Can the Oscars be saved?

"Dreamgirls" wasn't exactly a hit at the Academy Awards in 2007, only scraping together two lesser Oscars. But could two members of the film's creative team--producer Larry Mark and writer-director Bill Condon--help save the Oscar telecast, which has been in a steep decline in recent years, both in terms of network ratings and, even more important, in terms of creative malaise?

Academy chief Sid Ganis announced Wednesday afternoon that the "Dreamgirls" duo got the nod to oversee the 81st Oscars, which air on ABC in February. For me, the real fun was seeing how the Hollywood media handled the announcement. Variety's coverage was cautious and respectful, as befits its deferential approach to a lofty institution like the Academy. Tim Gray called the decision a big step in a new direction, writing: "Casting [Mark and Condon] as overseers of the show is a signal that the Acad did not want to go the 'safe' and familiar route." Gray interviewed Ganis, who said his lunch with the two men "turned into a mini-think tank," with Ganis adding: "I walked away from that lunch saying, 'Wouldn't it be great if the two of them were willing to actually produce the show?' "

Of course, Deadline's Hollywood's Nikki Finke, who is as vitriolic and hysterical as Variety is timid, reacted as if Ganis had picked Sarah Palin to host the telecast. Calling the move cronyism, she wrote: "This is precisely why the Academy Awards telecast sucks. Because the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences doesn't seek out the best people, just its closest pals." Just how Mark or Condon are Ganis' "closest pals" she never says. Instead, she says the academy should pick a true outsider, suggesting, among others, Mark Burnett, the MTV Movie Awards people, James Carville, Roger Ailes or the Chinese government.

OK, I'm guessing Nikki was kidding about every name she had on the list, since someone like Burnett or Ailes would quickly turn the event into a People's Choice Awards. And if she was serious about "the MTV Movie Awards people," then surely she hasn't actually watched the show, which in recent years has been unbelievably craven and wretched beyond belief. But that's Nikki, always killing a mosquito with an AK-47.

That's not to say that I think Mark and Condon are exactly a radical, game-changing choice. Far from it. But I do think it's a small step in the right direction. If the academy insists on having musical numbers clutter up the show, it needs people who actually know how to stage them well. And if Rob Marshall wasn't available, I can't think of a better pick than Mark and Condon. The academy demands class and they have it in spades.

As I've said before, the show needs a major face-lift that would drag it into the 21st century, starting with launching a second, cable-TV based show that could host the majority of the technical awards and serve as a springboard for attracting a younger audience by being free from conservative academy meddling. But if you can't have a revolution, at least you can savor the idea of a thoughtful evolution, which is something Mark and Condon might just be able to pull off.   

Photo of the little gold guys by Brian Vander Brug / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Cadavra]

Since when is Best Supporting Actress considered a "lesser" Oscar?

[Christian Toto]

The decline in Oscar viewership isn't tied directly to the show itself. It's always been dull, overblown, uninspired, etc.

So where else to point fingers for its diminishing returns? Recent shows have gotten slightly better, but the choice of host is crucial -- and usually mishandled. Whoopi hasn't been funny for a decade, and I'm being kind, and Stewart's appeal is too limiited -- and his jokes too timid.

Can we all collectively beg Billy Crystal, the one host who nails it every time, to come back this year?

Conservatives say the constant threat of a liberal screed turns some viewers away. I suspect that's true, but I don't think it plays a major role in the ratings decline.

What other factors do you think are at work here?

[Christian Toto]

The decline in Oscar viewership isn't tied directly to the show itself. It's always been dull, overblown, uninspired, etc.

So where else to point fingers for its diminishing returns? Recent shows have gotten slightly better, but the choice of host is crucial -- and usually mishandled. Whoopi hasn't been funny for a decade, and I'm being kind, and Stewart's appeal is too limiited -- and his jokes too timid.

Can we all collectively beg Billy Crystal, the one host who nails it every time, to come back this year?

Conservatives say the constant threat of a liberal screed turns some viewers away. I suspect that's true, but I don't think it plays a major role in the ratings decline.

What other factors do you think are at work here?

[Caitlin Grieve]

This is an excellent look at the reactions to the appointment of Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon! It is helpful to have a compilation of the various views on the state of the Academy Awards so that they can be compared easily. You also have some interesting ideas about how to fix the Oscars. I am intrigued about your suggestion to split the technical awards off from the main awards ceremony. This would certainly have the benefit of shortening the main broadcast, as well as reducing it to the awards that viewers care the most about, such as Best Picture and the various Best Acting categories. But conversely, since the technical categories are the ones that people are the least interested in, is there any guarantee that anyone will watch them if they have their own awards show? True, the younger generation may be more attracted to categories having to do with special effects and the like. And, as you suggest, it might be a good place to experiment with new, more effective ways of handling the ceremony. I feel, however, that such an awards ceremony will be much less of a draw than the current incarnation of the Academy Awards and would not be a successful endeavor. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any real way to fix the Oscars. It is already a dragged-out affair. The skits, musical numbers and tributes do serve to break up the monotony from the slew of presenters handing out the awards. Unfortunately, this also lengthens the proceedings, creating the need for more distracting gimmicks, creating a vicious circle in an attempt to balance length with entertainment. The shortest way to handle the affair would be to cut the films down to just handing out the awards, but this obviously would be an extreme solution. Other than splitting the technical awards off from the show, do you have other suggestions for how to improve the Academy Awards? What changes should be made for the 2009 ceremony? Besides better-staged musical numbers, is there anything else you hope that Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon will bring to the show?

[astorian]

People haven't stopped watching the Oscars because the hosts are terrible (though Jon Stewart WAS godawful), they haven't stopped watching because of the political speeches (though that DOES get annoying), they haven't stopped watching because the shows run too long (the shows have always run too long), and they haven't stopped watching because the skits and songs are lame (though, of course, they usually are).

They've quit watching because the Oscars are now indistinguishable from the indie Spirt awards, and increasingly choose to honor actors nobody in mainstream America likes and movies nobody in mainstream America has ever seen.

When blockbuster films that tens of millions of people loved ("Titanic," "Lord of the Rings 1-3") are up for major awards, the ratings are fine, even with lackluster hosts. When the Best Picture nominees are all art-house films about dysfunctional families and the Iraq war, well, nobody watches, period.

I have absolutely no talent as an entertainer, but if I were the host, the Oscars would still get HUGE ratings, provided that "The Dark Knight" were up for Best Picture and Heath Ledger were nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

But if the nominees are things like "Towelhead" and "Stop Loss," there's absolutely nothing Justin Timberlake or Jerry Seinfeld can do to attract an audience.