Do you also dislike the phrase “This is a fun score”?
- This topic has 26 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Do you also dislike the phrase “This is a fun score”? When people use that phrase to describe a score I can be sure about 90% that I won’t like the music when I hear it. It is something close to “To enjoy that movie you have to switch off your brain.”
It’s not these phrases themselves that bother me. It is just my experience that these phrases are usually used in context of scores or movies that I find bad.
Anybody similar experience?
Yeah, me too. It’s particularly prevalent on JWFAN, but I’ve seen it elsewhere too.
I mean, there are plenty of “fun” scores out there, but it’s become a bit of an annoying shorthand when there is nothing else meaningful to say about a score. At the very least mix up the adjectives a little! Like, WHY is it fun?
These puns are fun 😉 I am guilty of using that term often in the meaning of “guilty pleasure”. Or for “minor” scores of a composer that already has better or more original masterpiece scores in his ouvre.
To get back to the topic, I suppose it depends on what you mean by “fun” score. I don’t think calling something a “fun” score automatically means it is a lesser score. I think Haydn’s Symphony No. 87 or Prokofiev’s Symphony No. 1, both among my all time favorite symphonies, are fun, fun in the best sense of the word. GREMLINS is a score I would consider “fun”, which doesn’t mean it isn’t also great. I think it is “fun” when a composer plays around with and subverts expectations. When Saint-Saens slows down the famous “Can-Can” for the tortoises, that’s just pure fun, as is the entire score.
For me personally it is less a question of what I consider fun. I don’t use that phrase. It is just an observation of mine that in about 90% of the cases when I read this phrase written by others it is about a score that I consider rather bland, uninteresting and sensationalistic.
In best case, yes, this can be kind of a guilty pleasure.
That does not mean that fun isn’t a feeling that I connect with film scores. But even when I have fun while listening to a particular score, I would never use that phrase “This is a fun score.” because this is usually used to say that people have very low expectations to this music.
Other people might have other experiences. That is why I asked the question.
That sounds more like a personal connection you have, Gerate. Personally, I see no correlation between calling a score ‘fun’ and it being ‘bland or uninteresting’.
My only issue is the prevalent use of adjective itself, without further specifications.
I agree with Thor, it sounds like a more personal reservation against the phrase, which of course is fine. I would not hesitate to call Prokofiev’s first symphony “a really fun score”, but I would not mean that to denigrate the music, quite the contrary. But that’s just me, others may differ.
That sounds more like a personal connection you have, Gerate.
Right. That’s more or less exactly what I said. It is related to my taste and personal experience.
Others with different taste might say, if someone in a film music forum calls a soundtrack “a fun score” then they know that they will love it because they simply loves all scores that are called “a fun score” by other soundtrack fans.
But by my experience these scores are usually not my taste.
That’s what I said.I would not hesitate to call Prokofiev’s first symphony “a really fun score”,
Really makes all the difference. 😉
Right. That’s more or less exactly what I said. It is related to my taste and personal experience.
Others with different taste might say, if someone in a film music forum calls a soundtrack “a fun score” then they know that they will love it because they simply loves all scores that are called “a fun score” by other soundtrack fans.
But by my experience these scores are usually not my taste.
That’s what I said.Which you’re free to have, of course. We all have our connections.
I’m reminded of something sorta related. When I’ve discussed with colleagues, and they’ve been disparaging about a film, they’ve sometimes ended their argument with “but it’s got great entertainment value, I suppose”. A sort of reductive, faint praise when all else is lost. That’s often irritated me a little bit, especially if I love that same film for many other reasons than just its sheer entertainment value.
I had a college professor who told us that if we were ever on a date with someone who described a film as “so good,” we should leave them by the side of the road and drive home. I suppose “fun” qualifies, too.
I’m reminded of something sorta related. When I’ve discussed with colleagues, and they’ve been disparaging about a film, they’ve sometimes ended their argument with “but it’s got great entertainment value, I suppose”. A sort of reductive, faint praise when all else is lost. That’s often irritated me a little bit, especially if I love that same film for many other reasons than just its sheer entertainment value.
Hmm… isn’t “great entertainment” value the entrance card? If a movie is “entertaining”, can it be bad? If a movie is not “entertaining”, can it be good? Of course, it depends on what definition of “entertaining” one might use, and also of course, a movie may be “entertaining” for reasons totally different from the original intent. I consider Irwin Allen’s THE SWARM a highly entertaining movie, but probably not for the reasons Allen intended it to be. Perhaps some people use the term to simply say “I liked the movie”. Now just about all people watch or have watched movies, but not all people — probably not most people — are inclined to analyze what they like and why.
Yes, but it’s a reductive way of putting it. A way of saying that it only works on surface level, and doesn’t have any depth. Whereas in many cases, I feel like they’re overlooking several layers. These are snobby arthouse buffs, many of them, and can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that even certain mainstream Hollywood films can offer more than just entertainment – especially if they’re made by capable auteur directors.
As you say, entertainment is just the ‘entrance card’. There are often many more things to be “had” in the meeting of a film, no matter where that film comes from.
Hollywood films can offer more than just entertainment – especially if they’re made by capable auteur directors
Yeah, I’m always reminded of C.S.Lewis’s take on the “literary reader’ who is more concerned with getting the most out of their reading, often re-reading material for further analysis, or simply the aesthetic pleasure of good writing, than with where the material came from. Or what I call the Ratatouille rule: not everything is great art, but great art can come from anywhere.
I have more than once been called a “reductionist”, so who knows, maybe I am. (It’s true that I need to get to the smallest building blocks and core assumptions first, because the foundation is what enables deeper discussions in the first place.)
However, I’d say this: to work on a surface level at all, it has to work on deeper levels. Because while the surface is what shines, without layered foundation, surface is just like thin coat of paint that flakes off at the slightest scratch.
I think one of the greatest directors ever was William Wyler, who was at least skeptical of the “auteur” notion. He said once: “I could hardly call myself an auteur – although I’m one of the few American directors who can pronounce the word correctly”. Yet he was a deeply involved and serious filmmaker, striving to do the best possible movie he could make. Wyler was also critical of too many people in the movies for the wrong reason: “The trouble with Hollywood is that too many of the top people responsible for pictures are too comfortable and don’t give a damn about what goes up on the screen so long as it gets by at the box office. How can you expect people with that kind of attitude to make the kind of great pictures that the world will want to see?”
In the end, Wyler was a “reductionist” who believed that a good film needs a good script and good actors and that a director should put himself in the service of these things. And he did some great movies, not doubt.Wyler was a highly accomplished filmmaker who believed getting himself “out of the picture” (figuratively), by approaching each movie and genre on its own terms. So an artist who put himself at the service of art.
There is a type of art “connoisseur” (as they might call themselves) that is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum. They use the art to elevate themselves and put themselves up there. You’ll find them among the audience of all kinds of art (paintings, literature, music, movies), and you recognize them almost as soon as you talk to them. You quickly perceive that they don’t talk so much about the movies themselves, but their “observations” about a movie serve primarily to display their own (implied to be refined and superior) tastes and discriminating observations. Unlike Wyler, who made movies by getting himself out of the way, they discuss movies to put themselves in the way. We’ve probably all met these kinds of people at various times in our life. Sometimes, I find it fun to poke a needle in their bubble. Most of the time I have other interests these days though. 🙂Or what I call the Ratatouille rule: not everything is great art, but great art can come from anywhere.
Oh, I love that, great. Ratatouille is one of my favorite movies, one of the all time best animated movies. I’ll definitely quote that Ratatouille rule from now on.
I have more than once been called a “reductionist”, so who knows, maybe I am.
That was not in response to you, but the people who say such things…you know, those snobby folks who go “I disliked this and that about this movie. It generally sucked….but HEY, it was entertaining, I guess”. That’s reductive. Or faint praise, as one also calls it.
Oh, I see, yeah, though that’s why sometimes it’s so important to define terms, because that’s not reductive for me at all… that’s just basically a vague expression of disliking a movie that some may have found entertaining…
Depends on your perspective. In my experience, it usually comes off as reductive. I remember discussing Alex Garland’s EX MACHINA, for example, a film I consider one of the best of the 2010s, super rich with layers of meaning – expressed both via dialogue and visuals. They failed to see this, and just brushed it off with that “but it’s entertaining, I guess” comment, as if that was all there was to it. No layers, no meanings, no value beyond being kept awake for two hours. Fortunately, their perspective changed a bit when I published my review, where I went in-depth about some of those layers. But it’s a rather annoying attitude to meet when you know it’s coming from an angle of snobbery and limited openness or ability to read films beyond their entertainment value.
Depends on your perspective. In my experience, it usually comes off as reductive. I remember discussing Alex Garland’s EX MACHINA, for example, a film I consider one of the best of the 2010s, super rich with layers of meaning – expressed both via dialogue and visuals.
I agree; IIRC, I considered it the best film of that year.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.