ABC really needs to stage an intervention with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It really does. Because, year in and year out, the Academy puts on an Oscars ceremony that not only runs far longer than the network intends, it just ends up boring the crap out of viewers, many of whom are asleep by the time the real categories are decided.
This year's ceremony ran from 8:30 PM ET (after a Road to the Oscars red-carpet special that was just pointless and dull) to about 12:15 AM. That's 3 hours and 45 minutes of speeches, montages, and musical numbers. My god; even the Grammys aren't that bloated, and it's nothing but musical numbers.
Yes, I know, the Oscars are long and boring every year. But this year seemed a little more boring than most. Much of it may have had to do with Ellen DeGeneres' easy-breezy hosting job. Don't get me wrong; I like Ellen a lot, and I think she was relaxed and personable in her first Oscars hosting stint. But usually a host says at least one or two things that sticks in the viewers' brains for a few weeks after the ceremony, either some good-natured slam against the industry or Jack Nicholson or some other star. But Ellen's jokes, especially in the monologue, were safe and unmemorable. The most controversial thing she said was that Penelope Cruz was Mexican instead of Spanish, which she corrected later on in the broadcast.
Ellen did have a few funny bits during the show, that played up her absurdist skills a bit; she roamed the audience and spoke to Martin Scorsese, casually handing him a screenplay for him to consider. She had Steven Spielberg take a photo of her and Clint Eastwood. And, late in the show, started vacuuming the front row, grumbling that she didn't realize she had to do so much as host. But by the time most of those funny moments happened, my eyes were already half-closed due to the top-heavy nature of this year's ceremony.
For some strange reason, the producers didn't try to hold the audience by announcing a supporting-actor award at the top of the show, which they had been doing in the recent past. By the time Alan Arkin reached the stage to get his Oscar for Little Miss Sunshine, there were enough awards for set design, sound editing, and costume design to make even the most ardent film fans want to throw a shoe at the screen.
And what's amazing to me is that the Academy tried to keep the speeches moving along, the orchestra starting to play after about 90 seconds or so. They even had the temerity to play Jennifer Hudson off the stage as she made her acceptance speech. And they kept the montages to a minimum, only showing three on top of the usual ones for the humanitarian award, the lifetime achievement award, and the "In Memoriam" popularity contest. But the ceremony was still almost four hours. This means one thing: too many categories. Yes, I know, everyone deserves their chance to shine on the big stage. But, to be honest, most fans don't care about the behind-the-scenes winners; those should be given out either before the ceremony or during the commercial breaks. Cutting the number of televised categories in half would be the biggest step the Academy can make to keep the ceremony under three hours.
Oh, and starting it at 7 might help. But that's ABC's problem... they need to pay off Barbara Walters and have her show her cloying interview special on Thursday, after Grey's Anatomy. If it's good enough for Oprah, it's good enough for Barbara.
A few good moments:
- John C. Reilly, Jack Black, and Will Ferrell doing a song-and-dance number about how comedic actors can get Academy attention by playing dramatic roles. The best lines were directed towards sexy sexagenarian (and eventual Best Actress winner) Helen Mirren.
- Martin Scorsese, who finally won a Best Director award for The Departed, asking presenters and pals George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, and Spielberg to check the envelope and make sure his name was on the card.
- Jennifer Hudson -- who I'm starting to think is completely adorable -- showing genuine emotion when she won her Oscar for Best Supporting Actress.
- The Dreamgirls song medley. Hudson and Beyonce both threw their hearts and lungs into the performance.
- Al Gore being interrupted by the band when he started to "announce" his "big news."
- Robert Downey Jr., in presenting a special effects award, described the odd visual landscapes the FX folks create, including monsters, toads, etc. He then added the line, "Which for me was just a typical weeknight in the mid-'90s."
TV Squad Ten: Cartoon women who should have Playboy centerfolds
Six Mad Men characters who are in limbo after the finale
Fact or Fiction: Big Bang, Brothers & Sisters and CSI
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
2-26-2007 @ 11:15AM
MissPinkKate said...
Agreed. The show is just too long. Nothing that long could ever be captivating. They really, really, REALLY need to cut the show.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 11:13AM
Gordy said...
Regarding the 'Dreamgirls' performance: Jennifer Hudson handed Beyonce 'Listen'. Beyonce was owned on National TV. Hilarious. The other girl's timing was way off. It reminded me of Miki Howard's TV appearances. Those high notes are impressive...but DAMN!
The best way to watch these long, drawn out shows is via PVR. I checked results on Yahoo!, and watched acceptance speeches on my own time...or not.
I loved Ellen! The choir bit was contrived and over the top, but, I'm sure that wasn't her doing.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 11:14AM
Mel said...
I don't get people who bash the awards in terms of its length and ceremony. For god's sake, it's once a year. For many, it's a spectacle to be enjoyed and I think many do appreciate that it's a Hollywood affair that holds certain significance. In fact, I wouldn't mind if it was about 4 hours every year. Those that are into it usually spend time watching the pre-show, post-show events as well, making a party of it. And after all, I'd like to think that's who the Oscars were made for. The ones that aren't jaded about this business.
On another note, I don't see the Oscars suddenly becoming more upbeat or less "boring". It's a ceremonious, pompous, self-fellating event that many people do still appreciate. To me, the results are secondary.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 11:29AM
Jim said...
A good review, Joel, but perhaps not scathing enough.
Ellen’s monologue bombed – I could picture the producers backstage, speed-dialing Billy Crystal just 10 minutes into the show. And then to delay the Best Supporting Actor/Actress categories was a huge mistake.
To me, the best parts were: 1. the Will Ferrell/Jack Black number, which barely resuscitated the show after flatlining in the first 20 minutes; and 2. Wes Anderson’s American Express commercial, which wasn’t even part of the broadcast. Alan Arkin winning for “Little Miss Sunshine” was a distant third – I was disappointed with his prepared speech.
Everything else sucked. The Pilobolus dance bits. Nicole Kidman’s face (which looked remarkably like Renee Zellweger’s). The prepared speeches. Maggie Gyllenhall referring to herself as a “visual effect.” Clint Eastwood flubbing his lines. Jerry Seinfeld glamorizing litter before giving an award to “An Inconvenient Truth.” Melissa Etheridge beating out “Dreamgirls” for Best Song. I could go on …
I wasted four hours of my life – and I blame the Academy and ABC.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 11:29AM
Melissa said...
This was the first year that I actually watched the whole thing, and I loved it. I really liked how they had people modeling the costumes, instead of just showing clips from the films. The sound-effects choir was really cool, as were the shadow-making dancers. I agree that they should start the show earlier though.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 11:30AM
radwimp said...
i think it's a given that these awards shows will be boring, run exceedingly long, and be uneventful. we should all just accept that. i thought this years was an improvement over last years at least.
as for people criticizing ellen for not being meaner, or slamming others etc, that's never been her style. why should she change that? i thought she did very well, and was funny in a refreshing way. i hope she hosts again in the future.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 11:35AM
Bill said...
The Oscars have to be long. Actors, producers, and directors toil in anonymity all year, receiving no praise, no recognition from the mainstream media, not even a cult following on the internet, and they hardly take any money for it. So on the one night of the year when these folks get any attention at all, would it kill you to devote an extra hour or two of your unimportant lives to people that really matter, like celebrities?
http://popculturejunk.blogspot.com
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 12:21PM
Allen said...
After watching the oscars every year for 30 years I think this was a fine installment. The dance numbers, the comedy bits, the host, all were congenial and the speeches were fine.
Truth be told, the academy needs to drop the animated short, live action shorts, and documentary shorts. And, if there aren't more than 3 films to a category, it should be presented at the technical awards.
Okay, that said, it will never happen. It's like the mini-series awards at the emmys. A good place to get something to eat.
But, really, what was that Michael Mann video? What was the point? A bunch of scenes from movies he liked? I thought that was nonsensical.
All in all, not really a great show, but not really a great year for movies, so there ya go.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 11:49AM
Salim said...
The only reason I watched was to see Celine Dion sing, which was too short! I found that a good way to survive the oscars is to cook or clean or do some house work while the TV is on, then you can get through all the boring stuff.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 12:04PM
David said...
Joel, you were clearly predetermined to dislike the show, and thus, didn't. Self-fulfilling prophecies, and all that. Next time, delegate the Oscar review to someone else.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 12:06PM
David said...
Joel, you were clearly predetermined to dislike the show, and thus, didn't. Self-fulfilling prophecies, and all that. Next time, delegate the Oscar review to someone else.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 12:24PM
Katie said...
I work for an ABC affiliate, which basically means that I'm on the "late local news" after the show... We were told by ABC that the end time for the show was supposed to be 11:20PM, so I don't get it. I generally like the Oscars, the first couple of hours were interesting, and then it just dragged on. Does ABC tell them "Ok, we'll SAY 11:20, but you can just go as long as you want"? It seems like there was no attempt made to keep the show moving at a good clip... I tell you what, it was not fun doing a local newscast at 12:30AM, and not getting home to my warm bed until 1:30 in the morning. They need to keep that show to a healthy, quick-moving 3 hours, and if that means they need to cut the "sound-mixing" award or the "short-film animation" award then so be it.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 12:24PM
heyLA said...
I don't get how you can be a writer of television and hate so much. You must be a has-been or an actor who isn't getting any work 'cause you hate like a tired little bitch. The award show was one of the best last night and I've only started watching the show the last 2 years. Ellen was hilarious along with so much more. The show is long because it is awarding and showcasing a year of entertainment that we all watch. Hate on player, I think you need a new job. You gotta be a has-been and or actor not getting work.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 12:45PM
Preston said...
I think that the Oscars don't care--they LOOOVE to go for 3 to 3 1/2 hours with their awards! Hog up as much air time just to not show some dated 1986 sitcom rerun! That's why awards shows on cable networks with niche audiences are more received than theirs. But this year was better and looser than other years. Ellen Degeneres' lighthearted humor made it more entertaining. But some of the awards drag the show down, and that's something the producers need to fix. Forrest Whittaker gave his best acceptance speech. The modeling of the costumes were nice--you get to see them visually instead of on a clip. I liked the sound effects choir performance. I think they were trying to show us visually what the movie makers do instead of us going, What the heck is sound effects? But what offended me was the late starting time of 8:30. They used to start at 8. Some years, they started at 7 or 7:30. Were they so desperate to get more viewers? Didn't they think about the after parties that the stars have to go to, like Vanity Fair? I know they're trying so hard to outdo the 55 million that watched in Titanic-winning, "I'm king of the world!" 1998, but they tried TOO hard. The show still averages 40-44 million viewers annually, which is still strong in an Internet/MySpace/YouTube era.
But on the positive, I liked how Ellen got to talk with Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood and others in the audience. Even posed in a picture with Clint while Steven Spielberg took it. I was happy that Jennifer Hudson won and she sounded great with her Dreamgirls costars such as Beyonce in that performance. And Martin finally winning for director and being so funny in his speech! But the part where Ellen had a vacuum cleaner cleaning the front floor was so FUNNY! I was rolling out laughing! There's no doubt that she was the right choice for host!
But as for the Oscars, they'll be right back at this again 12 months from now with the long 4-hour marathon. They're never going to change.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 1:30PM
CaliberSRT4 said...
Award shows suck period. It causes all the other networks to show reruns.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 8:17PM
Stephanie said...
There was also a funny moment during the acceptance speech for Visual Effects. One of the guys said something along the lines of how people never figured that 4 blind kids growing up in the Bronx would get the award for visual effects, playing on Ellen's joke to make your speech interesting and say you were from the Bronx and had a tragic story.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 1:39PM
mike m said...
this is the first time I watched the whole things through, and man was bored. I was checking david spades blog the whole time, but that didn't help much either. I even resorting to doing my own podcast about the show WHILE IT WAS GOING ON just to keep myself amused.
On Ellen, she was terrible and was only funny once.
Jerry Seinfeld was actually the funniest thing last night
The Farrell/Black/Reilly Sketch was quite amusing.
The montages were way to long, melodramatic and drawn out.
There were far too many awards given out.
Finally, don't you find it amusing that people that make a living in front of the camera get so uncomfortable just being themselves during the Oscars? That "uncomfortable" feel is what made the Oscars unbearable
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 1:43PM
mike m said...
oh and Gordy,
I have to disagree, Beyonce killed last night whereas Hudson was just good. Sorry but on vocals Beyonce takes it everytime. But maybe its just me.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 2:58PM
Jon said...
It seemed like Beyonce and Hudson were both trying too hard to outshine the other and the result seemed to be a frantic and screaming affair. With that said, I thought Beyonce was the better screamer.
Reply
2-26-2007 @ 2:38PM
jason said...
The Oscars are not for us. They are for those in the industry.
The Academy doesn't care about producing an entertaining show, as much about rewarding their inner circle.
If at any point it is entertaining for normal viewers, than consider it a bonus.
Reply