Comments on: Oscar Opens Door for Possibility of No Original Song Category

By: Carta

Carta — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:34:15 +0000

Wasn't there controversy this year over "Jai Ho" anyway, since it was originally written for another movie? The exact same rule disqualified "Come What May" from Moulin Rouge (it was originally written for "Romeo and Juliet" but was never used or even recorded), so the "Best Original Song" category has kind of lost its credibility now anyway.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:58:09 +0000

Honestly I'd rather have them mandate it to be 5 songs. I don't think there was a lack of good original songs last year and we still only got 3.

So far this year no great songs come to mind, but I'm sure by the end of the year there will be 5 worthy of a nomination.

By: JM

JM — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:28:41 +0000

Awww, that would suck if the Original Song category was omitted, even for one year. I really like that category! As for songs being played over credits, remember that "Into the West" was played over credits only in LOTR 3, and it still won Best Song. But it did have an artistic impact on the movie in question.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:34:21 +0000

How about removing this category and instituting categories which recognize voice work and stunt work?

By: Patricia

Patricia — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:08:33 +0000

I think some good arguments have been made above that support the trend to eliminate, by a slow attrition it seems, the category of best song. But I am loathe to think that the Academy would start to shrug off the collaboration between film and music that dates, as as been previously alluded to, back to the silent era when a piano was played during the screenings. There would still be Best Sountrack I assume. But I would hate to see a year where it wasn't possible for events like the young song writers, Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova from "Once," having a win for their marvelous song, "Slowly Falling."

I think the award show has been doing a poor job on the songs for a long, long time. Remember the burning car on stage for "Into the Deep" from "Crash"? And then it didn't win, the best movie song in years, IMO. Those over choreagraphed numbers that turn songs into Las Vegas acts are just awful. So the question is, is this truly a move to upgrade the awards, or the awards show?

P.S. I loved "Slumdog Millionaire" but thought that song and dance number at the end was hardly part of the film. The actors broke character, they were clearly just themselves and not playing their parts. It was a credit sequence without the credits. That song being nominated was the equivalent to awarding a song from a play in which the song was only used when the actors took their bows.

By: GregM

GregM — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:19:05 +0000

Grammy awards are given out for best compilation soundtrack, score, and original song for motion picture, television, and other visual media (though movie songs tend to dominate). The redundancy is a little much.

Since both Grammy and Oscar shows could benefit from some cuts, I'd like to see the Recording Academy be the sole awarder of soundtrack and song while the AMPAS award for score.

I wonder how Beyonce's taking the news.

By: Carson Dyle

Carson Dyle — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:58:08 +0000

@Steve: No, I… abhor the category. Best Original Score, sure. Most films have a score. But Best Original Song only applies to a select number of films in a given year… I dunno, I've just always hated it. It's also the slot through which awful films seem to get an Oscar nomination (exceptions being makeup for Norbit…ugh.)

While a lot of songs are integrated into films beautifully, they're usually musicals, which were all over the place when the category was introduced, but have been a rarity since the collosal failure of Hello Dolly and the like. It's an arcane category that seems to have survived because a lot of excellent choices are made in it, paradoxically enough. It'd be like having… Best Title Sequence or something. Sure there are a few, and they're sometimes brilliant, and it would be great to reward the creators of those sequences, but most films are shut out.

To that end, I know that most films don't have special effects, either. But, to me, special effects is an intrinsic part of filmmaking (for those given films). An original song is, 99% of the time, something incidental.

By: Brad Brevet

Brad Brevet — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:31:41 +0000

@Steve: Unless I am mistaken I assumed when Carson said that he was referring to the way it is handled, not necessarily the category itself. I could be wrong.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:57:27 +0000

The worst category! You have got to be kidding me! Music and movies have gone hand in hand since before they began talking in movies. They go to 10 Best picture nominations citing that's what they did in the good old days and eliminate a category that has existed since 1934.

By: Brad Brevet

Brad Brevet — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:09:58 +0000

@Carson Dyle: My understanding is difference — in the minds of the music branch — is "The Wrestler" was only played over black and not at all during the film. While "Down to Earth" played over a credit sequence that actually continued the story with an animated sequence, and "Jai Ho" was played with the dance sequence that was loved by everyone and I would say was believed to be "part" of the film (although we're really stretching it).

It's basically an invisible line with no real distinction, but that's my understanding.

By: Carson Dyle

Carson Dyle — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:31:13 +0000

Brad,

Are you sure the fact that "The Wrestler" played over the end credits was the reason that it was ignored by voters? Because, technically, "Jai Ho" and "Down to Earth" were played over the end credits of their films as well…

Overall, I like the possibility of there being no Original Song nominees, as it'd be a step towards eliminating the category altogether. It's the worst category, and when we have no Oscars for voice over work or stunt work, well, it's a little nonsensical.