Why This Year's Oscars Sucked

Finally, the timely follow-up to my Oscar predictions post.

The Oscars this year were, in a word, weird. Well, that’s one word, anyways. I can think of a few others. Predictable? Yeah, mostly. Frustrating? For sure. But I think I’m gonna go with weird, at least to start. Here’s how it went for me. I’m sitting in my room at 1 in the morning (Ireland time is fun!), scanning through internet streams of the broadcast, waiting for the show to start. I’m bored enough to listen to the red carpet interviews while I wait, but not bored enough to actually be interested. Two things pop out at me here. First, we need to lay down some kind of open-hand slapping policy for red carpet reporters who ask the question, “Who are you wearing tonight?” In what other situation would this question be acceptable? Who are you wearing? No, ma’am, I am not Buffalo Bill, but if I were, I would consider putting you in a hole and softening you up, because you’re ugly and annoying like that chick in the movie. Second, a request to ABC regarding the broadcast: for the sake of my sanity, please do not tell me that the awards ceremony starts at 8pm unless the ceremony starts at 8pm. Putting a 30-minute countdown in the upper-right corner of the screen does not qualify as starting the show. If you do this, you are a liar and I hate you.

So, the show finally starts. The opening sequence with Anne Hathaway and James Franco inserted into the year’s nominated films was promising, at least. At this point, the two hosts seem comfortable, and they’re kind of funny. Alec Baldwin shows up in Jack Donaghy mode, which is cool, but it does make me wonder why the show committee didn’t just bring him and Steve Martin back for a second year. After that point, though, a strange thing starts to happen. I had been looking forward to this Oscarcast; I like both of the hosts, I’m interested in the show and the films, I want it to work. But after the first twenty or so minutes of Hathaway’s strained cuteness and Franco’s unsettling detachment, I started to wonder: do these Oscars suck?

And boy, did they ever. I can’t remember a more boring Oscarcast since, well, ever. It started with the hosts, though it wasn’t all their fault. Anne Hathaway tried, she really did; too hard, at times. She probably realized, standing next to the blank billboard that was James Franco, that someone needed to do something about this. Franco, who has made a career out of burned-out stoner humor, just didn’t give a fuck. Normally, that’s his schtick, and it usually works for him. He just didn’t seem to get that, despite what he may have thought, you really do need to give a fuck in order to host the year’s biggest awards show. Strangely, that’s what made Billy Crystal’s appearance so effective. Yes, he was funny, which was a nice change of pace for the ceremony, but he was also honest. His tribute to Bob Hope was warm and genuine and personal, and though it was certainly scripted, it wasn’t forced or pandering.

Crystal wasn’t the only guest who did his part for the show. Kevin Spacey walked onstage with his typical charisma, and though he wasn’t particularly funny, he was at least smiling and apparently happy to be there. Later, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law came out to present the awards for Visual Effects and Film Editing. They were by far the funniest presenters of the night, mostly because they pulled off the whole “let’s make fun of each other for the amusement of the people” thing way better than the show’s hosts. Speaking of which, my two cents for next year: Either Downey Jr./Jude Law or Kevin Spacey for hosts. The potential is staggering.

So yes, the hosts sucked, and the show fell flat on its face and stayed there for a solid three hours. But this year’s Oscars also sucked in far more important ways. We were warned that this would be the case weeks before the ceremony, when the Academy announced that, no, it would not nominate Christopher Nolan for a Best Director Oscar. This is the kind of snub where you immediately go to Nolan’s Wikipedia page, look at his body of work, and wonder what the guy has to do to get some recognition. He’s one of the very few directors working now without a real flop on his resumé. We’ve all heard this argument before, but it’s true. Batman Begins? Good movie. Not brilliant, but damn good, and a huge indicator of the greatness to come. The Dark Knight? Easily the best genre movie of the decade, so good that it has made other superhero movies virtually unwatchable. And now we get Inception, which somehow managed to surpass the absurd pre-release hype it received. In a weaker year for cinema, it would be a real Best Picture candidate without doubt instead of a makeup nomination without any chance of winning. Nolan is one of the two most innovative filmmakers working today, and the Academy barely knows he exists. Stanley Kubrick is chuckling from the grave.

Sadly, Nolan was not the only director to get the shaft this year. I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that in five, ten years at the most, the film community will look back on this year as the year David Fincher and The Social Network got robbed. It’s not that The King’s Speech is a bad film, or that Tom Hooper is a bad director. In this case, everything comes down to subject matter. Hooper did a good job of taking a historically crucial event and turning it into an interesting, if predictable, movie. Fincher, on the other hand, took a (somewhat altered) story of a few computer nerds making a website in their dorms and made it into a fast-paced, thrilling commentary on the changing landscape of technologized society. Even Stephen Spielberg, who presented the award for Best Picture, seemed to know that The Social Network was going to get snubbed, and tried to offer solace in the fact that the Academy has a long history of giving the Oscar to less deserving, less relevant films.

And that’s really what sucked the most about the Oscars this year. By either design or coincidence, the Academy chose this year to try to update its image, the year that also saw the release of a generation-defining film in The Social Network. The Academy had this perfect chance to prove in a meaningful way that it is not completely out of touch, not content to lean back on safe formulas and tired models of success, and it failed miserably to do so. As Spielberg said, The Social Network now enters a category that includes many of the greatest films of all time, those films that were ignored on the awards stage but remembered far beyond their competition. It’s hard to find the consolation prize here since this was such a huge opportunity, but time will show, as it always has, where excellence lies.