Seth Macfarlane is a divisive figure, and this is exactly why he's a poor choice. His Family Guy humour delights some, drives others nuts, and flat-out offends a good chunk. So why give him the reigns over the Academy Awards? It seems that each year now the producers try to make the ceremony "younger" and "edgier", and these attempts inevitably fail. With Macfarlane, it seems that they were trying to give the show an irreverent flair, mimicking the energy that Ricky Gervais brought to the Golden Globes a few years ago. Gervais was a hit amongst audiences with his razor-sharp mockery of Hollywood back-patting, and I can see why producers would think that a similar approach would work at the Oscars.
The problem is, the Oscars are not the Globes. The Globes have always been a party, with free-flowing alcohol, large dinner tables, and half of the awards going to television and a quarter to comedy-musical film. It's a looser ceremony -- and I don't think "ceremony" is the word to describe the Globes, anyways. But the Academy Awards? It's a horse of a different colour.
I don't say this to imply that the Oscars are some sort of sacred cow that demands capital-R Respect. Bob Hope, host for many many years, had a comedic style that would often mock the celebrities attending. But it was a kind of good-natured barb, never twisting the knife too deep and still keeping some aspect of classiness to the show. Macfarlane has never been classy, nor has he been one to keep things on the side of good taste.
It seems to me that was one of the biggest problems of the show last night: Macfarlane mistakes irreverence with the tasteless, the cruel and the juvenile. Take his joke about Chris Brown and Rihanna. Is making light of spousal abuse ever within the grounds of good-natured humour? What about implying that Jennifer Aniston was a stripper? Or that Spanish People Talk Funny with his barb about Salma Hayek, who then walked out looking very self-conscious and maybe even embarrassed? Or his joke about eating disorders?
His nearly twenty minute opening sketch dragged on, and he still had the nerve to make jokes later on in the program about how long the ceremony is. Seth? Maybe the ceremony is too long because you keep insisting on having more time for your frat-boy shtick.
But Macfarlane certainly wasn't the only problem with the show last night. Oh gawd no. I think most of the blame can be placed on Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, producers of the show, as well as long-time director Don Mischer, who is somehow an acclaimed director of live television events. The show was a shapeless mess, with strange transitions, bone-headed decisions and a total lack of energy. Where to begin?
The tribute to the last ten years of movie musicals was mostly a Chicago-fest -- a film that Zadan and Meron happened to produce -- and strangely focused on only three films. Where was Hairspray, High School Musical, Sweeney Todd, Rent, Fame, Mamma Mia!, Across the Universe, Enchanted, Nine, Footloose, The Producers, Hedwig and the Angry Inch? I'm not a fan of some of these, but if you're going to have a tribute to a decade of musical film, maybe try to be representative of it.
The sets. Boring. Snore. Cheap. Thin. Jennifer Hudson sings on a basically blank stage. Catherine Zeta-Jones has a snap of a performance, but in front of blue tinsel (despite that Chicago's colour scheme is red with black). The cast of Les Misérables wanders out from three screens, standing there looking awkward in their tuxedos and gowns while trying to convey Emotion without any context for the songs they are singing. Hathaway looked torn: should she try to recreate the harrowing performance from the film, or just politely sing the main hook?
Transitions and introductions that make no sense. What did Ted and talking about orgies have anything to do with Sound Mixing or Sound Editing? Why did only some of the cast of The Avengers bicker and cut eachother off when presenting Cinematography? Why give two of the Original Song nominees big performances beforehand, then show small montages of two, and then have Norah Jones sing the final nominee? Consistency, producers! Consistency!
The sound mixing. Oh, dear Lord. Vocalists were buried in the sound mix, swamped by the orchestra (which was down the road for some reason).
Insert shots that made no sense. This is something that is a perennial problem with the Oscar telecast, and I think it may be Mischer's fault. Too often the camera would cut to someone in the audience who either had nothing to do with what was being said or done at the moment. At other times, the context would make it unintentionally hilarious: Tarantino is rambling on, and we get a shot of Jamie Foxx looking at him like he's some sort of alien, a slight glare happening. Foxx then realizes he's on camera, and quickly changes his expression. These gaffs happened all night long.
The much-buzzed 007 homage wasn't nearly as electric as it could have been. An awesome performance of "Goldfinger" from septuagenarian Bassey had the song stuck in my head for the rest of the night --not a bad thing-- but otherwise we only got Halle Barry and a flashy montage. What, couldn't get the past Bonds to appear on stage, or couldn't have a medley of Bond songs?
OH. THE JAWS PLAY-OFF. Maybe the most disgusting, disrespectful, cruel prank of the night. It may be one of the most important moments of a person's life, something they have dreamed about for years. And you try to get a cheap laugh out of it? Gag.
What else fizzled out?
No comments:
Post a Comment