How to "Fix" The Academy Awards

A meeting will take place this Saturday in three cities.  Members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences have been invited to "discuss the future of the Academy."  I'm assuming this means the future of the actual telecast of the ceremony, and I'm hoping it consists of them yelling about the problems with this year's show. 

In the days following the telecast of almost every show I can remember, the media and its many outlets would always do their annual "How to Fix the Oscars" articles.  A suggestion list that usually entailed the following:

+make the show shorter
+cut categories that no one cares about
+be edgier
+be hipper
+make the show shorter
+nominate more popular films
+nominate films people have actually seen
+nominate names that people actually know
+make the show shorter
+cut categories that no one cares about
+find a better host
+cut categories that no..

You get it.  The only ceremony I can really remember the media not mercilessly going after was the 81st Academy Awards, the Hugh Jackman hosted year.  That show definitely had its share of divisive moments (the acting presentations, not enough comedy, not enough Jackman, the musical is back!).  Complaints aside, it was also the most praised of any show.  Why?  It felt classy.  It involved the Academy's history by having 20 previous acting winners.  There were more than enough clips of the films of that year, and the Best Picture montage showed that year's slate of five nominees (the last time there would be five) fit into the history of film.  Sort of.  It wasn't perfect (During the Milk group, they showed Braveheart.  Hopefully that was just done to piss off Mel Gibson.)  It was better than showing clips from the trailers of the nominees throughout the show, and then having Tom Hanks come out and just say "the winner is The Hurt Locker" and that's it. 

The problem I've had with the "how to Fix the Oscars" articles is that I never thought there was ever really anything majorly wrong them to begin with.  Other award shows can do up to 24 categories and they don't get the disdain thrown at them of too many categories.  Other live events (coughTheSuperBowlcough) run longer and never get complaints about being too long.  (And while I'm bringing that up, don't they technically make more money if the show runs long given they have to run more ads?)  So why was it always the Oscars that got picked on?  Well, after four shows that ranged from disappointing to god awful, I've accepted it.  The Oscars need a'fixin'.  And as someone who watches just about every award show and has for years, and really cares about this stuff, I'm offering my own opinion.

HOW TO FIX THE ACADEMY AWARDS:

This will be divided into 2 sections.  First, the stuff that AMPAS needs to do internally and then what needs to be done with the actual show.

AMPAS: TIME TO MAKE SOME CHANGES

1.) Get rid of your moochers. 
In case you didn't know, AMPAS is comprised of almost 6,000 invited members who have some experience in filmmaking.  They range from winners to nominees in all categories, to your current favorite actors and filmmakers and craftsmen to people who made a short film 30 years ago and were never heard from again.  A recent article I read talked to some voters who hadn't worked in years.  They talked about how much they loved going to the free screenings, but even more loved the buffets and meet-and-greet's held afterwards.  Really?  I'm not going to offer very specific guidelines for membership, but why not something like this: if you're an Academy Award winner, you are allowed to vote for life.  Perhaps the same if you're a nominee.  If not, you must continue to have credits to your name to vote.  If you don't have a credit in the past 10 years, you're out of the club.  Let's be honest - the members that don't work anymore and only attend the events for the swag are probably the reason we get Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as a Best Picture nominee.  Just sayin.

2.) Diversify your membership.
As pointed out many times just over the past year, the Academy is comprised largely of white men over the age of 50.  Something like a percentage in the high 70's.  (Again, Best Picture nominee Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.)  It's time to invite more young people, more minorities, and more women (especially in the tech fields).  Remember in early 2006 when it was announced Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal were invited, but Michelle Williams wasn't?  Rather than a cap on the number of people you invite this year, just invite a shitload but make sure it includes a fair number of people that aren't older white men. 

3.) Don't just invite anyone.
I have no idea if this is true, but I swear I read somewhere that Barbara Walters is a member.  If that's true, WHY?  Also, as cute as you think Quvenzhane Wallis is, I don't think her ballot is going to be of much use outside of what she votes for Animated Feature.  Save her membership until she turns 18.  Though I guess this is sort of silly, because we all know Elle Fanning probably would have the best ballot of anyone in the Academy.  I digress.  Just keep out the publicists.

4.) Get rid of the people that bash you.
Joaquin Phoenix hates this shit.  Billy Bob Thornton said it was "a dog and pony show" and never wants anything to do with it again.  (Thinking this didn't stop him from grinning like an idiot when he won and helping his little film become a surprise sleeper hit, did it?)  If they are members, they shouldn't be.  You don't take the club seriously, then why be a part of it?

5.) Figure out what to do with the Music branch.
There's been so many unfair disqualifications from Best Original Score.  There Will Be Blood is a great example.  What makes it sting extra hard is that the year before, Babel won Original Score.  The problem: Babel's score had elements of scores that were previously recorded, including a use of  part of the score for Brokeback Mountain which won the year before that.  While things have improved slightly in the past few years, this group still needs to be watched carefully.  Also, let's stick to 5 nominees for Original Song please.  2011 had only 2 nominees, and neither was widely predicted to be nominated.

6.) Keep the expanded Best Picture field.
Probably the only one on my list that will be most up for debate.  I understand that there are differing opinions on this.  5 just feels so boring.  The last year we had 5 they were The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Frost/Nixon, Milk and Slumdog Millionaire.  That's one of the most boring lineups ever.  If they had an expanded field, it likely would've included The Dark Knight, Wall-E, The Wrestler, Doubt and Frozen River.  Which grouping sounds better?  And yes, we've gotten Best Picture nominees The Blind Side and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but we've also Best Picture nominees The Tree of Life, District 9, Toy Story 3, Winter's Bone and Amour.

7.) Who can vote for what?
This last one is relatively new, but it applies because of the controversy of the 3D films winning cinematography and the past several Visual Effects winners being Picture nominees.  There's a movement to try and get the various branches of the Academy to only vote for winners in their  respective categories.  This means everyone gets to vote for the Best Picture winner and the winner in their own branch.  As in actors would only vote for the acting winners and Picture.  Essentially, its the same process the gives us the nominees only it would now also give us the winners.  I'm not entirely certain how I feel about it, but I do think it's a conversation worth having.  Also, they opened up the Shorts categories to allow everyone to vote for them.  If they are going to allow everyone to vote for everything, that should apply for Foreign Film, too. 

8.) If you absolutely must....
The shorts are the only thing that could possibly be cut.  I think a lot of the tech categories (that assholes don't care about) can often give clues to the outcome of the evening.  They shouldn't be saved just for that reason, they should be saved because Cinematography and Editing and all of them are important to the filmmaking process.  AND SHOULD BE HONORED ON THE SHOW.  But, if they absolutely have to cut a category, the shorts are the only things that won't destroy any momentum the show might have. 


HOW TO FIX THE OSCARS - THE SHOW:

1.) Figure out what to do with the Music - once and for all.
I apologize that these listings are going to be all over the place.  I'm blogging this on the fly with no outline.  At this year's ceremony, we saw 2 of the Original Song nominees performed.  I believe "Skyfall" was performed in its entirety.  The Norah Jones' tune "Everybody Needs a Best Friend" may not have been.  Third nominee "Suddenly" was performed as part of the Les Miserables melody.  The remaining two nominees were not performed at all.  The year before, the TWO nominated songs were not performed at all.  The year before, the four nominated songs had excerpts performed.  The year before, no performances at all.  Year before, excerpts.  Year before, all songs performed in their entirety.  Either perform the fucking songs, or don't.  And if you don't, get rid of the category all together.  It just seems weird having clips played that are of songs that might have only barely been in the actual film.  I'm one of the few people who have always defended this category because I usually enjoyed the performances.  Others thought they were a good bathroom break. 

2.) Stop cutting people off and, for the love of God, don't use the Jaws score to do it.
The more the producers and director of the show go on and on and on about how speeches need to be short, the less meaningful and spontaneous the speeches become.  The only time the music should be cued up (and sorry, Annie!) is when people just say name after name after name.  To quote Ellen when she hosted, "It's not that we don't have time for long speeches, it's just that we don't have time for boring speeches."  Swell up an uplifting score, don't use the score from Jaws to turn the whole thing into a punchline. 

3.) Show people why they should care about the categories you think they don't care about.
Is it too much to ask that the tech categories be presented by a little more than an image from the film with the name of the nominee at the bottom of the picture.  Or even worse just the name of the film on a screen behind the presenters.  During the 84th, they had various stars of the Costume nominees talk about how integral the costumes were to the film.  I remember Andrea Riseborough talking up the work in W/E.  I think they did it for Makeup, too.  I believe at the 74th, they showed how clips were edited together to form a finished scene for Film Editing.  None of these presentations lasted long.  Just as good, living models on stage when Hathaway and Blunt presented Costume Design at the 79th show.  Though please avoid that runway disaster from 1995.  The best example of all is what has now been done several times with the screenplay categories: showing portions of the script being read by the presenter as the scene plays.  Simple, but effective. 

4.) Fun presentations.
The night doesn't have to be filled with comedy.  However, comedy makes the long show go down a lot easier.  But if you are going to make sure you're presenters give us some chuckles, here's how you do it:

Meryl Streep & Lily Tomlin
Ben Stiller & Emma Stone
Robert Downey Jr & Tina Fey

Here's what no to do:
Melissa McCarthy & Paul Rudd
the Cast of the Avengers

Really, how do you make that last group of people unfunny?  And if you want something simple and sweet:

Jean Dujardin

5.) Be more like the Golden Globes.
Ah, the Golden Globes.  Hollywood's drunken night of not taking itself too seriously and just having a good time.  Perhaps the problem is people take the Oscars too seriously.  (But, Darren, you're writing a lengthy blog post about...  Yeah, I know).  This allows them to be a bit more loose at the Globes if they know the entire thing is publicist-fueled and bought by hype.  This past Golden Globes were almost the perfect example of what an award show should be: packed with celebrities, hilarious moments (Hi, Kristen and Will), mockable speeches (Hi, Anne! Hi, Jessica!), watercooler moments (Hi, Jodie!), amusing speeches (Hi, Adele!), Wow moments (Hi, President Clinton!) and
hosts that people actually liked and had a fun time (Hi, Amy and Tina!).  Now, obviously, the Globes aren't that meaningful.  It's like a fun cocktail hour.  However, if you could combine what the Globes usually bring to the table with something more resonant and with some integrity, you'd have what the Oscars should be. 

6.) Jam it with stars.
Clint Eastwood stated he was asked to present at this year's Oscars but turned it down.  He said the producers wanted the audience to be filled with stars, and they were dead on in that regard.  I'm not sure how many seats the Dolby has exactly, maybe (3000ish).  Most of the seats beyond the first couple of rows that belong to the nominees seat Academy members and guests.  Cut back on them.  Instead, in addition to the nominees and presenters, invite as many of the cast members of the nominated films that will attend.  Even if the film only has one nomination, get some people from it to attend.  The Globes and SAGs are filled with actors, and every time there's a cutaway we see a famous face reacting (or not reacting).  The Oscars should be the same.  I swear this year anytime there was a crowd shot it was either someone from Django Unchained or someone that was a guest and I had no idea who they were?  Where's the fun in that?  Remember how many great (drunken) reaction shots the Globes have given us!  One of the problems is that if its a dull show, the audience will be out in the lobby socializing.  Apparently, there's a bar there.  Maybe they need to bring the bar into the actual theater and let the audience members drink while the show is going on.  I don't know.  Just get the stars in the actual theater.  And maybe some more foreign people while we're at it.  Gotta love when you see Foreign Language Film presented by the exotic, accented likes of Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Garner. 

7.)  Except these....
Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba, John Travolta and Jessica Biel, at this point, have careers that seem to exist solely so they can present at award shows.  Eva Longoria, too.  Their tombstones will read "the nominees are..."  What's really bad about this is that not a single one of them has been involved in anything of relevance since.....since....  Also, Kristen Stewart is awkward and seems to not want to be there. 

8.) Cut the crap.
So, you don't have time for the nominated songs to be sung, and the editing winner is now at 32 seconds of what should have been a 30 second speech and you're cueing up the Jaws music?  Well, think about this: what if you had cut down on the stupid shit that had no place being on the telecast to begin with?  Why did you make us watch as Penelope Cruz walks half a mile from backstage to the podium to present an award?  Why do we have to watch as other presenters walk down a faux flight of stairs?  Why did the show open with all 10 of the leading nominees on stage and then escorted to their seats?  Why was there a musical number to introduce the show's host?  Why is the host on minute 17 of their opening monologue that somehow involves William Shatner?  Why are watching performances from three random musicals released in the past decade? 

There's nothing wrong with comedy bits.  There's nothing wrong with giant productions numbers.  There's nothing wrong with celebrity worship.  There is, however, a problem with these things when it interferes with the real reason why this show exists: to honor the film achievements of the past year.

9.) STOP TRYING TO ACTIVELY COURT A DEMOGRAPHIC THAT DOESN'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THIS SHOW.
But we really need the Twilight audience!  We want the people that watch Family Guy.  We need people that love Justin Bieber!  We need the young generation to watch this show!  Here's the thing: I don't know anyone "older" that watches the show.  I understand I'm just one person, but everyone I know that watches this is part of the 18-34 audience they seem to so desperately want.  I guess we're just not the right 18-34 demographic?  I have no idea.  Anytime I've gone to an art house to see a nominated film, do you know who I'm surrounded by?  Sure, some seniors.  The vast majority of the audience is made up of college students and young cinephiles.   Honestly, whenever they go overboard with this (OMG WE HAVE TO GET MILEY CYRUS TO PRESENT!) is when the show fails big time.  And they never seem to learn from it.  Ever. 

10.) Find a host people actually like and root for.
Seth was never a good idea.  I pointed this out from the beginning.  I'm sure he could do a decent job at the Independent Spirit Awards.  Billy is way too old and even out of touch with showbiz.  (Before this Christmas's Parental Guidance, the last major release he was in was Monsters, Inc over a decade ago.)  Anne would have been fine had she been paired by someone that didn't slowly see part of their soul die for all the world to see.  Steve is great, but he should've been paired with Alec's 30 Rock co-star Tina Fey.  (Speaking of, she said she'd never host the Oscars.  The world's dreams are crushed.)  Alec was just...there.  Nothing good, nothing bad.  He and Steve were largely let down by terrible producers.  Hugh Jackman is a natural born showman and paired with great producers and strong writing can smack it out of the park.  Jon Stewart is like watching the Oscars with someone who knows how to mock the right parts of it.  Ellen is actually just the right person for the job.  Her first hosting job was solid, but many hosts don't really blossom until their asked to do it again.  She's great with celebrities and so damn likeable.  I wish she'd be given a second chance and I remain oddly optimistic that she'll be the one that hosts next year.  Why?  The Academy has a way of reacting to controversy by going to the extreme opposite.  The gay film didn't win Best Picture = next year a lesbian hosts.  Your young hosts bombed and this year's host dropped out after the producer got canned = go safe with Billy.  Lots of blowback from all the misogynistic jokes = next year, a woman hosts.  Before Ellen and Jon's first time, Chris Rock did it.  He was mostly panned but I thought he was pretty good.  And he did a great job presenting at the 84th.  Sadly, I doubt he'd be asked back.  Before Anne and Ellen, the last female host was Whoopi.  I liked her as host, but I think she's probably done with it. 

The recent rumor was that Seth would be asked back given we are being forced to endure the same producing team again.  They supposedly asked him.  He said shortly after this year's show that he would never do it again.  Please stick to your word, Mr. MacFarlane.  The other name we've heard tossed about is Justin Timberlake.  He would need strong backing from writers, and if true the smart thing would be to get him the same team that helps give him gold material any time he is on Saturday Night Live.  If he had weak writers, we'd get his - "I'm Banksy"....*thud* - bit from the 83rd show.  His ego is probably too big to turn it down, but he's a lot like Jackman in that he could take a show that was smartly produced and make it soar.  But that's a big challenge, it seems. 

I see the Globes trying to wrangle Fey/Poehler again, so that counts out Amy, too.

There's rumblings that since the Emmys are on CBS this year, they might try to get Melissa McCarthy to host that show.  I suspect all eyes would be on her, and if she's stellar, I'll go ahead she WILL host the Oscars someday.  That's all a big maybe for now. 

Kristen Wiig and Will Ferrell absolutely destroyed (if you weren't Tommy Lee Jones) at the Globes this year.  Watching that bit again (and again and again and again) that's probably the hardest I've ever seen an award show audience react to funny presenters.  They have Anchorman 2 coming out over Christmas, and both would be terrific fun to watch.  Honestly, they are my #1 hope for hosting the next Oscar ceremony. 

In terms of comedy, we've seen Rebel Wilson, Chelsea Handler, Seth Rogen, Andy Samberg and Joel McHale host major award shows over the past several years.  Surprisingly, Rogen was the best.  His opening monologue at the Independent Spirit Awards was pretty funny, but he has to get over some his, how should I put this?, Rogenisms.  The "uh"'s and throat clearings, to be precise. 

If the Oscars want to go with "safer" movie stars the way they used to, there's an assortment of personalities who could carry the show: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr, Queen Latifah, Emma Stone, to name a few.  Stone, in particular, based on her presentation with Stiller, the fact that she can sing, has a quick-wit, and that Hollywood seems to very much like her (she's the first non-nominee asked to announce the nominations that I can recall) might be the person to keep our eyes on.  I have no idea if  she and Justin are friends, but a Timberlake/Stone pairing with the right people working for them sounds wonderful. 

While I've suggested this based on the tepid reaction to the last four groupings of host, maybe it is time to try a host-less show.  The Globes used to do it with no major problems, as do the SAGs.  Just insert more funny presenters. 

11.) You are aware women exist, right?
Yes, I know.  You saw their boobs.  But did you know they can host the fucking show BY THEMSEVLES?  AND BE HILARIOUS.  Did you know you can have two women present together something other than costume design and makeup?  Did you know they can present Best Picture by themselves?  Nope, that last one you didn't know.  The last time a woman presented Best Picture solo was over 20 years ago.  (Sorry, Mrs. Obama, you don't count.) 

12.) It's not a problem if it's long....
...if it's interesting.  I really don't care if the show runs long.  It's one night a year.  What I hate is rushing through categories and taking out any mention of film history so we can hear a musical number from a movie from a decade ago. 


That's all I can think of for right now.  I'm not suggesting the show be totally revamped and I wholeheartedly hope they never betray themselves by turning it into something fit for MTV.  The show needs some tweaking, the Academy along with it. 

Alec Baldwin recently said it's a thankless job doing the Academy Awards, but he did give us a great quote of what the Oscars should be.  As its Alec, it was surrounded by some bullshit, anger and swearing, but he really hits the nail on the head with this:

"What the Oscars absolutely, unequivocally should be is a show with a little bit of entertainment and a very reverential overview of movies of that year."

I don't think that sounds too hard.