Every year at this time, American eyes are glued to their TV sets for the only event that draws all of us together aside from the Superbowl: The Academy Awards. For decades, men, women and children have loved to escape from their normal workaday lives to live vicariously through the glitz and fame of Hollywood: Watching their favorite actors and actresses win for the films that made them stand up and take notice of all year long-- cheering and crying alongside them as they take the stage to grasp that golden statuette as they go down in history. After last year's train wreck of an Oscar presentation, the theme for the 78th Academy Awards was "A Return to Glamour." With that moniker, one would have hoped this year's Oscars would get us back to the feelings we all had in the golden age of filmmaking. And while the presentation itself felt more like an Oscar show than last year's, the overall event and it's award recipients produced an unavoidable sense of forgetability.
This can be attributed in part to the show's host, Jon Stewart. Truth be told, he actually did a pretty admirable job, thankfully devoid of heavy-handed politcal commentary, and fairly funny overall. However, his performance was nervous, timid, stilted and uncomfortable for most of the evening. Many of his jokes--particularly the ones that opened the show--were flat and produced only "polite" laughter. He did a little better as the show went on, but never really looked at home in the role of host. His best contributions were undoubtedly the fake "politcal ads" that he had a hand in producing, but, unfortunately, those cannot carry an entire Oscar broadcast.
When Chris Rock made a mockery out of the Awards last year, he was criticized for not having any tangible respect or connection to the 100-year-old industry that was being celebrated. On top of that, his jokes were out of place and his presentation was altogether off. Job Stewart was a definite improvement, but he did share one criticism with Rock: A lack of a real "feel" for the history of film. His praises for films after each montage and nomination felt forced and dishonest. After "Totsi" won, for example, he said, "that was really a great film," but did he really see it? For that matter, did he really seem honest in his appreciation for the groundbreaking, landmark films shown in the many montages during the show? Maybe, maybe not.
Like last year, the producers of the Oscars felt it was necessary to find a "younger, hipper" host that would attract a new audience. The fact of the matter is that every Oscar show gets the same amazing rating no matter who the host is--and a younger, hipper host does NOT mean bigger ratings (Chris Rock actually produced LESS ratings for the Oscars last year). It will be interesting to see if Jon Stewart actually had some sort of effect on viewership this time around, but the outlook is doubtful doubtful.
All in all, Mr. Stewart did his best, and if given another chance at the job, he might be much more comfortable and entertaining. Last night, however, he definitely seemed a little out of his element. Whether this is his fault, the writers' faults, or the fault of those who chose him, the result was the same: A somewhat forgettable hosting job.
Which brings us to the nominees and winners themselves. Let's be honest: The best Academy Awards are the ones where the films/performances nominated are both popular AND fantastic. Of course, this is becoming more and more of a rarity in the world of film, but it does actually happen now and then. This group of nominees, however, will never be mistaken as such. This does not mean that any of the awards were not deserved: quite the contrary. The problem is that, while they were excellent performances and films, one has to admit that the majority of Americans didn't see them. And we're not talking about Joe Shmoe WWF fan who saw Wedding Crashers four times, we're talking about almost every type of moviegoer: from average fan to film afficianado. The fact is that many of the nominees were largely unknown, and it showed.
Before anyone gets riled up at that comment, remember that we're not saying the films did not deserve to be honored. It's just a sad fact that, this year, the discrepency between popularity and artistic mertit was worse than ever. This, of course, is not the fault of the Oscar ceremony itself, and it's really not meant to be an indictment of the moviegoing public. Rather, it's simply an observation that this year's Awards were overwhelmingly forgettable because the films being honored were rather low on the consciousness radar.
The truth is that the Oscar Ceremony really excites the public when they have something to really root for or identify with. Unfortunately, the only film that really stood out as something that the public could latch on to and "ride the wave" of was "Brokeback Mountain." The other four nominees? Two biopics no one saw, a film about intolerance in L.A. that had minor success, and a bone thrown to Spielberg for a film that had a fairly uneventful run. All good films? Maybe so. But did anyone really care? Or did they just force themselves to care?
True, some people will say that this particular ceremony was defined by the highly publicized "upset"--the lesser-known "Crash" beating out the favored "Mountain." Maybe so, but this "stunner" doesn't seem to resonate with past Oscar upsets--such as when "Saving Private Ryan" was robbed by "Shakespeare in Love." The truth is that "Crash" (and "Brokeback," to an extent) never really reached that "higher level" we expect from Oscar-worthy films of the past. Yes, it was an unexpected upset, but years from now, it's shock value will probably linger only in the minds of the most devoted.
2005 can be seen as a strange dichotomy: A bad year for films because nothing worth nominating was popular? Or a good year because every nominee was a truly great piece of craftsmanship that didn't cater to the box office? Who really knows. Nevertheless, the end result was a ceremony that--upset or not--felt more like the Independant Spirit Awards rather than an Academy Awards. That's neither a negative or a positive: it's merely the truth.
On a more positive and technical note, the producers did make a conscious effort to speed up and/or streamline the program as much as possible, and that was a welcome change. Unlike last year, there were no childish and inane tactics used to shorten the telecast, such as speeches from the audience and having all nominees on stage. This year, speech lengths were strictly enforced, best picture clips were kept brief, and presentations were fairly crisp. Unfortunately, even with all of these improvements, the show still felt like one was wading through molasses.
After 78 years, the question for the Awards' producers is why they keep ignoring the things that WILL shorten the show in favor of performing wacky experiments in presentation that MIGHT shorten the show? For example: Is it really necessary to have FOUR montages honoring film noir, epics, etc? Why? If the idea was to keep the show grounded in the history of filmmaking, then maybe they should have chosen a better host, or nominateed more "classic" choices--because you can't have it both ways.
Furthermore, what is the obsession with musical performances? The producers of the Oscars need to realize that the public RARELY cares about songs from films. The fact is that many of the most popular songs used in films are ones that have been produced years beforehand. This year was a perfect example: Every nominee was dull and forgettable--even the so-called winner. Sooner or later, Oscar producers should realize that these songs should be presented via CLIPS and NOT perfromances. And, if they MUST use performances, then keep them short and simple. The interpretive performances of this year's nominees was not only time consuming, but nauseating.
In addition, it may finally be the time to eliminate certain awards from the telecast. Best animated short, live action short, and documentary short might need to hit the road. It's terrible, true, but for the sake of time and mental health, they may have to be the ones who take the fall for the betterment of the program. It's just something to consider.
Think of how smoothly the show would move without inane musical breaks, three less awards and only one or two montages: That's easily 30-40 minutes less of broadcast time right there. In an age where people tune in and tune out quicker than hummingbirds, the Acadamy Awards need to wake up and smell the future: Who's really going to sit through all of this--especially when, as said above, there's really nothing of huge interest that's nominated or winning?
In closing, the 78th Academy Awards were markedly better than last year, but there's still quite a bit of work that needs to be done. Unfortunately, the biggest problem with this year's broadcast was something that couldn't really be "fixed," and that's the lack of popular appeal for the majority of the films and performances nominated. Tomorrow, when the public wakes up and doesn't remember what they saw the previous evening, would anyone be surprised? If the ratings were lower than last year's event, will anyone be shocked? If years from now, no one remembers that "Crash" beat out the only film anyone really had any feelings for, will anyone really care? The answer is "no" to all three. For a multitude of reasons, and due to a vast array of factors, the 78th Academy Awards will be remembered for one thing: being forgettable.
Where's "Gladiator" when you need it?
