In Contention
By Josh Spiegel
February 8, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com

Ladies and gentlemen, we at BOP proudly present to you the new Catwoman!

Emotion or thought? The heart or the mind? This is what we’re left with at this year’s Oscars. Do the voters side with movies that make you feel good or movies that make you use your brain for more than breathing in and out? The reductive argument does no favors to either The King’s Speech or The Social Network, or any of the other nominees this year, but that’s how the industry likes to frame the yearly narrative. Last year, the narrative that was pretty much just within the industry was that the two rivals in the top ten — The Hurt Locker and Avatar — were directed by two people who used to be in a relationship. This year, there’s no such luck, unless you have some photos of David Fincher and Tom Hooper. This year, we get an argument over whether it’s better to award movies that make you feel or make you think.

Honestly, we’ve been going over this argument for a while, so let’s focus this week on something much less frustrating, and something fewer people are talking about. This year’s Oscars are being hosted by James Franco and Anne Hathaway. Hathaway didn’t get a nomination for her work in last year’s Love and Other Drugs, but Franco is right in the mix of the Best Actor category. He’s not likely to win, so the awkwardness will probably just end at him being nominated and being a co-host of the ceremony. What fascinates me so much is whether they’re going to be good hosts. Both actors are clearly charming and intriguing to watch in films, but what about either of them screams “Oscar host”? I have to wonder what the producers of the ceremony are hoping to do. Should we expect stand-up from them?

No, probably not, and therein lies a disquieting notion. Franco and Hathaway have both mentioned that we’ll likely see more singing and dancing at this year’s show. Also of note: earlier this week, the Academy announced that they had once again taken control of their mental faculties and are going to allow performances of the Best Original Song nominees, something they did not do last year for absolutely no good reason. So, we’re likely looking at a much more musical evening than in the last few years. While I am fully behind the Best Original Song nominees getting to perform (can you even imagine what the 2007 ceremony would have been like if Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova didn’t perform Falling Slowly from Once?), I’m also completely against musical performances outside of that category. Do you remember how, two years ago, Hugh Jackman told us the musical was back?

No. Why should you? The film industry has many backwards notions about what audiences like or will like a few months down the line. That’s why we’re getting 3D versions of just about every movie coming out these days (though with the performance of a presumably good-looking 3D movie like Sanctum, one hopes the studios are starting to get the message). Somehow, the people involved with the Oscars think we love musicals. I am a fan of a good musical, but a good musical almost never appears during the Oscars. Remember the interpretive dance sequences of past Best Original Score nominees? While I’m perversely curious to see what a sequence set to the music of Inception or The Social Network would look like, I don’t actually want it to exist. Frankly, hearing the Oscar producers say they’ll feature more singing and dancing is tantamount to a death threat.

Of course, I’m the kind of person who got a big kick out of Ricky Gervais hosting at the Golden Globes last month, so I guess I’m the wrong person to look for good advice about how to change the hosting at the ceremony. I’m still scratching my head about why Jon Stewart isn’t doing it this year. While he’s never been as funny on the Oscars as he is on The Daily Show, I found that he improved in his most recent appearance, on the 2007 ceremony (and not just because he actually seemed interested in some of the nominees and winners). While Hugh Jackman is nothing if not charismatic, I find his hosting to just be amiable and friendly; he’s Billy Crystal without the jokes. Chris Rock was plenty funny a few years back, but we learned then that people in Hollywood don’t actually want to be made fun of, so he’s out.

I don’t think that Franco and Hathaway are going to be a huge mess, mind you. I just don’t see them as being the best possible hosts the Oscar producers could have found. Franco, in particular, is the odd choice. Hathaway has proven in film and in her awards-show appearances that she has good humor and is game for anything. While Franco may also be game for anything, he’s more low-key in public, which would seem to be the quality the producers want little of. Mind you, reader, if both of these young actors hit it out of the park on February 27th, I will be the first to say I was wrong. Frankly, I want to be wrong: as I’ve mentioned in past columns, most of the awards seem pretty easy to predict this year, so if there aren’t any surprises among the winners and losers, I want the hosts to be the source of unpredictability.

There are only a few weeks left before the show, as you well know. There haven’t been any sea changes in the past week, just those who assume The King’s Speech will win and the few dreamers who want to cling to the idea that The Social Network will steal it from the stuttering king. All we have left is to wonder if any machinations from the nominees (notably Best Supporting Actress nominee and frontrunner Melissa Leo, who has taken out ads for…herself in the trades) will throw things into disarray. Still, as of right now, your Oscar pool can remain the same. There could be surprises, but don’t count on it. All we can hope for is a pleasant surprise from Daniel Desario and Ella Enchanted. Those are Franco and Hathaway’s most memorable roles, right? Anyway, keep hope alive, just not for the awards.