First things first: Everyone knows the Oscars desperately needed to be re-worked and shortened. In the past, it's been a broadcsat that has been slow-moving, cumbersome and even ponderous at times. No doubt about it, measures needed to be taken to quicken the pace. And, for the most part, that was accomplished last night: the show ended before midnight, which is something that hasn't happened in eons. However, one has to think that there has to be a better way.
The fact is that the tactics employed by the show's producers last night felt awkward, stilted, shoddy and ill-conceived. Having recipients accept awards from the audience was terrible: It was jarring, poorly carried out and altogether low-brow. Having introductions and lead-ins from places like the balconies was equally disturbing and idiotic. It was confusing, showed a poor use of space, and in the end made viewers lose focus. Let's not do this again.
Secondly, let's try to lose the "Miss America Pageant" idea of putting all the nominees on stage before the awards are given out. In short, one felt they were attending a high-school merit night event rather than one of the most coveted awards in America's history. And honestly, how does that "save time?" The winner still has to get up to the mic and give a speech--so basically, you're eliminating the 19 seconds he or she takes to approach the stage. All in all, a poor idea that came off as amateurish and stilted.
And can anyone recall a more shoddy overall production of the Oscars than last night? Several off-stage/camera noises, bonks and crashes; awkward moments and confused recipients; repeated and poorly chosen musical overtures (I enjoy "the Terminator" theme as much as the next guy, but why do we need to hear it a dozen times?). Taken as singular complaints, they don't amount to much, but cumulatively, it gave an aura of unprofessionalism that cannot be ignored.
Also... Is there any reason why the ubiquitous Beyonce has to sing a dozen songs? No offense to Ms. Knowles (Sorry, Mr. "Z"), she is indeed as hot as the day as long, but she's not quite at the level where the Academy Awards should become her own personal concert. Of course, this is not her fault--it's the fault of the producers. So, producers take note: if we have to suffer through hearing each song being performed, lets go back to different performers for each performance. And while we're on the topic of singers/pop stars--why is Sean Combs presenting? What the hell has he done for the Hollywood community? Here's hoping his robotic, monotone delivery will make next year's producers think twice about askng him to show his puffy face on stage again.
And now on to the so-called "master of ceremonies," Chirs Rock. His performance could be summed up in two words: Not funny. Apologies to Rock fans, but let's be brutally honest: last night was not his best performance. True, Chris Rock is a great comedian, and at times he's hilarious, but last night he was painfully unfunny and an overall poor host. There are short-sighted critics out there who claim he succeeded at making the Oscars "edgy" or "youthful," but the only thing he succeeded in doing was making David Letterman look like Bob Hope, and by making everyone long for Billy Cystal.
What was the problem, you ask? It's a combination of things. First of all, it's poor casting. Chris Rock IS edgy and youthful--he IS risque and controversial, but this is not the venue for that. And, in knowing that, you're taking a talented comedian out of his milieu, and trying to shove him into a performance that MUST appeal to everyone--no ifs, ands or butts about it. You are watering down a comedian who ALREADY doesn't appeal to everyone, and then trying to re-package him for middle America, and that just won't happen. He the proverbial square peg is just not going to fit into the round hole, and that's that. Chris Rock is NOT the right choice for this show--but that's by no means his fault.
What IS his fault is his lack of humor. Rock fans woud be asked to remove themselves from their own shoes, and look at this performance in a vacuum. He was not funny. And, when he started to spiral downawrds into unfunny, he played the race card to salvage himself, which felt less like Chris Rock (whose comedy is usually more intelligent than that), and felt more like some C-List comedian you would catch on a late-night BET show. Come on, Chris, you're better than that, and we all know it. Your jokes were flat and idiotic, and aside from one or two good lines, even the "edgy" ones didnt warrant a chuckle. And what was that "man on the street" interview section at the Magic Johnson theater all about? Was your point to show us that African Americans don't see the nominated films? Wow. Talk about insulting. Or, was it your contention that African Americans ONLY see films like "Alien Vs. Predator?" Also insulting. Either way, it wasn't funny until Albert Brooks made an appearance. Just be glad he saved your butt and actually got a laugh.
And why must we ALWAYS attack the president? No doubt about it, I am NOT a fan of George W. Bush--I think he's been one of the most horrible presidents we've ever had as Americans--but last night was not the night to be politcal. It's enough already! One or two jokes is funny, but to lash out and attack the man is just poorly placed. Only an idiot would say Bush has done a good job as president, but even that same idiot knows that this is not the time or place.
One last critique of Rock: Film lovers know that one of the roles of the host is to bridge the gap between old Hollywood and new Hollywood. While the host does not technically NEED Hollywood credentials (ie: being in successful films), one would hope that he or she has some connenction to the medium, and some sense of the past. Based on his performance last night, one gets the idea that Mr. Rock wouldn't know Montgomery Clift or Richard Burton if they fell on him. In short, he showed no sense of knowing the medium of film. And, if you think this sounds like an arrogant, snobbish critique, you're sadly mistaken. The Oscars deserve a master of ceremonies who lives up to his or her title and evokes an air of professionalism and knowledge of the medium, even if it is on a subconscious level, and even if it is only slight. Sure, Chris Rock might be able to bring down the house with his sharp commentaries on sexual relations between men and women, but his knowledge of film begins and ends with "Down to Earth."
Now many wll say that the producers chose Rock because they wanted to pump up the ratings with more viewers--and more young viewers, specifically. If that's the case, then they failed. The ratings for last night's Oscars were not higher than last year's (Ratings were released today), so this "edgy" experiment was a failure. The fact is that the Oscars are watched by everyone, anyway. The ratings for the Academy Awards consistently hovers between a 25 and 30 share nationally every year, which is second only to the Superbowl--and this is in an era when NOTHING does close to that. The Oscars don't need to be revolutionized with each iteration, they succeed based on what they are inherently.
"Edgy" will not reel more fish in--if anything, it will alienate. Let's remember that the Academy Awards are not the "Tonys." it is not a niche event that appeals only to the performance communities of Los Angeles and New York. They are a piece of Americana--and they appeal to everyone. People of all walks of life, of all colors and creeds tune in to live vicariously through the eyes of superstardom for one evening. The tune in to see the stars, they tune in to see who wins, and they tune in to effectively tune out their normal lives for three hours. They do NOT tune in to be shocked or alienated.
This does NOT mean that the host has to be vanilla or boring. Billy Cystal proved that you can be funny and genuinely clever without working blue, playing the race card, or insulting actors. Johnny Carson--who Whoopi Goldberg herself said was "the best" at the job--was NEVER boring or unfunny. The key to being the host of a piece of Americana is walking the line between universal appeal and actual, FUNNY material. Is that easy? not at all--any host of late night television can tell you that. But the truly talented can do it, and do it well. Does this mean that Chris Rock isn't talented? Not at all. It just means he was the wrong choice, and once he was chosen, he did a poor job.
Advice to next years' producers: Forget about making the show "edgy"--it's not necessary, and this year's ratings prove that. If you want to shorten the show and pick up the pace, that's understandable, but do it in a more intelligent manner: Shorten or eliminiate the musical numbers, tart the show earlier, etc. Don't lower the show to the level of a grade school awards ceremony. Keep the pace brisk, but remember why your audience is there. And last but not least, for the love of all that's good in the world, let's either bring back a capable host, or find a new one who not only fits the bill, but doesn't make his/her audience painfully force their laughter.
Change can indeed be a good thing--but not when it totally sucks.
