New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

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.

Continued:       1       2       3