In Contention

Tag: 82nd Annual Academy Awards

  • Stiller/Downey turn down tandem Oscar hosting gig

    Or at least that’s what Nikki Finke is reporting.  Roger Ebert quips, “They have Lakers tickets.”  The search continues on.  Steve Martin and Tina Fey are not available.  Hugh Jackman has graciously declined being pigeonholed.

    Who’s gonna step up?  Out-of-the-box pick of the day: Richard Kind.

    EDITED TO ADD: This just hit me, but it makes sense that Downey would decline this offer.  After all, he turned down the chance to present the post-production awards alongside Will Smith last year out of fear of being upstaged.

  • Jackman turns down Oscar gig

    Hugh Jackman at the 81st Annual Academy AwardsAs the annual guessing game of who will host the Academy Awards continues to go in circles, there’s at least one name we can remove from consideration: a certain Mr. Hugh Jackman.

    Variety confirms that the previous Oscar emcee was invited to repeat, but “quietly” turned down the opportunity sometime in the last few weeks, not wanting to do the task in consecutive years. (He may host again in the future, in other words.)

    This largely puts paid to the speculation that the hiring of choreographer Adam Shankman to produce the show meant we were essentially in for a rerun of last year’s show, which is fine by me.

    The previous Oscarcast format was very much the singular vision of Bill Condon and Laurence Mark, while Jackman’s song-and-dance stylings will stay fresher if used on an irregular basis.

    (more…)

  • Fixing the Oscarcast … get your ideas in early

    Meryl Streep at the 81st annual Academy AwardsWith the 2009 Oscar telecast a little over four months away, it may seem a tad premature for the annual round of “how-to-save-the-show” suggestions, but it’s really the best time — now that Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic have been handed the reins, they’ll be drawing up plans immediately.

    So the LA Times’s Mary McNamara has handily weighed in with her annual list of ideas and pointers for the show’s producers, ranging from the widely agreed-upon (drop the irrelevant musical numbers) to the slightly more idiosyncratic (“Do something with vampires,” she helpfully advises).

    Given that, like McNamara, I wasn’t as big a fan of the last Oscarcast as many were, it follows that I would agree with several of her ideas. I do think film clips have a necessary place in the acting presentations — as strange as it seems to those of us more familiar with the films on an annual basis, a brief, well-chosen clip from a lesser-known title can arouse interest from less informed viewers. (More so than a smarmy verbal tribute from, say, Adrien Brody.)

    (more…)

  • Shankman and Mechanic named new Oscarcast producers

    Adam Shankman on the set of HairsprayWell, we were getting a bit impatient for the names to drop, but finally they have: Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic have formally been named as the producers of the 2009 Academy Awards telecast.

    As was the case last year, Oscar bosses have handed the reins to a pair of newcomers. Shankman, a choreographer-turned-filmmaker (not to mention “So You Think You Can Dance” judge) best known for his direction of “Hairspray” and “A Walk to Remember,” and Mechanic, a producer and former Fox chief, seem to represent a pairing of showbiz glitter with old-school industry brass.

    This kind of inside-baseball stuff isn’t really my forte, but I will venture a guess that the selection of Shankman indicates a willingness to stick to the musical-inspired, let’s-put-on-show mandate that Bill Condon and Laurence Mark set last year. (In which case Hugh Jackman might return as host after all.) And if Shankman brings the same level of slickness and sincere enthusiasm to this assignment as he did to “Hairspray,” I’m not complaining.

    Press release after the cut.

    (more…)

  • Hugh Jackman, Oscar host: take two?

    Hugh JackmanUPDATE: Anne Thompson has now posted this story (which she’s been working on a while) in full with — imagine that — sourced information.

    EARLIER: Over at Deadline Hollywood Daily, Nikki Finke conveys what we all know: that AMPAS brass would love a do-over of last year’s Oscarcast and have already approached Bill Condon and Laurence Mark about directing and producing the show once again.  The new news, however, is that, in the wake of the duo’s “thanks but no thanks” (busy, busy), the Academy is going to approach Hugh Jackman to host the show once again.

    This is, as Anne pointed out in last week’s edition of Oscar Talk (wherein we also discussed ideas for hosts and producers), putting the cart before the horse as no producer has been nailed down yet.  Finke floats the idea of Joe Roth again (a confidante of newly tapped Academy president Tom Sherak, also mentioned by Anne last week).  But she also reports murmurs that Hawk Koch and Joel Silver separately offered to produce the show.

    It’s all rumor-mill stuff right now, and Finke says that Jackman’s handlers will suggest he decline the offer if it is extended, so there’s no way of knowing what’s true and what’s not at this point.  But it’s getting to be crunch time.  Let’s get on with it…

  • OSCAR TALK: Ep. 5 — Oscar hosts, leading ladies and category placement

    Oscar TalkWelcome to the fifth installment of Oscar Talk between yours truly and Anne Thompson of indieWIRE’s Thompson on Hollywood.

    A somewhat streamlined show today.  Here’s what’s on the docket:

    • Spit-balling host ideas for this year’s Oscarcast, which seems to be a popular topic these days.

    • Doing the same on a potential producer for the show.

    • Our first fight!  Anne and I debate the merits of the leading actresses of this year’s films.  Anne says it’s a weak season, I say there are plenty of fine performances to choose from (and more on the way).

    • With “An Education” opening in limited release today, we discuss Peter Sarsgaard’s potential category fraud/confusion and debate the philosophies of what makes a performance a lead.

    • A brief tease of a topic on next week’s episode, Oren Moverman’s “The Messenger,” which I saw this week and Anne will catch up on before we chat again.

    Have a listen to this week’s podcast below (with a lead-in from the trailer for “An Education”).  And as always, you can subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.

    [display_podcast]

  • Martin and Fey: the obvious choice

    Tina Fey and Steve Martin at the 81st Annual Academy AwardsIt seems the annual spitballing over who will/should host next year’s Academy Awards ceremony has already started.

    Sasha Stone has compiled a list of her own preferred men (and women) for the job, while Kris has other ideas. (More seriously, his Kevin Spacey suggestion last year remains one I’m completely on board with.) Meanwhile, Kris and Anne will spotlight the issue in tomorrow’s edition of Oscar Talk.

    For my part, I can’t see a Hugh Jackman repeat working as effectively without Bill Condon and Laurence Mark’s creative steering. (Besides, as game as he was, I missed the comedy a little.) And for all the championing of vogueish names from Neil Patrick Harris to Justin Timberlake — and as much as I actually appreciated Jon Stewart’s efforts — I always find the night feels more comfortable with a genuine movie figure on stage.

    (more…)

  • Favre for Oscarcast host

    Brett FavreOkay, here’s my idea.

    He seems to be some sort of immortal modern deity, albeit a tractor-steering, dip-chewing sports monolith, but what else to people really worship?  Anyway, he commands a pretty big audience at this time in his career.  He can single-handedly turn something into the most watched cable program in history, apparently.  And maybe the Farrelly brothers can have fun with the opening short film.

    What, no good?  Not “movie-star” enough?  How about a well-publicized presentation gig?  Of Best Picture, no less.  Since seeing Brett Favre hand an Oscar to Oprah Winfrey or Tyler Perry would — oh my, can you just hear the cash register of ratings “cha-chings” now?  And hey, Favre/Eastwood wouldn’t be too shabby either.  Whichever way the needle goes, you’re covered.

    Still no good?  Alright, let’s stick with the 10.  Of course.  What was I thinking?

  • 9/25 Oscarweb Round-up

    Steven Spielberg• Pete Hammond suggests Steven Spielberg as Oscarcast producer. [Notes on a Season]

    • Steve Pond likes the idea, tries to turn over some news as to who might have been tapped, comes up with nothing. [The Odds]

    • Kyle Buchanan chats with “Coco Before Chanel” star Audrey Tautou. [Movieline]

    (more…)

  • Hanks was AMPAS’s first choice for President, search is on for telecast talent

    Tom HanksI stumbled onto this item over at Deadline Hollywood Daily earlier this afternoon.  Apparently Tom Hanks, who was elected First Vice-President of the Academy earlier this week, was the group’s first choice for the top spot.  In fact, Tom Sherak, who was ultimately elected president, is the one who nominated Hanks in the first place.

    Here’s what Nikki Finke dug up:

    Sherak…thought Hanks could be a “Gregory Peck-type” AMPAS leader. But insiders tell me Hanks declined, saying he “didn’t feel he could put the time in”. So his name was withdrawn, and that’s when Sherak got the gig. At least it’s comforting to know that AMPAS’ and Sherak’s heads were in the right place by wanting an actor instead of two back-to-back studio shills.

    (more…)

  • The Bagger’s take on Oscar’s shake-up

    David CarrDavid Carr’s Media Equation column at The New York Times today is the most well-reasoned, knowledgeable take on the Academy’s recent Best Picture shake-up yet.  He covers some of the same points I brought up in my Off the Carpet column this morning, but thankfully, he offers something of a rebuttal to the Nikki Finkes of the world who somehow think the studios pushed this decision through.

    News flash: this was horribly depressing news for more than a few in the industry last week.  As Carr shrewdly notes, “[t]he people criticizing the studios for watering down their moment of glory have the wrong villain.”

    Unfortunately, a passing comment concerning Bill Condon’s suggestion that the Academy take the category to 10 paints him as someone to blame, but he was merely doing his post-mortem duties, offering up some ideas to make the telecast better.  Plus, I’ve heard conflicting takes as to whether Condon initiated the idea or whether the Academy had been tinkering with it before he came to the table.  But one shocking truth lies in all that contradictory rubble: there were people on the committee unaware of their own history who were shocked that the category ever included 10 nominees.  Sad but true.

    (more…)

  • OFF THE CARPET: The more the merrier?

    OscarsThe Academy dropped a bombshell announcement mid-week, leaving a mixture of cheers and jeers as well as a number of questions that will be answered slowly but surely as a new Oscar season approaches.

    The chief complaint from those who took umbrage with the decision to open the Best Picture category to 10 nominations is the further dilution of prestige.  What is a nomination worth if it is shared with dubious contenders that wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in a traditional field of five?

    Others felt the change instantly relegated the medium’s most cherished prize to yet another top 10 list, hardly distinguished in the increasingly dense fray that is the film awards season.

    Those who championed the bold move found comfort in the idea, however hypothetical, that the category could now find room for under-appreciated gems from the indie circuit, or better yet, avoid the unfortunate case of AMPAS members ignoring the intersection of art and commerce (i.e. the Best Picture snubs of “The Dark Knight” and “WALL-E”).

    The “bubble” virtually eliminated, Oscar’s sandbox just got a lot bigger, so what’s the harm in allowing as many kids to play as possible?

    I tend to fall in the former category.  The move is troublesome in that it has a whiff of thoughtlessness, a knee-jerk, reactionary decision and perhaps merely a chance to create a larger advertising opportunity for the organization’s telecast.  And I ask this: What will Pixar’s first Best Picture nomination really mean with an asterisk next to it?

    (more…)

  • AMPAS says there might not be an original song presentation

    A.R. Rahman at the 81st annual Academy AwardsThe headline is slightly misleading, but not entirely untrue.  Following Wednesday’s big shake-up regarding the addition of five more slots in the Best Picture category (which has spurred considerable debate in John’s column today), the Academy has issued this press release indicating that, if no song receives the agreed-upon score minimum, then the category will be nixed for that year and an Oscar for Best Original Song will not be presented.

    The release, in part:

    The governors approved the Music Branch Executive Committee recommendation that if no song achieves a minimum average score of 8.25 in the nominations voting, there be no original song nominees and thus no Oscar presented for the category. If only one song achieves the required minimum, it and the song with the next highest score will be deemed the nominees. If two or more songs achieve the minimum score, they will be the nominees though no more than five nominees can be selected. Previously, the rules dictated that there be no more than five but no fewer than three nominees in the category.

    (more…)

  • 10 friggin’ nominees — a rant

    OscarsSo the Academy, in one of the dumbest moves since awarding Roberto Begnini an Oscar for his incessant mugging in “Life is Beautiful,” is reaching back into its history to allow for 10 films in the Best Picture category.  I just cannot understand why they would make such a blatantly stupid decision after so many years of five nominees!  My God, if they wanted to shake things up, divide the nominees into drama and comedy/musical like the Globes, which is equally stupid, but makes more sense (somehow). Are they concerned they are that out of touch and need more nominees to cover their ass?

    Would it not make sense to bring in a new group of Academy members, perhaps the critics (some of them) or directors and producers? Maybe the active artists, actors, directors, writers, and on and on should vote. In much the same way they nominate, directors for directors, editors for editors, maybe that is also the way they should vote for the winner?  Anything but this.

    So the Best Picture race becomes moot.  All eyes on Best Director now.  That category will become the indicator of the “real” five nominees for Best Pic.  But do they actually think this will open things up for brilliant work like “Into the Wild” and “The Dark Knight” when the sensible thing to do is get rid of the “old” way of thinking and allow for new blood in the Academy itself?

    Ten?  They can’t even get five right!

    (more…)

  • Sage words

    …longtime Oscar maven Tony Angellotti, who now consults for Universal and Disney Animation, thinks the move could well dilute “both the quality and the impact of the award. I would imagine the studios are grieving over this. They’ll have to spend more money and not likely see a return — just what they don’t need in a recession.”

    From this Hollywood Reporter story in the wake of yesterday’s AMPAS announcement.

  • 6/25 Web Round-up

    Princess Mononoke• Eugene Hernandez quotes the industry on Oscar’s move to 10. [indieWIRE]

    • Christy Lemire goes back to the 2008 Oscar season to point out the obvious films that might have been included in the Best Picture race were there 10 nominees last year. [Associated Press]

    • Michael Speier and Carolyn Giardnia write basically the same piece, angling to make a place for their outlet at the Oscar table. [The Wrap]

    • And are we really willing to call something a “lock” in June?  Regardless of the 10-nod news, this is crazy talk.  Also, an unsourced note about “Green Zone” being a 2010 release now, which we’ve been mentioning.  Nothing official yet though.  [HitFix]

    • Patrick Goldstein is elated at the Academy’s decision. [The Big Picture]

    • Jevon Phillips, meanwhile, is already spit-balling which “fanboy” film will benefit from the widened net. [Hero Complex]

    • Nathaniel Rogers responds with typical thoroughness, with Academy member reactions to boot. [The Film Experience]

    • A.O. Scott looks back at Hayao Miyazaki’s “Princess Mononoke.” [New York Times]

    • Kelley L. Carter talks to “Public Enemies” star Johnny Depp. [USA Today]

    • With “Brüno” on the way, here’s a list of the 10 most offensive movies.  Some silly choices. [The Times]

  • This year’s Best Picture category to feature 10 nominees

    OscarsThe headline says it all.  Is this some strange move on the Academy’s part to further dilute an already incredibly suspect process?  Or, more likely, is this a response to the outcry last year against critical favorites such as “The Dark Knight” and “WALL-E” missing the cut.  With 10 nominees, “the bubble” is all but eliminated and it’s a free-for-all.

    As exiting Academy president Sid Ganis puts it in the press release (see below), “Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize.”  I understand the desire to widen the net, considering the rather heated scrutiny the organization has received for some of its nominee choices, but is this the answer?

    Of course, the way the release puts it, the AMPAS wants to “go back to some of its earlier roots,” back when the 10 nominees was the norm.  But that was 70 years ago.  Additionally, this raises a whole other slate of questions as it regards competition and Oscar advertising.  With consistent awards budget cuts, a move like this could be seen as a breath of fresh air for studios stifled by the competition.  Then again, it could open the door for even more campaign dollars.  Is a “Star Trek” Best Picture push suddenly viable?  But the fact remains, with a widened winner’s circle comes a vacuum where being distinguished is concerned.

    (more…)

  • Time for the below-the-liners

    Jeff Wells got the following from a tipster following yesterday’s news that the Oscars will be bumped a few weeks to avoid the 2010 Winter Olympics:

    The reason for the new Oscar date…is that a lot of the below-the-line [guys] who work the Oscars will be working the opening and closing Olympic ceremonies in Vancouver and will be out of the country during the ramp-up to the show. They just need the time.

    Makes sense to me.