Oscars want to change? Well, since you asked ...

LOS ANGELES, Feb 17 — Speaking at the official annual pre-Oscars luncheon for nominees, staged in the same hotel ballroom where the Golden Globes were handed out in one of the umpteen other awards shows, Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences President Sid Ganis vowed next weekend’s Academy Awards telecast will be “truly different.”

ABC this year has Hugh Jackman as host and Bill Condon and Laurence Mark as producers, so that’s a given. Neither Condon nor Mark, who teamed behind the scenes on the musical “Dreamgirls,” has much TV experience. And Jackman is a multitalented star whose sexiness has been vouched for by People, but his last film, “Australia,” was a box-office disappointment and his well-regarded turns as host of Broadway’s Tony Awards were seen by as many folks as NBC’s “Knight Rider” revival.

But prudent change is never a bad thing. A good start for Ganis would be to axe the Oscars’ traditional show-stopper — in the least flattering sense of the term — the annual speech by the, ahem, academy president.

Who would allow the producer of “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo” to prattle on about the movies’ contributions to humanity, while Kate Winslet, Penelope Cruz and the guy who edited “Slumdog Millionaire” are hustled away after 45 seconds?

This is the entertainment industry, right? Which promises more drama?

That’s the problem. Ganis talks about how the 81st annual Oscars on ABC next Sunday is “going to be a show that takes some risks,” according to the Hollywood Reporter, warning this year’s nominees: “Your categories are being presented in a completely different way. Heads up.”

More like heads down.

No one has a problem with how the categories are presented. The reading of the names, the envelope, the winner, the speech — that is the Oscars. Mess with that and you risk wrecking a brand as strong as Hollywood itself.

That’s a big part of why the Academy Awards ceremony is always one of the year’s most-watched TV shows. Ratings tend to ebb and flow with the box-office power of its nominees. (The failure of “The Dark Knight” to score a Best Picture nomination this year likely signals ebb.) But it is popular for the same reason pumpkins are popular around Halloween — tradition. No matter how many Oscars “Slumdog” wins, this isn’t the year to serve chicken curry at Thanksgiving.

If the academy wants to change some things, it should choose from the other side of the menu.

Cut the live musical numbers. And no, dancers don’t help. Notice a lot of singing in prime time? Exactly.

The presenters don’t have to engage in “awards show banter.” All anyone wants to see is how they look and what they’re wearing. Tell them to explain the category and maybe what it means to them, roll the nominees clip, announce the winner and step aside.

Pre-produce the honorary awards segments. A speech can be incorporated into the taped piece. No movie producers would allow a monologue to go on that long. The editing room is a wonderful thing. Use it. Winners can get a live ovation at the end.

Some excesses are to be expected. It is the Academy Awards. And ABC wants more show so it can have more commercial breaks, even when the ad market is so weak the academy deigned for the first time to allow movie studios to buy time on the Oscarcast.

But filmmakers know how everything starts to drag after three hours. Don’t waste the audience’s time.

Benjamin Button is the only person who will feel younger when it’s over. — AP

No comments: