In Contention
By Josh Spiegel
February 9, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Yes, this year's Oscar ceremony is now becoming as much of a story as are the nominees, thanks to the high-profile producers, Bill Mechanic and Adam Shankman, and the two hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. I've spoken in the past about the ratings for past Oscar ceremonies, and how hoping for high-profile movies to be nominated won't be a guarantee for great ratings. I still stand by that belief (that, specifically, nominating popular movies solely for their popularity is a stupid and wrongheaded idea), but it is a lot more obvious now than it was way back in early December that ABC executives are probably still doing happy dances around their offices nearly a week after the nominations were announced.
And why shouldn't they? If ABC was hoping for big movies to get nominated, they have to be happy. Five of the ten nominees - Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, Inglourious Basterds, and Up - have all already grossed over $100 million. Three - Avatar, The Blind Side, and Up—grossed over $200 million. And, of course, one of them is Avatar, also known as the highest-grossing movie ever made across the world. Avatar is an ABC executive's dream come true. Does the wild and wide-ranging success that Avatar has had mean that more people will watch this year? Perhaps; a lot of people will be surprised if this year's show doesn't garner far greater ratings than in years past. Still, with crowd-pleasers like The Blind Side and Up in the mix, as well (and seeing as both movies will likely pick up non-Best Picture awards), people may just watch, Avatar or not.
Today, though, what boils my blood is not the nominees (though I'm not particularly thrilled about The Blind Side being nominated, a handful of my favorite films of 2009 were among the top ten, so I'm not complaining). No, it's those pesky producers, Bill Mechanic and Adam Shankman. As part of their continuous Oscar coverage, Entertainment Weekly did a profile of the upcoming show, and how hard it is to actually make an Oscars ceremony a reality. Last year, notably, the acting categories were presented by five previous winners; for the Best Actor category, for example, five previous Best Actor winners went onstage to not only present Sean Penn with the Oscar, but to honor each nominee. That specific idea will stay, thankfully. However, it appears that Mechanic and Shankman have learned nothing from previous shows.
For example, when you think of the Academy Awards, do you automatically think of extreme street dancing? No, I'm not talking about regular street dancing; I mean extreme street dancing! What's the difference? Beats me. But you, me, and everyone else will find out on Oscar Sunday, because Shankman, a choreographer and dancer by trade, promises two - count ‘em, two! - choreographed acts, including that extreme street dancing number. Now, I'm not even going to waste a single brain cell on wondering how exactly these sections are going to tie into, you know, the movies being nominated or honored. What I want to know is what the point is. Why? Why do we need street dancing at the Oscars? I'm sure the dancers are very talented, but is the Oscar ceremony the appropriate venue?
I bring this whole issue up because, in the same article, Shankman and Mechanic both stress that they want the show to be shorter than in the past. How are they going to do this (aside from making sure there's time for two dance numbers)? Well, in a move that I will admit is not uninspired, they want to switch the seating arrangement around, so the potential winner for Best Documentary Short doesn't have to walk a mile to the stage, while Jeff Bridges has to barely get up to accept his award. I sincerely think this is a good idea (though who knows if it'll actually work). However, you know what a great idea would be? Tell all the nominees that they all have exactly 45 seconds to give their acceptance speeches should they win. Seriously. Just because I don't know who the Best Documentary Short winner is doesn't mean he or she doesn't deserve equal time as Mo'Nique or Christoph Waltz does.
Yes, that would be an unpopular idea (lots of people would, of course, rather hear acceptance speeches from people they've heard of), but the speeches can take up a hefty chunk of the show. For every speech at the Golden Globes that got played off, Meryl Streep and Mo'Nique got to deliver what felt like eight-minute soliloquies. Did they deserve far more time than, say, Pete Docter, director of Up and winner of the Best Animated Feature Golden Globe? Of course, with the idea of having all the nominees sitting around the same area, not having to waste their time in simply walking up to the stage, maybe Mechanic and Shankman are hoping to give more time to the lesser-known nominees. I doubt it.
Why? Because they're concerned with making a shorter ceremony that still features pointless dance numbers. I have always been in the camp that says dance numbers should never come anywhere near the Oscars. Unless your movie is a musical, or features dancing in some other way, dancing should not be part of the show. And honestly, you know another way to shorten the ceremony? No host. No Steve Martin and no Alec Baldwin. If we cut out the 20-30 minutes of the ceremony that is solely the host or hosts riffing to the audience, that's a good chunk of the show being cut out. Why not shorten the ceremony this way? The Golden Globes have done it for years; of course, even with Ricky Gervais hosting this year, they still managed to get the entire show done in three hours, plus all the excessive commercials.
And hey, how about cutting some of those commercial breaks? Some people made a big stink this week, for example, out of how many commercial breaks Lost's season premiere seemed to have (no more than usual, for the curious). Well, the various televised awards ceremonies actually do have lots of commercial breaks. The final hour is split up between a few awards and 40 minutes of ads. Yes, the Oscars are a heavily marketed show, with advertising rates being extremely high. But if there were fewer ads, wouldn't the rates be higher, as there were fewer slots available?
I know that some of the changes I'm proposing may sound pretty sucky. Maybe that's the point. Maybe the Oscars shouldn't be shortened by that much. If the Academy wants to double the number of nominees in the Best Picture category, maybe we should expect a longer ceremony. Maybe that's not a bad thing. I'm not saying that, for example, having Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin as the hosts is going to pay off as much as some people hope (the idea that It's Complicated was going to be nominated for anything is, of course, by the wayside). But having hosts is a good thing. Having interludes is fine - as long as they're connected to the movies in question. But shortening the ceremony, and making that such a chief goal of the entire program, is a potential show-killer. Mechanic and Shankman should focus on making sure the movies that are nominated are given their due on national television, and that Martin and Baldwin do funny stuff.
My final rant is this: Mechanic and Shankman should also not be so damn worried about the "young" audience. Speaking as someone in the coveted 18-49 demographic for advertisers, I'm watching the show. I'd be watching the show with or without this column, or this site. I like movies. A lot of young people like movies. A lot of people saw Avatar, and they might watch even if rumored presenter Taylor Lautner (and, just quickly - give me a damn break with this kid) shows up. Getting younger actors doesn't really do any wonders for a ceremony honoring the best in film, not the worst. The producers should focus on the movies, not some weird form of social networking. And now, I'll take my soapbox and go home.