Much has been written about Sunday night’s Oscar ceremony in the past 48 hours: The King’s Speech’s big win, Melissa Leo’s f-bomb, and of course, James Franco’s inability to wipe that shit-eating grin off his face. I’d love to add my voice to the discussion, except there’s one tiny issue: I didn’t watch the telecast.
“Blasphemy!” you might say.
“Not quite!” I would reply.
Let’s be honest, we don’t remember the Oscar telecast for its ability to put on a good show. Its main appeal–bringing us closer to the stars–has faded in the Internet age. If I need to get my celebrity-swearing-like-a-sailor fix I can easily find it on YouTube. If I need to get my celebrity-stalking fix, I can track their every move on Twitter. If I still need of some celebrity lovin’, Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson, and Lindsay Lohan’s antics are documented around the clock by Hollywood’s second-biggest enemy (next to piracy), the completely reputable TMZ.
With all this information at my fingertips, I’ve become perfectly comfortable with keeping myself on a need-to-know basis, and now opt to follow a live-blog of the winners as they’re announced. If anything truly memorable besides the actual award-giving occurs, it will be online for my viewing pleasure the next morning (or sooner!), sparing me the need to sit through a three hour masturbatory snooze-fest. The folks behind the Oscars are no dummies, and they surely know as well as I do that the telecast itself is quickly becoming irrelevant. This isn’t the Super Bowl, where the minutes before half-time are often just as exciting as the final minutes of the game. The mid-way point of the Oscars includes such stimulating moments as the “Best Make-up” presentation and famous singers fumbling through movie songs no one knows.
The Academy thought it solved its relevance problem this year with Young! Hip! Attractive! actors James Franco and Anne Hathaway as its hosts. Seeing that I tuned out Sunday night, it wouldn’t be fair for me to judge their performances (although something tells me they’re not the next Tracy and Hepburn). Still, reports of a decline in viewership suggest this odd pairing didn’t fix anything. This is one of two desperate changes created in recent years to make the Oscar telecast relevant to the 18-35 year old demographic.
The second, more troublesome change occurred last year when they increased the Best Picture nominees from five to ten. What did that even accomplish? Sure, audience favorites such as Inception and Toy Story 3 garnered well-deserved nominations, but did anyone actually think they stood a chance of winning? Of course not. These low expectations had nothing to do with the films’ perceived quality. Everyone just knew the obvious. The Academy traditionally awards films that fit a certain mold: prestigious, dramatic, message-based, and most importantly, full of live actors. What is the point of ten nominees at least five to six of them have no shot at winning the trophy for no reason other than their genre? Are younger viewers more likely to tune in just because a short clip of Inception plays right before it gets trounced by The King’s Speech?
The problem is that both of these alterations are highly superficial. There’s no point in watching the telecast, no matter how beautifully it’s dressed up, if the awards are the same old song and dance every year. Younger hosts and an increased number of nominees won’t do anything to fix an outdated framework that only awards traditional dramatic fare. So the question is: how can the Oscar ceremony make itself relevant again? Here’s my brief (and not-so-modest) proposal:
There’s not much that can be done in terms of influencing Academy voting habits, but that doesn’t mean the categories they’re voting for couldn’t be altered. For example, one thing the Golden Globes does right (if that phrase exists) is break up Best Picture into two separate categories. The wording of their second category, “Best Comedy or Musical” may not make much sense today, so how about a switch to “Best Action or Comedy Picture”? Traditional Oscar bait could still compete for “Best Drama” prize, while a second category would honor the oft-neglected but equally deserving films from the comedy and action genres.
Historical precedent suggests that the “Best Action or Comedy” award would not have any lesser value than its dramatic counterpart. Looking back, past Best Picture winners such as Annie Hall, The French Connection, Lawrence of Arabia, and Ben-Hur would all fit in the new category. After a few awkward years following the transition, new, younger viewers would quickly forget the old manner in which things were done. Equally important adjustment: I would split “Best Director” into two categories as well. This would help eliminate any hints of favoritism towards either category. And that’s it! The Oscars once again find a balance between films that are critically acclaimed but also beloved by audiences, as I would certainly tune in to watch Inception face off against Toy Story 3 if both had an actual shot at winning.
Of course, I’m sure the Academy will deem this suggestion too complicated and go for an easier, surefire way to increase ratings. Let me get it in print so I can claim credit for it when 2012 rolls around: Justin Bieber as host- riding a CGI dragon with the face of Charlie Sheen. Hollywood, you can send me my check at any time.
