prettier, the film would have had to be called Florence of Arabia”. I might have emended that to “If Peter O’Toole had been wearing any more make-up, the film would have had to be called Florence of Arabia” except that Florence never would have worn even that much make-up. I wondered if it has something to do with O’Toole’s interpretation of the character. He did make Lawrence seem rather a simpering sissy (more a simpering sissy than Coward himself). Were we supposed to conclude Lawrence carried his kit with him through the desert?

I imagined Lawrence as he might have been played by David Bowie a decade later--more understated and enigmatic and not so simpering, probably less make-up also (but there might have been a dress or two). Then I went the other way and imagined him played (we’re back to 1962) by Sean Connery, which would fit the derring-do better. I suppose, though, that the actor needs to be blond, blue-eyed, and fair of skin so that he can be distinguished from all his countrymen pretending to be Arabs.

he lived lust down the road from me thats laurance not o toole , my only memory of that film is that classic shot i think of laurance riding towards through the shimmering heat and the shot slowly panning in

scotch, I take it that you didn’t really like the film. I wonder though, if you were watching it with an analytical eye rather than just enjoying the story, the music and the spectacle. I think that, like all fact-based films, there is no small degree of poetic licence employed, and certainly the producer’s thoughts are on the box office.

Perhaps you will enjoy Lawrence’s story in “Seven Pillars” a little more.

[felix1] he lived lust down the road from me thats laurance not o toole , my only memory of that film is that classic shot i think of laurance riding towards through the shimmering heat and the shot slowly panning in

Then you don’t remember being interviewed toward the beginning?

[PeterG] Perhaps you will enjoy Lawrence’s story in “Seven Pillars” a little more.

Does Peter O’Toole wear less make-up in that?

I think that, like all fact-based films, there is no small degree of poetic licence employed…

...and certainly the producer’s thoughts are on the box office.

This, of course, is not my problem, but I have to wonder what effect Lean thought making the thing nearly four hours long would have on its commercial success. I would probably have focused on a smaller section of the story. Certainly I would have cut the superfluous (and, yes, hokey) opening scenes.

I wonder though, if you were watching it with an analytical eye rather than just enjoying the story, the music and the spectacle.

Notice how virtually devoid of analysis is my report. Anyway, having determined to watch it to the bitter end, I enjoyed the film as best I could. One especially banal line toward the beginning made me laugh aloud, and I thought I might have to enjoy the whole movie that way, but its dialog did pick up a bit as it wore on. My appreciation of the cinematography was greatly hampered by viewing conditions. Since I don’t own a cellphone, I can’t turn it on its side.

As for the music, there really wasn’t much of it, unless you consider interminable repetition of a tiny fragment much music. Music is my field, and when a fragment is that simple (and, yes, hackneyed) and played so many times I can’t help noticing what its notes and chords are.

As for spectacle, asking me to enjoy it for it’s own sake is like asking me to enjoy Brussels sprouts. I’m viscerally unable to oblige. I don’t mind spectacle if there is some sort of point to it, but it has for me no intrinsic value whatsoever--not as entertainment, not as art, not as anything else.

I think you make some fair points, scotch. I agree it is too long, although such length tended to be an end in itself for the so-called “blockbuster” of those days. I would also accept that there is certainly some banal dialogue, no question.

On the subject of the music, the main theme (or perhaps you may say the only theme) is, I believe, justifiably repeated.  That’s film music, isn’t it? It’s just musical accompaniment to supplement the images on the screen. It’s not meant to be a symphony. Surely, if it were too comprehensive, or even too outstanding as a musical piece, then it would overshadow the film itself?  It really does depend from which angle you arrive at the verdict. You state that music is your field. Fine, but that should not blind you to the rest of what is a multi-media presentation. Are you listening to the music and taking it in isolation, expecting it to stand up as a classic piece, or are you looking at the whole experience of the film and judging the music on that wider viewpoint?

When I mention an analytical eye, I did not mean that you were analysing the film per se, I simply meant that for you to see the music as “a simple descending perfect fourth and Phrygian cadence” is perhaps focussing on the musical construction rather than actually enjoying the music in its own context. (Just as an aside, could not Boléro also be the subject of a similar charge of phrase repetition?) This thread is about Jarre and earlier I mentioned that his music “really does work superbly with, and genuinely complement, the film”.  I will stick by that, as I believe the purpose of film music should be limited to complementing the film as a whole, and not necessarily to succeed as a discrete piece.

On the subject of viewing conditions, did you watch it on a small screen, i.e. pc or TV?  If so, as I believe you appreciate, I think you would miss a great part of the experience.  Just like any film of this type I think it has to been seen on a large screen cinema, with a sound system to match. Of course, it was produced some time ago and when I saw it we did not have surround sound et al, but nevertheless it was the optimum environment in which to fully appreciate the film. On that basis, I believe that spectacle stands as an objective in itself.

On the subject of the music, the main theme (or perhaps you may say the only theme)…

No, I think there were two or three themes as well as some unthematic episodic passages.

...is, I believe, justifiably repeated.  That’s film music, isn’t it?

Come again? The justification is that “that’s film music”?

It’s just musical accompaniment to supplement the images on the screen.

Normally where the “images on the screen” change the music should also.

It’s not meant to be a symphony.

If it were, its first movement would need to be in sonata form or some modern analogue.

Surely, if it were too comprehensive, or even too outstanding as a musical piece, then it would overshadow the film itself?

The main problem with excessive repetition and kitsch exoticism, in fact, is that they’re too obtrusive.

It really does depend from which angle you arrive at the verdict. You state that music is your field. Fine, but that should not blind you to the rest of what is a multi-media presentation. Are you listening to the music and taking it in isolation, expecting it to stand up as a classic piece, or are you looking at the whole experience of the film and judging the music on that wider viewpoint?

You’re arguing in bad faith here. First you admonish me to “enjoy..its music and spectacle” for their own sakes, and then when I dutifully consider (and reject) the possibility you accuse me of listening to the music in “isolation”. I might point out, however, that the film itself first presents its musical thematic material in isolation, against a completely blank screen, and at some length--rather pretentiously, I think.

When I mention an analytical eye, I did not mean that you were analysing the film per se, I simply meant that for you to see the music as “a simple descending perfect fourth and Phrygian cadence” is perhaps focussing on the musical construction rather than actually enjoying the music in its own context.

No, it’s simply identifying the fragment for the purpose of discussion. A review that says merely “I like this” or “I don’t like this” is a perfectly idiotic review. Inability to articulate is hardly a virtue. (Let’s be clear about this, however: I would better have analyzed. Anti-intellectualism is hardly a virtue.)

(Just as an aside, could not Boléro also be the subject of a similar charge of phrase repetition?)

That would be an objective description, not a “charge” (if we substitute theme for “phrase”, that is). Ravel himself called his piece “orchestral tissue without music” and “an experiment in a very special and limited direction”.

This thread is about Jarre and earlier I mentioned that his music “really does work superbly with, and genuinely complement, the film”.  I will stick by that, as I believe the purpose of film music should be limited to complementing the film as a whole, and not necessarily to succeed as a discrete piece.

Jarre, who arranged a concert suite from this score and conducted it himself, might disagree. I, on the other hand, don’t think it goes far enough. Rather than “complement” a film, music should be fully integrated into it, which requires a closer collaboration between director and composer than we usually get. I think I’ve already said this--several postings before you entered the fray.

On the subject of viewing conditions, did you watch it on a small screen, i.e. pc or TV?

I don’t recall when you urged this thing on me your offering to lend me your time machine.

I believe that spectacle stands as an objective in itself.

It may be an objective (the objective, or intention, of the filmmakers), but it’s not a worthy one.