- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Somehow my reply to the original thread is still lost on the next page, so I’ve started a new one here. Managed to buy and type out the interview from Cinéfonia. It’s uploaded to http://www.bluntinstrument.org.uk/elfman/archive/cinefonia04.htm together with a translation-come-chronological-summary, which I’ve pasted below for any blunt-phobes:
Pre-interview: the author sets the scene, describing the film’s tone, and the composer’s mixture of existing musical material (reflecting continuing issues) with new (for Dock Ock). It then describes the mystery that is the month-before-release secretaive adjustment of the film and reveals that Elfman refused to ‘improve’ his music at the studio’s (Sony’s) request, so that new composers had to be drafted in, reportedly not to re-write but to rearrange it and adapt it to synchronise with the film. But that some identity has been lost in the process. At this point it is important to stress, Elfman’s original cues had not been released on CD.‘Amazing Danny’ – Danny Elfman, composer of quality and magic, reflects on the stakes in composing for bigger budget films. This frank interview has not been consored but appears with the composer’s permission.
Elfman claims that in this second film he had much less freedom and room for manuevre to set free his musical ‘feu-follet’. The movie itself was tonally very similar to the first, concentrating on similar character and internal conflicts, with the action neither more nor less prevalent. Unlike Tim Burton, Sam had less freedom and was charged with making the film as assessible as possible, and although Elfman had the choice of passing on the sequal due to the lack of contrast or expansion, he chose not to, although he worries that he could not be as interesting. He agrees with the interviewer that his music was a variation rather than a separate part to that for the first film, partly because he still remembers the original music and how fitting it was in similar scenes – and naturally, since all but a few themes are centred on Spider-Man himself, there was little new material to add. Sometimes he would incorporate aspects from the first film, and at others, Sam would suggest he preserve the ‘sound’ that the audience would appreciate hearing again.
Elfman describes how he approached the score, aiming for the difficult parts first, dropping out of it at Sam’s request to bring to Sony the Doc Ock themes. He returned to the score and wrote a good third of the music: the opening (which he loves), the central confrontation with Doc Ock, and variations for Mary Jane in the first half of the film. This he describes as the core of the film. For the second third, he wrote what he describes as ‘banal variations'(?) for Spider-Man – basically re-using the thematic material with little change. Finally there were ‘small’ sequences – interludes lasting between a few seconds and a minute. He does not enjoy this part (calling it ‘wallpaper’), but it is necessary. Contrary to Batman Returns, there was no need to discover a new tonal ‘centre’ for the film (a task he normally describes as the important first-step to his film scoring), since 90% of it comes straight from the first, so the main challenge was to vary or transform it, and even to disguise parts of it. When it came to variations, he often tried to pick up a theme from the point where he had begun to vary it in the first film, and this could result in interesting rhythms and daring harmonies. The film itself also picks up where it left off, but he gets the impression that although it is better, there were too many expectations of the second movie to make it feel as fresh as the first.
At this point Elfman is invited to explain the situation when he was invited to return and re-score parts of the film. He states that in the past he has been ‘politically correct’ but is tired of this now [is Bernard Herrmann’s reincarnation finally breaking through publically??]. He spent months working on the score and it was accepted. Afterwards, though, and he does not know the specifics of the decisions made, Sony induced Sam to make adjustments to certain scenes – to him, this took the the film away from Sam’s creative ownership. In short, Elfman was asked back to ‘rescore certain small scenes’ and he refused. The reason was that he was satisfied with his work and was now involved elsewhere. Next, Steve Bartek was invited to re-score, and at this point ‘a raindrop became a mud slide’, since he and Bartek are very close and could not have scored movies like Spider-man and Spider-man 2 without each other. Elfman therefore re-contacted Sony and ‘told them where to go’. Sony then went to other composers and had them re-score the scenes they wanted, often mixing his music with their own. Thankfully, into what might have been a nasty situation, Columbia intervened and offered to include Danny’s original cues in a score soundtrack, so his music would be known, even if a little late in the day. He now doesn’t care, though, since what was changed was done to make the film seem more ‘aggressive’ and thus fundamentally changed it. Whether or not Sony was right to have requested changes to the film, doing so at such short notice – ‘obliging’ Sam to make last-minute changes to a film he’d worked over a year making – makes Elfman sad and angry.
[PAGE 25] On looking at the film as a whole, what drew Elfman to it was the duality of the double character of Peter Parker rather than the opportunity to score Doc Ock. Likewise, he was most interested in Spider-Man/Parker’s interaction with both Ock and Mary Jane rather than the characters themselves. This is where he sees the heart of the film, which is the opposite to the pure action, where he very often copied the underscore from the first movie. He claims they are not tedious, but simply not exciting to compose for. He often added percussion and synths to the mix. In the end he feels that he is perhaps less satisfied than Sam, since he feels the director should have had complete control and that the film should have gone to the director’s plan from square one.
‘Danny Elfman ne laisse pas Tobey!’ = Danny Elfman does not leave Tobey. Elfman appears undecided about his input to the film, feeling that his part has been like a ‘secondary character’, and only finding himself in places like the bank hold-up set-piece, but mostly having to find a balance between ‘audacity’ and sacrifice. From here he describes his intention with the Doc Ock thematic material – a double personality, because from the amusing and strongly sympathetic Otto comes (with seduction) an extremely obscure being, with the music able to become aggressive in style.
When asked whether he had planned his music in terms of a continuing series of films he says that Sony and Sam were both clear in their request: “the theme [his music] must be memorable, simple and evolutionary”. Whether or not he scores Spider-Man 3 depends entirely on Sam and whether, after an “insane May” everyone involved can speak the same language. He doesn’t feel that he needs to sacrifice anything of his style to please with a third film – he simply did his job, just as those who came after him also did their job, 100%. Nobody’s professional values have been called into question.
Finally a bit of back-patting for the magazine that has ‘broken the ice’; admiration for the variety and marketing of the compilation soundtrack (while teasing that his “score” album will be better). The interviewer asks to saltue Bridget – and he replies he’ll do a lot more than that!
Wow, thanks a lot! That was a very informative interview, thanks for translating it! I really hope that Sony allows Spider-Man 3 to be the movie that it has to be, including having a Danny Elfman score.
‘Danny Elfman ne laisse pas Tobey!’ = Danny Elfman does not leave Tobey
It’s more : “Danny, don’t let Tobey down !” (it’s a play on words on the verb “to let down” that is close to “Tobey” in French…well, if you have a pretty imaginative mind !).
Anyway, great translation. I’m amazed by the accuracy of it (not only the meaning but the sentences that are very close to what I read in the original interview). I prefer not to think of the time you spend on this…
Great job…
“Elfman therefore re-contacted Sony and ‘told them where to go.”
I read the interview again and this is the only error I found but a pretty important one. In French, the sentence (J’ai donc recontré les gens de chez Sony et je leur ai dit d’aller se…) is intentionally cut because what Elfman actually means is : “I met the people at Sony and told them to f*** off…”
They didn’t want to put that on paper I guess…
So how does the unfinished sentence translate exactly? I assume something like “I told them to go…”? Perhaps we should send a joint complaint to the magazine, since they promised that their interview was uncensored!
Blunt
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.