September
25
Oscar Watch: Producers, Hosts and Show
With Oscar-show producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon announced, we now move into the annual Oscar Show-guessing stage.
Who will host?
Effective perennials:
1. Steve Martin (makes it look easy, and always funny)
2. Billy Crystal (ditto)
3. Jon Stewart (works harder, but sharp as nails)
4. Ellen (yeoman work, but still reads TV)
New options?
1. Stephen Colbert (he could be fun)
2. Post-Emmy's, Ricky Gervais (have him on, but he won't save the ratings, he can't open a movie!)
3. Steve Carrell (not so sure he'd bring enough energy--he's good at reacting...)
4. Will Smith (The Envelope's Tom O'Neil is pushing this idea; Smith's a major star but not a ratings booster in this role, if that's the goal)
Awards Daily's Sasha Stone writes in an email: "No one cares about the Oscar host." She may be right.
And the always-asked question: "can the show be saved?".
This annoys me. Of course we all want the Oscar telecast to be better, smarter, shorter. But do we want to radically change it? Let the Oscars be what they are, and ratings be damned. Viewership will depend on the films nominated (ratings go up with Titanic and Lord of the Rings, and down with No Country for Old Men) --but Oscar voters should not pick The Dark Knight so that the show will be more successful. That defeats the entire enterprise.
If the Academy changes the show too much to reach younger viewers, the Oscar show heads down the inevitable road of greed and pandering to the lowest common denominator. (See Emmys.) The choice of producers Mark and Condon sends the message that the Academy under prexy Sid Ganis seeks a well-produced classy Hollywood insider show--with good musical numbers! (Am I the only one fantasizing about Hugh Jackman singing and dancing in a medley?) Here's Glenn Kenny's fantasy.
The Oscars still stand for something: rewarding quality filmmaking. Chasing the ratings is a fool's game.
Meanwhile, I remain obsessed with the foreign Oscar submissions, and so is Film Experience, which maintains a handy country-by-counntry chart every year. (Latest news: Gomorra is the Italian entry--btw, Israel's Waltz with Bashir is official.) Check out their Google map.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
In an odd way, I do think they should pick The Dark Knight because it will make the show more successful. AMPAS members rarely pick the actual top 5 of the year, and they select movies for all sorts of political reasons that have nothing to do with quality... certain directors are overdue, their friends, whatnot. Picking The Dark Knight isn't a significant lowering of their standards (not when movies like Seabiscuit are being nominated and movies like Crash are winning).
Right now, The Academy Awards need to be able to show people they're still relevent. If The Dark Knight is nomianted, the ratings will be the highest they've been in years... and they can use the broadcast to show people how they're still relevent.
It may be their only hope... and nominating The Dark Knight is a small price to pay.
Posted by: Rob | September 25, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Agree with Rob about the decision making process ... I wish it were more about the movies more often, and not about the politics or other factors.
But I think people *would* care about the Oscar host if they picked the right one. Whoopi hasn't been funny in a decade ... Stewart showed improvement last time out, nothing more ... Crystal is king but he coyly turns down the assignment too often (he is being offered it, right??).
The buzz about Ricky Gervais is intriguing, but he won't draw a crowd.
Posted by: Christian Toto | September 25, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Crash was the best of the rest. And Seabiscuit was a good film, albeit a tad inaccurate since they didn't have hotwalking machines in Seabiscuit's era.
If you want complaints, Johnny Depp should've won Best Actor hands down for his initial portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow. Why should Sean Penn be rewarded for playing his depressing, oppressed self?
Posted by: Nicole | September 26, 2008 at 03:09 PM
The Oscars haved thrived because they have changed with the times. I would expect nothing less going forward.
How hard is to figure out that the only smart move they can make for a host is George Clooney? Now how hard was that?
Posted by: Michael Aldridge | September 26, 2008 at 07:51 PM
How about Tracey Ullman?
Posted by: Andrew | October 03, 2008 at 08:51 AM