MovieChat Forums > Classical Music > Composers compared to film directors

Composers compared to film directors


1. Bach = Hitchcock
Both had a workmanlike approach to their craft, and excelled at one style in particular (fugue, suspense). Hugely influential to those who came after them.

2. Beethoven = Kubrick
Made some obtrusive works for their time. Slightly less prolific than fellow artists but took great care in making each work and taking on large themes.

3. Haydn = Spielberg
Father of the symphony, father of the blockbuster. Both well respected and prolific.

4. Mozart = Coen brothers
This one may turn a few heads. Very, very skilled in the execution of their respective crafts. Works are embedded with an idiosyncratic sense of humor. Consistent output that is always original.

5. Brahms = Paul Thomas Anderson
Newer generation artist highly influenced by older styles and masters. Excels in the technical aspect, but works are sometimes criticized as being too intellectual or empty.

reply

I like most of these, though I'm not sure if Kurosawa was quite as revolutionary and pivotal as Beethoven; it's probably as good a choice as any. I think both Haydn and Bach are good counterpoints to Hitch for different reasons: Haydn because Hitch was also one of the key proponents of solidifying the classical style; Bach because of how much a technical wizard he was. Mozart/Renoir and Berlioz/Welles are both inspired choices. Fonti may hate me for saying this, but Rules of the Game is as close as film has come to replicating the spirit and artistry of Figaro. I do think Ford is far better than Copland, though I understand the comparison. Webern/Kubrick isn't bad, but I honestly have a hard time finding a great match for Kubrick. He was a really fascinating mix of the mainstream and the avant-garde with a perfectionist's temperament. Webern hits on the last note, but not on the mainstream aspect.

Rabbit: It's rare that stupid doesn't bring douchedom with it.

reply