I find it very interesting when a song I've heard before, that I'm somewhat familiar with, is used during a scene in a movie, but used so well and so meaningfully that I can no longer hear the song without being taken back to that moment in the film - when the visual and emotional elements in the film become inextricable from the music. Here are a dozen examples off the top of my head - arranged, naturally, obsessively, even, some might say, in chronological order. (Mind you, these are not songs from movies, but songs already written, then used in the movie...songs with a life of their own prior to the existence of the film.)
Twist & Shout by The Beatles in Ferris Bueller's Day Off - How could anyone hear this song and not immediately picture Matthew Broderick on a parade float? Certainly no one from my generation...
Outshined by Soundgarden in True Romance - Brad Pitt smokin' a honey bear bong...those were the days, man.
Free Bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd in Forrest Gump - along with Sweet Home Alabama (also used in Gump), probably their most widely known song...it's shown up in all kinds of movies over the years - the most recent in my memory being Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects (which used the entire song in a really stupid and boring way) - but the scene in which a despondent Jenny, fed up with her life of drug addiction, abuse, and loneliness, considers taking a dive from a balcony, edited to the pace of the music, really makes a strong cinematic impression, and that particular marriage of music and film really sticks with me.
Let's Stay Together by Al Green in Pulp Fiction - Hearing this, I can't help but picture a band-aid on the back of Ving Rhames' neck, and Bruce Willis' unchanging expression. Tarantino in particular is often mentioned as a filmmaker who creates indelible visual associations with certain music...I mean, who could possibly hear Stuck In The Middle With You by Dealer's Wheel and not think of Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs...the dancing psycho, the ear slicer...I mention it only because I listed another song from another Tarantino film, but it's not officially on my list...because it's just too easy.
The Seeker by The Who in American Beauty - Lester whistles the tune after a morning jog, on the last day of his life. The sound of a man who is doomed, yet surprisingly happy.
Where Is My Mind by The Pixies in Fight Club - I'd heard this song on the radio long before I saw the movie, and didn't think much of it...until the explosions went off. Now I can't imagine one without the other.
All Star by Smash Mouth in Shrek - Never a fan of the band, but a big green ogre washing himself in mud seems like a good match for the song...which I'm pretty sure was also used in the trailer for Mystery Men.
Notorious by Duran Duran in Donnie Darko - This movie uses a lot of eighties music to good effect, but for some reason, Sparkle Motion is a more distinct match...which is weird, considering they shot the scene using West End Girls by Pet Shop Boys, but couldn't get the rights to it.
Don't Stop Believin' by Journey in Monster - I don't think I've ever seen a song used so beautifully, and so powerfully, to drive a scene. Astonishing. I won't go into detail about it, because if you haven't seen it, I simply couldn't do it justice here. Rent it - the whole movie uses music very well, and this scene simply stands out.
Don't Stop Me Now by Queen in Shaun Of The Dead - I heard this on the radio yesterday, and totally felt like beating the crap out of a Zed-word with a pool stick. Also, the U.S. trailer shows our intrepid heroes approaching the Winchester, imitating the very crowd they walk amongst, to the tune of Pretend We're Dead by L7. A bit too on the nose, yes, but a great song, and it was still funny.
Something In The Way by Nirvana in Jarhead - I became an instant fan when Nirvana first hit the airwaves nationwide, and I've heard this song hundreds of times off the album, but it's become difficult to distinguish my own personal experience of the song from Swofford's predicament, his frustration, and that image of the sink filling up with vomited sand. Pretty strong stuff.
Super Freak by Rick James in Little Miss Sunshine - The song's been around a long time, and certainly doesn't have any deep psychological insight, but come on...Olive's crazy dance finally brings her family together. What can I say? I just love this movie.
If you want to hear any of these songs and see what they make you think of...well, go look 'em up! You've got an internet connection. After that, watch the movie. Tell me what you think. I like to hear opinions.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Roger Ebert
Roger Ebert's birthday was a few days ago, so this seems like a good time to tell the story of the time I met him. I didn't approach him at some film festival, or stalk him in the lobby of the Sun-Times; I just happened to meet him, about ten years ago.
I was working in a music store in a terminal at O'Hare airport, and one afternoon, Roger Ebert wandered in, not really shopping but just killing time until his flight. Being an employee and all, I struck up the usual customer conversation; can I help you find something, that kind of crap...then asked him if he'd been to a press screening for some movie that was coming out soon. I don't remember which one, but I remember wanting to know more about it. It might have been Titanic; I'm not sure. But with no other customers stopping in, and he being early for his flight, we were able to stand around and talk about movies for twenty minutes.
I do remember asking what was his favorite movie of the year so far; he told me L.A. Confidential. I hated that movie then, and still do. What I remember most about our discussion is this: even though it's his job to give his opinion, in print and on TV, when you just talk to the man about movies, he's not as strongly opinionated...because it is his job to be that way, not his natural personality. He was very interested in what I didn't like about L.A. Confidential, and why. One could assume he was simply humoring me, but the conversation was more about our sincere respect for movies and film than our personal opinions. He just really loves movies, and loves to talk about them, as do I.
It isn't a very exciting story, I know, but it does support my belief that anyone with a passion for movies and a respect for the opinions of others is no different from anyone else with an equal passion and respect...even when one of those people is famous for his opinions.
I was working in a music store in a terminal at O'Hare airport, and one afternoon, Roger Ebert wandered in, not really shopping but just killing time until his flight. Being an employee and all, I struck up the usual customer conversation; can I help you find something, that kind of crap...then asked him if he'd been to a press screening for some movie that was coming out soon. I don't remember which one, but I remember wanting to know more about it. It might have been Titanic; I'm not sure. But with no other customers stopping in, and he being early for his flight, we were able to stand around and talk about movies for twenty minutes.
I do remember asking what was his favorite movie of the year so far; he told me L.A. Confidential. I hated that movie then, and still do. What I remember most about our discussion is this: even though it's his job to give his opinion, in print and on TV, when you just talk to the man about movies, he's not as strongly opinionated...because it is his job to be that way, not his natural personality. He was very interested in what I didn't like about L.A. Confidential, and why. One could assume he was simply humoring me, but the conversation was more about our sincere respect for movies and film than our personal opinions. He just really loves movies, and loves to talk about them, as do I.
It isn't a very exciting story, I know, but it does support my belief that anyone with a passion for movies and a respect for the opinions of others is no different from anyone else with an equal passion and respect...even when one of those people is famous for his opinions.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Transformers
I know it won't be out for another month, but so help me, I actually want to see this in the theater. Just for the hell of it. It's summer, right? I don't have to be a film snob...not all friggin' year, anyway.
Not like I expect it to be good, or anything. Fun is not the same as good. Besides, it's Michael Bay, for gosh sakes. The man does not make quality films. But there is something uniquely, visually, cinematically compelling in his body of work, despite how utterly ridiculous the stories are, how stupid and ineffective and unmoving his movies always turn out to be. Anyone see The Island? What a stunningly beautiful load of crap that was. Although, if it wasn't for Bad Boys II, we wouldn't have Hot Fuzz...I suppose I can thank him for that.
Is this the time to set off on a diatribe of the disparity between art and commerce, quality and quantity, films vs. movies, blockbusters vs. moderate success? Nah. Sometimes I want to see a movie just for the sheer thrill of the experience. Say what we will about guys like Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer (who is actually not his exec. producer here); they do their big budget best to bring that thrill, and I have to give them their due. At least they stick with what they're good at; heaven forbid Mr. Bay tries to make a film with meaning, or true human emotion. Oh wait, he already did - Pearl Harbor...and we all know how that one sucked it hard. For the most part, anyway.
Talk about commerce; check these out.
Not like I expect it to be good, or anything. Fun is not the same as good. Besides, it's Michael Bay, for gosh sakes. The man does not make quality films. But there is something uniquely, visually, cinematically compelling in his body of work, despite how utterly ridiculous the stories are, how stupid and ineffective and unmoving his movies always turn out to be. Anyone see The Island? What a stunningly beautiful load of crap that was. Although, if it wasn't for Bad Boys II, we wouldn't have Hot Fuzz...I suppose I can thank him for that.
Is this the time to set off on a diatribe of the disparity between art and commerce, quality and quantity, films vs. movies, blockbusters vs. moderate success? Nah. Sometimes I want to see a movie just for the sheer thrill of the experience. Say what we will about guys like Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer (who is actually not his exec. producer here); they do their big budget best to bring that thrill, and I have to give them their due. At least they stick with what they're good at; heaven forbid Mr. Bay tries to make a film with meaning, or true human emotion. Oh wait, he already did - Pearl Harbor...and we all know how that one sucked it hard. For the most part, anyway.
Talk about commerce; check these out.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Smoking: Rated R
I'm going to try not to get either too indignant or preachy, but to put it as simply as possible, here's what these non-smoking groups want: if a character is seen in a movie using a tobacco product, and is not shown suffering any ill effects of said use, that movie should be rated R. Seeing as movies are already given R ratings for certain degrees of language, sex, violence, and drug use, why not do the same for smoking, right? I'll tell you why not; there's no point.
The intention of groups like Smoke Free Movies (click the title for a link to their 'Solution') is not so much to increase the number of R-rated movies, but to give filmmakers and movie studios a reason not to include smoking in their films. Generally speaking, PG-13 movies make more money than R movies. If a studio has a choice between losing a lot of box office cash or editing out a shot of an actor lighting a cigarette...easy choice. I'll buy that. What I won't buy is that any kid or teenager who sees a movie, of any rating or content, anywhere, will start smoking due to the influence of that movie over any other factor in his/her life. And as much as these groups and their studies claim to have data to back up their position, I can't find any instance in which they actually produce it.
I read an article stating "...smoking in PG-13 movies rose 50 percent in 1999-2000..." Okay...what movies? What characters, what scenes? For that matter, how many movies? Honestly; how many PG-13 movies could there be from one year to the next in which characters are smoking? Two or three? Where's your evidence? For that matter, what is the individual demographic information for each and every kid who saw those movies and took up smoking and made several sworn statements and testimonials that he or she started smoking because it was in those movies? There's no direct correlation. Even if there is smoking in those movies, and even if more kids who saw those movies started smoking than kids who didn't...that's only statistical correlation. They're just numbers. It's basically meaningless.
And I've got news for you: kids know how to lie. They're not going to say "My buddy Jimmy stole a pack of cigarettes and we smoked them when my parents weren't home." They won't tell you "I just wanted to know what it was like" or "I just bought 'em to see if my fake ID worked and figured I might as well smoke 'em." And they certainly won't tell you "All my friends smoke and I didn't want them to make fun of me." When you talk to a bunch of kids who smoke, about movies with characters who smoke, and ask if they started smoking after watching those movies...DUH! What do you think they're going to say?
The problem I have with these groups...sure, what they're suggesting isn't such a bad thing, because it doesn't really hurt anybody, and tobacco products do seem to kill a lot of people...it's not their reasoning, it's their reasons. The whole big REASON they want this? To keep kids from smoking. You know what? Talk to the damn kids, then! It's got nothing to do with the movies! I don't care what kind of studies they've done; the film industry is not a marketing tool for the tobacco companies. Either intentional or unintentional, directly or subliminally - movies simply do not cause kids to start smoking.
I defy anyone to show me a direct correlation for even one kid - someone who saw a movie, thought smoking was cool, and decided to have a cigarette with no other decisive influence pushing him to light up. Just one! Won't happen. Because in the end, aside from all the various influences, it's still up to that one kid to decide what to do. His life is his own, as is each of ours. And there's no way to hold any unrelated group of people responsible for the decisions and actions of a lone individual, unless they're explicitly and persistently attempting to influence behavior in precisely that manner. Good luck convincing anyone that's the case.
Just so no one tries to extend this argument to other areas of controversy, such as movie violence or racism, or other things of that nature: smoking may be bad for you, but it isn't wrong. Pulling out a gun and shooting people is wrong, whether it happens in the movies or out here in the world. Maybe there's a connection, maybe not, but smoking on film isn't actually wrong, and shooting people is. How these actions are represented on film can be put up for debate another day.
If you're worried about kids and tobacco - address the kids directly, instead of treating them like empty vessels who do nothing but react to whatever influence forces itself upon them. If teenage smoking is a problem for you, deal with the teenagers, not the movies the teenagers are watching. Am I seriously the only one who finds that kind of thinking offensive and inhumane? This idea that we must stop people from giving kids bad ideas because that means our kids will do those bad things? That they can't help it? That it wouldn't be better to help our kids be informed and intelligent and able to make decisions on their own or consult us when they need to and know they can always talk to us about these things? No, let's just keep tobacco out of the movies they watch, so they'll never even think of smoking and always be perfect little angels.
Give me a break.
Here's a fun link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705898/
The intention of groups like Smoke Free Movies (click the title for a link to their 'Solution') is not so much to increase the number of R-rated movies, but to give filmmakers and movie studios a reason not to include smoking in their films. Generally speaking, PG-13 movies make more money than R movies. If a studio has a choice between losing a lot of box office cash or editing out a shot of an actor lighting a cigarette...easy choice. I'll buy that. What I won't buy is that any kid or teenager who sees a movie, of any rating or content, anywhere, will start smoking due to the influence of that movie over any other factor in his/her life. And as much as these groups and their studies claim to have data to back up their position, I can't find any instance in which they actually produce it.
I read an article stating "...smoking in PG-13 movies rose 50 percent in 1999-2000..." Okay...what movies? What characters, what scenes? For that matter, how many movies? Honestly; how many PG-13 movies could there be from one year to the next in which characters are smoking? Two or three? Where's your evidence? For that matter, what is the individual demographic information for each and every kid who saw those movies and took up smoking and made several sworn statements and testimonials that he or she started smoking because it was in those movies? There's no direct correlation. Even if there is smoking in those movies, and even if more kids who saw those movies started smoking than kids who didn't...that's only statistical correlation. They're just numbers. It's basically meaningless.
And I've got news for you: kids know how to lie. They're not going to say "My buddy Jimmy stole a pack of cigarettes and we smoked them when my parents weren't home." They won't tell you "I just wanted to know what it was like" or "I just bought 'em to see if my fake ID worked and figured I might as well smoke 'em." And they certainly won't tell you "All my friends smoke and I didn't want them to make fun of me." When you talk to a bunch of kids who smoke, about movies with characters who smoke, and ask if they started smoking after watching those movies...DUH! What do you think they're going to say?
The problem I have with these groups...sure, what they're suggesting isn't such a bad thing, because it doesn't really hurt anybody, and tobacco products do seem to kill a lot of people...it's not their reasoning, it's their reasons. The whole big REASON they want this? To keep kids from smoking. You know what? Talk to the damn kids, then! It's got nothing to do with the movies! I don't care what kind of studies they've done; the film industry is not a marketing tool for the tobacco companies. Either intentional or unintentional, directly or subliminally - movies simply do not cause kids to start smoking.
I defy anyone to show me a direct correlation for even one kid - someone who saw a movie, thought smoking was cool, and decided to have a cigarette with no other decisive influence pushing him to light up. Just one! Won't happen. Because in the end, aside from all the various influences, it's still up to that one kid to decide what to do. His life is his own, as is each of ours. And there's no way to hold any unrelated group of people responsible for the decisions and actions of a lone individual, unless they're explicitly and persistently attempting to influence behavior in precisely that manner. Good luck convincing anyone that's the case.
Just so no one tries to extend this argument to other areas of controversy, such as movie violence or racism, or other things of that nature: smoking may be bad for you, but it isn't wrong. Pulling out a gun and shooting people is wrong, whether it happens in the movies or out here in the world. Maybe there's a connection, maybe not, but smoking on film isn't actually wrong, and shooting people is. How these actions are represented on film can be put up for debate another day.
If you're worried about kids and tobacco - address the kids directly, instead of treating them like empty vessels who do nothing but react to whatever influence forces itself upon them. If teenage smoking is a problem for you, deal with the teenagers, not the movies the teenagers are watching. Am I seriously the only one who finds that kind of thinking offensive and inhumane? This idea that we must stop people from giving kids bad ideas because that means our kids will do those bad things? That they can't help it? That it wouldn't be better to help our kids be informed and intelligent and able to make decisions on their own or consult us when they need to and know they can always talk to us about these things? No, let's just keep tobacco out of the movies they watch, so they'll never even think of smoking and always be perfect little angels.
Give me a break.
Here's a fun link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705898/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
