And the Oscars Go To...Hugh Jackman!
This news came out a couple weeks ago, but there is a lot to be said on this subject. Hugh Jackman, People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive," has been approached to take some time off from the unsuccessful TV musical "Viva Laughlin" to host the 81st Annual Academy Awards next month.Jackman was selected by aurence Mark, the Oscars telecast producer, who explains why he made the selection - "We want the ceremony to be fun. [Jackman] can hold the screen and he can hold a stage, which is no small feat these days. And it doesn't hurt that he looks amazing in a tuxedo."
It also helped that Jackman won an Emmy for his hosting of the Tony Awards in 2004. I didn't know there were performance awards for hosting gigs, but the most important factor in choosing Jackman for the hosting position is because of the increasing public opinion that the Oscar show has become little more than a 3+ hour self-congratulatory snooze-fest and they want to "make it more like a party."
Ok, so I can agree that the Oscars can be a little slow for anyone other than genuine movie-lovers like myself, but this whole "make-the-Oscars-a-party" idea just strikes me as the kind of thing that you can expect from a bunch of super-rich TV executives who really don't know what a party is. How can a TV show be a party?? Can't they just keep it entertaining?
[caption id="attachment_18355" align="alignleft" width="232" caption="If they had a Sexiest Osars Host Alive category, I'm willing to bet Hugh would win..."]
[/caption]Maybe they need some ideas. Here's one, stop making all of last year's winners come out and read some stupid, over-rehearsed cue cards while introducing the next categories! The most amazing thing in every Oscars show is that they bring out all of the best actors and actresses and directors and things from the previous year and get these boring, wooden presentations of witless humor out of them.
Oh and here's a little paradox. People complain relentlessly about three or four hours of thank-you speeches, but to me, there is nothing worse than seeing all of these people achieving life-long dreams and then having to speed through their speeches before the orchestra starts playing to boot them off the stage. For God's sake let them speak!
Of course, for the occasional Michael Moore situation, where there's a winner who has a total lack of understanding of the purpose of the show itself, a little hurrying off stage can be encouraged. But isn't it interesting that it's always the wild or bizarre or crazy or even a little inappropriate (hear that, Adrien Brody?) events that happen on stage are always the most memorable?
[caption id="attachment_18356" align="alignright" width="298" caption="John Stewart congratulating someone on their tremendous achievement. Or making a joke about them. Or both. Probably both."]
[/caption]If only that damned orchestra would quit starting up in the middle of speeches, the whole thing would be so much less stressful for the winners and the audience at home. I say either get rid of the time limit or bring back that big hook and just yank them off the stage by their necks!
I have to say that I'm glad to see John Stewart replaced as the Oscar host. As much as I love his show, his dry humor always has a touch of sarcasm to it which he can't seem to get rid of, so even his genuine congratulations to the Oscar winners sound sarcarstic and fake. Hugh should be interesting, but I still can't think of anyone who would be a better host than Billy Crystal or Steve Martin. They should just keep using those guys until they can't stand up on stage anymore...
The Oscars will be broadcast live on February 22nd on ABC.
