Kevin: As always, I am confused and offended that the Oscars are happening and no one asked me what they should be like. Just imagine the heartache and headache that could be avoided if they had only asked me, a person who has never produced a second of television in his life, how to pull off the biggest night in entertainment. At the very least, we wouldn’t be in this mess! There is a sense that even an idiot (hi!) could do a better job producing the Academy Awards this year than the team in charge, given how much backlash there’s been to what have been perceived as ridiculous planned changes in order to appease a mythical, uninterested viewer.
Marlow: I trust in your abilities, KFal. And woof, what a hot mess it has been. I think nearly all the excitement for Sunday’s ceremony has been neutered by all the mind-meltingly dumb decision-making that’s been going on, from booting eight categories from the live telecast (I know I keep saying this, but I can’t stress enough how nuts it is that Best Film Editing is one of the cuts, though I think its omission represents how little voters understand about the filmmaking process) to Rachel Zegler ticketgate to trying to court… Zelensky? I can’t.
Kevin: Listen, no annual TV event is more of an, often, unfair target for harsh criticism, outsized expectations, and undue lashings of snark than the Oscars, but in the lead-up to Sunday’s show there seems to be more of it than in a normal year. There obviously needed to be a change. The last few ceremonies went hostless, and got mixed reviews and the lowest ratings ever. But producers seem to be overcompensating.
Marlow: Glenn Close dancing to “Da Butt,” however fun it may have been, was the very definition of overcompensating. (Bless her.)
Kevin: There are three hosts. The aforementioned eight categories are rudely being moved to a pre-ceremony during the red carpet. Pandering stunts like prizes for “Fan Favorite” and greatest “Cheer Moment” voted on through Twitter are taking those categories’ place in the telecast. And the presenter list has been like the lamest game of celebrity Mad Libs ever played. The show hasn’t even happened yet and, even without getting into things like who wins versus who should have won, the Oscars already seem like an unsalvageable mess. Can anything be done?
Marlow: I think this year’s Oscars is best summed up by both the proposed Zelensky cameo and the “Fan Favorite” stunt. (OK, they’re both stunts.) The Zelensky cameo, floated by Amy Schumer, resulted in Olympian Shaun White somehow getting tapped to present—this despite his ugly history of alleged sexual harassment. Then, Johnny Depp’s deranged online fan army spammed the Oscar “Fan Favorite” poll in order to make his obscure film Minamata a possible winner, giving us an alleged domestic abuser’s film in the running. (The other leading contender is Amazon Prime’s Cinderella, whose clips have been roundly mocked online.) This is far from the “change” the Academy had in mind!
Kevin: I think so much of the backlash stems from the fact that, in their desperation to attract viewers who aren’t really interested in the Oscars anyway, the producers and the Academy have completely lost track of what the ceremony and the organization itself is about.
Marlow: [Michael Caine voice] “And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.” All kidding aside, The Dark Knight is relevant here since the Oscars hasn’t really recovered from snubbing it at the 2009 ceremony (yes, the Academy somehow felt that movie where Kate Winslet played a Nazi who fucked a kid and the one where Brad Pitt turned into a baby were more deserving). That egregious mistake led them to expand the list of Best Picture nominees from 5 to around 10—though if you asked 100 people on the street 99 of them likely have no damn clue how the weighted voting system works for Best Picture.
Kevin: Historically, of course there have been big celebrity presenters and silly stunts. Montages, musical numbers, hosts, presenter bits: The telecast has always been about putting on a show. But they’ve only worked when all that bombast and razzle-dazzle is framed around a basic premise: Celebrating the year in the movies.
Marlow: Was “razzle-dazzle” a Chicago reference? Because if so, nice.
Kevin: I speak 70 percent in Chicago references. Looking at this year’s presenter’s list, suffice it to say the name on everybody’s lips is gonna be: “Who?” The reason so many are baffled by the current roster of presenters is because it is so disconnected from the current moment in film. And that’s not to say just this year’s nominees, but the year in movies and what mattered to people. The “Fan Favorite” and “Cheer Moment” silliness is so patronizing because it presupposes that, without them, the telecast would have no responsibility to reflect mainstream entertainment consumers’ tastes. It plays into the false narrative that the Academy is snobbish and out of touch with “the people,” when in fact it’s an organization whose purpose is to embrace and amplify the evolution and continuing storyline of film as a medium in all its forms, whether of the artsy or the Spider-Man variety. The show shouldn’t need these dumb Twitter polls which, as you mentioned, have already backfired. A good Oscars telecast already intrinsically spotlights those things.
Marlow: That’s a very good point you made about embracing and amplifying the evolution and continued history of film. This may be a bit off-topic, but I read a frustrating piece the other day that revealed, “Martin Scorsese’s The Film Foundation said that basically half of all American films made before 1950 are lost, and none of the major distributors are looking for them. Even worse, they said that more than 90% of films made before 1929 are lost forever.” Hollywood as a whole is about history and tradition–-the mythology, and the art form—and it seems to be losing sight of its place in the culture. And now we’re getting Twitter polls and angry Marvel fans complaining about Spider-Man: No Way Home not getting nominated—quite literally shilling for a mega-corporation that’s backing bills in Florida that discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. I mean, when Jimmy Kimmel—whose show is on ABC, which is owned by Disney—loudly complained about Spider-Man not getting Oscar love, I nearly lost it.
Kevin: There are mistakes that have already been made that can’t be fixed—it’s unfathomable to me that moving eight categories off the show is such a priority—but there are some things to be optimistic about. Given how the knives are always out for the Oscar host, divvying the gig among three people is smart, and Amy Schumer, Wanda Sykes, and Regina Hall have what appears to be an earnest enthusiasm for movies that will hopefully rescue the telecast from its producers’ cynicism.
Marlow: I love all three women but I’m not sure how it’s gonna work. We’ll see!
Kevin: I don’t really understand everyone’s skepticism over this year’s hosts. They’re three funny women, and they’ve all hosted things before. I’m not sure what the looming disaster could be there.
Marlow: I think it boils down to a lack of faith in those producing the show. I personally feel like a duo that plays well off each other—like Tina and Amy at the Globes—would be best. In lieu of having them again (which, pretty good option!), perhaps combining a song-and-dance person with a comedic actor would do the trick, e.g. Tom Holland and Robert Downey Jr., or Zac Efron and Seth Rogen, or John Mulaney and Pete Davidson, or Maya Rudolph and Leslie Jones. But I’m just spitballing here.
Warren Beatty reads the wrong Best Picture winner (La La Land) in a valiant attempt to make the Oscars interesting again during the 89th Annual Academy Awards on February 26, 2017, in Hollywood, California.
Kevin Winter/GettyKevin: The recent announcement that four of the Best Original Song nominees are performing is most welcome, not just because of the star power of Beyoncé, Reba McEntire, and Billie Eilish, but because it guarantees that, for at least those moments, the telecast is going to be about the movies. I also love the report that the cast of Encanto is going to perform “We Don’t Talk About Bruno,” even though the song wasn’t nominated. As far as the year in film goes, few things were as unifying and beloved as that number, which exploded on TikTok, especially. It’s a great way to, like I said, acknowledge everything that was important about cinema this year, nominated or otherwise. It’s a shame that, because of that boneheaded decision to cut the categories, a clever move like this has the caveat of “they have time for this, but not for the actual awards given to hard-working filmmakers?”
Marlow: I’ve long argued (half-jokingly) that all the nominees should have to attend the Oscars dressed as their characters. Now that would be amusing! But in all seriousness, yes, I too am looking forward to Beyoncé, and Billie, and Reba, and “Bruno.” It’s just tough to get excited about this year’s Oscars given all the Sturm und Drang surrounding it. When I think of iconic Oscars moments, I think of the heartfelt speeches, Billy Crystal working the crowd during his song-and-dance numbers, the occasional parody sketch, and the musical performances. Oh, and of course, Warren Beatty messing up the envelope. That’s Oscar magic.
Kevin: What you’re describing is exactly what the producers seem to be oblivious about. That magic is often off-the-cuff and unexpected. You never know what winner—and in what category—is going to move viewers to laughter and tears. Who’d have ever predicted the Moonlight/La La Land fiasco, which is now iconic? The fact of the matter is that the Oscars are still a huge deal, and that electricity vibrates in the air. You can’t manufacture when it zaps and how. You just have to trust it will happen. Thus far, the producers instead seem to be hellbent on pulling the plug.
