Music @ the Oscars

Best Score has become one of my favorite categories over the years. The effect a music has on a film is really incalculable and I find myself noticing it and how it works within a story more and more. But I had never really looked up the Academy rules concerning their conditions for what makes a score original, and all the guidelines it must meet in order to even be considered for a nomination. My interest was peaked in discussion over at the Scanners blog I linked, where two posts concentrated on the lack of nomination for the Jonny Greenwood score of There Will Be Blood, and confusion over the Best Original Song nomination for Once.

In the case of the score for There Will Be Blood, The Daily Variety (1/21/08) reported:

"The disqualification has been attributed to a designation in Rule 16 of Academy's Special Rules for Music Awards (5d "Eligibility") which excludes "scores diluted by the use of tracked themes or other pre-existing music.

Greenwood's score contains roughly 35 minutes of original recording and about 46 minutes of pre-existing work (including selections from the works of Aruo Part, as well as pieces in the public domain, such as Johannes Brahms "(Violin) Concerto in D Major") Peripheral augmentation to the score included sporadic but minimal useage (15 minutes) of the artist's 2006 composition "Popcorn Superhet Receiver."

Although there is a viable original score written by Greenwood for the film, according to Academy rules, too much of the music in the film was pre-existing music by other artists, and even pre-existing music by Greenwood himself. (Academy rules specify that all original dramatic underscoring must be "written specifically for the film by the submitting composer.") So in the case of Greenwood's There Will Be Blood score, the disqualification is valid.

But that got me thinking about what other rules on scores I don't know about. For example, Rule 5e under Eligibility, states that scores are ineligible when they are "diminished in impact by the predominant use of songs." That is why Disney musicals are no longer nominated for Best Original Score, but get 2-3 Original Song nods instead. This year alone, for instance, the scores for both Into the Wild and Enchanted were submitted, but ruled ineligible, because even though they include large portions of underscoring, written deliberately for certain scenes, too much of the film score contains "songs."

This was especially detrimental to Eddie Vedder's score for Into the Wild, which does have a lot of songs, played in tracked parts of the film, but doesn't play them in their entirety, unlike Enchanted which is a straight-up musical. So the Into the Wild score suffers for having a score that functions more like a soundtrack (a list of specific songs), even though it is not. The main injured party appears to be Vedder's song "Guaranteed," a song that had been nominated for many critics awards, but was not nominated for the Oscar for Best Original Song. Apparently it appears in shortened track versions in the film, but is not played in it's entirety until the final credits. I'm not sure if this made it ineligible, or if the diluted portions of the song featured as part of the score hindered it's effect at the end. This seems unfair to me, given that "My Heart Will Go On" from Titanic, also only appeared in it's entirety at the end of the film, but the music from the song is the essential basis for the earlier underscored tracks "Rose's Theme" and "The Portrait." Perhaps that was before some of the rule changes.

The other questionable nomination in music this year was for the film Once. That film is about creating music and the compilation of a record, so obviously the score is ineligible for "predominant use of songs." However, the controversy was over the nomination of "Falling Slowly" for Best Original Song, because that song has appeared in the 2006 foreign film Beauty in Trouble as well as appearing on the album "The Swell Season," by Once stars Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, which was released prior to the film's release. This raised speculation that "Falling Slowly" should not be eligible for the award.

However, director John Carney and writer Glen Hansard both made it clear to the Academy, that although the song has appeared in other media, it was written specifically for the film Once. The New York Times reported this statement by Music Chairman Charles Bernstein:

“The genesis of the picture was unusually protracted, but director John Carney and songwriter Glen Hansard were working closely together in 2002 when the project that became ‘Once’ was discussed. ‘Falling Slowly’ began to be composed, but the actual script and financing for the picture was delayed for several years, during which time Mr. Hansard and his collaborator Marketa Irglova played the song in some venues that were deemed inconsequential enough to not change the song’s eligibility."

So, basically, it would not be fair to penalize Once just because it was released at a later date than subsequent projects that also happened to feature the song. As long at is was written and performed in Once prior to it's use in these other projects, it falls safely within Academy guidelines. (And I'd be pissed if it was ineligible because it's the best nominee in the category and it's the only way Once is gonna get any Oscar love!)

In researching some of these rules and past precedents, I found that the rules for Best Original Score and Best Song have gone through several incarnations. In Best Original Song, the rules were amended last year to include a specification that "in the Original Song category, Music Branch members shall meet to screen clips of the eligible songs and vote on the achievements." They now have to screen the clips, not just listen to a recording of the songs, as was previously done. I like to think this happened because the Academy realized that many nominated songs were only appearing over the credits of a film, having no impact of the film experience itself, while other songs were actually featured within the film. While having a song only appear over the credits is not against the rules, it makes sense that committee members should have to view how the song functions within the film as part of the review process.

Check out the nominees in 1997: "You Must Love Me" - Evita; "For the First Time" - One Fine Day; "I've Finally Found Someone" - The Mirror Has Two Faces; "Because You Loved Me" - Up Close and Personal, and "That Thing You Do" - That Thing You Do. Three of these songs only appeared over the closing credits, while two of the songs ("That Thing You Do" and "You Must Love Me") appeared in scenes within their film. I would say that songs that appear within the film are more valid choices as nominees because they enhance the effect and experience of the film, while songs that appear over the end credits just leave you with an (often) cheesy feeling. But that ruling would lead to a category mainly comprised of songs from musicals, and like this year, when there are only a few musicals, we will have three nominees from one film. I don't know what would be fair, but neither of these options seems to really acknowledge the effect of music within a film because both musical and non-musical film songs are being judged by the same criteria.

Here's another example; from 1996-1999, the Academy Awards had two categories for score: Original Dramatic Score, and Original Musical or Comedy Score. This distinction was defined to create a balance. Under this system, the scores for Braveheart and The English Patient would no longer have to compete against musical scores for Pocahontas or The Hunchback of Notre Dame. In prior years, when Best Original Score was the only category, scores for The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King, were allowed to compete against scores for JFK, Field of Dreams, and A River Runs Through It. Predictably, the Disney films always won under this system and dramatic scores only had a chance in years a Disney cartoon wasn't released. So the Academy authorized a switch to two score categories in order to balance the different effects of musical and dramatic scores.

However, Academy rules stipulate that their have to be at least four nominees for Original Musical or Comedy score in order to compete. So in order to have a full set of nominees, scores from comedies like Sabrina or The American President were forced to compete against musicals, even though these scores accomplish fundamentally different tasks. This isn't fair to the comedy scores. And in 2000, the category as a whole was not eligible because only two films, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, and Tarzan, submitted their underscores for Original Musical or Comedy score, and there need to be at least four. The category hasn't been reinstated since.

It's all a bit mind-boggling isn't it? Under our current system, it is the musical underscores that are being unfairly penalized. They aren't allowed to compete for Original Score because of an "over-dependence on songs," and yet aren't allowed to compete for Original Musical or Comedy Score, because there aren't enough nominees for the category to be activated. No matter which way the Academy swings it, some genre is being pitted against a radically different opponent, or left out completely.

And this doesn't even address other issues of music within film. Soundtracks are a vital part of film enjoyment and some directors have made the task of choosing tracks an art. (Think Quentin Tarantino laying "Little Green Bag" over the opening sequence in Reservoir Dogs, or Martin Scorcese's brilliant use of the Stones' "Gimme Shelter" in The Departed.) The right piece of "pre-existing" music over a particular scene really does enhance the impact of a film. I'm not talking about studios forcing a filmmaker to include "current, pop music" that the studio wants to promote, but having a pre-existing song chosen that will cast the tone for the film/scene. That is what a score does so why should only original music get awarded, but not the people who generate and organize a soundtrack? It feels like this should have it's own category. I know that the Grammys has a Best Soundtrack award (Zach Braff won it for the Garden State soundtrack), but the I feel the film industry should have a Music Guild as well. I searched and couldn't find one already in existence. The film industry already has guilds for Directors, Actors, Producers, Writers, ect. and have an extended awards presentation prior to the televised Oscar show that further recognizes technical aspects of film. Why shouldn't there be awards for proper soundtrack direction? I don't want to get all hokey and have awards for "Best Kickass Song Over a Fight Scene," like a parody of the MTV movie awards, but a Music in Film Guild that can honor and take a closer look at the impact all types of music have on a film, not just an original score.

I'm sorry for the nonstop diatribe. I just felt like regular awards-enjoyers like you and me should know why certain films get nominated and others don't, and be aware of inherent biases within the system. I could go off about the Foreign Film or Documentary nominating committees as well, but I'll save that for another year. I hope you got through all that and feel enlightened.