The Hot Blog

In all fairness to Peter Gabriel, they don't show anybody's work in full on the Oscars. If they can't give actors or writers or directors a full scene, why should songs get more time? Now if he pulled out because "The Wrestler" didn't get nominated we could talk.

In a medley of three songs where two of them are from the same movie and in the same style, the odd one out might sound dischordant or overwhelmed. I can see why he might object to that prospect.

If it were a five-song montage that also included, say, "Rock Me Sexy Jesus, "Another Way to Die," one of the songs from "REPO!", and only one Slumdog tune, the playing field would be more even.

Sloanish, you're one of these peevish types who don't really think through what they say. The only way your logic would make sense is if they showed the whole movies of ever nominee.

Furthermore, this is an increasingly ratings starved show and they're going to short shrift to a song from one of the biggest films of the year and two from a best-selling soundtrack? So the Art Directors have more time to talk? Get real. The Oscars need to remember they're a TV show that gives out awards, not an awards show that happens to be broadcast on television. Or why not just post the results online?

Special effects teams work months or years for what could ultimately be 30 seconds on screen. We don't see all of that and they're much more instrumental to a movie.

If you want to look at it as just a TV show, that's your deal. Was that peevish?

sloanish - The Academy (and the network) are also not asking the nominated actors to get up onstage a act out a scene from the film. These guys are being asked to perform, they aren't just running the main and end titles of the films so we can hear the songs.
I will admit, the ceremonies where songs have been performed in full or have been shoved into medleys - complete with dancers and/or staging - have been either boring or embarassing. I'm glad Gabriel said no. Hopefully the show will suck that much less.

"Of all the songs in all of the movies this year, your three were the best. So how fast can you get the hell off the stage?"

Ah well. Maybe next year they can just re-name the category "Best Original Jingle From a Motion Picture".

Gabriel is an enormous musical talent, with a huge legacy. Kudos to him for reminding the t.v.-show-producing arm of the Academy that respect must be paid. (And could we please revise those insane Best Song nominating rules?)

bmcintire, much better argument than others. You're right.

While it would make sense for a small snippet to be played if they weren't asking it to be performed live, it seems completely useless to get Gabriel up on stage to sing a measly minute of his song. A song which tells a story, by the way.

yes, good point. and lord, if we had to sit through what seemed an eternity of amy adams warbling slightly off key last year, bless her heart, peter gabriel would be most welcome (tho stupidly, i wish he's sing 'sledgehammer' instead)

If nominating the Reader was not bad enough. The Academy were only going to give PETER FREAKIN GABRIEL A MINUTE? ONE MINUTE? This is reason alone for me to DVR this show this year.

Oh yeah, this is a show. A show that is slowly dying on the vine. Thanks to producers being hired who have NO CLUE what to do with the show. The musical performances can be highlights on this show, and they can be complete clusterfucks. The fact that these horrible TV producing dunderheads made this decision. Pretty much guarantees this year's ceremony will be a clusterfuck.

What really gets me is they are cutting the time of the BEST SONG, when there is all sorts of time in that show. If those old fogeys would take the time to actually add it up right. You could have a show where everyone who won got to talk for a minute or two, present packages on each BP Nom, and present one package on the importance of filme. While having another showing who we have lost in a year. How this show has become so poorly run. Really pisses me off.

The more pressing issue here is:

Peter Gabriel is forever immortalized to me as that dude from the Sledge Hammer video. Yeah, I know he was in Genesis at some point, but I only ever paid attention to that when it was Phil Collins, and he did the Say Anything song, etc. etc.

Point is, I have never seen or heard from the guy in the last 20 years, then I see him a couple weeks back at some awards show, and he looks like a cross between Nolan Ryan and Gavin McLeod.

Was the rest of the world aware of this? Has this been a gradual thing over time that wasn't shocking to other people?

It's the weirdest shit ever, I can't even reconcile that that Chris Isaac-meets-Jonathan Demme looking dude from 1988 now looks like a completely different person.

It'd be like if Rick Astley popped up looking like Burt Young.

I think the producers are right to scrap full song performances, and I think that Gabriel is right to not want to perform.

Stop the presses. IO is pissed off.

I do think it's a mistake to cut the songs though. At least it's some sort of live entertainment...they just need to get some people working on them who aren't 105 years old and have outdated show tune ideas of how to present them. Just put Peter Gabriel on stage with a mic and let it happen, what more do you need?

I'd like to see way less of those tribute bullshit clips they play. As would, I think, everyone else who watches the Oscars.

F him. No one watches the songs anyway...it's pee break/ food and beer time. Typical arrogant artist who wants the show to change the way they do things because HE doesn't feel it's right.

Besides, with that shaved head he looks like Billy Corgan's long lost father and he could be seeing as they both have ego's the size of planets.

Anyone else think Springsteen was snubbed because no ones ever seen a 1-legged dog?

It's arrogant to say you worked on a certain piece and actually care about how it's presented? I don't think so.

Besides, pee break/food and beer time pretty much describes the whole show except for maybe the first 15 minutes, and the last 15.

GIve me a break, Don. Thumbing your nose at the one-prestigious trainwreck of a show that is now the Academy Awards is arrogance? Sounds pretty sensible to me that he doesn't want to be anyone's trained monkey. It's a slap in the face to ask these people to perform essentially a "clip" from their pieces. You think they would have had the nerve to ask The Boss to do this had he been nominated? No respectable artist would play ball with this shit.

And personally, I don't think the songs should be performed anyway. Who cares about this category, really? Compared to the other awards given for the contributions to the films, this one is the most inconsequential.

It's an antiquated conciliation to the show's old-school "variety show" vibe, but by now I have to think most film-world people are so Aspergerianly one-track that it's about as sensible as playing an inning of fucking baseball during the middle of a movie awards show.

Plus popular music is (generally speaking) kinda something for 13 to 28-year-olds, so there's a huge disparity between what Oscar voters, attendees and viewers like, and what's remotely relevant. In other words, I can expect the usual harangue from my 60-year-old aunts complaining about how horrible all the songs were and how they have no idea who Beyonce/3 Six Mafia/Aerosmith/Jennifer Hudson is.

I wonder what Bill Condon would've thought of this rule had it been in effect the year that Dreamgirls had 3 songs in contention.

I can see medleying the Slumdog songs to some extent, or least combining them into one production number. But Wall-E is well-liked and Gabriel is a major recording artist, so give 'em their 3 minutes. As lazarus said, no way they'd have asked Springsteen to trim his song, and Gabriel deserves the same respect even if he's not a superstar like the Boss.

Peter Gabriel isn't really big with the "13 to 28 year-olds". He was a rocker from the 1970s. If anything, his fanbase corresponds to today's Hollywood old-fart establishment.

Here's an illustration for you, Lex:

http://forgottenjournal.com/index.php/2008/02/04/peter-gabriel-then-and-now/

Englishmen don't age well, as a general rule. Look at Albert Finney,or David Hemmings, or any number of rock stars. Their hair goes and their faces get wide.

holy shit

If I had my way there wouldn't even be a Best Song category. This ain't the Grammys.

Who watches a film for a song anyway? Most of the time they are played over the closing credits as if somehow what music they play when the Gaffers name rolls somehow elevates the quality of the movie you've just seen (that is if you're still in the theatre.) Farcical.

My gripe with Gabriel is about the structure of the show. They shortened performers tunes...THAT'S the format. I don't see why refusing to perform helps the film get any new viewers or helps Peter Gabriel fans see their favorite artist. Just seems...trite and tempermental.

Wasn't there brewhaha w/Babs a few years back? I can't remember what it was but something about not wanting to bow to the Academy's rules. I think she finally agreed but it was like noon the day of the show, something like that and they said don't bother. Anyone remember?

Anyway, I'm on the fence on this. Medleys suck. I don't wanna get teased up by something I like and then cut away. I've got some old Ray Conniff Christmas albums that they sliced up songs onto medleys for compilation cd's that piss me off. Can't anyone make an executive decision and pick two songs and leave one off??

I digress.

I can see how thinking only one min of a song would strip its integrity, even w/out the artist being a baby about it. If someone was asked to do 3 mins of a 4:30 song, eh, that's a little more reasonable than just a minute. One problem w/saying one min wouldn't do the song justice is that one minute of a song is generally the MAX time you'll hear of a song in a movie anyway.

Half the time I don't have any idea what the song is. I'll sit and listen if it's any good. Best animated short or set design is generally a great time to hit the john. I can pretty much be assured of having opportunity of seeing any of the firsts and the later seem to be decided w/a coin toss. Plus their speeches are always the most predictable, "When [the director] came to me and said, 'I have this big idea to do [_____]!'" From there it almost turns into Madlibs "I thought [exclamation]! How can I turn [noun] into [gerund] [noun] before [famous historical date] or else I [verb] my [item of great personal value] off!" (insert fake laugh at own joke) But it finally came together after my team [verb] for nights on end. I just wanna thank [famous person]. [Pronoun] is so, soo [adjective]. I mean it. (Start or continue applause in feign hopes it'll get you more work later on). This is such a [adverb] surprise! Thank you.” (Hold up trophy like anybody BUT the three-four losers you beat out still actually remembers your name and wander off in two directions for the way out like looking for the bathroom in a TGIFridays). And yerrr out.

What would really be cool is if they had like the sports ticker that runs along the top or bottom of ESPNews or that thing they do on draft day. Scroll the list of who's already won, then show IN ORDER what's on the horizon. I know that'll never happen because it'd really kill audience retention throughout the evening but people are gonna flip back and forth anyway. This way you could also not have to wonder any categories you may've missed.

"Typical arrogant artist who wants the show to change the way they do things because HE doesn't feel it's right."

But... its the Academy who is changing the way they do things, not Gabriel asking them to. THey have three nominees this year... why not let them all perform in full? It's a total of about nine minutes of screentime.

Because Kamikaze, this aint the Grammys. If they should perform anything it should be film scores, which are actually integral to the films they are written for. 90% of the time original songs are not. I don't even know why it is a category.

Well, I agree that it tends to be a silly category (although, at least they're trying to make it so that songs that are more incorporated into a film are nominated over mere end credit songs), but considering they perform all FIVE nominees every other year, why stop now when there are only three.

It is odd that they didn't replicate that beautiful score medley that they did a couple of years ago. There's a medley to get behind.

The songs may be the least integral part of a film, but seeing Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova perform and win the award for "Falling Slowly" was the highlight of last year's ceremony for me. A sixty second performance of that song would've be pointless, so, I'd side with Gabriel on this one.

Considering the congenial tone of his withdrawal from the ceremony, just labelling him a "typical arrogant artist" is way out of line. The producers laid the plan out for him and he said no thank you. He's still going to the show, he didn't call anybody any names, and he isn't screaming bloody murder for a boycott. And Don, I don't see how you can hold him responsible for not understanding the format of the show since this isn't what it was like before. Yes, the performances have been truncated for a while now; but even that song from "Once" that I mentioned above got THREE minutes to do its thing, and that was last year!

Sixty seconds doesn't seem all that bad on paper, but if you go back and look at some of the past Oscar performances, it's a deadline that would have pretty much slaughtered them. If that really is all they can offer, then yes, the whole production number ought to be scrapped.

"would've BEEN pointless" (would sixty seconds of remedial proofreading kill me?)

He's Peter Gabriel. If you want to consider yourself some what knowledgable when it comes to music. You will have to stumble across his work at some point, realize how fucking awesome it is, and totally have your mind-blown. He's a guy that should work more, but 1987 was very good to the guy.

What really annoys me is Hugh Jackman stating the Oscars will be more INTIMATE. Really? This is what we need to celebrate the year of the Superhero? If the Academy and it's members can figure out who in the hell they are, and what the hell they are doing. It would be appreciated. Until then... it's DVR for them!

Depending on the tempo and structure of a song, one minute may not be enough time to get through even one verse and chorus. If I'm not mistaken, even the American Idol elimination rounds allow for a minute and a half.

I agree that the song category has become a bit archaic. It was clearly created (in 1934) to honor the great work that was being done in musicals, back when living legends such as Irving Berlin, Cole Porter and Harold Arlen were contributing to the form. For years, a song had to at least be an integral part of a scene to qualify for a nomination, if only in a montage. I don't think end credit songs were eligible until fairly recently (a move that seemed to suggest the category couldn't otherwise survive). So I can see an argument for discontinuing it. But ultimately I like having it there, even if few songs these days seem to fit the original conception of the category.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: