Scores for 'Tarzan,' 'South Park' Can't Win

Dec 7, 199910 posts by 6 posters
10 posts
Daniel Gilison

Scores for 'Tarzan,' 'South Park' Can't Win JON BURLINGAME, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

Two of the year's most successful animated movies--and the year's only musicals--won't be eligible for Oscars for their scores, a move that has some producers and composers crying foul.

The scores for Disney's "Tarzan" and Paramount's "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut" have been forced out of competition, the result of a streamlining of music categories from three back to two (best song and original dramatic score). Both films continue to be eligible in the best song category.

It's the latest brouhaha to plague the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' music branch, often the target of complaints at Oscar time over its eligibility rules.

Academy executive director Bruce Davis confirmed the decision, noting that "Tarzan" and "South Park" were the only films submitted for consideration in the optional third category of original musical or comedy score.

The rules state that if four or fewer films are submitted for a category, the branch's executive committee can recommend that no award be given. With no comedy or musical score category available to them, composers Mark Mancina ("Tarzan") and Marc Shaiman ("South Park") had hoped to submit their underscores--that is, all the music other than the songs--for consideration in the dramatic score category.

In Mancina's case, it's approximately 45 minutes of original music unrelated to Phil Collins' songs for "Tarzan." For Shaiman, it's approximately 35 minutes of music, partly original and partly adapted from the songs by Shaiman and "South Park" co-creator Trey Parker.

But the music branch ruled that they may not resubmit in the dramatic score category, citing a provision that restricts music from musicals to the musical or comedy score group--which, this year, doesn't exist.

"I'm still in disbelief that a dramatic score for an animated movie like 'Tarzan' cannot be reentered," said Mancina, who has written scores for such films as "Speed" and "Twister" but has never been nominated. "I understand the difficulty that there is in the categorization of scores. . . . But writing a score like 'Tarzan' is no different than writing a score for any other movie that needs emotion, charm, fun, humor and all of the characteristics that a score brings to a movie."

Shaiman, a four-time nominee (for "The American President," "Sleepless in Seattle" and others), said he was "shocked and disappointed." "South Park" executive producer Scott Rudin called the decision "outrageous" and "incredibly unfair. It doesn't make sense to me. This movie has a huge, complicated, ambitious dramatic score, which is a big part of the reason the movie works."

Rudin said he had written a "long, impassioned letter" to the academy asking for reconsideration, but he acknowledged that there is no formal appeals process and that any change in the decision was a longshot. Academy sources said Friday that, because the rules clearly make the two scores ineligible outside the musical and comedy score category, the music branch is unlikely to reconsider.

"In any awards process, there are always complaints," said composer Charles Bernstein, one of three governors of the academy's music branch. "There simply are not categories for every single achievement."

According to Davis, the academy has traditionally been wary of offering awards "in categories where there's not enough of a field available to make a legitimate competition.

"The issues in the music area are inherently complicated," Davis added. "The branch executive committee has been tinkering with (the rules) for years to try to make them as fair as possible, but I don't think anyone, anymore, thinks that 'as fair as possible' is going to mean making everybody happy."

Privately, music branch members say the current status of the music categories is, in part, a reaction to Alan Menken's three wins for original score (for the Disney animated films "The Little Mermaid," "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin," between 1989 and 1992).

Voters were choosing the songs, not really voting for Menken's dramatic underscore, many believe. "The problem here is one of potential confusion to voters," Davis acknowledges. "With a musical film, it's hard to ask people to set aside the term 'score' in a Broadway sense and to focus on the score in a movie sense. There's a tendency to honor the songs even though it's not a song category."

Another issue is the fact that the academy ballot lists only film titles, not composer names, under the score category and many voters were in the habit of checking off whatever that year's big musical happened to be.

The result was the 1995 creation of the musical or comedy score category, enabling serious dramatic scores to compete against each other without having to fight song scores too. And, by adding comedy scores to the mix, original musicals had a spot even in years that only saw a few (like this year). Menken, in fact, with lyricist Stephen Schwartz, won that first year for "Pocahontas."

Copyright 1999 / Los Angeles Times

Daniel Gilison http://www.stanford.edu/~gilison [email] To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Oops, if you're interested, the web site is:

http://www.hollywood.com/news/topstories/12-06-99/html/1-3.html

Daniel Gilison http://www.stanford.edu/~gilison [email] To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

that is such bullshit. it seems like every year they alter the rules and screw somebody over in the process. i mean, i can understand them trying to push "south park" out, but c'mon..."tarzan"? the academy loves that crap. then again, are they still bitter that whatsisface won for all of those disney films a few years back?

it's not a legitimate competition anyway...but, then, if that's what they want to believe i guess they can go right ahead.

nevermind...i guess that answered that question.

oh well...it's not as if it was to be expected, but marc and trey put together one hell of a good soundtrack for that film...it's more than a little unfair that they don't even have the opportunity to submit it for consideration.

amy holden: "you've got a weird thing for canadian melodrama." banky: "i've got a weird thing for girls who say aboot."

Dude isn't the guy they were all pissed at dead now? Seriously, its kinda sad to may Disney pay at this point.

KyleIke13~ <A HREF="http://kyleike.8m.com">Lyrics Page</A> <A HREF="http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/macau/1068">Tree Huggin' Hippie Crap!</A>

Just along the same vein, the Academy is kind of famous for that kind of bullshit-- I mean, remember "Natural Born Killers?" Rodney Dangerfield would have had a best supporting actor Oscar if the Academy would have let him become a member, but they said that the films he had made didn't count as serious films, so they denied him admittance. Cruddy bastard children of maid moron.

Cynthia "You are a fluke of the universe, you have no right to be here and whether you can here it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back"

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
ageorge3psychoktty

What? Where did you get that? Or are you joking?

There's not a true word in that post. You don't have to be in the Academy to get an Oscar.

And any actor from any film is eligible as long as the film opened commercially for the first time during the appropriate calendar year for at least a week's run.

If you mean that the Academy members have that sort of prejudice about comedians, you might have a point.

[email] wrote:

The result was the 1995 creation of the musical or comedy score category, enabling serious dramatic scores to compete against each other without having to fight song scores too. And, by adding comedy scores to the mix, original musicals had a spot even in years that only saw a few (like this year). Menken, in fact, with lyricist Stephen Schwartz, won that first year for "Pocahontas." ___________________________________

No bullshit here. They just reverted to the previous structure. Alan Menken had the musical force to lead to a third category, but since his death, no one has matched it. And with a weak field (only two nominees), well...

--- Willie Westwood

http://members.aol.com/bgsn007/Spinfo.htm

meaning that they once again altered the rules. reverting back to a previous practice still counts as altering.

which is why i see it as being unfair (and not just because of "south park", but because the musicians get the shaft every year in some way or another.). i think they should be allowed to resubmit in a different category.

amy

holden: "you've got a weird thing for canadian melodrama." banky: "i've got a weird thing for girls who say aboot."

Oops.My bad. I knew one of them was dead.

--- Willie Westwood

http://members.aol.com/bgsn007/Spinfo.htm
ageorge3Daniel Gilison

Well, here's a new wrinkle to this whole mess:

If the Academy's own site is to be believed, two-thirds of the LA Times must be wrong. That is: at www.oscar.org, they have copies of the rules for this year's Oscars as well as for the last couple years.

According to those rules, the categories were changed this year. Last year it was

Song Dramatic Score Score for a Musical or Comedy

This year it's

Song Score Song Score

So -- assuming that the Academy knows its own rules -- the question is not "Why did everyone else refrain from entering their comedies in the Score for a Musical or Comedy?" but "Why were the rules changed to set up a category that they almost surely knew wouldn't yield enough entries?" (I mean, these guys know by fairly early in the year what the releases for the rest of the year are likely to be.)

A bigger question is "Why did no one the Times talked to correct them on this?"