Five worst moments of the Oscar telecast
The saddest moment during the Oscars in my household Sunday night came when the cache of saved footage ran out on the Tivo and we were no longer able to fast-forward through the commercials – and the boring parts. (We tuned in a half-hour late after watching “The Amazing Race.”)
There was an abundance of both commercials AND boring parts. And this in a year when, for the first time in personal memory, I really didn’t care who won. “Slumdog”? OK. “The Reader”? Sure. “Milk”? Why not? Just get on with it and get it over.
One innovation that did work: Having the acting awards presented by a council of elders, as it were, past winners of the same award, each of whom directly addressed a single nominee. When they did it for supporting actress, I had an “uh-oh” moment, thinking, “If they do this for every award, we’re in for a long evening.” Thankfully, they trotted it out for only the acting awards – and it had a nice emotional weight to it.
Otherwise, this reconfigured Oscars telecast failed for a much simpler reason: It was the most ineptly directed Oscar show ever. Over and over again, producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon made sure the cameras were focused in the wrong place, draining several key moments of their dramatic impact. They repeatedly had the cameras trained on their ever-changing series of stage sets, which dwarfed the video screens showing the footage that the at-home audience really wanted to see.
Here are the five worst moments from the telecast:
5. Weak writing and nobody presenters: I’m sorry – Zac Efron as an Oscar presenter? Sure, the guy is box office – at least in the “High School Musical” series – but what else has he done? By that logic, the show should have been hosted by Tyler Perry (each of whose movies has done more business than “Australia”). With the exception of Steve Martin and Tina Fey (who, I would imagine, wrote their own dialogue), the banter between presenters was incredibly thin; Jack Black and Jennifer Aniston gave me chills of embarrassment. While Hugh Jackman’s opening number was clever and energetic, nothing he said afterward was worth repeating – or remembering.
4. Distracting graphics: When the nominees for each category were announced, they were squeezed into a rectangle even smaller than a letter-box image, in the center of the screen – and then given a split-screen treatment within that tiny rectangle. Even worse, that rectangle was framed by a monochromatic collage of moving images from some of the year’s other films. The one that inevitably drew the eye was a shot from “Kung Fu Panda,” just southeast of main image.
3. Distracting sets: One of the Marks’ and Condon’s “innovations” was to present the awards in an order that would tell the story of how a movie is made. But for several of the most visual of these awards, you couldn’t see anything BUT the set. For the set and costume design awards, for example, presenters Daniel Craig and Sarah Jessica Parker stood in front of a set within which were hung several video screens, which showed the designs the presenters were talking about. But the viewing audience never got the direct feed of those video images – and was forced to try to discern what was on screens that were seen in miniature in the background. Were Condon and Marks afraid that showing the actual images would distract from their genius production design (which, of course, is what we all tune in for, right)?
2. In Memoriam: Same problem as #3 – only worse. When the montage of faces of the departed rolled, again the viewing audience never got a straight feed of the images being presented. Instead, we had to try to read tiny printed names on tiny screens in the background as Queen Latifah sang, “I’ll Be Seeing You.” All hail the Queen – but you’d think that people like Sydney Pollack, Anthony Minghella and Paul Newman, the final three in the montage, deserved a full-screen, rather than being presented as a background image that seemed like an afterthought.
1. Jerry Lewis: Winner of the Jean Hersholt humanitarian award, Lewis’ appearance was much-anticipated and speculated about. Would he do something silly-crazy? Would he unleash bitter invective against an Academy which, for too long, had given him the high hat? Would he make an inappropriate joke? But no – he gave a classy speech, looking pretty good for an 82-year-old man who has overcome significant health problems. And then, once he’d said his final thank you, he started to mug. Which is exactly when the camera left him to show the whole audience – laughing at his antics, which the home audience never saw.
All in all, an Oscar night to forget – if it hasn’t already been forgotten.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
THANK YOU for pointing out what no one else has bothered to mention — namely that the viewing audience was deprived of the very information it was tuned in to receive! I got so irritated during the “In Memoriam” segment, that I turned off the whole program. Trying to read the names in the background behind Queen Latifah was just too frustrating! Not to mention the fact that the cameras tended to be aimed at an angle, which made the information even more inscrutable! I’ll never watch another Oscar night.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I totally agree, though I didn’t watch the entire show. What I did
see was overproduced and far too complicated to watch.
I didn’t agree about the opening number. I found it difficult to
see Hugh Jackman perform what I though was a trite and
embarrassing number. I am delighted with your comment about Zac Efron as a presenter. It seems to me the Awards were once
magic, or am I remembering wrong?
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
YOu said it buddy!!!
I’m still fuming about the ridiculous direction.
The families of the dear ones who left us this year, wait to see the faces of their loved ones…and all we see are tiny, unreadable names, and miss the faces all together. SHAME SHAME SHAME.
Also … the original scores for films should be shown over the films they represent…
We don’t need to focus on the horn players, or violinist who have nothing to do with the music, except they’re paid for a nightly gig to play it.
HOW DISGUSTING IS THAT.
It wrecked a good show for me these flubs by a stupid director and his yes men.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
You nailed it! These were my compliants exactly.
I was most disturbed by the In Memorium fiasco.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Strongly agree!!! not just with points 1 and 2 but 3,4,and 5. The biggest challenge the ocsars face year in and year out is who’s to host the darn nighmare. While the upside is completely ego driven the downside is truly a CLM. Ever wonder why nobody hosts it two years in a row of even twice for that matter!
February 24th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I liked most of the show, but agree with the botching of the In Memorial segment and using lightweights like Zac Efron to give out awards. The second dance number was horrible and should have been cut!
On the other hand, I loved Hugh Jackman’s opening shtick and would liked to have seen more of Hugh during the show. Having the same people give out multiple awards helps make things go a little faster. The Franco-Rogen stoner bit turned out to be very funny.
It also sounds like the author didn’t care for last year’s movie, an issue completely irrelevant to the quality of the Oscar show. I loved Milk, and liked Slumdog enough that I think it’s a fine winner. The 1997 Oscar show was OK, even though I groaned with almost every Titanic win.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I thought the whole show was BORING, BORING, BORING. I shut it off at 9:30 p.m. to read a good book. I did, however, like how the supporting actresses where honored by the previous winners.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I agree. I thought the show was BORING, BORING, BORING and I shut it off at 9:30 p.m. to read a good book. I did think, however, that the way the suppporting actress nominees were honored by the previous winners, including Eva Marie Saint, who is so lovely, was great and should be continued.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:54 am
One thing I think you missed – though I do agree with all of your points – was the horrible interspersing of old films into the montage of films nominated for Best Film. That was wretched. Schindler’s List? The Reader? Sure, same thing. Twelve Angry Men? Milk? Again, identical. Blergh. Ridiculous.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Wait a minute dumbass! you missed the first half hour? HELLO is this not your job? Granted the first half hour was dull, but you get paid to be bored! by the try directing a live telecast bonehead.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Dude,
Read more carefully: I said I tuned in a half-hour late. However, thanks to the miracle of Tivo, I was watching the whole thing from the start – and fast-forwarding thru the commercials and the boring parts (like the acceptance speeches for short films). //mf
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 am
The worse Oscars EVER!! I agree the 5 previous Oscar winning presenters for the Best Acting catagories was great, the rest of the show sucked. We ended up watching most of it with the sound down. Doesn’t the director &/or producers realize that we are watching this on TV screens not in movie theatres. Even those of us with large screen hd tv’s had trouble reading the monitors in our monitors
March 29th, 2009 at 6:09 am
I thought the single most egregious slight of the evening was giving such short shrift to Paul Newman, who not only deserved to be honored as the superstar he was, but also merited major attention for the humanitarian he was. Hollywood and the Oscars have never had and predictably will never see another philanthropist like him– an actor, producer, et el, willing as well as able to give so much to the world.
As far as the awards, I would like you to see my brief but select take on them in “Cowboys and Indians” at http://sonofthecucumberking.blogspot.com/ and would enjoy having your feedback.