From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #203 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, December 28 2001 Volume 03 : Number 203 Today's Subjects: ----------------- m/LOTR ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: m/Shostakovich ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: m/Shostakovich ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: m/LOTR ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: m/LOTR ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: m/LOTR ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: m/LOTR [meredith ] b/lots of news [meredith ] LOTR, yeah with some spoilers [Todd Huff ] Re: m/LOTR ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: m/LOTR ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: LOTR, yeah with some spoilers ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:02:29 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: m/LOTR Speaking of music, I found the soundtrack to LOTR so intrusive that it almost ruined the film for me. Not only unbelievably intrusive (sometimes we had to strain to hear the dialogue over the music) but pretty cliched in the action sequences. I went out of the theater with Carmina Burana (sp?) in my head. Sue ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:32:43 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: m/Shostakovich I got a degree in music theory in 1972, and I'd agree about the snobbery toward certain composers and performers. And, in fact, many of those attitudes hadn't changed much when I was working as a music reviewer in 1983-86. I didn't realize, however, that Bartok satirized Shostokovich's work. Was that in the Concerto for Orchestra? Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: David S. Bratman To: Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 12:11 AM Subject: m/Shostakovich > Amazing article (a book review in disguise, really) by Richard Taruskin. > > http://www.tnr.com/122401/taruskin122401.html > > I was particularly taken by a section that amounts to a manifesto for my > "hidden city" theory of 20th century classical music - which states, > basically, that while enforced modernism ruled the land, there were > composers - and fiction writers (like Tolkien), artists, etc. - operating > below the high-cultural radar writing music that was great and distinctly > modern while still appealing, and all that was necessary was to get > academia to admit it. > > > >The only time I recall hearing the music of Shostakovich in the classroom > >during my undergraduate and graduate years (roughly the 1960s) was when the > >"invasion" episode from his Seventh ("Leningrad") Symphony was juxtaposed > >with Bartok's mockery of it in his Concerto for Orchestra, and we were all > >invited to mock along. Then, I suppose, we went back to analyzing > >Schoenberg's technical innovations. > > > >Soon afterward I was forced to revise my opinion, not only about > >Shostakovich but about my own education in music. I spent the academic year > >1971-1972 as an exchange student at the Moscow Conservatory, researching a > >dissertation on Russian opera in the 1860s. The better part of my time, in > >every sense of the word, was devoted to socializing with my Soviet > >counterparts and attending concerts and opera performances. Many of those > >events were devoted, naturally, to works by Shostakovich. At one concert I > >heard the Seventh Symphony, performed under Kirill Kondrashin in the > >Conservatory's fabled Great Hall. I knew the work not only as the butt of > >Bartsk's sarcasm, but also as the object of one of Virgil Thomson's > >snottiest reviews. Connoisseurs of musical invective knew Thomson's text > >practically by heart. It opened with the remark that "whether one is able to > >listen without mind-wandering to the Seventh Symphony of Dmitri Shostakovich > >probably depends on the rapidity of one's musical perceptions; it seems to > >have been written for the slow-witted, the not very musical and the > >distracted"; and it ended with an immortal insult: "That he has so > >deliberately diluted his matter, adapted it, by both excessive > >simplification and excessive repetition, to the comprehension of a child of > >eight, indicates that he is willing to write down to a real or fictitious > >psychology of mass consumption in a way that may eventually disqualify him > >for consideration as a serious composer." > > > >Since deriding this symphony was a badge of musical sophistication where I > >came from, I glanced at appropriate moments at my Soviet companions, hoping > >to exchange a wink. But no: my friends, who were at least as learned and as > >intelligent as I was, and who were normally just as irreverent about > >everything that students are supposed to be irreverent about, were > >mesmerized. I glanced around the hall and noticed my scholarly adviser, a > >deeply erudite musicologist, and also some composition students I knew from > >the dormitory who were studying with Denisov and Schnittke, the touted > >non-conformists of the day, and even (privately) with Philip Gershkovich, > >the shadowy ex-Webernite who was keeping the sputtering flame of modernism > >alive somewhere in darkest Moscow. They, too, were in a trance. > > > >These were not eight-year-olds. There was nothing wrong with their musical > >perceptions. For their quick wits and musicality I could certainly vouch. > >The awful thought seized me that they valued this music, which I had been > >taught to despise, more highly than I valued any music, and that > >Shostakovich meant more to his society (and their society) than any composer > >meant to my society. For the first time there occurred to me, half-formed, > >the unbearable suspicion that the ways of listening to music and thinking > >about music that had been instilled in me and all my peers at home were > >impoverished ways. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 09:37:09 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: m/Shostakovich Sue - In, I think, the fourth movement of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, a clarinet squeals out a distorted quotation from the march theme from Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony. A large part of the first movement of that symphony consists of this one theme being played with a gradual crescendo, in a manner like Ravel's Bolero. The symphony was an allied-patriotic fad during WW2: Bartok kept hearing it on the radio, and this was his way of saying he was sick of it. Strangely, I've never read any mockeries of "Bolero" with any of the vehemence of those of Shostakovich, though Ravel himself dismissed the work as fluff. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 09:56:04 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: m/LOTR I've heard the soundtrack album, so I was able to pay closer attention. Competent symphonic movie-music hackwork by a competent symphonic movie-music hack; nothing worth writing home about either way. Fortunately it's not in the John Williams imitation-Richard-Strauss mode. Not really a pastiche of Carmina Burana, it's more a pastiche of Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky. About the film as such I've said nothing because I might say too much. But here's Jackson's grade: Visuals and props: A I take back (almost) everything I said about the matte shots looking fake in photos. Given what was shown, there was just about nothing in this film that looked bad to me, and much that looked splendid. I was dazzled, thoroughly and consistently. As a movie on its own terms: B It's a great film, it just isn't Tolkien. It's a pseudo-historical medieval war film, akin to "Braveheart" in both style and faithfulness. That's the film that, if you liked it, you'll like this. Faithfulness to Tolkien's detail: C Good on the props and such; a few plot changes that actually made sense (like keeping the shards of Narsil in Rivendell instead of having Strider carry a broken sword around the wilderness - like, really); as for the rest, I was already so dismayed by what I saw in the trailers that I feel bludgeoned into acquiescence. Faithfulness to Tolkien's spirit and tone: D But only because I won't give an F when the student has shown evidence of trying. To quote Tolkien himself critiquing an earlier film scenario, "He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:27:00 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: m/LOTR Well, I found the music so intrusive at times it was hard to concentrate on much else. I'm not saying the music was a derivative of Carmina Burana--just that it reminded of it because both (imo) are overblown. I think I agree with your grades, David, especially about the last part. I longed for a few quiet scenes where we might get to know the characters instead of relentless action (backed up by relentless music.) To me, the ending wasn't nearly as touching as it might have been because we never got a chance to really know the characters--we only saw them flee and fight. I would give another A, though, to the actors. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: David S. Bratman To: Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 9:56 AM Subject: Re: m/LOTR > I've heard the soundtrack album, so I was able to pay closer > attention. Competent symphonic movie-music hackwork by a competent > symphonic movie-music hack; nothing worth writing home about either > way. Fortunately it's not in the John Williams imitation-Richard-Strauss > mode. Not really a pastiche of Carmina Burana, it's more a pastiche of > Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky. > > About the film as such I've said nothing because I might say too much. But > here's Jackson's grade: > > Visuals and props: A > > I take back (almost) everything I said about the matte shots looking fake > in photos. Given what was shown, there was just about nothing in this film > that looked bad to me, and much that looked splendid. I was dazzled, > thoroughly and consistently. > > As a movie on its own terms: B > > It's a great film, it just isn't Tolkien. It's a pseudo-historical > medieval war film, akin to "Braveheart" in both style and > faithfulness. That's the film that, if you liked it, you'll like this. > > Faithfulness to Tolkien's detail: C > > Good on the props and such; a few plot changes that actually made sense > (like keeping the shards of Narsil in Rivendell instead of having Strider > carry a broken sword around the wilderness - like, really); as for the > rest, I was already so dismayed by what I saw in the trailers that I feel > bludgeoned into acquiescence. > > Faithfulness to Tolkien's spirit and tone: D > > But only because I won't give an F when the student has shown evidence of > trying. To quote Tolkien himself critiquing an earlier film scenario, "He > has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar > tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:04:08 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: m/LOTR At 12:27 PM 12/27/2001 , Sue wrote: >Well, I found the music so intrusive at times it was hard to concentrate on >much else. I'm not saying the music was a derivative of Carmina Burana--just >that it reminded of it because both (imo) are overblown. I _like_ certain types of overblown music. Carmina Burana I like because it achieves the same "movement in stasis" which is the goal of high minimalism. This stuff just heaved. He composes on harmonic plateaus, dragging the music by main force (usually sequencing) from one plain to the other - and back again, which means it goes nowhere. Someone needs to teach him a few good harmonic progressions. But that's why it's hackwork - you can symphonically score stuff like this really fast, especially with the help of a cut-and-paste program and a photocopier. > I think I agree with your grades, David, especially about the last part. I >longed for a few quiet scenes where we might get to know the characters >instead of relentless action (backed up by relentless music.) To me, the >ending wasn't nearly as touching as it might have been because we never got >a chance to really know the characters--we only saw them flee and fight. Yes, that's the main problem. LOTR has a background plot of desperate flight, but in practice it's mostly quiet meandering and sitting around. >I would give another A, though, to the actors. I find, curiously, that I don't have strong feelings about the acting one way or another. Some is good (Gandalf), some is poor (Elrond), and it makes little difference either way. This film is not about its characters, and succeeds or fails totally apart from the acting. That's another difference from the book, and another failure of tone. Ian Holm as Bilbo has received amazingly varied reviews, from superb to just awful. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 19:50:22 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: m/LOTR Hi, I agree that the musical score was a bit overdone in places. But that's the only thing I can think of to say against the film. I'm going to see it with my family again over the weekend. It's interesting to me that the only overly critical comments I've heard anywhere have been by those who had made up their mind before they even saw the film what they were going to think of it. I hear the director's cut, which wasn't allowed to be released because of excessive length (but will make it to DVD) will be much more in the spirit of the book, i.e. with much more sitting around and camping and eating. There were several character-building scenes like this which Jackson himself was loathe to cut, and I think with their inclusion the film will be much closer to the book if that's what you're looking for. ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -- mahatma gandhi ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:04:35 -0500 From: meredith Subject: b/lots of news Hi, There is lots of news, tidbits and SPOILERS at: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=11087 For the spoiler-allergic, I'll run down the news bits: - -- There are only two new episodes in January, on the 8th and the 29th. Titles are "Gone" and "DoubleMeat Palace" (!). February sweeps will begin with "Dead Things" on February 5th. Here is the complete upcoming UPN schedule, copied directly from the site: The Repeat Schedule: UPN appears to be almost done with its pre-season-six repeats. Here's the netlet's rerun rundown, courtesy network insider and regular Coax correspondent Dmann: Jan. 1: repeat of "Flooded" (6.4) Jan. 8: new episode: "Gone" (6.11) Jan. 15: repeats of "Weight of the World" (5.21) and "The Gift" (5.22) Jan. 22: repeat of the two-hour season opener, "Bargaining" (6.1-6.2) Jan. 29: new episodes begin with "Doublemeat Palace" (6.12) - -- Comics news, copied directly from the site: Her First Post-High Adventure One way to quell one's lust for new slayage might be to pick up the first issue of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Haunted," a new comic book miniseries authored by Herc's second favorite "Buffy" writer, Jane Espenson. On the stands since Wednesday, it's set between seasons three and four, as Buffy contends with a comatose Faith invading her dreams and the ghost of Mayor Wilkins invading her prey. - -- Awards news, likewise copied: The AFI Nom Last spring, after "The Body" aired, I think I posted something like, "If 'Buffy' doesn't get an Emmy this year, I'll start my own fucking Academy!" Well, "Buffy" didn't even garner a nomination -- and the American Film Institute started a new academy for me! The First Annual AFI Awards nominated "Buffy" as "drama series of the year," alongside "The West Wing," "Six Feet Under" and "The Sopranos." Winners will be announced on a live CBS telecast on Jan. 5. Whee! ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -- mahatma gandhi ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:47:01 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: LOTR, yeah with some spoilers It's three hours. You've got to cut somewhere, and I had no problem at all with the cuts that were made. Dumping Tom Bombadil was something I wish Tolkien himself had done. The character seems to have wandered in from Farmer Giles of Ham or the more juvenile sections of The Hobbit. Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen was a very good idea as well. One less character for the non-book-reading audience members to worry about and a little more idea as to why Aragorn is in love with her. I admired the way Jackson filmed (and showed in the appropriate place) scenes that were only related afterwards in the book...most of what was occuring at Isengard for instance. The initial exposition of the history of the ring was handled very well. I can't say whether somebody not familiar with the books would grasp all the background but on a first viewing but it was certainly not dry. As far as the acting goes I've no complaints. I'll give special kudos to Sean Bean for his incredible rendition of the genuine conflict going on inside Boromir's head. Ian McKellan was superb and Christopher Lee has never looked so good. The battle against the cave troll didn't go quite as written but was, imho, all the more exciting for that. The balrog was all anybody could ever hope for. One final note would be how I liked how the armor of the ancient elves was modeled after that of the ancient Greeks. Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:45:37 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: m/LOTR I don't know if my comments are considered overly critical but I really hadn't made up my mind before I went. I'm _not_ a Tolkein purist--the film didn't succeed for me as much as I'd have liked on other grounds. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: meredith To: Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 4:50 PM Subject: Re: m/LOTR > Hi, > > I agree that the musical score was a bit overdone in places. But that's > the only thing I can think of to say against the film. I'm going to see it > with my family again over the weekend. > > It's interesting to me that the only overly critical comments I've heard > anywhere have been by those who had made up their mind before they even saw > the film what they were going to think of it. > > I hear the director's cut, which wasn't allowed to be released because of > excessive length (but will make it to DVD) will be much more in the spirit > of the book, i.e. with much more sitting around and camping and > eating. There were several character-building scenes like this which > Jackson himself was loathe to cut, and I think with their inclusion the > film will be much closer to the book if that's what you're looking for. > > ======================================= > Meredith Tarr > New Haven, CT USA > mailto:meth@smoe.org > http://www.smoe.org/meth > "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -- mahatma gandhi > ======================================= > Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series > http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:00:10 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: m/LOTR He didn't fit my image of Bilbo at all, but I thought he acted the part well. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: David S. Bratman To: Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: Re: m/LOTR > > Ian Holm as Bilbo has received amazingly varied reviews, from superb to > just awful. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:00:48 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: LOTR, yeah with some spoilers At 06:47 PM 12/27/2001 , Todd wrote: >It's three hours. You've got to cut somewhere, and I >had no problem at all with the cuts that were made. I'd have less problem with the cuts if it weren't for the gross imbalance in the story made by the cuts - and by the things they _added_ that weren't in the book, and by scenes which literally take longer in the film than they would to read aloud from the book, all of them battle scenes. With a compression into less than 3 hours, that's inexcusable. Cutting the cave-troll scene by 75%, and the completely superfluous first falling bridge scene, would have improved the film no end on its own merits, and freed oceans of time for stuff they left out. >Replacing Glorfindel with >Arwen was a very good idea as well. One less character >for the non-book-reading audience members to worry >about and a little more idea as to why Aragorn is in >love with her. In the Bakshi film, Glorfindel is merged into Legolas. This also made sense. My objection to the Arwen scene is not in using her instead of Glorfindel: it's what they added to her role that Glorfindel didn't do. Glorfindel did not carry Frodo across the ford like a sack of potatoes (an example of the film's systematic attempts to make the hobbits secondary characters in their own story), and though he fights the Nazgul, it is not emphasized, and he has no such chase scene or such a macho solo challenge. That Arwen's heroism undercuts Eowyn's to come (undercutting is another systematic problem in the film) is another problem. >I admired the way Jackson filmed (and showed in the >appropriate place) scenes that were only related >afterwards in the book...most of what was occuring at >Isengard for instance. I thought it was good to show Saruman and Gandalf's confrontation -- though not perhaps at the point they did, which robs Gandalf's absence of its mystery. What they should not have shown at this point, and certainly not at such tedious and gory length, is Saruman's fortifications and breeding of orcs. That should come as a surprise later; and there'll be plenty of room in the second film for orcs of all possible description. The first volume has, I think, except for a few glimpses in the distance NO onstage orcs. And yet readers have managed to find it captivating. >The initial exposition of the history of the ring was >handled very well. I can't say whether somebody not >familiar with the books would grasp all the background >but on a first viewing but it was certainly not dry. I felt the prologue was an unwise choice in terms of tone, but it was very effectively handled. >The battle against the cave troll didn't go quite as >written but was, imho, all the more exciting for that. >The balrog was all anybody could ever hope for. I found the cave troll scene incredibly tedious and overlong. At a quarter the length it would have been exciting. The balrog would've been good if not undercut by the preceding scenes, but a friend of mine disliked it: too many overtones of the devil from Disney's "Night on Bald Mountain," he said. He also hated the cave troll. "They both looked like Harryhausen refugees," he said; "if someone had said the troll was a stop-motion model, I'd have believed it." (Jackson is, in fact, a big Harryhausen fan: I'm not sure if my friend knew that. I always thought Harryhausen incredibly cheesy myself.) >One final note would be how I liked how the armor of >the ancient elves was modeled after that of the >ancient Greeks. I didn't observe that, but if so it's another example of the excellent design sense, giving full weight to lesser-known and often rejected (by fans) influences on Tolkien that are not the sort of thing you'd expect moviemakers to do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:10:00 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: m/LOTR At 04:50 PM 12/27/2001 , Meredith wrote: >It's interesting to me that the only overly critical comments I've heard >anywhere have been by those who had made up their mind before they even >saw the film what they were going to think of it. I hope you're not talking about me. I may have not mentioned it when I made comments here, but elsewhere in my comments on the trailers I was at pains to insist that I was not judging the film, but the trailers. I maintain that I had every right to criticize the trailers as such: they were released to whet appetites for the film, and if instead they killed appetites, that is just as legitimate a reaction. I always insisted on the right to like the film anyway (I've seen a few films much better than their trailers), and I hoped, but did not expect, to be pleasantly surprised. In fact I liked the film better because I'd seen and been dismayed by the trailers, than I would have if I'd come totally fresh. For one thing, most of the really egregious horrors in the film had been in the trailers, so I was already inured. For another, the trailers had left me with the lowest possible expectations, so I was actually pleasantly surprised by aspects. I should add that, if any Tolkien fans I know disliking the film had "made up their minds in advance" that they weren't going to like it, they are vastly outnumbered by those who had equally made up their minds in advance that it was going to be the greatest ever, and many of the most enthusiastic responses I've seen have come from folks who were equally enthusiastic before they saw anything. >I hear the director's cut, which wasn't allowed to be released because of >excessive length (but will make it to DVD) will be much more in the spirit >of the book, i.e. with much more sitting around and camping and eating. >There were several character-building scenes like this which Jackson >himself was loathe to cut, and I think with their inclusion the film will >be much closer to the book if that's what you're looking for. If so, it's all the more crime that he cut all of these, not for length, but _in preference to_ overlong and gratuitous fight scenes. I've been thinking, in fact, of writing Jackson, probably via Bill Welden (a consultant on the film), pleading for a new cut: cutting the battle scenes to the extent I mentioned above, cutting 90% of the Saruman stuff and half the stupid Matrix battle between Saruman and Gandalf, and cutting the unwarranted Nazgul-chase through the Shire; and using the time saved to add in the Lorien gift-giving scene, which I know he filmed, plus as much equal time of other more balancing and time-expanding scenes. And then, except for the dialogue, he might have a film he could be proud of. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #203 *****************************