Oscar-winning soundtrack


So, Tarantino wanted to work with Ennio Morricone for years. Then, after having to make do by pilfering from Il Maestro's back-catalogue for his films, he gets his wish. Then what does he do?

He virtually ignores many of the new cues Morricone scored for the film and uses old stuff from The Thing and Exorcist II: The Heretic! (Not to mention a totally anachronistic and badly judged use of a White Stripes song).

The cues from the Thing did not work in my opinion - not just because I am familiar with them from the OST of that film. They did not suit what was going on in the movie. And again - anachronisms with the synthesisers in the track "Eternity". There were also a few scenes where a bit of new music could have worked well.

The new score written by Morricone is a total classic. It has an incredible mixture of suspense, atmosphere and melody. It deserved the Oscar, but it did not deserve to be ignored, excised and belittled by Tarantino's typically hit and miss success with soundtrack choices. I doubt Morricone will ever work with him again.

The above is just my opinion - anyone agree?

reply

How is The White Stripes song anachronistic? It's not like it's diegetic music- by the same token all of Morricone's score should be anachronistic as well, since none of it actually existed in the 19th century.

reply

I see your point - but in that case all film scores are ultimately anachronistic. The convention of film music is that it accompanies the action in a suitable way. Incidental music works in a different way to pre-existing songs just inserted into the film. The track "Apple Blossom" pulls the viewer into the beginning of the 21st Century, whereas Morricone's score is there to evoke or create an atmosphere or sound setting.

Often Tarantino does uses old music and songs well (e.g. "Stuck in the Middle" in Reservoir Dogs) but here, in a film set in the 19th Century, that song jars for me; the same way "Cat People" did in Inglourious Basterds.

reply