The Steakhouse: Jonny Greenwood's Score

notyet, ihavent seen you arounds these parts yet.  Much obliged, and read for the music argot.

The inclusion of Arvo Pärt’s Fratres is certainly a coup and perhaps incongruous with the Messiaen and Penderecki-tinged Greenwood score, but melds nicely with the overarching hypothesis regarding all musical choices as not merely atmospheric exposition or purveyor of unseen tension but as explicit commentary and of foreshadowing – if not an “oracle” character boasting of prophetic visions combined with the previously discussed element of the Greek chorus offering casual (and causal) dramatic irony. While the usage of the Brahms concerto at the dedication of the well – so adequately co-opted and politicized by Plainview to the chagrin of Eli Sunday – is the sonic duel between Plainview and “all odds” or “everyone” (Eli in particular) as well as the generic festive mood-setter,[1] insertion of Fratres has a number of tertiary and quaternary uses in the dramaturgy of the film – with practically all of it lost on the average moviegoer.

Fratres, of course, is Latin for “brother.” On the most superficial level, we are able to view this as a surreptitiously placed piece of foreshadowing, well in advance of the introduction of Henry “Plainview.” The secondary level, then, is the usage of not the original setting of the piece – scored for percussion and string orchestra, set in Pärt’s characteristic tintinnabuli harmonic formula – but rather an adaptation: a transcription, a veritable arrangement for cello and piano is used – therefore defrauding the authenticity of the original work. This serves as a semiotic device to introduce phantom tension regarding Henry Plainview, who is, of course, not Henry Plainview, but an impostor assuming the identity of another, much like any arrangement, adaptation, or transcription. It is not authentic in the truest form, but – as if in the case with Pärt who has famously adapted many of his own works – it maintains an ethos of sorts as it is the brainchild of the same creator. Furthermore, the complexity deepens as the arrangement used in the film reveals further narrative details.

Already we have established the conceptual framework of a fraudulent character well ahead of his entry, but there are more clues to be had from Fratres. The arrangement heard involves a solo cello playing the entire theme of the work, a three-part chaconne-like melody, based on a major-mode manipulation of a Phrygian mode. There is a harmonic sparseness – found in many of Pärt’s works – but also a sense of incompleteness, owed to the B-flat pitch class in the A-major/A-phrygian mixture; a cyclical, inescapable flavor emanates from the vacilation of tonic, submediant, and minor subdominant key centres (A-Major, F-Major, d minor). The original work is anything but busy, a gentle-rhythm, almost-breathing work suspended over a drone of an open fifth; the cello adaptation is almost frenetic and frenzied in its pursuit to “hit” all of the right notes, despite absence of conductor, strict piano accompaniment, or an audible metronomic device. This is all a good ruse, a cover, for the original piece, but occasional lilts in the pacing, slight errors in bow pressure or left hand placement (indiscernible to normal ears) come forward to slowly peel back the veneer of fraud belonging to Henry “Plainview.” The piano accompaniment, further more, sounds out hollow resonances of chords from time to time, attempting to establish a drone, contributing far more to the harried, confused – if not virtuosic and certainly technically demanding – sentiment to the entire piece. In lieu of the bass drum and claves sounding out the trinity (half, quarter, quarter) on unpitched attacks, the piano uses the extreme of the bass range to replace a ritualistic heartbeat with a metallic gong-like sound, more reminiscent of the opening bars of Ravel’s left-hand concerto than the music of an Estonian re-introduced to Orthodox Christianity during the first days of the New Simplicity movement that swept central and Eastern Europe.

Fascinating stuff, notyetadoctor, thanks for posting! Can't say I can follow your argument without watching the movie again, but I love the level of attention to detail -- and I'm definitely singing along to the Brahms next time around!

What compelled you to analysze this musical score?  Your specialty, I beleive is music, but are you a film buff too or just a fan of this movie/Pt Anderson?  Is this analysis for a class?  Your own benefit?  Publication?

The Fratres arrangement in TWBB was arranged for the cellist Dietmar Schwalke in 1989, I think (have to get all my sources in order for the factual stuff).  My argument would be stronger, probably, had the arrangement been made specifically for TWBB, but I think there's still some credence as to the choice of the arrangement over the original.  There also other things, like the age-old statement that the cello's timbre is closest to that of the human voice, that could be circumstantial arguments for the selection.  But, I still believe it to be a pretty enlightened choice...

I am indeed a musician, a composer by training.  I'm a medium-time film buff -- I don't geek out about everything that comes my way --, but TWBB was probably the best film I'd seen in wide release in...well... maybe ever?  OK... Hyperbole aside, it's a brutally amazing film that has "complexity!" in giant red letters flashing in my eyes in every scene and sequence.  I'm not sure about PT Anderson as a whole (Magnolia to me seems a bit forced and Boogie Nights is at the very least unbalanced), but if the Kubrick and Malick references in TWBB (as well as the overall bleakness and the dedication to Robert Altman) mark some sort of shift for Anderson, I don't think we've yet seen his best -- especially if TWBB is just Anderson maturing as a film-maker.  Which is mind-boggling, since Magnolia or Punch-Drunk Love, for their apparent flaws, are still standout releases for their years compared to practically everything else in wide-release.

But, as I started out, I'm a composer, itinerant writer, and am finishing my PhD...slowly.  I might try to shop the completed version of this article around for publication, but I'm not holding my breath, really.  I don't really know of any film-music quarterlies or journals that don't talk about all-music or all-film...  Even so, I'm not easily compelled to sit down and write an article, which says even more about this film, I reckon.

Hyperbole is the order of the day, here in this forum.  It is a constant and I cant help but think that the two dozen of us in here, and another dozen I know on the outside speak of this film with the same glimmering reverance.  Perhaps teh exhalted jargon has nothing to do with embellishment.  When the numbers are so vast regarding its seemingly excessive accolades, perhaps its not teh aduience who is at fault.  Its just the almost objective majesty of teh work.

Kubrick references, Altman, Malick, Welles, and others, i had a distinct impression that when Palinview is shooting inside his own home, teh way he leans and looks itno teh survey scope, I felt PT was making a direct reference to Norman Rockwells "Triple Self Portrait."  I gave a more indepth argument somewhere in this message board.  Teh plentitude of teh number three is throughout the movie and especially in that sceen.  tehre is a still of Daniel looking into teh scope, which is set on a tri-pod.  there are three thresholds in teh scene.  Lamps on the wall which are made in threes.  Also, Daniel shoots his gun three times.  And tehn unloads  teh empy shells.  Did he shoot it trhee times momenst before?  being that a revolver has six rounds.

Im glad you joined to elucidate on the esoteric depths that I never would have ventured into.  I hope to read more of your stuff.

I have a friend who just started a magazine.  its a small one, yet to even be  published.  Shes a student out of Columbia college. A real good friend of mine and a fan of TWBB.  She is interested in anything that is thought provoking and your stuff easily qualifies as that. But I think shed be willing to endorse and print your stuff.  the magazine is, "happy collaborationist."  You can google it.  Her name is Anna trier.  If you have any otehr questions, just ask.

Notyeatadoctor, I have to read that again later (earlier? It's 1 am now) but what I managed to make of it, was very interesting.

A bit unrelated but I'd like to thak you all for your usage of ä (instead of a).

I'd love to know, btw, how this film is regarded in Europe.
Hello E.W. Europe here. Or Scandinavia, I don't know what central EU has to say.
But I do believe our collective opinion is that it's pretty damn awesome. At least of those who've seen it. I was talking to my older brother, asking him to join me and our little brother when I take him to see TWBB. His comment? "What is it about? It's pretty old, isn't it?" (I'm always dragging our baby brother to the film archive, so his mistake is understandable.)
I had lost my hopes of seeing a good movie hit the theatre and haven't been following reviews or what movies are coming out or anything. When TWBB was released, I was preoccupied doing travel arrangements. I remember seeing it get 5 stars from the biggest newspaper and thinking "that's some fine moustache" but thinking nothing more of it. So my impression could be off. But from what I gather, it's adored by moviebuffs and went largely unnoticed by the general public.
(Here, have some data to make your own conclusions about the film's success: I just checked, tomorrow there are three showings of TWBB in my city. 3 x 370 seats. 10 tickets have been reserved. The movie premiered less than two months ago. It's shown in only three cities in the entire country and in only one theater per city and at least here, it's playing at the "stuff for old farts" theater alongside Auf der anderen Seite which I've never even heard of but then again, I really don't follow these things.)

And I apparently went a bit off subject of what Europe actually makes of TWBB. Erm. I'll get back to you after I get some sleep. In, uh, thread that's not about the score. Sorry for the hijack.