Biggest Oscar mystery ever: What's going on at the Kodak?
The voting is now officially over, the winners are determined. So what.
A small film with no stars that includes some Hindi-language dialogue and almost went straight to video is set to sweep the Oscars. Not exactly "Titanic" here. There's minor suspense in a couple of the acting categories, but will the audience at large really care about Penn versus Rourke or Cruz versus Davis?
The bigger question is not if "Slumdog Millionaire" will win best picture (I think we know the answer to that) but how it's going to be presented on an Oscar show building buzz by turning its back on buzz.
Executive producer Bill Condon and producer Laurence Mark have set out to make this the most secretive, hotly anticipated Oscar show in years, and so far, in spite of one or two leaks, they have succeeded in keeping it mostly under wraps. Never before have producers forbidden the academy to unveil the list of presenters beforehand. They've even gone so far as to ask several of the stars to forgo the red-carpet ritual to make their appearance on the show completely fresh. Don't fear, all the nominees, including Brangelina, will be doing the walk and talk. Sally Kirkland is also certain to show up.
And sure, "Twilight's" Robert Pattinson and "HSM" heartthrob Zac Efron (at least according to HitFix) are apparently going to be presenters, but I would be willing to bet the producers leaked that one themselves to entice potential younger viewers turned off by the absence of movies such as "Dark Knight" in marquee categories. These guys are shrewd showmen. If there's little suspense in the outcome of the "contest," at least the academy plans to keep us guessing how these awards are going to be presented -- and by whom.
When I ran into academy President Sid Ganis at the Art Directors Guild Awards on Saturday night, he had just come from the Kodak and told me he was thrilled (and relieved) with what he saw. He indicated the exciting and groundbreaking show he (and the board of governors) had been promised by the producers was something that clearly was now in reach.
"Look, in the end, it's still going to be a show, but I think this will be something we can be very proud of," he said. "You know Bill Condon has watched every single Oscar telecast to prepare for this. He's amazing."
By having some of the unannounced presenters come in side entrances, they are saving the surprise for the actual show, including whatever designer gowns the women may be wearing. In past years, the academy has virtually given away this element to cable outlets including E! and TV Guide Channel, which set up camp on the red carpet for two-hour live pre-shows that pick apart with "glam cams" each presenter's appearance before he or she even enters the Kodak. Even though all of these stations will be back, they won't be examining everyone who is going to be appearing, and Ganis welcomes the change.
"In many ways, we are going to be taking back our own show," he says.
Condon told me he's very pleased that the academy has been supportive.
"They welcome change," he says, "and we hope we can bring a bit of that to this."
One big change reportedly will be what goes on in the theater during commercial breaks. Usually award shows come to a dead halt, or stars start seat hopping.The producers want a party feel to continue even when the cameras aren't rolling and are working to achieve that. They don't want half the audience out drinking and smoking in the Kodak lobbies.
Oscar director Roger Goodman has worked with the new producers the past few weeks. A friend who sat with him the other night at the Scientific and Technical Awards ceremony said Goodman was characterizing Condon as a certified genius.
OK, maybe this is a lot of hype. But in a conversation I had at Tuesday night's Costume Designers Guild Awards, "Milk's" Oscar-nominated producer, Bruce Cohen (a former best picture winner for "American Beauty"), said he had heard the same kind of talk. He mentioned that Condon and Mark had presented their plans for the show to the academy's board of governors two weeks ago and the board was blown away.
If you can wow this crowd, you must be on to something.
Keeping this all under wraps, especially in the age of the blogosphere, is really remarkable. The academy apparently accomplished this feat by asking anyone working on the show in any way to shut up, or else.
In a way, it's all remarkable in an industry that gives away just about every plot point and good scene in movie trailers. Why is this particular Oscar show such a well-guarded secret?
Ratings, dummy. The Oscars telecast scored its lowest numbers ever last year (about 31 million viewers), and producers don't want a repeat. But even if the numbers go lower this year, Cohen thinks the academy will benefit from this new covert Oscar-show strategy.
"I think even if the Oscar telecast doesn't do well," he said, "or perhaps even worse than before, a great, innovative show will be talked about positively and likely would lead to increased interest in future years."
In other words, people will be sorry they missed it and will tune in next time based on word of mouth. Think of these changes as building blocks in a multi-year game plan. And it could happen -- but ultimately it's the nominated movies that draw the eyeballs. The failure of "The Dark Knight" to get a best picture nomination this year may hurt more than any brilliant "fix" of the Oscar show can help.
"Slumdog Millionaire" is a big success -- but since its Nov. 12 opening, it has earned only about half of what "The Dark Knight" earned domestically in its first three days of release.
It has to be sobering to realize that, other than "Slumdog Millionaire," none of the best picture contenders have seen much box office-traction since their nominations. That doesn't bode well for viewer interest in the Oscars, and it's why Condon and Mark -- saddled with a lot of on-air categories John Q. Public probably isn't too invested in -- are trying to goose the show in other ways. This provides a challenge to any Oscar producer and the academy itself, which is steadfast in honoring all its members' work in their annual telecast.
Still, for all the reinvention going on over at the Kodak right now -- including a physical transformation of the area where the stage and orchestra pit meet the first few rows (also known as Jack Nicholson's spot) -- the academy must try to keep the show relevant. This is a world and an age in which viewers may not be as fascinated by art direction, sound mixing and Jean Hersholt humanitarianism as the rest of us Oscar junkies.
Addressing this, Ganis and the producers have repeatedly promised that many of the year's most popular films will be strongly represented on the show in ways that haven't been tried before.
If the ratings are flat, or even down, expect a surfeit of articles telling the academy it's got to change, get rid of the tech awards and become more like the People's Choice Awards to survive. The bloggers and entertainment writers sharpen their knives for this Monday morning quarterbacking every year. So prepare for it, academy. It goes with the territory.
In fact, New York Observer critic Rex Reed is already trashing designer David Rockwell and the set based only on early sketches and hearsay. File it under: You just can't win.
I, for one, am truly excited by the prospect of an "unexpected" Oscars, I don't want to have the "surprise" spoiled, and I hope it all works. Even if it doesn't, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should be applauded for hanging on to its integrity and "mission." It's a delicate balance, merging the Arts & Sciences with the Show & Business of it all. At least they are giving it a shot.
If only ABC's network ads promoting the show were half as innovative as the show itself promises to be. They're selling the same old Oscar show when they should be pushing the mystery and surprise angles. ABC's promotional spots are bland where they should be outside the box. The one thing that drives audience to awards shows more than anything else is the network promo spots. ABC's spots aren't exactly raising the excitement level.
Fortunately, there are many other marketing efforts going on. Among these is a VH1 special (in which I appear), in its second consecutive year, that highlights key Oscar-show memories that remind us why we love the Oscars in the first place. "VH1 20 Greatest Oscar Moments" features rarely seen (or licensed) clips, including the infamous 1973 streaking incident and Marlon Brando's Native American stand-in, and has air dates right up to Oscar day itself.
As for Condon and Mark, they are just hoping audiences accept their new concepts, particularly the part about keeping most of it in the top-secret file before show time.
"You have to watch to see what you will get," Condon told me. The Oscar telecast goes "in cycles but it tends to get calcified into the same show. Just the fact that you won't know what's coming up after the commercial will make it more interesting."
He also says they're going to do something unheard of: bring the show in on time.
"We're determined to do a fast-paced show that will take only three hours to do," Mark said. "That's our campaign promise."
As for the musical numbers, these "Dreamgirls" vets (Condon directed, Mark produced) were a little surprised to find there were only three song nominees this year and that two of them were Bollywood riffs from "Slumdog Millionaire." They decided to turn the best song presentation into a medley that would also include the third nominee, "Down to Earth" from "Wall-E." That song's singer and co-writer, Peter Gabriel, has backed out of performing on the show after learning he would have to cut the tune down to less than 90 seconds. He'll still be attending the show. The producers are hoping brand-new mom MIA will be able to make it to the Kodak to perform her "Slumdog" tune on Sunday, but it may be touch and go. Clearly, luck has not been with show planners when it comes to the best song presentation this year.
Nevertheless, things could have been much worse if the music-branch voters had given the producers less desirable songs to showcase.
"At least we won't have to do that production number from 'Marley & Me' or the 'Speed Racer' ballet," Condon quipped shortly after the nominees were unveiled.
With Hugh Jackman as host, plus a new director, musical conductor, set designer, producers and, most importantly, a new attitude, Ganis is telling nominees and viewers to expect the unexpected, guaranteeing that Oscar has a whole bag of new tricks in his 81st year.
Putting this together is a grueling, often thankless and not very well-paying job, but someone has to do it. Do these tyro Oscar producers regret taking it on?
"Not yet," says Mark. "Ask us on Feb. 23."
--Pete Hammond
Photo: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times
Pimp out the Oscars.
Posted by: Patreek | February 18, 2009 at 03:02 PM
Who cares?
Posted by: Bennie Quincy Shaft | February 18, 2009 at 03:06 PM
The two little words in the first line "so what" pretty much sum it up for lots of people when it comes to the Oscars and all the other backpatting ceremonies that go on in Hollywood.
Posted by: MizP | February 19, 2009 at 03:46 AM
Give me a break........Love Penn, Langella , Streep and a few more....The Red Carpet is a bloody bore........Really....Its so self indulgent for Gods Sake........People are loosing jobs left and right and we are supposed to care about the OSCARS? Ben Buttons was really a markdown along with the embarrassment Australia.....This is so over.....The viewership is decreasing by the moment.....Get a grip...
Posted by: Rachael weiss | February 19, 2009 at 05:31 PM
They have to write about it and create Mystery...Why? The people that watch it all falling off in droves.......Ben Buttons really made little money.....And it was lousey.....Im interested in how many people really watch these awards...Its kind of over.............We are in a Depression......For gods sake....Get a grip...
Posted by: rachael weiss | February 19, 2009 at 05:34 PM