The Worst Oscars Ever? 5 Spots Where the 83rd Annual Academy Awards Went Wrong
"If it is the worst Oscar show ever, who cares?" James Franco told Vanity Fair three weeks ago. "It's almost, like -- fine. It's, like, one night. It doesn't matter. If I host the worst Oscar show in the history of the Oscars, like, what do I care? I'll try my best." Except for that "try my best" part. As Franco seemed to predict, he and Anne Hathaway might have participated in the worst Oscars ever. Or at least the worst since "Uma" and "Oprah." Where did it all go wrong? Ahead five reasons why we should never speak of the 83rd annual Academy Awards again.
· There was no chemistry between the hosts
As Rachel Sklar noted on Twitter, Hathaway and Franco had "zero sexual chemistry." To put it another way: even Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin had sexual chemistry when they hosted the show last year. It was more than just the fact that Franco seemed like he didn't want to be there, while Hathaway was doing everything beyond slipping on a banana peel to make the audience love her; it was that they seemed to barely want to be around each other. Actors act, and in this case some acting would have been warranted from both parties. Make it sexy! Even a little? Not that it should have been a total surprise -- the only time Franco has had sexual chemistry with anyone on-screen is with Seth Rogen in Pineapple Express -- but considering how funny their promos were, it was shocking nonetheless.
· There was no spectacle
Part of this rests at the feet of Franco -- who was inert to the point of catatonic -- but where was the big production number? Mock the 1989 telecast, but at least the idea of Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White was an idea; this telecast included no ideas (beyond that Hathaway and Franco are "hip"). The only true "bits" -- the opening dream tour of the nominees, and the "Let's Auto-Tune Twilight and more" interstitial -- were pre-produced. And while Hathaway got to sing "On My Own" live, it felt like a missed opportunity -- she was left with only her skinny tuxedo and awkward audience shots of a chuckling Hugh Jackman to get her through. What makes an awards show special is the magic of being live, and yet the Oscars barely capitalized on that at all -- beyond the many flubs. If you were playing the Hathaway-approved drinking game based solely on mistakes, you might be in the hospital right now.
· The writing was terrible
Why mince words at this point: Bruce Villanch is bad at this. "This" being writing acceptably passable jokes and host banter. Too often Franco and Hathaway were left twisting in the wind among bad set-ups and worse punchlines. To give Vilanch an ounce of credit: maybe this was a case of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Either way, though, the results speak for themselves. Franco and Hathaway would have been better off doing the monologue Ricky Gervais wrote for them. Speaking of which...
· It wasn't funny
You don't need to be a comedian to host an awards show -- but it sure helps! (That joke was written by Bruce Vilanch.*) That's why Billy Crystal got a standing ovation (!) in the middle of this Bataan Death March: the audience knew he'd at least attempt to make them laugh. (He did; sorta.) I get it: Hathaway and Franco weren't going to crack jokes at the expense of their industry friends; they were going to celebrate Hollywood. That's fine -- the Oscars are different than the Golden Globes and deserve a modicum of respect -- but that's what Hugh Jackman wanted to do, too, and he still managed to be funny while hosting. There was no edge here, no buzz, no laughter. The best moment of the night was when Franco uttered, "Congratulations, nerds" after the technical awards montage. That was funny; the other 3 hours and 15 odd minutes were not.
[*It wasn't. Too funny for him.]
· It was all too predictable
To which you'd say: of course. But, still: the biggest shock of the night for me was that The Social Network won Best Editing (an award it also won from the American Cinema Editors), and Melissa Leo won for Best Supporting Actress. And both were the favorites in their respective categories! Oscar watchers are already comparing The King's Speech beating The Social Network to Crash over Brokeback Mountain (or, as Steven Spielberg inadvertently reminded everyone, Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan), but this was actually worse. In both those cases, the final outcome was a surprise; here, it was predicted for weeks. Which either means that the cognoscenti is getting better at predicting when the Academy is going to make a terrible mistake, or there are too many precursors during the endless awards season. Probably a little bit of both.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I think the biggest disappointment of the night was James Franco. Most of the Academy decisions, although also disappointing, were pretty predictable so I've already been disappointed by those for weeks now. Franco was catatonic and not even all of Hathaway's charm could make up for his careless attitude. I have a real hard time believe that this is is the same person who gets so much credit for being able to do everything and with such dedication.
It felt more like an anemic MTV movie awards.
All Franco did was stand there emotionless, stare at the TelePrompter, and read the words. Did he make eye contact with Anne Hathaway even ONCE?
I have viewed the Oscars for as long as I can remember. I personally thought Hathaway and Franco did a commendable job. Why does there have to be sex appeal between the hosts? With a few exceptions, the winners kept their thank yous in a timely manner. The gowns were lovely, the men dressed nicely. All in all a good show.
Anne Hathaway was beautiful,glamorous and looked as though she was having fun...James Franco was low-keyed yet elegant...the blend of Old Hollywood(Kirk Douglas),"New"Hollywood(circa 197o,Warren Beatty) and Young Hollywood(Jennifer Lawrence) was Just Right...and the show ran only a tad long...lots of Classic Formal Wear...there were no surprises in the awards but,really when are there?...a most enjoyable show...I think people write their reviews(heavy on the Snark) before the show even airs...
Thank you, yes. The hosting was bad but the writing was easily the bigger offender. Seriously unfunny jokes, bizarre disjointed gags. Cringe after cringe.
The Oscars need an entertainer, not just actors, to host. Whether that's a comedian ala Billy Crystal or a song and dance performer like Hugh Jackman or Neil Patrick Harris, they desperately need to elevate their game. I don't doubt Franco and Hathaway did their best but it was horribly awkward (using their families in the audience, really?) and just not interesting. The fact that the funniest person last night was Kirk Douglas says a lot.
I thing Hollywood in general needs MOVIE WRITING HELP.
How many more remakes do movie need endure..
1. True Grit; 2. 3:10 to Yuma; 3. Alice in Wonderland; Karate Kid; 4. Dukes of Hazzard; 5. A Team...and the list goes on and on.
Personally I am sick of remakes, and will stop going to movies until Hollywood gets some fresh talented writers...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THUS I DID NOT WASTE TIME WATCHING POORLY DONE REMAKE OSCAR AWARDS
I thought Justin T was funny when he delayed reading the winner, the same way Kirk D had just done. The only impromptu joke of the whole evening.
I even made comments before the show that since they didn't get hosts who could write their own jokes, even if they have played in comedic roles, the jokes just weren't going to be funny and sure enough... James' stoner smirk the whole time was enough to get me to tune out by the Foreign Film catagory. Maybe he was having a good time (in his own mind) but it was creepily boring to watch. Dude snap out of it. A billion people are looking at you reading the teleprompter like a high school news class.
the kings speech was a boring movie but it got all the pre-oscar hype... the fighter was a better movie but very low budget...you just can't get past the role money plays...
These are NOT entertainers; they're actors and good ones. This "show" needs to be pared down to one hour of the highlight awards -- and new writers (get rid of Bruce Vilanch!!) are desperately needed. They were trying to get a younger audience, but you don't become hip and cool with bad chemistry, bad script, dumb jokes, auto-tune musical numbers, and actors who don't have the charisma nor talent to entertain a live audience!! The WORSE EVER!!!
Bring back Billy Crystal or anyone who can actively involve a life audience, please.
Franco & Hathaway were find. The "problem" is that, unlike the Grammys, the Oscars are about the award winners, not about the awards show.
That is a good point, Josh. That is what truly needs to be fixed -- the Grammys (and Globes and Emmys) were infinitely better than the Oscars. That's a problem.
I know I am clearly in the minority here, but I thought it was.... fine. Not great, by any means, but ok. It seemed like the pre-Oscar mood in the press was sort of gleefully waiting for the opportunity to get some digs in at James Franco b/c of his recent performance art ubiquitousness and general pretentiousness, and for anything less than a great performance the hosting was going to get slammed. Also in the minority here though in that I never liked Billy Crystal as a host, way too hammy/vaudeville for my tastes (really liked the Martin/Baldwin hosting combo, would love to see that again).
And I still stand by my belief that the Rob Lowe-hosted Oscars of the '80s was literally the worst Oscars ever.
I hope the silly thing along with all pathetic "award" shows go away, for good. Just go away. None of this matters. A walking meat parade? C'mon!
I think this was easily the best Oscars ever. A comic host always comes off sweaty / desperate / pandering. If not pandering then mean spirited. The two hosts were fresh and bright and easy. James Franco was charmingly deadpan and Anne Hathaway was charmingly girlish. They were like hosts at a relaxed but glamorous party. People looked beautiful and were pithy and the show avoided the lumbering dinosaur in Swarovsky feel it often has. the finale summed up the show with it's simplicity and heart. Loved it!
Just make Billy Crystal the official Host For Life and be done with it. Give him truckloads of money, hotels full of hookers, whatever he wants. Just make it happen, would be my advice.
Also, enough with trying to make The Social Network seem like some once in a generation masterpiece. It featured solid performances with good direction, but who cares about how a nerdy jerk of a billionaire became a billionaire? There is no suspense to the movie since, unless you've spend the last 10 years in a lice infested cave in Afghanistan, you were already aware that Mark Zuckerberg made a whole lot of money with Facebook and probably screwed some people along the way. At least there was suspense with the King's Speech, taking into account how woefully ignorant of history most Americans are. Any subject matter older than 20 years will keep them on the edge of their seats. I'd say that if any movie deserved the Best Picture award more than The King's Speech, it was The Fighter.
This morning, as I found myself wondering in the shower if I had just washed my face with shampoo, I realized it's possible this year's show made me more stupid. It could have been a direct cause--because of the dialogue and predictability--or an indirect one--because of the amount of alcohol I had to imbibe to be entertained and/or with which I had to console myself after Leo's win and Bening's loss. Either way, I blame Vilanch. And Hilary Swank.
Agree to disagree, James Franco.
I think Franco did a better job hosting over his twitter and facebook accounts leading up to and during the broadcast. Anne was more like a cheerleader than a host, while James looked like he was about to burst into laughter over the absurdity of it all at any moment. I'll give him credit for that since the writing was horrible, the timing was off (in terms of pacing the categories--who splits up the original song performances?? totally destroyed the flow), and lack of other visual entertainment. I thought the auto-tune was hilarious but totally out of place--trying to make the Oscars "hip" is never gonna happen and it shouldn't. And what was the overall theme? It was all over the place. It's like they let George Lucas have a go at it....
Oh, please. Do you reread what you write before submitting it for press?
The winners were too predictable? Were the voters supposed to keep the entertainment value and the fact that you are so under-stimulated by life in mind when honoring the Best of their best? That's ridiculous.
Sexual chemistry? Are you kidding me? Since when has that been a requirement? I believe the Academy Awards is geared to be an all-ages show, which has been historically comedy-driven. Besides, who wants to sexuality in their face ALL. THE. TIME.? Go watch a movie if you like seeing sexual tension in the acting arena. Better yet, get off it and go get laid if it's that important to you.
Interesting, I thought this was far from a boring Oscars. Certainly, I wasn't riveted the entire time, but what Oscars has ever been riveting start-to-finish? If you want to see boring, look at the examples they showed of Bob Hope's hosting.
Thank you! While TSN was well-crafted, it is by no means a masterpiece (personally, I didn't like it b/c it was basically hours of entitled, rich, snotty, white nerds arguing about getting richer, but that is a whole other post). TKS had its problems too, but this is in no way a "Crash"-level WTF? winner. Actually, I saw 8 of the 10 nominees this year and, although I enjoyed some more than others, I don't think there was a real dud in the bunch.
Kirk Douglas absolutely stole the show last night. Whether he meant to be or not, he was hysterical.
Stacie, I think you're confusing sexual chemistry with having sex. It happens. #readingcomprehension
I liked the King's Speech... I don't think it beating out the Social Network is even remotely like those other Oscar upsets.
Next »