So those of us that follow film music and the Academy Awards know that the music branch of the AMPAS has some pretty silly rules about what qualifies a score for consideration. We saw this a few years ago with The Dark Knight when it was originally disqualified due to questions regarding how many composers were involved. Ugh.
Obviously it has reared its ugly head again this year. Carter Burwell's excellent and thoughtful score for the Coen Brothers' remake of True Grit was disqualified for taking its basis 19th century American hymn tunes. Never mind that it's a terrifically effective score. I'm sure the rule is based on some instance in which a composer won the best original score statuette for not actually writing a lot of music. This, however, was the m.o. of a lot of composers in Hollywood's Golden Age (It was basically Max Steiner's bread and butter. See: Casablanca).
But here's my question: in contemporary Hollywood film scoring, where is the line? One of the nominees this year is John Powell's terrific score for How To Train Your Dragon. It's a really fun listen but ultimately I don't feel like it's an Oscarworthy score. The thing is that the main themes almost all seem to be based on Celtic folk tunes (if not directly taken from them).
Here's the first track from the album (the particular passage in question happens right around 1:10):
So I guess the rules are different if you're using preexisting material that has an author (even though he's dead and so are all of his grandchildren) and that which doesn't, like a folk tune?
11 comments:
This is bullshit for so many reasons, but I will focus on only one.
The "Academy" Awards necessitate that the pompous ego-maniacs responsible for deciding on something as arbitrary and meaningless as an award are academics. Now, in academic music, how many renowned and revered opuses cite, develop, or are otherwise built on folk music?
Answer: A shitload. And these are works that are considered, by everyone up to and including the highest upper echelon of self-important "authorities" on the subject of music--any music--to be historically significant.
That's just my take on it. Like I said, this is only one reason in a stack of reasons why the Academy is full of shit, so this is where I just shrug it off and let someone else do the commenting, because I put as much stock in the Academy Awards as I do the MTV Awards.
So your question is a good one: where's the line? And can the academics fucking explain it to me?
Okay, I can't resist commenting on a second reason why it's bullshit.
#2:
The award is best original score, is it not? Not best original composer. Other than the musical score, every single other aspect of film production, from writing to post-production to the ball-washing of the director during five-minute breaks, is executed by teams of people. That's how come you always see a group of people in tuxes standing up there together when their movie is awarded. So why is it that the score has to be by a single individual?
Therefore, it was bullshit to disqualify The Dark Knight simply because the score was co-composed. But that should be an obvious point of contention. I could be mistaken on this. Because I don't even watch the awards ceremonies.
Maybe Dragon is allowed cause they didn't go around specifying which existing music they were adopting from, unlike Burwell and the Coens? Dunno. Both are great scores.
Agreed. It's an excellent score. Though I have to tell you, anyone with a pair of ears in the music branch of the AMPAS (which theoretically is all of them) should be able to tell instantly that Burwell's score is at the very least based on 19th century American hymntunes, if not outright building on them.
I've always wondered what they think when they disqualify... or even qualify for that matter.
I wasn't happy when Santaolalla won for Babel.
The piece he played at the awards show and is on the album, "Iguazu", is all over the place.
I suppose for whatever reason the Academy considers the piece a song instead of score, but I think an explanation and eventually some consistency would be a good thing!
Holy balls, "Iguazu"... the Captain sent that to me as a temp track for a scene in a film score he wanted me to do. It does get around.
Firstly, I have to split this into two parts...apparently it's too long to fit into a single post.
I both understand where the Academy is coming from and yet simultaneously despise them for it. And as to your points I wholeheartedly agree with most of them and completely and totally disagree with one in particular. But let's take this one point at a time.
The Academy views music in a similar manner that American copyright law views it. And much in the same way that American courts have a nearly impossible time making a learned and qualified decision in regards to intellectual property, the Academy has a similarly hard time with deciding what to do with "problem" scores. Case in point - Quincy Jones and the Best Score nomination that almost wasn't for The Color Purple. As exec producer, Jones' ego allowed him to push around a "I don't have quite the clout in Hollywood now that I will a in a few years" Spielberg into "letting" him score the picture. Unfortunately for pretty much everyone in the world, he was way out of his league and was forced to hire an unspecified number of ghost writers to score it. His alleged scoring by committee approach (he supposedly had as many as 12 ghost writers) nearly cost him the nomination, ultimately sharing it with two others (and losing). It was something of a touchy subject in 1986, and is still apparently discussed today when debating score eligibility and rule changes.
The main problem, as Timmay pointed out, is that there are very few learned Academy voting members - essentially we're talking about the music branch itself...and I question the musical "knowledge" of some of those. So basically you have the music branch (who really should know better) selecting the nominees and then the entire Academy body voting on the finalists. Basically 5000 or so fucktards who wouldn't know what goes into writing quality orchestral music if it was eating their asses! Just thinking about things like Babel or Slumdong (misspelling intentional) gets my blood boiling. I mentioned to Brad not long ago, right after the nom's were announced, that I really kinda wished Rahman would die, choking to death on a bad piece of curry chicken or something.
The secondary problem revolves around precisely what Mike already mentioned...Burwell made the honest "mistake" of siting his sources for his American folk material. I too have no doubt that nearly every theme in HTTYD is based on a Celtic folk tune...but good luck picking which one and then crediting it to its composer. And why would anyone even try - for all we know, they're simply part of Powell's musical language being that he's English (and possibly of Celtic heritage given his surname). Not to mention the fact that your average Celtic folk tune is...what...several hundred years old (if not older)? Whereas most American folk music is new enough that an original composer can often be credited. More after the break…
…And we’re back! As it turns out...this'll be a 3-PARTER!!!
Let's take on another issue with this year’s awards nominees. Not one...but TWO weren't even scored to picture. Both Inception and Social were scored to the screenplay and/or story. What does that say about the meaning and value of the award when two of this years nominees, both with a genuine shot at the Golden Guy, weren't even written to the film for which they're accompanying? There's an editorial on FSM Online this month about this very problem. And it raises a valid concern, are these "Original Scores"? Or are they "Music Inspired By..." soundtracks?
And now to my last point...I completely disagree with Brad's assertion that HTTYD isn't Oscar-worthy. Admittedly you said it was "terrific" and a "fun listen". And judging it solely on its compositional merits is highly subjective obviously. I'd counter though that you can't make a strong, definitive argument for or against a score's Oscar caliber until you've heard it with the film it was written for - and as I understand it, you haven't yet. Saying "you're wrong" would be ignorant at best, but I would say you need to hear it in the movie. You still may not agree, but I think marrying it to the picture makes a substantially stronger case for its inclusion on the list - perhaps even, as I for one believe, making it the strongest of group.
In the end, what is the Best Score nomination supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about both quality and dramatic elevation - which scores best fit their movie and made it a little better. Quality alone...too subjective. Quality when combined with appropriateness...a little less so. Does the average voting member actually know anything about either...not fucking likely. So...we settle. I can't speak to the worthiness of True Grit I haven't seen it, nor have I heard much of the score. What I have heard I liked, and the general impression I get from others is that it's quite good. And yes, regrettably, the stupid Academy rules are keeping it out this year. Inception is my personal second favorite among the group, despite its "questionable" origins. There's no denying the genius of Zimmer's inspiration for the overall shape of the score. I'd take Desplats name off the list nearly any time it comes up. I just can't get a feel for the guy. I'll admit that he's a world-class symphonic colorist, but that alone does not a great composer (or composition) make. And what about the argument that the climactic moment in The King's Speech was set to Beethoven's 7th rather than original music thereby immediately rendering it less worthy? Is there something to that? I'm not one to say (though I lean towards yes, especially in light of what happened to Burwell).
And finally...
I have nothing against rock musicians scoring films. But, having seen The Social Network, I'd argue that its "score" is less music, and more part of the sound design. In terms of what the music did for the movie and musical quality...I'd easily take away TSN's nom and give it to a more deserving pop artist - that being Daft Punk. And please...stop letting Punjab Pete score movies! I totally respect Danny Boyle as a filmmaker, but for the love of Dog, if he's going to decide between no score or letting Rahman twiddle away on his guitars and sitars again - please...go with nothing at all.
So take away Rahman's nom and give it to someone more deserving like the Academy's Arch-Nemesis...Mr. Elfman. Though in all honesty, I'd have much preferred he got a nom for The Wolfman than anything he did in 2010.
In short (too late, I know), yes the Academy sucks sweaty donkey balls...and they're retarded...and they're COMPLETELY full of shit. Is there anything we, as people who really do know better, can do about it? Not really...just suffer through year after year content in knowing who really deserved it.
The "Academy" is is awfully pedestrian in that they usually can't even divorce their perception of a score from the reasons they nominate the whole film. In that regard, the Academy is not only full of shit, not only full of themselves, but remarkably similar to your average non-film music Joe.
Brokeback Mountain. Did not deserve it. DID... NOT... deserve it. It makes me grind my teeth when someone agrees with the "Academy" that the latest artsy hit is a "great score" when they don't even know any others. I hate that bandwagon support from people who can't even name ten film composers.
My own professors at Bowling Green shocked me when they hadn't heard of Jerry Goldsmith. Seriously? You haven't even heard the name? Okay, and you are my superiors, my authorities on all subjects musical. At that moment, I should have just dropped out of grad school.
Brokeback Mountain was nominated for eight awards and won three. Among them, best original score. Nnnnno. No. Go to the end of the line. Fuck that. That's the Academy for you.
I have no respect for the Academy at all.
You might as well be watching the Miss America Pageant. It's about as intellectually sound.
Post a Comment