Generic Soundtrack, Or Just A Sound Alike?

What does the music from 'I Am Legend' (James Newton Howard) and 'Sunshine' (Underworld) have in common? Both have harmonic simplicity -- they're almost stripped of any melodic complexity -- favoring dramatic primitive rhythms instead. Both begin with an ostinato pattern in the upper strings accompanied by a pulsing staccato in the lower strings. The only real difference between the two is that Howard chose a syncopated guttural vocal sting to accent his music while Underworld's guttural vocal sting is on the beat. In both, the repeated notes remain within a very restricted range.

Both have a melody which holds the first note for four beats before ascending two steps in a modal scale, holding each note for two (or so) beats before returning to the original pitch (or another lower pitch). This pattern repeats and escalates. The music for both is in the same key. Underworld choose a more refined sound for 'Sunshine', keeping the melody in the strings, possibly to suggest the purity of space or the presence of the divine, while Howard went with a much more grinding, almost brutal, sound for 'I Am Legend', especially in the very close dissonance of the choral work, possibly to suggest the anger and fear the protagonist lives with and the monstrous beings he hides from.

I've watched these trailers gobs. At first I was sure the same composer had worked on both movies. Then I was sure one of these guys will sue the other. See if you can't hear the similarities. The music in the 'Sunshine' trailer starts about 48 seconds in. The music in the 'I Am Legend' trailer starts almost immediately. Enjoy. They're good trailers.

I Am Legend. Music by James Newton Howard (music starts immediately)



Sunshine. Music by Underworld (music starts at 48 seconds)

Danny Boyle On The Treatment

Danny Boyle, who (in case you've been living in a cave) is the director of 'Sunshine', talks with Elvis Mitchell on The Treatment. DB wishes he could have been a musician, British movie theaters suck, people in England go to the movies twice a year.

Sunshine: Behind The Scenes

Here's a compilation of behind-the-scenes video and snippets of interviews that's pretty easy to watch.

NYT Talks With Danny Boyle

'Sunshine' has got to be one the best-looking movies in a long time. This is top-drawer eye candy that should engage the intellect with its pop existentialism while delivering solid creepout factor.

NYT talks with 'Sunshine' director Danny Boyle, who has a fondness for his first movie, 'Shallow Grave'. He says, "I'm not saying it's the best one, but in some way it is and will always be the best one. Everything after the first one is business."

If you haven't seen 'Shallow Grave' you'll want to check it out -- it's one of the best Hitchcockesque psych-thrillers I've ever seen.

More Sunshine

New extended trailer for 'Sunshine'

Sunshine Review

Pictured is the hallway that leads from my living room to the kitchen (if you look closely you can see me at the end of the hall holding a ham sandwich...that I just made...in my kitchen). Okay. Fine. This is actually a still from 'Sunshine', opening tomorrow in the UK (arriving in the US 9/14).

Derek Elley has a rundown over at Variety. Derek describes the movie as an 'atmospheric drama that's gripping for two-thirds of the voyage', that finishes with 'an odyssey to no-ideas-ville'.

Okay, that's not great-sounding, but on the plus side I can't take too seriously phraseology like 'odyssey to no-ideas-ville'. I've been to No-Ideas-Ville -- it's a nice place. Clean, not too much crime, nice schools...and, it's not too far from Oddly-Clunky-Writing-Style-Town, and a short drive from I'll-Hyphenate-Anything Village. It's nice.

Derek does point out that the ending is a bit much, saying:

...capped by an increasingly visceral, killer-on-the-loose finale. Latter becomes progressively more ridiculous after the script's earlier, careful calibrations.

What the second half of the second sentence means is anyone's guess. I'm going with: ...more ridiculous when compared to the carefully calibrated story elements of the first part of the movie.

I've heard other comments to this effect (if I understand Derek correctly) and it's not encouraging. I'm holding out, though -- this is the most interesting sci-fi to come along in a while. On the plus side -- movies like this are by-and-large review-proof so business should be good (okay, now I'm hyphenating everything that moves). If the ending is really that bad I'll just watch the first two-thirds over and over.

Check out sunshinedna.com for gobs of cool stuff. How many days until 9/14?

Iconic Image vs. Iconic Image

The crew over at SunshineDNA were kind enough to send me this image from the upcoming sci-fi thriller 'Sunshine'. The person who sent it, he/she identifies him/herself only as 'sunshinedna', feels the above image represents the scene better than this one (see my comment):

sunshinedna could be right, their choice does seem to represent the scene better, however I still think my choice represents the movie better -- it has that quietude thing going. Either way it's all good.

For those of you who may not have visited the official 'Sunshine' site, it's loaded with material and well worth exploring. If you haven't seen the trailer yet, you're missing out -- this section of the official site has a bunch of trailers, interviews, and clips.

Many thanks for the excellent image. Love the movie already.

An Icon Is Born

Remember HAL? The suddenly-sentient computer in Stanley Kubrick's towering opus '2001: A Space Odyssey' that (or should I say 'who') realizes that, perhaps, it's not necessary to take orders from human beings anymore. If you think of HAL what do you remember? That silky voice with its blend of apathy and superiority? Maybe. People imitate it when they want to make fun of something that's blindly foolhardy in a grand manner, or when they forget their password and can't get into their computer.

For me, it was that eye -- the red sensor through which HAL watched (maybe 'monitored' is a better term) the world. I loved how that camera lens represented HAL so well -- malicious in the most subtle way due to its red color and unblinking stare -- yet passive aggressive, suggesting that, if there is any tension, it's your fault because (look into my eye) I'm as calm as can be. It's your fault you human being.

Danny Boyle's new movie, 'Sunshine', strikes me as similar to '2001' in that it's a very visual movie and has the same quietude about it. The trailers I've seen promise a movie that's dazzling to watch but also inward-looking, philosophical, and designed to make people think and generate some discussion (I think it will).

But, I've notice something that strikes me as a bit peculiar. There's one still that seems to be representing this movie -- somewhat strange for a film with so many incredible effects-driven sequences. That image is the one of Cillian Murphy looking out of some kind of portal. It's effects-free, does not imply action, and is meditative, and thus is not a natural choice for a sexy new sci-fi thriller. His expression is hard to read -- perhaps it's fear, perhaps hope, or resignation. But, one thing is sure -- it's a quiet, thoughtful composition. Yet, this image is the one generally selected to represent 'Sunshine' on websites and blogs. (This supports the growing notion that second-tier online content [i.e. the blogger] affects what plays well and what just sits there). I can't believe this image is the one the producers and the guys in Marketing wanted to rep this movie. I mean, wouldn't they prefer the one below? Nice -- cool, shows how much money was spent. But, it doesn't have the quiet humanistic power of the one of Murphy above.

Why would the image of Murphy be preferred? I'm guessing it's the basic difference between the world of the sixties and society today. I'm guessing 'Sunshine' has a much more brass-tacks approach to philosophy than Kubrick's masterpiece and is designed for an audience that has to deal with problems that did not exist on the same scale or had the immediacy in the sixties as they do today. 'Sunshine' seems more real than the intellectual and somewhat sterile '2001', and I think this is exactly what today's headline-weary audience is looking for -- quiet reassurance.

'2001' is certainly a great accomplishment. The effects are astounding, especially considering when they were created. That story, though… Just a bit off-putting -- it keeps even the most enthused viewer at arm's length. If 'Space Odyssey' were released today it couldn't connect with an audience. It's just too esoteric, especially that mind-bending ending. What would the average teenager today say when asked, 'So. What was 2001 about'?

Enter 'Sunshine'. With its unpretentious title, Rock-and-Roll effects, and (it would seem) a story that's both philosophical and has popular appeal. 'Sunshine' has a shot at becoming the new reference for sci-fi movies -- both fun and entertaining, and much talked-about for years to come. Right now, the online buzz is pegging the meter. 'Sunshine' looks like it will be a hit and have people arguing the meaning of life -- quite an accomplishment in today's market -- and I'm thinking that still of Cillian Murphy will become an iconic image for a new generation.