Every March I anticipate the most relevant film night of the year and aside from maybe one or two instances, I've ended Sunday disappointed. I'm not even talking about the results, always open for debate. For what it's worth my biggest gripes came involved the writing categories (both Inglourious Basterds & Up in the Air were upset in the original & adapted screenplay groups) and the unexpected domination of The Hurt Locker, a solid, respectable, sometimes exciting film that defeated a handful of better ones. No, I'm here to save the actual telecast, which should be fun but ultimately bores even the most enthusiastic of film buffs. They tried to make things move faster this year, but it still clocked in around 3.5 hours. So here are 5 suggestions that would not only shorten the award fiasco, but make for a smoother, more entertaining show as well.
1) GET RID OF ALL UNNECESSARY PRESENTERS: The most resisted idea on my list is also the most important. Random presenters add almost nothing to the show, serving only to pad the running time by at least 30-45 minutes I'm guessing. "And here to introduce sound mixing is Sigourney Weaver . . ." Who cares? Another problem with the endless introductions, poor quips, and slow walks to the stage is that they limit our enjoyment of the hosts who were hired presumably for a reason. Steve Martin couldn't have been onstage more than 15 minutes last night, but I laugh aloud at least a dozen times when he was. Alec Baldwin looked far less sure of himself, but he improved as the night went on and they had good chemistry. Their exchanges were sharp and well-written and their delivery excellent. Why not simply keep them near the stage all night? They can announce categories much quicker and might even entertain us a little in the process. It seems like a simple idea and I know old school Hollywood types believe it to be a night about the stars, but isn't that what all the red carpet crap is for anyway? At the very least this should be an experiment next year just to see how the show runs. Thus we are left with only the chosen host(s) and specifically chosen presenters who serve some actual purpose, such as the 80s stars who presented the John Hughes tribute.
2) SHORTEN THE ACTING AWARDS: Last year for the first time they had 5 previous Oscar winning actors announce the new winners, filled with lengthy reactions to the nominees' performance and careers. It was nice thought, but it really padded the running time. This year was even worse. The press has already filled hundreds of magazine pages and websites with stories surrounding Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock. It must've taken 25 minutes to get through best actor/actress last night which is insane, and leaves the producers short on time and audiences falling asleep. The anti-climactic nature of the best picture announcement with Tom Hanks taking maybe 12 seconds total was ridiculous. Time to return to the old format in which they show a scene from each actor's film and move on.
3) NO MORE SONG AND DANCE NUMBERS: Not everyone will agree with this, but I say leave the singing and dancing to the Grammy's and Tony's. They got this 1/2 right last night, eliminating live performances of the best song nominees, but then contradicted themselves by having strange dancers act out certain films. Their first instinct was correct. And James Taylor's performance was about as out of place as that sort of thing can be. This brings up a huge pet peeve . . .
4) STOP DESTROYING THE MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: How this is hard is beyond me. In almost all previous years, they have an edited tribute up onscreen representing actors/directors/writers/producers, etc. the academy had lost in each respective year with a carefully chosen piece of music (usually from a film) to accompany it. In back-to-back years now, someone idiotically thought it'd be smart to feature a live performance, a bad idea both in principle and execution. For starters the cameraman never seems to know whether to focus on the musician (WRONG) or the slideshow (DING DING DING), leaving the audience struggling to see parts of the segment. We at home (about 99.999999999999% of the viewers) missed the first 30 seconds or so as well as the end. Furthermore, it confuses the audience response for those actually there in person (when to clap, when not to, etc.) and cheapens the whole experience. And if they act on my earlier ideas from this blog, they wouldn't even have to cut out the dozens of performers (Zelda Rubenstein, Bea Arthur, Farrah Fawcett, etc...) who get ignored due to time constraints. I hardly think the memorial tribute is the point of the show to cut seconds or even minutes.
5) BACK TO 5 NOMINEES: Ultimately as predicted, having 10 really did nothing except cheapen the actual victory for the night's winner. It's easy to see where the line was drawn (the 5 nominees would've been The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Precious, Up in the Air, & Inglourious Basterds). By the way, was it really necessary to mention the full name and adaptation for Precious every time it came up last night? Boom, there's another 5 minutes saved. I'm a genius. From an advertising standpoint, I understood the 10 nominees, but that's about it. Up was winning animated feature regardless and Bullock won anyway for The Blind Side, so no reason for either in the best picture category when there was no shot for either. And I'm certain A Serious Man, An Education, and District 9 did little to boost ratings.
Maybe I will print this blog and send it to The Academy of Motion Picture & Sciences in Hollywood, signed a concerned movie fan. Maybe an intern with a single brain cell will look up from his morning coffee and proclaim "Hey, this kid's right! These changes will trim the show by a full hour!" Maybe a higher-up will eventually get around to reading it. Maybe I will receive public credit for single-handedly saving the Oscar ceremony. And maybe years down the road when I'm old and gray, they can mess up a special tribute to me by having it presented by Miley Cyrus' daughter. Or better yet, they can forget all about me in the memorial segment, leaving me slapping my forehead from heaven.
No comments:
Post a Comment