Sabin wrote:Everybody thinks The Overdue Guy is due but I haven't heard anyone say his 1917 score is among the best work of his career.
My impression was quite different. All the original reaction I heard (tweets and reviews) had "Deakins is going to win again and Thomas Newman is FINALLY going to win" prominently displayed. This was an unusually easy year to pinpoint the nominees in this category -- the four who deserved it, plus John Williams just because -- and, honestly, up till the Golden Globes, I thought of it as Newman, T., in a rout for the win.
Is it just the Globe win that has caused so many to latch onto Viking-woman (I'm too lazy to look up her name right now) as a sure thing? Because the Globes are at best a 50-60% likelihood of matching the Oscars (ask Hurwitz from last year). Or is it her womanhood, tagging along with the outrage over Greta Gerwig? Because -- though I liked and singled out the Joker score when I saw the movie -- I thought 1917's score was exactly the sort of epic music that voters have traditionally swooned for in this category. I noted in my review that the sequence of MacKay running through the ruins while flares flashed and the music swelled was the sort of scene that has clinched cinematography and score wins in the past.
Reading through the first couple of one-by-one threads, I'm getting the idea that we're all going to predict the same four actors (and probably director), but we could have significant disagreements in almost every other category save cinematography, makeup, and international film.
Having now heard/seen 1917, I'm a little more confident in it. It might be my enjoyment of the score skewing my perspective, but I think it's equal to the cinematography and production design in terms of the film's effect. Granted, the key musical moment (Wayfaring Stranger) isn't from Newman, but the sequence following it is quite well done as well.
I think it'll be Joker. it'll make the Academy feel so hip to have a first-time female honoree in this category. (Not to imply her winning isn't merit-based.)
Sabin wrote:I remain consistently baffled by this weird thing you have about what entitles people to Academy Awards based on career-standing, especially considering that *nobody* would be voting for Hildur Guðnadóttir because of her Chernobyl work while substantially more people would be voting for Thomas Newman based on his career and not his 1917 score.
Oy, this again.
The OP mentioned Chernobyl ("Guðnadóttir has had a big breakthrough year, between this and Chernobyl..."); I didn't bring it up out of nowhere.
This category is basically a flip of Roger Deakins' winning for Blade Runner 2049.
In 2017, Best Cinematography was largely down to two films: The Overdue Guy for Blade Runner 2049 and Some Guy you've never heard of for The Shape of Water. You'd never heard of Some Guy before and nobody was saying it was among the best work of the year, but his movie was going to win Best Picture which made him the logical favorite for the award. The Overdue Guy was long overdue for a win, almost everybody was saying it was the best work of the year (and among the best of his career), but his movie wasn't nominated for Best Picture and it wasn't the kind of film that wins awards.
In the end, merit prevailed and they gave it to The Overdue Guy.
This year, the race is largely down to two people: The Overdue Guy for 1917 and Some Girl you've never heard of for Joker. You've never heard of Some Girl before but everybody was saying it was among the best work of the year, but her movie (while up for Best Picture) isn't likely to win which is a mild demerit. The Overdue Guy is long overdue for a win, but nobody is saying it's the best work of the year (or his career). But his movie is likely to win Best Picture which certainly helps.
I think if Joker wasn't up for Best Picture, this outcome would be more in doubt. Everybody thinks The Overdue Guy is due but I haven't heard anyone say his 1917 score is among the best work of his career. I think this one will go to Some Girl You've Never Heard Of. To be fair, her score is almost as divisive as her film, I think those who love it will push it over the top.
MaxWilder wrote
It's just cacophonous, jarring strings to make it extra-super-crystal-clear that he's not right in the head. People shouldn't win Oscars because they did great work on an HBO series.
The score is a room-splitter but there are plenty of people who think it is among the best of the year. I am among them and I hope that Hildur Guðnadóttir wins. I remain consistently baffled by this weird thing you have about what entitles people to Academy Awards based on career-standing, especially considering that *nobody* would be voting for Hildur Guðnadóttir because of her Chernobyl work while substantially more people would be voting for Thomas Newman based on his career and not his 1917 score.
dws1982 wrote:Guðnadóttir's score has been pretty widely acclaimed, even by those who weren't fans of the movie.
If Joker wins here, I'll be truly baffled. Like, do-my-ears-work-different, what-if-I'm-also-colorblind baffled.
It's just cacophonous, jarring strings to make it extra-super-crystal-clear that he's not right in the head. People shouldn't win Oscars because they did great work on an HBO series.
Fun coincidence: Little Women (1994) was Thomas Newman's first nomination (alphabetically ahead of The Shawshank Redemption!)
I do wonder if Thomas Newman loses a bit of credibility (in terms of becoming a story, like you mentioned) because he's kinda repetitive. You can easily identify a Thomas Newman score and he's become... a little bit bland? I actually listen to some of his earlier work frequently (The Shawshank Redemption is an all-timer for me) and I bought the soundtrack to 1917 (haven't heard it yet, though. Waiting to see the movie first), but I wonder if that's hindering in a little.
It seems early to be starting these threads, but we'll have to tackle multiple categories per day to get them in before Oscar night. This season is way too short. I had planned to spend today catching up on my last two Best Picture nominees (which will complete several categories for me), but I'm home sick, so I'll get this started.
The nominees: Joker, Hildur Guðnadóttir Little Women, Alexandre Desplat Marriage Story, Randy Newman 1917, Thomas Newman Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, John Williams
Others have mentioned it before, but it seems unfair that composers are often declared ineligible for this or that technicality, often related to pre-existing music, but Williams has managed six nominations for Star Wars movies which often crib from the same themes. Yes, they have original compositions, but come on. Be consistent on the rules, and it's not like Williams needed a 53rd (or whatever) nomination. He's the only one who I think has essentially zero chance to win.
Some people might be a little surprised to know that Randy Newman has never actually won an Oscar for Original Score. Like almost everything about Marriage Story, Newman's (very good, in my opinion) score has kind of faded into the background as Oscar seasons has moved forward. It's been nominated a lot, but it hasn't really won anything, although that isn't really a detriment in this category. I just don't see anything in Marriage Story's Oscar trajectory to suggest it'll have strong enough support to pull in Best Score. It's got a shot, but I think Newman has a better shot in Song (mainly because that category is so weak).
I wouldn't be shocked at any of the other three, although I suppose Little Women would probably be in third score. I think it's a great score, and I think it helps that it's played a lot through the film, and it could be a good place to reward a Best Picture nominee that may not cash in on any of its above-the-line nominations (although I think Screenplay is very possible).
1917 is still kind of a mystery--it could get a tech award or two and nothing else, or it could end up pulling it Picture and Director. The next week or two will make this more clear. It seemed like a perfect time for Thomas Newman to win: It's an acclaimed movie and the type of movie that has won this award in the past, it's an acclaimed score that no one would complain if it wins, and Newman is on his fifteenth nomination without a win. But every Oscar season, certain people and films become one of the stories of the season. Last year Ruth E. Carter was one of the stories of the entire season; it was Roger Deakins a few years ago. I thought Newman might become one of the stories of this Oscar season, but it hasn't really happened. I think he can win, it's the best shot he's had especially if 1917 is a big winner on February 9 (and probably even if it isn't) but it's not anything close to a sure thing.
Also, Joker hasn't quite become the villain of Oscar season the way I was expecting. Sure, there's been plenty of side-eye given to the Directing nomination and the fact that it got a leading eleven nominations, but the "this is a dangerous movie" talk never materialized into much, and Guðnadóttir's score has been pretty widely acclaimed, even by those who weren't fans of the movie. Guðnadóttir has had a big breakthrough year, between this and Chernobyl, and I think she has a great shot at becoming the first female to win this category (Rachel Portman and Anne Dudley won the Comedy/Musical category).
Right now I'd probably put my guess on Joker and Guðnadóttir taking this category, but I do think Desplat and especially Newman are very much in play, and may change my guess depending on how the season evolves from here.
