Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
I have to say, it’s a stroke of luck that the most predictable Oscar race in some years at least happens to conicide with the most unpredictable Oscar ceremony. It’s as if Bill Condon and Laurence Mark knew that they had to pull out all the stops in reconfiguring the show to make up for a slate of nominees that could not have been more cautious. The few hints that have been dropped so far (including a radically altered stage design) suggest that, whether it sinks or soars, something very different is in store.
Pete Hammond has written an interesting piece in which he considers the information we have so far, and wonders what bearing this year’s ceremony might have on the Oscarcast’s long-term future. He acknowledges the canniness of Condon and Mark’s semi-veiled strategy thus far (suggesting, I suspect accurately, that the “leaked” news of Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron as presenters was in fact calculated to lure in younger viewers), and drops this tantalising bit of gossip:
Oscar director Roger Goodman has worked with the new producers the past few weeks. A friend who sat with him the other night at the Scientific and Technical Awards ceremony said Goodman was characterizing Condon as a certified genius.
OK, maybe this is a lot of hype. But … Oscar-nominated producer, Bruce Cohen said he had heard the same kind of talk. He mentioned that Condon and Mark had presented their plans for the show to the academy’s board of governors two weeks ago and the board was blown away. If you can wow this crowd, you must be on to something.
However, even if the hype is to be believed and we’re all suitably blown away come Sunday evening, it seems that insiders aren’t pinning their hopes too high on an immediate, dramatic reversal of the Oscarcast’s declining fortunes. Though they hope it might signal a more successful new direction for the enterprise, the producers realize they’re up against it, given how little the Academy gave them to work with this year:
“I think even if the Oscar telecast doesn’t do well,” Cohen said, “or perhaps even worse than before, a great, innovative show will be talked about positively and likely would lead to increased interest in future years.”
In other words, people will be sorry they missed it and will tune in next time based on word of mouth. Think of these changes as building blocks in a multi-year game plan. And it could happen — but ultimately it’s the nominated movies that draw the eyeballs. The failure of “The Dark Knight” to get a best picture nomination this year may hurt more than any brilliant “fix” of the Oscar show can help.
That, I’m afraid, is the truth. If the public doesn’t see much at stake in the competition, it’s hard to make them care about the ceremony via brilliant staging. Think back to the 1997 Oscarcast, an overlong, pedestrian affair marred by the grinding monotony (and predictability) of a “Titanic” sweep.
As a show, it was hardly one for the ages, yet viewers tuned in en masse, making for spectacular ratings that have yet to be even closely matched. Why? Because they actually cared about the film winning everything. With emotional investment like that, the show produces itself.
7 responses so far
1 2-19-2009 at 6:36 pm
paljj said...
Life & Style is reporting that Anne Hathaway is doing an opening number with Hugh.
2 2-19-2009 at 6:57 pm
frank said...
How can you say this is one of the most predictable races in some years? Yes, Slumdog has directing and picture in the bag, as does Heath Ledger, but the three other acting categories are riveting. When is the last time three acting races have been so entertaining?! I’m just loving this year’s acting categories!
3 2-19-2009 at 8:18 pm
Ryan said...
Yeah this whole “oh it’s predictable” whining for the past month or so has gotten tiring. Maybe I’ve just been hanging out at all the Oscar/film blogs too long.
There’s many in my workplace who has seen one or two or five films nominated and they know very little about who are the frontrunners to win. And Frank tells the truth, the acting categories save for Supporting Actor are nailbiters as are the Original Screenplay. Already that’s half of the Big Eight categories.
There’s 16 categories left and Slumdog Millionaire is only nominated in 6 of those categories.
IN ANY CASE… I have nothing but full anticipation for this year’s ceremony. I am already giddy with excitement.
4 2-19-2009 at 10:56 pm
Kevin said...
I still haven’t seen The Reader, The Visitor, Frozen River, In Bruges, Tropic Thunder or Happy-Go-Lucky, The Duchess, Hellboy II, Wanted, Defiance or any of the animated films. I’ve seen all the major films though and I still literally have no clue as to who’s ‘got the momentum’ and who’s ‘the frontrunner’ which Ryan touched on.
However, from the widespread precursor coup that Slumdog has won, it essentially has Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography and Editing in the bag. Score, song and the sound categories are good shots as well given it has won the guild awards for these categories as well (I think?)
One thing to remember: there are ALWAYS surprises. That’s why I’m hoping Button or Milk takes out one of the major categories (Penn’s performance just resonated more with me than Mickey’s I’m afraid)
5 2-20-2009 at 6:41 am
Kokushi said...
I dont expect anything to ”wow” me unless marissa tomei do a stripping dance, everytime time i read the producers are doing suprises i find funny, sorry but you fack up by not nomination the TDK for best pic or even Nolan for best director so i dont expect anything to ”wow” me.
6 2-20-2009 at 9:03 am
A.J said...
If this show is amazing it’s a shame they didn’t nominate The Dark Knight. That would’ve brought in more viewers and if the show is so great it could’ve kept them for next year.
7 2-20-2009 at 9:29 pm
Nigel said...
I finally get to watch the show live this year (first time it’s happened in Australia) so I’m very excited. I don’t care if a few of the categories are predictable – I’m just happy that I don’t have to avoid any news reports all day.