smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Larry O Dean" <larryodean@poetrycenter.org> |
| Subject | Re: The Kinks |
| Date | Fri, 13 May 2005 11:59:16 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.0 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Lee Elliott writes:
> The commercial is pretty - but maybe not a "brilliant marriage" -
> associating "picture" from the song and pictures from a printer doesn't
> seem like much of a stretch. And I do think the song is very important to
> it's success. Kinda like a Tarantino movie.
>
> Examples - Scorcese owns the solo to "Layla" now, Tarantino owns "Stuck In
> The Middle".
>
> Got a new one last night - watching "Life Aquatic" - Bill Murray in a
> firefight with "Search And Destroy" cranks was pretty fun - Wes Anderson
> is almost as bad as Tarantino for enhancing his work by attaching
> something that's already great - they mix the music very high in their
> movies. "Making Time", "Ooh La La" book ending Rushmore to great effect.
I haven't followed this whole thread that closely, but the big problem with
the way music is now used in movies -- by the likes of Anderson, Scorsese
(who really started the trend, back with Mean Streets) and Tarantino -- is
that it is used as a stand-in for emotion or effects the director was too
lazy to deliver. Or has become too lazy to deliver. I admit to liking "Ooh
La La" over the closing credits of Rushmore -- it always chokes me up -- but
is it the song I'm reacting to, or the movie? I like Rushmore, but for me
Anderson's best movie overall is Bottle Rocket (which also makes great use
of music, especially by Love and The Proclaimers) because it's the least
pretentious and precious. I also liked the Nico stuff in Royal Tenenbaums,
but that was definitely the music and not the movie; he uses it to elicit an
association with a place (NYC) and to appeal to music snobs -- shorthand, in
other words, for how cool he is and how cool anyone is who watches his
movies.
"Picture Book" in the printer ad makes me sad too, as does this general
co-opting of pop music for advertising. Again, it's shorthand, sometimes to
appeal to demographics; sometimes it's because the smartypants ad writers
are listening to hipper music and know that if the ad itself doesn't grab
someone's attention, surely the song will.
I know that revenues from ads (and movie soundtracks -- often a song you
can't even hear in the film when its shown) are the bread and butter for
up-and-coming bands these days, in lieu of Top hits 40 or plain old airplay,
since stations have become machanized and regimented through buyouts by
Clear Channel and its ilk. I feel less disgust when the band really needs
it, or benefits from it, than when, say, The Rolling Stones are shilling for
American Express, but at the same time, the more it happens, the more inured
to it I become.
Joan Jett and Tom Petty are two of my heroes for refusing to sell out. That
used to mean something. They can "afford" to take that stance, sure, but
there was a time when neither could, yet still did. That kind of tenacity is
missing these days. Instead of New Wave retreads in terms of musical style,
how about some good old fashioned backbone?
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.