I'm someone who thinks that messing with the formula of the Oscars is a bad idea. Major annual events don't need constant reinvention-they need consistency. People want to recreate past memories and celebrate the rich nostalgia they've enjoyed every year, and the Oscars (and for those so inclined, things like the Super Bowl or March Madness) are steeped in the tradition of the event more than anything else. In many ways it's similar to a holiday where you make the same meal, do the same routine, but you love it because it feels familiar and warm. The Oscars are like that for fans of film, and while adding in new fans is a vital component of that celebration, I think adjusting it too voraciously (as the Oscars have done nearly every year since 2008, when The Dark Knight wasn't cited for Best Picture and the Academy didn't know how to handle the backlash) is a bad idea. So while I'm going to give twelve pieces of advice or of change, my biggest one is-don't change. Try to be the gaudy, sentimental spectacle and celebration of movies you always are, as that'll keep your base & ultimately win over more fans. But in the meantime, these all get toward the goal of a younger, hipper, more inclusive show (which I'm assuming were the goals of your idiotic move last week, though perhaps that's just assuming good intentions), without sacrificing what people love about the show and its celebration of cinema.
You know what might be Oscar's biggest problem? He keeps trying to be hip by picking hosts that look miserable being there. I'm not talking about James Franco (well, I am, but that was a pretty solvable problem), but instead about Chris Rock, Seth MacFarlane, and to a lesser-degree Jon Stewart. These men all clearly hated being there, and it wasn't because they got a backlash or because they didn't like that year's nominees-it's because they think the Oscars are stupid & they are doing them a favor by showing up. My response-get off the stage if you don't want to be there. The Oscars are at their heart about kids getting to watch movies and celebrate their dreams. Hosts like Ellen Degeneres get that. People like Oprah Winfrey or Tiffany Haddish or the myriad of SNL women who should be considered for this job all get that. Pick one of them to be the host. It doesn't need to be a comedian (I personally liked Jimmy Kimmel, and was surprised he didn't succumb to this negativity so good on him, but you don't really need an opening monologue), but pick people who love cinema and don't view hosting as a chore. Rock & MacFarlane are funny at what they do, but they don't need to come in and put their stamp on the Oscars by hating everything that came before it; it reeks of bullying & usually requires sexism/homophobia to be accomplished, and does your show no favors.
One thing that I did hate that Kimmel did, and many hosts (Rock comes to mind, though there are others) have done is make people on the street look stupid by not knowing about movies like 45 Years or Lady Bird. In general I abhor these "look how stupid people are" and the only time I've remotely enjoyed this on a talk show or awards show was the time Chris Rock was told by a woman that her favorite "white person movie" was By the Sea, to which Rock replied, "that wasn't even Brad and Angelina's favorite white person movie" (that was really the only genuinely clever joke Rock pulled off that year). But it actually shows you something-having people exposed to movies may be more interesting than simply reveling in their poor taste or ignorance. Instead of doing this bit and ending it, do something akin to this and then give people tickets to the movies (if you're trying to spruce ad revenue, this would be a good place to have a major theater chain provide the free tickets, though I'm not sure if that's an SEC violation...the Oscars have lawyers, look it up), and then have the people come back and see it. Theaters now do "watch all of the Best Picture nominees" and ShortsHD has built a mini-empire of cinephiles who line up to see the shorts nominees each year-do these videos and then show an appreciative audience who now becomes fans of Greta Gerwig or Charlotte Rampling. It's probably still going to be funny if you put someone like Kimmel in on the bit, but now you're building up your brand rather than humorously dismantling it, and you might actually gin ticket sales while making great TV.
I'm a Millennial, and while I'm an older Millennial, I still understand how to get my attention or that of my younger counterparts, and one of those things is digital presence. The Academy's YouTube page is not great. Listen, as a film fan I adore it (getting access to all of these old clips is HEAVEN), but the original content that isn't from the ceremonies is kind of a yawn, mostly just panels of actors or filmmakers talking in the same, tired format. Why not mix it up, having a speed-dating style conversation between random nominees (getting, say, cinematographer Rachel Morrison to sit down in conversation with Willem Dafoe or other unlikely pairings), and see what they come up with? You could even just stick to the actors (I know where the clicks are), but it'd be fascinating to see what they'd do with each other, and hopefully drive more traffic and interest to their films, and thus the ceremony.
I think one of the most foolish things about moving the tech categories to the commercials (and this has been pointed out repeatedly by people on Twitter) is that you're relegating arguably the highest-grossing films (the Sound, VFX, and Makeup categories) to the commercials, thus further alienating the fans you seem to want to attract with a "Most Popular Film Award." Instead of doing this and risk further anger from fans, and instead of adding an insulting "consolation prize" award, why not add a category that will recognize work that's long been ignored by Oscar but will also, in turn, recognize films that are being ignored in major Oscar races: Best Stunt Work. The concern from the "Most Popular Film" category seems to stem from ignoring comic book films and action films, which historically have fared poorly in the major awards, but would surely dominate the Best Stunt Work category, which is also recognizing a key feature of film that isn't acknowledged at the Oscars. The SAG Awards do this, and have cited films that have missed with Oscar like Furious 7, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, and The Wolverine. I'm not saying these are good examples of stunt work, but they are the sorts of populist films that Oscar might get to cite here. Plus, if nothing else this is an easy way to give Tom Cruise an Oscar without him having to wear prosthetics and play, I don't know, Napoleon with a bad French accent? And speaking of prosthetics, expand Best Makeup to five nominees-every movie has Makeup, and it's the only category with three contenders. This won't get any new viewers, but it will make for better symmetry in my Oscar charts & it's stupid it hasn't happened yet.
Initially when this happened I was not happy, but it's the Trump Era and we need to adjust our expectations of what is acceptable, and unlike the Most Popular Film category, I kind of get where this decision was coming from. In those first two years after the rule change, the Oscars did. in fact, award some really interesting films that might otherwise have as films like A Serious Man, Up, District 9, Toy Story 3, and Black Swan got in that might otherwise not have. The Academy saw The Blind Side, though, and freaked out because they had nominated a "bad" Best Picture nominee and thought this process was also screwed up (forgetting that the previous year they'd nominated Frost/Nixon and no one had said a word). As a result, they did the weird accordion-style nominations that no lay person really understands and honestly even I'd struggle to explain without checking for specifics. So my vote-go back to ten. I'd prefer five, but giving special importance to the Best Picture field makes sense to me and this would guarantee more of the "popular" films like District 9 and Toy Story 3 (or let's be real-Black Panther) have a home in Best Picture. Just don't expand any other fields (looking specifically at the acting races)-five is enough there.
I still think that the Oscars made a poor mistake a few years back when they separated the Oscars from the Governors Awards, thus depriving us of some of the biggest classic movie stars on Oscar night. In the years since that happened stars as diverse as Spike Lee, Gena Rowlands, Lauren Bacall, Angela Lansbury, Oprah Winfrey, and Maureen O'Hara have scooped up their trophies, and it's hard not to wish that those moments had gone alongside classic Hollywood Honorary Awards like Charlie Chaplin returning to the 1971 Oscars or Kirk Douglas coming back after his stroke to finally get his much alluded trophy. These are moments that might not feature young actors, but I suspect they are the sort that make you want to learn about film in a way you hadn't before-even today when they allow major Hollywood stars to take the stage, it's a bit of an event (think of Eva Marie Saint telling stories about Hitchcock or Kirk himself flirting with Anne Hathaway)-imagine what it'd be like to see figures like Lansbury take the stage, actors that most young people are aware of from her work in a film like Beauty and the Beast, and win their long overdue Oscars. I personally think the Oscars misread the room here and should go back to allowing these on Oscar night, particularly the actors. And if not, at least have them more involved in the ceremony, presenting an award together or introducing the Best Picture clips.
Okay, here's an idea I genuinely think the Oscars should tackle, would get mad press for being "modern" (an overrated virtue, but a goal nonetheless), and might actually help its industry: make Oscar-nominated films available to the moviegoing press. In an era of streaming, despite beautiful creations like Turner Classic Movies, Criterion, and FilmStruck (bless them all), classic cinema is harder and harder to find, and even more popular modern films randomly aren't available on any streaming platforms. The Academy could take a step to try and preserve & honor itself (it's generally good at the latter even if it occasionally fails at the former) by working with studios to make classic, Oscar-nominated films more available to the viewing public. As someone who devotes a great deal of time to the pursuit of Oscar-nominated films, I can tell you that there are countless films that are impossible to find anywhere, and having "Academy Editions" of these old films would be really interesting. Start sponsoring a night on TCM where it's "Never Seen on TV" editions of classic films or work with FilmStruck (or even a more mainstream place like Netflix/Hulu) to honor these pictures. Younger people would appreciate the devotion to bringing movies to them in the way they consume digital entertainment, and it would also be doing a great service to your industry by ensuring a new generation of filmgoers can see pictures like Wings, Skippy or Escape Me Never.
Pandering at the Oscars doesn't generally work with inviting hip, younger performers to present in terms of gaining actual ratings. I mean, I personally think it's a good idea to welcome younger stars to the ceremony to mix it up (welcome to the club & all that), but this isn't actually improving the ratings no matter how often Miley Cyrus reads from the teleprompter. What might help, though, and honestly does deserve some updating is the red carpet coverage. I know this is more cable networks, but ABC does do red carpet coverage, and I've never gotten why they're constantly trying to update the ceremony but not looking at the actual red carpet for a way to modernize. Admittedly this is usually ABC trying to cross-promote some of its other shows (last year stars from Good Morning America, The Goldbergs, and Modern Family showed up to present), but if you want a younger, hipper clientele at the Oscars this would be the place to do it. People like Grace Helbig enjoy immense popularity critiquing the red carpet looks on her show, and are genuinely funny while also bringing in younger viewers. There are countless beauty/style gurus on YouTube and Instagram that enjoy millions of followers and could, in fact, transfer their viewers to the ceremony by talking about fashion, style, and the cinema on the red carpet or serving as "style" experts to some of the more experienced hosts. The current red carpet feels stale and predictable, and adding this element might freshen up the ceremony while also inviting figures who can promote (relentlessly) on social media to an audience you aren't currently reaching.
9. Cut the Opening Number, This Isn't the TonysOkay, we now move to the actual ceremony, and see where we want to trim the fat a little bit, and the first thing I vote we eliminate-the opening number. This was great when Billy Crystal did it, but keep in mind he largely did it in lieu of a monologue toward the end, so it was keeping the show time neutral, and it was also genuinely meant to be funny. But then Neil Patrick Harris had so much success with this at the Tony Awards and Hugh Jackman had fun with it at the 2008 Oscars, suddenly we were forced to sit through this every year regardless of the host. Admittedly Jimmy Kimmel cut this, but it feels like it'll rear its ugly head if we don't say anything, and I want to admit-we don't need this. At all. The monologue is enough, provided a comic is hosting, and otherwise we don't need a musical number to open the show. Honestly, the only time in the past decade where the opening number felt lively was when Justin Timberlake opened the show with one of the nominated songs, which was choreographed well and though it felt a bit like the Grammys, it incorporated one of the nominated songs into the show and gave us great energy headed into the ceremony. Otherwise, though, I say we ditch the opening number, and I'm also fine with just going back to playing John Barry music during the In Memoriam, as the live performer is such a drag & never finishes on time with the photos...and though I wasn't planning on including this, make the In Memoriam just feature AMPAS members. It's an easier cop out the next day when inevitably the internet gets mad that they didn't include some random well-known celebrity...while still complaining about how long the show was.
For some of the most creative people in show business, man does it seem like these producers don't know how to present an awards show some years. One of the biggest problems that I have with them moving categories to the commercials is not only does it deprive you of some of your best moments of the night (there's always at least one Kevin O'Connell or Jenny Beaven that lands a speech in a way that is far more impressive than any of the actors will achieve), but also because you really can't make costumes more interesting? Art direction? Makeup? Come on! I've seen good ideas before, and while occasionally it felt ridiculous, risk is better than giving up. Bring a fashion show of the costume nominees onto the stage or have the presenters walk through a revolving set showing off the production design nominees. Oscar producers love "regular people" bits-have normal people be transformed to recreate the makeup looks of the nominated films or walk through the green-screen technology. These would be fun, and get to show off the skill and ability that moviemakers bring to their work every day. And it wouldn't relegate significant Oscar moments to the commercials, making those prizes lesser (and it would, it would do that-just look at the BFCA's or the Tony Awards for how little people care about categories that the general audience doesn't get to see).
The Super Bowl is the most-watched event in America. The Oscars are generally the second or third, depending on if there's an Olympics that year. The Super Bowl is almost impossibly long, and no one gives a crap, even in years where the ratings were garbage compared to the previous year. Like, WAY longer than the Oscars if you include the cascade of pregame shows, and that's not counting the weeks of devotion to Playoffs and analysis on SportsCenter. There's a lesson here-people anticipate these events, and want them to be long. Lay fans of the show might not love it (in the same way lay fans of the Super Bowl think it's too long), but in business you work first to secure your target audience, not reach markets for fear of risking alienating your most loyal factions (this is also true), and I'm going to be real here-if your audience won't tune in for 3.5 hours of Oscars, they won't tune in for three. The people who are begging for the Oscars to be shorter are also the people who see 5-6 movies a year and bemoan how "none of the good movies" get nominated when it's really just lazy shorthand for "none of the movies I managed to get to see were nominated this year." Don't give into this person-they are never satisfied. They're also the people who say "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans," and we all know there's just no winning that group.
It's time to be real-the popular film and trimming of the ceremony feel less like something the Academy, stodgy and rough to change, wanted and more something that it's home of multiple decades was pushing hard to achieve. The Mouse House, which basically runs Hollywood now (and with Rupert Murdoch's help, soon the world), has been the home of the Oscars for years despite its films rarely being honored and its need to make so many once unique products generic (bemoaning the complicated relationship I have with Disney is a post for a different day, and if you search enough I've probably already tackled it a couple of times in various reviews on this blog). Suffice it to say, they're making decisions based on what's best for Disney/ABC, and its short-term relationship with the Oscars, not a long-term, "what will this do to our vulnerable jewel?" in a decade sort of way. As a result, I join the long held chorus of people who say-bring it to HBO. HBO has shown a commitment to marketing things to specific audiences, and would probably jump at the chance to host the Oscars. You could modernize it a bit by allowing profanity on HBO (it'd make the Oscars less family-friendly, but I suspect that there could still be checks to ensure it's just a few random "fucks" rather than a trip to Gomorrah). And HBO doesn't have to worry about advertisers who have heart attacks when the ceremony loses a few points off the ratings in a down year. The biggest headache to HBO has been it's pay-per-view, but honestly at this point HBO is essential to a large enough swatch of moviegoers through digital platforms that if you want to see the Oscars, you'll find a way.
No comments:
Post a Comment