Could a Franco-Hathaway Oscars Be a Good Thing?

Movieline spewed some necessary skepticism following AMPAS' announcement that James Franco and Anne Hathaway will host the Oscars this year. It's kind of weird. Two super-young stars with (some) Oscar buzz this year? Confounding. But let's remain open to the possibility that the surprise plan may be a good one.

Before the Billy Crystals, Whoopi Goldbergs and Steve Martins of the world monopolized hosting duties, the Oscars were often emceed by multiple actors at a time. It was decadent! Jerry Lewis and Claudette Colbert held court (with Joseph L. Mankiewicz) in 1955, while Frank Sinatra and Shirley MacLaine quipped with Sammy Davis Jr. and Bob Hope in 1974. The Oscars should be about such unexpected celebrity cross-sections; the multi-host format makes show business seem like a chummy, fabulous subdivision to home viewers while taking the pressure off a single host to deliver bon mots for 200 straight minutes. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosted with some success last year, but aside from that, the last time we fielded the multi-host approach was 1987 when Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn shared the dais with -- of all people -- Paul Hogan. It was enough to make the format seem like a bad one for more than a generation, but it isn't: David Niven and Jane Fonda have hosted the Oscars as many times as Jon Stewart, and that prestige is something we should celebrate.

If anyone is capable of steering the Oscars away from a comedian's domain, it's Anne Hathaway. She's sharp, funny, endlessly self-deprecating, and enough of a movie star to lend the show a patina of old-school Dorothy Chandler glamor. Plus, if she's forced into song-and-dance routines, we know she's adept anyway: Her choreographed interruption was the best part of 2008's Hugh Jackman ceremony. Hathaway's knack for timing may nicely offset James Franco, who will inevitably play his stoner shtick to the hilt. It's also worth noting that Hathaway and Franco hosted some of the best SNL episodes in recent memory, often despite their given material.

Of course, Franco is the best part of this announcement. I consider his inclusion a respectful nod to Oscar buffs and statisticians, who will appreciate that he might be the first host to win an Academy Award and host the ceremony in the same night. Or he might not. Who knows? I dig the intrigue here, and it's already adding a sinister air to a show that is all about the weeks and months leading up to it. I plan on being sated with pre-show speculation now, as opposed to any Oscars of the past 10 years. If you're not thrilled with the announcement, aren't you at least titillated by its strange potential for a cinematic Best Actor match-up? Will Colin Firth be able to swiftly defuse an awkward win? Will James Franco handle awkward segues from the winners' podium to the other podium? I'm personally prepared to enjoy whatever occurs -- for once.